The Origins of Russian Authoritarianism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Why has there never been a consistently functioning Russian democracy? No functioning system of public accountability? Why is Russia so incredibly corrupt? Why is it that Russia seems to have spent almost the entirety of its history as an authoritarian state? In this video, I will explain to you the political developments that over the course of centuries came to shape the authoritarian Russian state.
Here is a link to my Odysee, many thanks to them for this opportunity:
►You can support my channel on Patreon here: / kraut_and_tea
►You can also support me on PayPal here: www.paypal.me/...
►You can support me on ko-fi here: ko-fi.com/kraut
►You can follow my twitter here: / notreallykraut
►You can also follow me on Instagram here: / el_kraut
►You can discuss this video on my subreddit: / kraut
►You can follow and watch me on twitch here: / le_kraut
►You can join my community, give feedback and talk to me here: derserver.xyz/
....now. Well... I know that a lot of UA-camrs put out amazon wishlists: www.amazon.de/...
Sources:
The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama
Why Nations Fail by Daren Acemoglu and James Robinson
Lord and Peasant in Russia by Jerome Blum
A History of Russia by Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark Steinberg
Feudal Society by Marc Bloch
Thank you again, and don't forget to subscribe to watch more.
Music Royalties:
Vopna by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsou...
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
"Baroque Harpsichord Music" is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
Visit Blue Panda for more free music bluepandamusic....
Ride of the Valkyries (by Wagner) by Wagner
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported- CC BY 3.0
creativecommon....
Music provided by FreeMusic109 / freemusic109
Dance Of The Sugar Plum Fairies (by Tchaikovsky) by Tchaikovsky
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported- CC BY 3.0
creativecommon....
Music provided by FreeMusic109 / freemusic109
1812 Overture (by Tchaikosvky) by Tchaikovsky
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported- CC BY 3.0
creativecommon....
Music provided by FreeMusic109 / freemusic109
Music: From Russia With Love - Huma-Huma • From Russia With Love ...
Kraut said that he wouldn't promote products he wouldn't use himself, from which we can conclude that he's suffering from hair loss
He doesn't have hair bro, he's an orb with a flag on him
This of course implies he has hair
Due to kraus diligent use of keeps he no longer is suffering from hair loss
Kraut has long and luscious hair last time I checked. It would be a shame to think he's starting to lose it :(
@@franciasii2435 No more Jesus Kraut :(
Ok, this is weird, but straight forward some mistakes:
1) slavs were hunter gathrers, but not nomads
2) you say there was no feudalism wooden castles functioned the same, villagers fled to the woods, while those close to cities - went to the city walls.
3) yes, most of cities' walls before the end of mongol yoke were wooden (majority, but not all), yet after 14th century this started to change in favor of stone kremlins remnants of which you can find still in some old cities (in most they were rebuilt later).
4) speaking of parliamentarism you miss out on Zemstva, which had substantial power when Romamovs just came to power.
5) no merchants, wat?! That was a whole set of classes under Peter's and Ekaterina II order of social classes.
These don't undermine nor explained what happened in the second half of 19th century, 20th and modern russia simply because the revolution and fall of the soviet union changed the social layout drammatically.
Вы оба не вполне правы. Славяне были кочевниками, как и остальные индоевропейцы, пока не перешли к земледелию
1) Nomads and hunter gatherers are literally interchangable. You can't hunt and gather at the same spot for long.
2)Uh, what? Strange that we can't see any of theese "wooden castles" anywhere east of Moscow.
3)Okay, so Kremlin remnant walls. Which other walls are the example that are left? Not counting those under control by the Commonwealth.
@@gae_wead_dad_6914 nomads are cattle breeders, it's producing economy, hunt and gathering is appropriative economy
@@gae_wead_dad_6914 say your second point again. Very very slowly.
@@Ben-ek1fz We literally can find mounds where wooden castles of the iron age used to stand all over europe.
I appreciate you resisting the current trend of painting the Mongols as some kind of positive, enlightened force. It's always struck me as strange and a little gross when I see them presented as this amazing economic power that was so beneficial to the people they conquered. As though brutally destroying dozens if not hundreds of towns and cities if they didn't fully capitulate to them was a perfectly reasonable, unobjectionable thing.
@@akimananikita5374 You have a good day as well.
@Gr8sc0tt Not to mention, ending the great age of Science and progress in Islamic Arabia (so I've heard, I need to do more research).
@Gr8sc0tt Mongols became progressive when they started to adopt the culture of nations they conquered. Many consider Yuan dynasty as a golden age for China. But sack of Baghdad is just extreme even for mongol standards. Normally if a city surrenders mongols would pick useful people for themselves and use their skills. In Baghdad they murdered everyone and burned the library.
@@jeffbenton6183 by that time Islamic powers were already divided amongst each other and weakened by nomadic Turkic invasions and shia sunni schism. Caliph was weaker than ever and scientific progress was already shifting to Europe. Mongols were I'd say final nail in the coffin.
@@desselerant1806 iirc they spared only the christian quarter of the city
Russian here. Pretty accurate. The only thing you forgot to mention was the quality and quantity of arable lands in Russia in the Middle Ages compared to Europe. Europe had much more and much better arable lands with a much better climate, which made it possible to save up surplus food for getting the economy moving. Meanwhile, the Russians were busy not with economic development, but with survival. That applied also to the ruling class, with princes often going hungry themselves more than once in a season.
Я бы даже дополнил это тем, что до века 16-17, бояре отличались от простых крестьян только наличием оружия.
there are much mankurts and patriots of America in Russia who could say that especially on American youtube lol. like you surprised someone
@@wederMaxim i dont speak orcish. sorry.
yeah..like your pesants did not endure slavery with extra steps. had to fight for those who were put in place to protect them and stuff like that. it might be true that russian winters are hard and long. but that russia did not have fertile land back than is like saying russia is not comiting warcrimes in ucaine today.
@@satakrionkryptomortis свинью не спрашивали.
I now await the "Origins of Chinese meritocracy" video with great anticipation!
Oh yea
Huh, I thought it would be named "original of Chinese bureaucracy" but yeah, I guess what works too
@@recordkeepingandinformatio8206 that’s reserved for western governments! (:
Origins of Chinese meritocracy with Chinese characteristics, aka join the party
The Chinese invented exams. Now everyone suffers.
Age like fine wine made of grapes from northern Italy on the eastern side of the mountain.
That Harambe easter egg lol. You thought you could sneak it by with Cyrillic, huh >:)
Timestamp ?
@@Snp2024 19:10
@@iWatchFromBehind thanks
I just realized it says “dicks out for Harambe”!
Wow. 1918-1922 really was the worst missed opportunity in Russian history. Absolutism was abolished and completely crushed by the russian poor for the first time in literal centuries.
And the nascent liberal democratic institution of the Kerensky government, and then the nascent social democratic institution of the Soviets, were immediately crushed in turn by Stalin.
It makes his rise all the more sad.
Wow that really is sad, if only Lenin didn't die so early and Trotsky wasn't essentially assassinated in the perfect dictatorship of all places.
@@flutee6162 Tortsky and lenin were for a world revolution, so they would most-likely start World War II before germany could do any of its shenanigans, so no, Lenin and Trotsky would not be better.
@@jojoni1134 I guess they could've also fallen to some other Stalin while vying for world domination as well.
@@jojoni1134 bukharin or pre-Stalin Krushchev seems alright but the failure of both to reform after lenin and Stalin's Legacy
It was Lenin who made USSR what it was. He and other Bolsheviks launched a coup and ignored the results of democratic elections on which SRs won. He also abolished independent trade unions and any internal opposition in RCPB and outlawed all other parties. Also he combined with Trotsky were responsible for brutal suppression of any opposition.
Stalin didn't crush anything, he just inherited the system Lenin created.
And if Trotsky would win... Russia would probably turn into a giant revolutionary Cambodia and start a global war.
I would disagree with the point about Chinese corruption. The higher you go in the CCP, the more you distance yourself from corruption so you can not be ousted by your rivals in an "anticorruption" campaign. It doesn't mean you aren't corrupt yourself, you just compartmentalize it to make it less obvious.
higher up are only respected... businessmen :)
This video made me sad about a republic that hasn't existed for over 500 years
Каждый в коментах считает себя великим историком, ролик не объективен как по мне
Соглашусь. Но ролик и не ложь. Я думаю 20 минут для объективного разбора такой темы, как история политического института РФ - мало. Мне не хватило фактов, хотя с большинством тезисов я согласен, но, как раз из-за недостатка информации, фактов - все кажется натянутой на колено пяткой.
I as always love the video and as a Russian found this very eye opening. I belived myself to know much about Russian history and while that may be true to an extent your video has shown me something that I doubt I would see otherwise. I knew that the russian state was increadibly corrupt and didn't think much else, but by showing me the root of the problem and going into such depth I was able to understand. Perhaps these videos of yours may one day help some future politican.
I have one question for you, and that would be how would you go to start fixing these issues? I belive this to be much harder than simply finding them, I am very curious to see your answer :)
I believe to resolve Russia's problems the first thing needed would be systems of public accountablilty. Like an independent judiciary that operates outside of any political restraints.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Actually, I have been reading Always With Honor by Pyotr Wrangel. And I have to say, I do believe that it is possible, were a Russian leader to use the political and economic policies he used during his time as commander of the Armed Forces of Southern Russia. As well as being willing to fully implement them.
PS: Since I'm sure many are not familiar with whom I speak, Wrangel was the last leader of the white movement in the Russian civil war. And passed numerous reforms that would have undoubtedly changed Russia for the better. For example, created an independent judiciary under the army's high command. This was for the express purpose of stopping soldiers and officers from looting or theft from civilians. He also granted productive peasants their own land through peasant soviets.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot you need to import judges for this)) There is a well known factual anecdote that Catherine II, being European, tried to convene an "All-Russian Legislative Commission" (as a some kind of proto-parliament) and this commission took a week to argue about... What honorary title to bestow upon the Empress for gathering them ))
@@Kraut_the_Parrot unfortunately it's in too deep to really fix anything at this point
@@ict9745 I mean look at most of Europe now, they're doing well to say the least and at one point they were far worse off than even Russia
There is one thing I don't understand (which I like to learn about). By looking at the examples you gave in this and previous videos, I came to the conclusion that the countries who had historically strong aristocracy and decentralized governments ended up becoming democracies, like England, France, Germany (most of Europe), Japan and India. On the other hand, states who historically had (or even lacked) weak aristocracy and highly centralized government ended becoming today's authoritarian states, like Russia and China.
There are three particular countries that really interests me when it comes to this issue - Turkey, France and Iran. Turkey is a successor of the Ottoman Empire. And Ottoman Empire didn't have a real aristocracy. There were no land-owner aristocrats with their local armies, as the Europeans had. Ottoman Empire a highly centralized state. Yet, today's Turkey did end up becoming a democratic state. Yes of course, Erdogan is an Islamic conservative, which brings certain social restrictions but in no way he (or any other government that came before him) could be categorized as "dictator" and Turkey as "dictatorship" or authoritarian state. All governments of Turkey came to power through elections and all of them left through elections (excluding 2 coups). Even today, Erdogan's party lost key cities of Turkey, like Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Mersin, Bolu and etc. to the opposition. So free and fair elections are still in place. How come Turkey managed to become a democracy despite being a successor of an absolutist and centralized Ottoman Empire, similar to Russia and China?
Similarly France. As the country that was the most centralized country of Europe, as the country who was ruled by absolutist rulers like Napoleon, how it managed to become a democracy? Wasn't it supposed to become an authoritarian state? Because from what I see, France was much more centralized and its aristocrats had much less power compared to England. Yet, both of them are today democracies.
I would be extremely grateful if you would answer my question
Germany was not very centralized. Only after the kaiser and Hitler Germany became a nation. Even today many bavarians want to get independent, because they are closer to Austrians than to northern germans.
@@maltemeyer3171 Its still there
I suggest you read all or at least part of Alexis de Tocqueville's "The Old Regime and the Revolution" (he's the author of the more famous "Democracy in America" from 1835) before calling the Kingdom of France a highly centralized state. It's been a long time since I've read it, but he pointed to a number of decentralizing trends.
At the time of the first Revolution, the nobles wielded considerable power - there was a reason why there were 3 estates - there was a sort of parliamentary structure as described here by Kraut.
I'm going to second Malte's hypothesis concerning Turkey. Following the Great War, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took control of the new Turkish state and was obsessed with modernity. My understanding is that he had sort of a military dictatorship at the time - which could be considered "modern" by the standards of the 1920's. However, as the 20th Century progressed, it became increasingly difficult to consider anything that wasn't democratic "modern" and so any political system that was built on modernity would need to become increasingly democratic to stay relevant.
Also, Napoleon was a rather liberal reformer within the territory he ruled, so he definitely contributed to the establishment of proper democracies in France and elsewhere, even if he himself ruled as essentially a monarch who hoped for an heir.
I don’t know much about French history, but I assume that the oddity can be explained as there was a prominent aristocracy in France before the Revolution and after it there was an established democratic (kind’ve? Can we say that?) system in place. So even though Napoleon took power, the privileges of democracy were still in with the people who once (kind’ve) held that power. That’s just my perspective.
Could you do the history of the Balkan Peninsula, it's a interesting subject learning about how so many nomads settled there and how so many religions are there
But "feeding" was canceled back in the 16th century, and in the video we are talking about 1700( 15:00 )... Is it worth believing the rest of what is said in the video? No.
Russian propaganda
but ... this is a historical fact ...
Lovely video as always Kraut.
Can I ask you to do a video about the impact of Spanish and later American Colonization on the Philippines?
@@Wayne_Wheeler i feel it a sort of a spiritual successor or continuation to his Tale of Two Colonies about the history of Mexico and the USA.
Where better to see a clash of systems than the islands that saw both Spanish and American Colonization.
Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens came to our school to talk about the Southern Cause, states rights and how the Civil War was not about slavery. This was after a series of hate crimes on campus after students requested to remove the Confederate statue there.
He should really do a video on the confederacy.
I feel bad for you for haveing to deal with such clowns
Play (optionally the trap remix of) Union Dixie on a loudspeaker or some shit, or post memes from r/shermanposting etc
States' rights to do *what* ?
Or better yet Blast them with European conservative values like universal health care
This is a very good video and this is literally my dad when he talks about Russia , But I also wanted to point out some more reason why Russia is what it is ,base on geopolitics. Russia is almost always a landlocked countries with very limited access to open water and because of that ,limited the ability to communicate with Western Europe with Novgorod being the exception . Most of Russia interaction with the West is most of the time through invasion which made them very hostile to the West , the Russian prince Alexander Nevsky thought that the Teutonic Crusader was a bigger threat to Russia than the Mongols and this anti Western thinking is always persisted with the Russian populace which make it hard for Russia to except Western ideas and values. Russia geography also does not offer any protection from foreign invasion which in time of troubles , power would easily fall in to a hand of a strong leader. Also Russia's totalitarianism works like a double edges sword because its allow Russia to control such huge territorial gains with its diverse population, one may argues that Russia may never has the potential of natural resources like today without the iron hand of its rulers . The West also plays a major role as it always antagonizes Russia as the big bad and through out history has invaded Russia at some point which easily make the Russian population gather around their leader and in the mean time sacrifices freedom for protection.
Its all Grand Duchy of Moscow's fault
Wow you get it all rong. First the base of any economy, up until 19 century was agriculture. On average Russian lands produce several times less food then the rest of Europe. In order to feed its cities Europe needed to keep up to 90% of it's population as peasant right until 19 century. It is rather simple actually- no food, no cities, no trade, no money. The Great Novgorod was the one of the very few exceptions., ruling almost empty territory the size of France. And second Russia was constantly attacked by huge hordes, against it had no natural defences. In fact from the Mongol invasion until the end of 18 century the nomads killed or sold as slave's millions of russians and burned to the ground many of the few cities Russia had. Even Moscow was burned several times. The only way to be save was to create an empire from the Baltic to the Black sea, and from Danube to Caspian see. Ukraine has some of the most furtile soils in the world. Almost nobody used them until Catherine the Great crushed the Crimean Khanate. I wonder why . So in order to survive russians needed very centralised state, concentrating the few resources they have, against a very, very powerful enemy. And these are the true foundations of the Russian authoritarianism. A strong, brutal heavy handed autocracy or dead and slavery. Not much of a choice, but geography is what it is. P. S. Russian army before and after Ivan the third- the grandfather of Ivan the Terrible - were a holl different animal. Before russians were stuck in the early middle ages, with princes and their knight retinue. Afterwards it pretty much was like the Ottomans. And Peter The Great changed everything again.
80 % of the video is a huge load of bullshit, which is quite unfortunate. Like, it does mention that Russian army become more oriental, but it doesn't say WHEN and WHY. IRL when mongols ruled over Russia through Moscow princes, cavalry became as much heavy as it was possible, because the threat from the steppes disappeared, and Russia had to focuse on the European borders. It was AFTER Golden Horde started to collapse cavalry began to become more and more orient, because they had to deal with steppes once again, and the army had to grew in size. The video doesn't mention that the centralization was necessary because Russia had far less resourses to spare, which is why it was so important after the collapce of the Horde to have large battle-ready cavalry to fight both nomads and poles, but the true centralization started only after Ivan the Great started to build russian artillery troops, and it was Moscow artillery monopoly that finally made Moscow Prince (first among other princes) into the Moscow Tsar (the monarch).
Also Russia had only three major invasions prior 20th century that ended in invaders got starved and decimated by cold (in 17, 18 and 19 century), but in this video that is portrayed like it was a common thing happened every second year. Like seriously, what a load of bullshit.
15:00 Yeah~, in that scenario there would be no Russia. Novgorod was a merchant state that had only threatened by small armies of feodal lords in the vicinity. While the rest of Russia had to deal with the constant threats of nomads and Poland kings. Most likely Russia would became a colony of Poland like Ukraine did. If you think "democracy" can help a state with no money, no manpower and no resouses apart from wood, honey and pelts to sell to become a significant power, you're just delusional.
In 1700 Russian budget was no more than that of Sweden. In 1812 Russian population equaled the population of France. It is always a mistake to think that Russia always was a strong and potentially rich nation that was poorely managed, it is the exact opposite. Russia always was a European underdog with no population, no resourses, no rich crops, and the only two things that made possible for it to survive and not to become a colony of European black, red and yellow people genociders was the strong army born out of nessety, which required very strict hierarchy and the lack of resourses to rob.
Even nowadays, Russia has to once again rely on the strict hierarchy and large government involvement to keep her economy and army in place, since it has no significant financial power and manpower. While in Europe people have the leisure to live in the world of competiting states, with economical and political loosers (like Poland and Greece) and winners (like Germany and Swiss), for Russia there is no option of loosing, it is winning or dying as a state (like Ukraine did), which is why it cannot spare any time inviting investors, or waiting for the domestic business to outcompete the established western competitors. Which is why it steadily concentrate once again the crucial industry and infrastructure in the hands of the government. It has no resourses to save Too-Big-to-Fail-Banks by pouring 16 trillion USD bills into the furnace, it has to take the government control over the bank system itself, the same goes for every other aspects of life. The rize of autoritarism in Russia is the answer to the inability of liberalism to provide any clear and defined strategy to win in the economic competition, especially with the lack of time and resouses.
If "muh freedumz" was the answer, Brazil would've been the economical and tecnological superpower, not Russia.
17:39 Bruh, and won't you find the enormous difference in wealth between US millionaires and hobo junkies that flood the streets of NY? Like seriously, this the most bullcrap argument I've happen to hear. The poor state of pensioners is because they had no opportunity to accumulate money in the pention funds and the government had to pay them directly from the oil taxes untill just about recently (e.g. the minimal pention in Bulgaria in 2021 is about 150 Euro, and in Russia is about 100 Euro but with the difference in PPP they are roughly the same).
Great comment. The analysis of the historical part is quite accurate. But disagree regarding modern Russia, it could be (and I believe will be) more liberal and open.
@@rafgraph with the ongoing cold war sequel within next decade there would be quite a significant rize of authoritarianism in Russia.
As well as russophobia in the West. Not because Putin is a mad dictator, but because Russia is on the rize economically and militarily.
@@Itoyokofan You're omitting the fact that western public opinion shifted dramatically after Georgia and Ukraine. Before that, Westerners have the same view as Barack Obama that Russia is not a threat and shouldn't be treated as such. This is exemplify during the presidential debate against Romney where he says "the 70s called, they want their foreign policy back". Western backlash is completely justified as Russia violated international norms of annexing territory that even China didn't supported it.
"Even nowadays, Russia has to once again rely on the strict hierarchy and large government involvement to keep her economy and army in place, since it has no significant financial power and manpower. While in Europe people have the leisure to live in the world of competiting states, with economical and political loosers (like Poland and Greece) and winners (like Germany and Swiss), for Russia there is no option of loosing, it is winning or dying as a state (like Ukraine did), which is why it cannot spare any time inviting investors, or waiting for the domestic business to outcompete the established western competitors. Which is why it steadily concentrate once again the crucial industry and infrastructure in the hands of the government."
Wrong. It's the other way around. Russia grew fast back in the 00's because of liberalisation under Putin himself and the sky-high oil prices. it stagnated because it needed the kind of reforms that the Putinist system doesn't want to do, to dismantle the Putinist system of patronage itself. This is why western countries are developed due to their complex economies, but Russia refuses to diversify. They did made the attempt, but saw the contradiction and gave up on it (and also the 2007 finanacial crash happen).
Ironically, the strengthening of the Russian state continues to undermine the economy itself.
Your assessment of Eastern Europe is incredibly flawed. Eastern Europe is one of the fastest growing economies in the EU precisely because they are in the EU. The convergence becomes faster if you don't have to deal with trade barriers with Germany and France. Meaning that Germany would rather buy cheaper Polish products than to buy it outside the EU from a middle income country similar to Poland, say, Ukraine, for example. Greece cooked the books and now they are paying for it. Notice how the Euro crisis didn't affected the post-Communist countries in the Euro-zone that fully embraced free market capitalism? The Baltics and Slovakia are doing fine. Rather, it affected the economically laggard countries like Spain and Italy.
Your assessment on Brazil is wrong as well. Brazil does have democracy, but democracy isn't the prime factor on development. It's how open the economy is. Brazil (and its friends in MERCOSUR) are one of the most protectionist countries in the western world. That's the opposite of economic freedom to me.
@@pauls6425 1. You're omitting the fact that it was Georgia who started the war in 2008, and Russia had to retaliate to protect ethnic minorities that wanted to leave Georgia when USSR collapsed, as well as in 2014 it was a cue in Ukraine that started the civil war there, and Russia had to retailiate and support regions with ethnic Russians. Not to mention the direct involvment of the West in that two cases, which mean that the statment that "the view of Russia changed after..." is bullshit. The West knew exactly what they were doing and how Russia will react. Oh and Crimea had all the right to leave Ukraine since this is what 95 % people of Crimea wanted ever since the SU collapse, this is exactly what democracy is.
2. >Russia grew fast back in the 00's because of liberalisation
Nope. The liberalisation happened in early 1990s and ended in 2000 with kicking the liberals out of the government. The growth was due to 2 factors: (1) Putin reformed and drastically increazed the taxation of the export of fossil fuels. In the process everyone who refuzed to share their profits were stripped from the companies ownerships. Plus at the same time oil prices went up (not to sky-high, but from 15-30 USD to 70 USD). (2) In 1998 Russia declared itself bankrupt and rouble fell from 7 to 30 RUR to USD, which was quite bad, but at the same time allowed to restart the economy and triple the income from the oil taxes. The economy started to improve a year before Putin came into power.
The kick that economy got in early 2000s lasted up to 2008, when USA caused the whole world to collapse. The growth rate in Russia slowed down at that time due to 3 factors: (1) The rouble price was too high, ever since 2000 RUR had inflated quite a bit, yet the price in USD stayed virtually the same, which started to burden the economy, (2) In 2008 the capital flight changed dramatically and intead of +87 bln USD inflow Russia got -133 bln USD outflow and later outfow was about 50-70 bln USD every year, (3) Due to high inflation rates companies borrowed money from the international banks in USD, instead of RUR, which resulted in heavy blow when the RUR fell once again in 2008.
And again Russian economy recieved a heavy blow in 2014, when she had to participate in Ukranian civil war. And Russia didn't cause the civil war in Ukraine, but had to deal with the shit that hit the fan. If you cause a russophobic cue in the country full of russians you cannot expect Russia not to retaliate.
3. >This is why western countries are developed due to their complex economies, but Russia refuses to diversify.
Nope again. Western countries don't have very complex economies (apart from G7 countries) it's entire EU that has a very diverse economy. SU and the Eastern block economy collapsed and was almost completely dismantled (ask Baltic states what they have left with nowadays). Plus there're only a few domestic big companies that were left in the Easten Europe, everyone else were either bought or died out, with very little emerged on their own. The same fate would've happen to Russia as well if the liberalisation continued, the amount of domestic companies would've been lesser. And without domestic business country is bound to always lag behind the leaders. The ones who saved Russian economy were state-owned companies that were created in 2000-2010s and almost entirely replaced SU ministries. E.g. USC united all the major shipyards in the country and Russia is now one of the major shipbuilder on the planet. UAC now is a competitor to Boeing and Airbus technologically (though not in the amount of sales). Rostech had gathered all the companies that were slowly dying out, poured funds into them and restarted the production.
4. >Eastern Europe is one of the fastest growing economies in the EU precisely because they are in the EU.
Yes, and that's why when SU collapsed the economy of the 15 states went down the drain. If you shrink the available market the economy shrinks as well. The major problem for Russia is its own domestic market that provides most of the diversification in the economy, but it has very limited size, and Russian goods are not welcomed in EU or US and China. Japanese and Chinese economies grew thanks to the access to US market, Eastern Europe grew thanks to the access to EU market. It has nothing to do with democracy or liberalisation, really. If Kuba was allowed to sell sigars to US without any constraints her economy woud've gained significant bonus. The fast growth of SU economy in 1970s happened because SU was allowed to sell oil and gas to Europe, which caused USA to start Reagan reforms. This mean that what Russia lacks are not freedoms, but markets it can either export to, or the large domestic market. E.g. Russian food market is almost entirely filled by the domestic vendors, which is why the gowth of that sector is not skyrocketing anymore (like in 2014-2018), as they have to find places to export their goods to.
5. >Ironically, the strengthening of the Russian state continues to undermine the economy itself.
Nope, Russian GDP (PPP) is growing at the very same pace as EU GDP (1.45 vs 1.43 times from 2008 to 2009). Plus Russia accumulated vast amount of rezerves, and is in the process of pouring them into the infastructure, which mean that in 2021-2024 Russia will have a 3% annual growth, which is comparable to EU, all without falling deep into debt.
6. >democracy isn't the prime factor on development. It's how open the economy is.
It's not about being open, but about if the markets you sell to are open and the size of these markets. If you open borders nothing good will magically happen apart from the collapse of the domestic producers. What you need are either (1) somebody else to open borders for you to sell goods there, (2) mutual balanced trade, (3) investment climate to invite more investments than the amount of money you loose with your markets being open, (4) your own big market. Without any protection MERCOSUR's markets would've probably been eaten alive by USA.
And this is why China is growing so fast nowadays despite being anti-democratic. China has large domestic market and the entire planet to sell the goods to.
Ничего,что трезубец украинский появился только в 1922 году?Также стыдливо не вспоминается,что Киев был столицей Руси,а именно потомков Новгородцев,которые пришли на эту землю как на более благоприятную в плане климата,а также территориального расположения возле Византии
трезуб был на гербе Рюриковичей, алё дядя
@@gerolfvanoudshoorn4359
Выходит,что и герба у Украины своего нет,всё от русских со старой Ладоги.Ужас.
@@ЯрославСавин-н9о в те времена и слова такого не было "русские"
@@gerolfvanoudshoorn4359Первое упоминание слова "Русь"-852 год,"русские",соответственно,народ "Руси"
Так русь или русские? Ты определись. @@ЯрославСавин-н9о
Noj Rants video does a pretty amazing job debunking this video, if anyone is truly interested in finding out more about the Rus and the Mongols.
Amazing how wrong a video can be in only 20 minutes
Fascinating. I always wondered why they seem to just go from one cruel, tyrannical, government to another. It's not just because they're experiencing a never ending streak of bad luck...
Most governments through all history were cruel and tyrannical in some way. European was just different from ours. Robbing foreign folks more often than their own
@@Yhorm228 well, you're right about that...I guess Western European people got tired of being oppressed sooner or later and rose up to do something about it. Although, it was a long, bumpy road along the way. The French were some of the earliest in the 1790's when the poor and starving people had enough. Their King Louis ended up losing his head on the guillotine. 👑 🙂
You sound like Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta. And I'm here for it. Especially with 1812 Overture in the background.
Good video, too.
It's a interesting video essay with lots of good points, but it glosses over and ignores some fundamental questions. Here are few questions it never asks and never answers which are very important. Why was despotic Muscovy able to conquer bourgeois Novgorod? Why did western Europeans adopt heavily fortified castle warfare while the Russians never did? Why in the Russian civil war was the most despotic faction able to prevail?
Moscow was making alliances and subjugating other Russian duchies and city-states, while Novgorod was not about expanding.
Russians adopted stone fortifications when they have met rivals, whom wooden walls wouldn’t stop.
It’s easier to accumulate resources to fight your opponent when you don’t really care about people you take those resources from. Bolsheviks devastated peasant and left them to starve, just as they robbed and killed the middle class. To oversimplify, whites were fighting for their country, reds were fighting for power and their semi-religious beliefs.
@@user-uj6xx2gs5p действительно, популисты отменили продразвёрстку, молодцы, а то что потом ввели обратно в ещё больших масштабах, так это тоже крестьяне сами и потребовали, да-да. Пыл народных масс безусловно более удачная система самоуправления, чем разогнанное демократически избранное собрание, угу. Ну а научный взгляд на устроение общества, который «истинный, потому что верный, а верный, потому что истинный» это бред собачий, тут и сомневаться не приходится
I'd like to keeps my democracy thank you.
This is even more relevant now, isn't it?
Goebbels sends a bow
Goebbels would get a raging hard-on if he saw how successfully modern Russian media radicalized its people over the past decades. He only managed to do that with the youth since he had full access to them. Older demographics were much more suspicious though...
"Ottomans became the new Rome."
*tries to hold back vomit*
This combined with the crippling alcoholism doesn't really create the brightest future for Russia
Or past
you here, Hi there yeah Russias Future looks bleak
Hope your wrong and eat your words
Yooo its alternate history hub
..but what if it wasn't so bleak, what if in an..
I wish I could have made a 4 hour series about this topic instead. It's such a deeply fascinating and important story.
Well maybe you can in the future when in time the UA-cam algorithm can be fixed
Agreed, your insight and presentation of the course matter is incomparable. As an individual I ponder deeply about political, social and leadership structures. You really help bring about some form of understanding of the modern chaos that has ensued and the propaganda both negative and positive that has transpired from it. Thank you greatly Kraut. I await your next video with great impatience as I am Tamil but born in the west. If I understand correctly there is a great difference between Indo-European society and Davidian society, especially gender roles and crossing the classes.
Have you considered getting in touch with Magellan? They seem to be working with youtube historians giving them another platform to work with.
@@skrettsnerk508 the algorithm
@@skrettsnerk508 The cost to produce
Russian politicians: Keep their power.
Kraut‘s video: Sponsored by Keeps.
Coincidence? *I. THINK. NOT! :D*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald-hairy
I guess that is half-true :p
But..... Putin bald....
@@sedakame1 The next president will be hairy (there is a strict bald/hairy tendency in Russian leadership ever since Lenin:) )
Balderdash,
That powers receding ;)
@s wind So does this mean Russia's history can be summarized by the ongoing war that most men must wage against hair loss?
I can only think about the fact that Kraut had to search "copyright free throat singing"
Hopefully he didn't have to search for "copyright free throating"
@@MrMediator24
Posted by the true anti-capitalist exhibitionist.
@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 I have been executed by my king for laughing at this comment.
where ?
Hammer Video. Sehr interessant
Ranton! I love your channel. Didnt think id see you here. Sorry to bother but are there any new uploads coming?
Make more videos, Rantoni invasioni.
We miss you buddy
Rantoni Hammeroni, yours is the top gaming channel across russian, chinese and english youtube
Du bist ein Kartoffelschnitzel
Weltfrieden
rip novgorod, your land force limit was too low for this world.
a man of culture
explain
@@clouds-rb9xt Europa Universalis reference
@dihvocfoscocudvyvdd when Denmark and Commonwealth save you, but send you on a wild ride across Europe
It is a true shame
Oh snap he did it, posted another masterpiece
Yes, yes he did
Liberal western country worst nightmare LMAO
he can’t stop improving with every video
He only posts masterpieces, it’s amazing
Masterpiece of propaganda that put Nazis to shame.
I always found it silly when some people said the Soviet Union was coming back. Clearly it's the Russian Empire that's returning.
lol really bro good luck
the soviet union was just the russian empire with a new aristocracy. russian ruling systems have barely changed since the russian princes started extorting the populace for their mongol overlords.
the only thing that changed where the surnames of the people at the top and their titles, from "princes" to "inner party" and whatever putin calls his buddy group.
After Lenin's death and Trotsky G O N E, Stalin made "Soviet Union" into "Soviet Russia" with Moscow being center and Russia still being empire
@@justanaverageguy912 not even 70% of USSR leaders were Russian.
Any downsides?
As a Russian, I was around 18 years old when I fully internalized that Absolutism is not the norm: I would read about the nobles opposing king and go “wtf, he is king, he can just kill them for that, but why is he not doing it, wired Europeans”
Me, a Regionalist Mexican would think: why they don't just organize themselves and shoot the King? He is just one guy.
Mexico is full of regional power structures that are constantly at odds with the Mexico's city government, usually resulting in regional alliances overthrowing the government and establishing themselves, and so on for the last couple of centuries.
Plus, up to 1970's almost everybody had a couple guns at home, quite hard to subdue the population. Nowadays, drug lords have guns and self-defense groups are becoming more common as corrupt officials do nothing.
My hometown has expelled provincial and national officials at gun point like 6 times the last century alone.
@@victorrenevaldiviasoto9728 That's some missing piece when I was studying the drug wars and peeked into Mexico's stuff: why the cartels took swaths of territory and the central government had little sway, and how easy militas formed
Funny how people see there locals history as the same as everybody else’s
@@richardsilva5110 yeah the 2006 Mexican drug war is often overlooked when discussing the world of drugs as a whole, I recommend that you definitely research into former Mexican president Vincente Fox and his policies regarding the issue
@@rejvaik00 I've read a little on the LSE report on the Drug wars since 2006, where there was a military approach and violence skyrocketed, but never understood why
I was today years old when I found out that some historians portray the Mongols in a favorable light.....
They may have conquered the largest area of any army ever, but they did so at a tremendous human cost. Tens and dozens of millions of people from China to Persia to Russia to the Levant to Hungary were slaughtered in their insatiable thirst for plunder and tribute. They burned, destroyed and sacked possibly thousands of towns and cities, and enslaved and subjugated the people they conquered. Some places that they attacked took hundreds of years to recover, demographically and economically.
Kind of a no-brainer that they were a negative force in human history.
economically, yes, but in terms of military, they caused a lot of progress, similar to how the ancient greeks and romans caused military development by conquering large areas. to resist the mongols, chinese and european states were forced to develop military material and tactics to resist their invasions, such as building stone walls and castles, improving military formations, and the creation of professional military forces, notably heavy infantry and cavalry. in western europe, mostly in france, this was forced by the moor invasions from iberia. in central europe, it was the nomadic tribes such as the bulgars and mongols that forced these developments. without these invasions, europe would not have gained the military and technological progress that lead to worldwide military dominance and colonialism.
If the Mongols never existed, imagine the world nowadays.
No communist China, no communist Russia. . .
I hate this fucking mongol-like cultture that so many asian countries have. Fuck that.
You see Mongols from the westerners point of view is a good thing because they were never under mongol invasion themselves, and those ugly easterners who even count how much of them die to the benefits of Western civilization
Well, there's a very interesting and good scene in a channel 4 series "Utopia". What if the mongols weren't around and we would face the same problems we do but with a billion people more? It's an excercise in futility but still.
The Mongols had positive review from Marco Polo though. Western Europeans once had favorable views about the Mongols because both the Mongols and Catholic Christendom were enemies of the Abbasid Caliphate and Mameluke Sultanate of Egypt. In short, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Who would sponsor authoritarianism this question brought to you by raid shadow legends
In this case it's more Raid Mongol Legends.
@@Silver_Prussian +15 roubles, shill
I love how this channel has essentially become the "Why Nations Fail" channel.
Also, read Why Nations Fail
Honestly it’s the content we need
It’s essentially visualized (and if I may, improved) version of that book.
Check out mine if you want to see more or "Why Nations Succeed"
It's listed a source
Last episode was straight from the Narrow Corridor. Both books deserve more attention
This video is probably getting more and more important as time goes on.
This video convinced me that Putin is not Hitler or Stalin reborn. The Russian spirit moving through whatever current fleshly vessel occupies the Kremlin is the ghost of the Ghengis Khan wearing a Slavic skinsuit.
@@IAmTheOnlyLucas Long story short: Ghengis Khan is to be blamed for why Russia is screwed up today.
Someone should brings this fact up more often.
@@IAmTheOnlyLucas This is actually a really good explanation and also very funny out of context.
@@IAmTheOnlyLucas technically Stalin is also Ghengis Khan in a slavic skin suit, like Putin
EDIT: way too many people thought I was saying Stalin was Slavic (I know he’s not, he was born in Georgia). I was referring to him coming to power in Russia.
Yes. Bad enough how much money goes into PsyOps warfare. Look at the pathetic russian army. But then look at Fox News and Co. Dangerous destabilisation of the west. Just by words. I think they took this desinformation thing to seriously.
5:23 - 5:30
"the Russian princes recruited army of cavalryman who paid not in money but in land"
well that basically the definition of west europe feudalism but then you said this feudalisn didn't exist in medieval russia
If you go to Azar Gat Feudalism a deep societal and economic system. It only applied to medieval Europe, Japan and Bronze Age China. Something like the three Kingdoms, Sengoku Jidai or the HRE would not have been possible in Tsarist Russia
Also is taken near directly from Fukiyama's "Origins of Political Order".
Average Kraut moment.
@@basileus6743 there are 0 russian hystory in this video. Poorly researched piece of liberal political theory.
Damn ruskie propagandists are here
Great video! When are you going to resume the series on pre-WWII Japan's descent into authoritarian madness from democracy? I thought the first video in that to-be series made a year or so ago both fantastic and entertaining and would love nothing more than to learn more about the subject!
Caesar would be proud of them, right tropper?
(your Pic showd it)
There’s already a video that be made on it,you’re lucky!
@@dairyskeptic7428 watch the vid first
Maybe he should do one on Rome
As a Japanese I really want that too. He has some mistakes in the first video though, like he didn't mention the fact that the democratization was top-down which pissed off a lot of people or the fact that the constant economic crisis in the 20s alienated the parliament from their main support, bourgeois metropolitan middle class and the zaibatsu, which the army took advantage off.
Under any circumstance, this man, this dude, this austrian gentleman manages to make such quality videos of the most interesting currents of history and often ignored dictacting parameters, it is absolutely fascinating.
Quality content with effort.
Krauts German actually
Austrian gentleman, say that slowly
German*
He is Bavarian
"Most states have some mafia. But in Russia mafia has a state"
- Kasparov
Venezuela be like:
Mexico: b*tch please
"Russia should be thrown back into the Stone Age to make sure that the oil and gas industry and any other sensitive industries that are vital for survival of the regime cannot function without Western technological support," Kasparov said. What sort of person talks like this about their own country?
@@gb-fs1tz Kasparov is not really Russian that’s why he says those kind of things . He’s really an Armenian Jew who pretends to be Russian for some reason
@@gb-fs1tz What sort of person defends Putin or group rapes old women infront of children... Russians.
Где ваша европейская толерантность, которой вы пытаетесь учить весь мир? Ролик расистский прямо все по идеям «белой европейской расы» от сердца к солнцу ваш лозунг!
слышал такое изречение: никакой свободы врагам свободы? Можно перефразировать: никакой толерантности к врагам толерантности.
joke concerning the sponsor: Do you know what definitely stops hair falling? The floor....
Ba dum-tss 🥁
I thought the tile meant “Russian Authoritarianism with a sponsor”, like the authoritarianism was sponsored
sponsored in Russia by yours truly
@@kaisreece6491 This brutal beating of innocent civilians was brought to you by RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
@@MorbidMindedManiac bruh lol
@Eros Matthew Montallana The royal family is just a mask used to hide the real threat
Keeps funds the ex-KGB agents that protect Kraut from the russian mafia
“Duchies, cities, and dukedoms”
Sorry to nitpick, redundancies are bound to happen.
He had to mention three different nouns if it was to sound good, even though duchy and dukedom might not have been the best choice of words.
i think he refers to Dukedom as in lithuania , Moscow, Luxemburg...etc small independent states to small to be a kingdom or part of the HRE while Duchies are part of a kingdom
@@lettuceman9439 Funny you should say that, because both Lithuania and Luxemburg were ”Grand Duchies” while Muscovy was a ”Grand Principality”. That is to say, they formally referred to themselves this way.
@@GamingWithChf just saying the distinction sine kraut spoke it during the russian serf vs western peasant argument its probably me just overanalyzing it got into a agrument while comcasting this near my orthodox relative
In finnish I thought of them as "ruhtinaskuntia, kaupunkeja ja herttuakuntia"
When it comes to duchies, the duke's title can be either a prince or a duke in historical discussion, unless explicitly called a duke. "Ruhtinas" is simply a general noble ruler's title.
And now all you need to do, author, is to spend at least a little bit of time learning something about the structure of the Mongolian government. Oh, you mean to say that Russians have adopted the principle of heavy centralisation around a singular ruler figure from the Mongols, right? From the Mongols whose 'ruler figure' was elective at that time! That's right, Khans were elected by Kurultai, the council of Mongolian chiefs. Has Russia ever had a political institution similar to Kurultai? No, the closest thing we had was Land Assembly, which was managing different issues. The Mongolian Empire was way more decentralised than Russian principalities during its suzerainty over us. This basically disrupts the consistency of everything the author says in the first half of this video. You simply cannot adopt something from someone who doesn't actually have it! Even his example with the order of subordination between the army, the central government and the aristocrats in Russia, where the aristocrats really were left out, actually makes Russia look nothing like the Mongolian Empire, where the aristocrats DID HAVE their own armies under command.
And then he tells us about "oprichnina" as a governmental structure, the data about which comes neither from Russian, nor from any other Eastern European sources. The fact that the Soviets decided to recognise the fact of its existence doesn't actually prove anything. Russian sources do mention "oprichnina", but only as a term that refers to the personal land of Tsar and his government in general.
I'm getting tired of listening to all these meaningless historical parallels. Modern Russia is a country where you shouldn't rely on state pention, but gather savings instead. Should I even begin explaining, why the retired people of Russia have no savings? Collapse of the USSR, numourous economical crisises... No? Doesn't ring the bell? I'm not trying to say that economical inequality in Russia is insignificant, it's very significant, but what does the state have to do with it? Seize everything from the rich and give it to the poor? It doesn't work like that. Those peaople are legit businessmen today, who pay taxes and don't affect the political life of the country. Well, most of them don't.
The peasants were indeed abused by the nobylity, but was their life that bad? Despite the fact that it was hard for a serf to protect their rights, and yes they actually had some rights, their life was pretty simple and the job was not that hard. An average peasant back then was working way less hours a day than a modern employee. Although that depended on the kind of job they were assigned to by their landlord, but even those who were working in fields were not really that busy most of the time, since they had only 2 crop seasons per year at best, usually there was only one crop season. But yeah, that was unpaid labour with little comfort to talk about.
And what he says in the end serves as the last nail in the coffin for his unbiasedness:"In Russia, the further you go up in the ranks of government, the more corrupt state officials become..." And I feel a bit timid to ask, what is this information based on? I, as a citizen of Russia who was born and raised in Siberia, obviously have witnessed cases of corruption, but mostly at the local level. Firstly, not all governmental structures are vulnerable to bribes, and secondly, here the situation is just like in China, if we choose to believe what you said about it.
When talking about Mongols being responsible for increased isolation and autocracy in Russia, while mentioning the decline of feudalism in Europe due in part to the black plague, it's fun to consider that the Mongols were also a major contributor to the plague spreading throughout half the globe.
I think on some level that might also have contributed to the largely positive perspective that many western scholars tend to have on the Mongols these days, because in retrospect, western and central Europe were probably the biggest beneficiaries of the Mongol invasions, even moreso than the Mongols themselves. However if we were to examine the effect the Mongol conquests had on the places they actually conquered, I don't think the conclusion would've been nearly as positive on the Mongols.
@@bobjones2959 Therefore, the opinion still prevails in Russia (and in principle it was the only one) that the Mongols are an indisputable evil that brought only ruin and death to Russia. Although there are sometimes researchers who talk about some advantages in this hell.
Source on that? Plague kills faster than Mongol armies could travel.
Also, what about the earliest outbreaks in Italian ports?
@@LMB222 If I'm not mistaken, they way they contributed to it was more indirectly by reopening the Silk Road, which was from there that the Plague traveled some good amount of time much later.
@@СтариГенералъ You turned into your oppressors. Russian state represents everything that Mongol Empire and Golden Horde used to. I would really like to see an alternative history where Kievan Rus survived or Novgorod was the uniting power in Russia.
But we got Muscovy and slaughter of Novgorod instead.
These thumbnail images are getting more and more elaborate and eye-catching. Their quality does more justice to the longstanding quality of your videos. Regards to the artist.
That's the morning of the Streltsy execution, a famous Russian painting but remade in countryballs
Thank you!
Great video, there are a few points tat I kinda disagree on a bit.
1) 7:59 using castles to make the point that that the russians adopted mongol tactics to me feels to me to be a bit lacking, in that the nature of warfare in the large plains of Russia isn't conducive to building castles and that the usage of cavalry was key. A similar ish story can be told with the usage of cavalry by the Poles (Winged Hussar ftw) which also saw more cavalry and less castles and sieges compared to Western Europe.
2) On the what-if of the Novgorod Republic - a bit of a disagreement on a conceptual basis in that would a state that developed from the Novgorod republic be "Russia" or an entity that we would agree that would take the form similar to that of Russia that we see today? This is very much speculation but would such a state expand into the form of Russia?
3) On the chinese system getting less corrupt as you go up - I don't think less corrupt is the correct term to use here, but more that the incentives of higher officials is very different to that at the provincial level, since at the higher levels their power are in a sense the power of the state, not the power of the individual alone and therefore have to in a sense play along to the rules of the state. Xi jinping cannot rule without the Party, he has control of it now but even the Party will outlive him. The same cannot be said of Putin and whatever structures he uses to maintain power.
On the whole, a lot of what I think made Russia is not just the nature of Mongol rule in Russia (which you also noted seems to be an exception to what Mongols did elsewhere, which was to assimilate), I kinda wonder what made that the case, almost as though Russia was the frontier lands for the Mongols and that characterised the nature of their rule there. And on some level I think the nature of the Russian geography itself drives the logic of how its systems adapt and develope
This comment essentially is my sentiment specifically in the no.3 statement. With the Chinese adopting Communism through Maoism, and especially the during the Cultural Revolution. China essentially shifted to be a chimera of its old values but with corrupted elements of Communism in which I daresay, far beyond the level of "corruption" in which the Russians (as the USSR) ever attained as their means and scale of the masses they can exploit is huge. Despite their massive population and resource potential, the current diplomatic ineptitude of the CCP is slowly catching up into them and a self-perpetuating disaster bigger than the Cultural Revolution will be inevitable in Xi's China.
In relation to the mongol rule in russia, maybe the mongols did not assimilate into russian culture because of its decentralised nature, remember these were still princely states with largely different customs and rivalries with each other so it must've made sense to simply appoint a grand prince to sort this out for them.
The nearby steppes may have also been a factor, the mongols could easily exert their influence over most major cities and since they preferred the plains they could still retain their lifestyle without sacrificing control over the princes. This is in contrast with mongol rule china and persia where they were forced to move their administrative centres further inland which meant a nomadic lifestyle simply was not possible.
@@totally-not-lost Based Putin. Jokes aside, the diference here was kinda pointed out, the CCP exists on it's own, it will outlive Xi, as did the CPSU with Lenin, Stalin and Brezhnev, on the other hand the current structre of the Russian state is centered on Putin, there's no incentives to think long term, because the current structres will be changed once Putin's gone, there's no strong institution in modern day Russia as the Comunist Party in China.
@@AlvaroMF13 Can't say i agree with you, since despite Putin having his image of the one and only leader, the system as a whole is more or less stable. Russia still suffers from both communistic reign and fall of it, but i dont think that reformations or change of a government would destroy or damage a system (at least from my perspective as a russian)
@@kirillf1780 I agree, I meant more as the people in those places of power, not as the system itself, since Putin more or less inherited the system from Yeltsin, though with his own twists
11:20 absolutely over simplified overlook of the Russian Orthodox Church. There is no "head of the church" in EO we arent papists. Furthermore the church is pro monarchist and supports the divine right to rule. The two headed eagle represents how the Orthodox Church and government would work together. One head represented the emperor and the other, the church. The church of every country until secularization was abused at some point in history by its monarchy or government.
I know UA-cam's algorithm forces creators to abandon quality for quantity. I really hope you continue to fight this trend, you deserve much more viewers and subscribers. Also looking forward to that video on India.
Shi bola
What for quality this is one of most garbage vids i have seen lol
@@kloe996 Me and 600,000 other people don't agree with you.
Every era of Russian history begins with "...and then it got worse."
I mean it got significantly better fro. 1917 to around 1960 something. Employment skyrocketed, literacy skyrocketed, life expectancy, access to healthcare, homelessness dropped to basically 0, then things got slowly worse and worse through the late 20th century untill things got way way way worse in the 90s.
Counterpoint: WW2 was very much a "Then it got worse" moment for the Soviets.
Then we wouldn't see russia as a country obviously. So it cant be true
@@nvizible commie detected!
@@InfiniteLegoWorks I mean yeah but the rise of Fascism was pretty much completely out of their control. It also could've been way worse, they defeated the Nazis, and liberated China and Eastern and Central europe as well, so not that bad all things considered, even if the losses were many and the rebuilding was hard.
What about the influence of geography on absolutism? Russia has little natural defenses like mountains. This might have led to centralization due to lack of ability to defend local areas without the state.
You could say the same thing about poland
@@taptiotrevizo9415 That's interesting, because Poland was always more of a Confederacy than an Empire? They seemed to go the exact opposite direction that Russia took, being more decentralized than the typical European state. It still seems plausible to me that being on a large flat expanse of land could still lead to reliance on local lords for national defense, under the right conditions.
Compare that to Ethiopia (110 million) today where the people from the mountainous region of Tigray (population 6 million) are beating back the central government in a civil war. Mountains are op.
Poland is also flat, yet experienced their period of "golden liberty" instead.
@@keeganmoonshine7183 Every time I hear of highlanders resisting a local government or power (and surviving) I'm reminded of the state motto of West Virginia: "Mountain Men are Always Free".
01:14 Total War Attila! Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well.
The video is as funny as it is terrifying. With its sloppiness. For example, I was struck by the fact that it turns out that Ivan 4 killed all the aristocrats except for 9 families. I'm looking at the enumeration of the noble, boyar, and other clans annnd ... I don’t see this. How so? Why lie and add a gag? The real victims of the oprichnina have a slightly different scale. Within the European average, so to speak. And at the same time, religious wars and St. Bartholomew's night in particular are happening. But terrible horrors in Muscovy, yes. And so in everything. As well as the transformation of the Mongols into universal evil. Although they were conquerors and many suffered from them. But why reduce everything to a farce ...
Are you in Russia right now?
@@peffiSC2source No, I'm from Ukraine.
@@kirillsizonenko1676 Mongols and Vikings were ravagers, why do you stand up for them?
@@margarine3844 How did the call not to compose something beyond the truth become equal to standing up for someone? And what do you mean about the Vikings? Well, the destroyers were at different times more or less almost everything up to the tribes of the Stone Age. Am I now to hate and pour shit on all of humanity at once?
Ayyy been waiting for this.
*What in the God damn world*
...
Same here, was hoping for a longer video but oh well. It is what it is.....
OH SHIT ME TOO
Same
I ain't no fink, ya dig?
I hoped going into this video that there would be a comparison to China, because from what I've gathered over the years reading into the topic of states invaded by the Mongols, they all shared such authoritarian similarities. Great that you included such a comparison! I love the video!
Every government in the world is authoritarian. It’s a buzz word
China's authoritarianism is due to Confucius influence mostly. The nation is the extension of the family, and the Emperor is the father of the people.
@@stevenx399 I'd say that depends on your political views. There are certainly more or less authoritarian governments, but yes, there is a certain degree of authority within every government.
@@QuanHoang-qd1ye Wasn't Legalism also a huge influence on Chinese authoritarianism, though to a lesser extent? "Serve your monarch under all conditions" as state policy should leave a large impact on state structure for future administrations, too.
@@hanspetrich6520 it's rather complicated. Legalism is basically the Chinese version of Machiavellianism. Its ideas were only practiced by the Emperor. Confucius ideas, on the other hand, were frequently spread to keep the populace obedient to the state. Thus the Mandate of Heaven was not a religious belief, it was a form of justification for the Emperor's behaviors.
Old Russian joke: “The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable”
>that hellish horse and daedric bow for the Huns
I see Kraut is a fellow patrician, even if a foederatus
Roman femboys appreciation club
Given what is happening in Ukraine, I felt that I had to revisit this video on 2022.
frighteningly relevant.
Note that despite Ukraine and Belarus being inheritors of the legacy of the Kyivan Rus', this video oversimplifies the Kyivan Rus' as a medieval Russia. The distinction between Russia/=/Kyivan Rus' is very important.
@@TheZerech This is a big problem since people think that Rus somehow means Russia. Ukraine inherited the currency and emblem of Kyivan Rus which is shown in the video, but author still adds Russian flag to it...
@@TheZerech so? Both are very closely related?
More closely than Anglo-Saxon and Native Americans
@@YuraK25 Well, come on, tell us how Ukraine colonized Mars for epochs. The fact that your currency is called hryvnia does not mean that you are 1000% heirs of Kievan Rus. In general, foreigners called Russia Russia (at the same time calling it Muscovy). The fact that Kiev was outside the Russian lands for a long time makes the descendants of the inhabitants of the Lithuanian era of Kiev not descendants of Kievan Rus directly. For example - the Russian language is much closer to the East Slavic dialect in the source, precisely because of the absence of assimilation defects in it. Ukrainians and Belarusians were assimilated during the years of Polish rule and as a result, the stratification of the Eastern Slavs into 3 nations was obtained. So your geographical location, currency and the fact of belonging to the Slavs does not allow you to call yourself descendants of anything. Hungarians also live in Eastern Europe and look like Slavs, but they are far from Slavs. And yes, the theme of the video - Russia and the history of our absolutism, what does Ukraine have to do with it? Or do you have Russia = Mongolia/Turks, in your sore head? If so, have a good evening.
I appreciate that there were no ads during this 22-minute video. I will subscribe
Russia certainly has an autocratic history, but the idea that meritocracy was irrelevant is absurd. Peter the Great had defective artillery manufacturers test-fire their own cannons, cutting down on corruption there (mostly cheap metal substitution). Everyone competent and useful was promoted, including former Ottoman slaves, like Pushkin's grandfather. The old empire might not have had a strong artisan base, but Peter imported the Volga Deutsch in the 18th century. Catherine later sponsored Euler. Various academies became very prestigious places, and a strong lift for social mobility.
In fact, it's this over-educated (in theories) upper-middle class that really led the Revolution. All the 19th and early 20th century literary classics (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, Chekhov's plays) all point to an active society with many internal divisions and an active intellectual life.
I think this video is a reasonable critique of pre-Peter Russia, but the state changed a LOT under and after him.
This should get more likes
As we can see in a top comment, Kraut probably should have made this perhaps even 4 hours long. It seems that he did fast-forward a great deal at times.
I'd counter by saying that meritocracy was only authorized when it served the purpose of the Czar and again mostly as way to keep his/her underlying nobility on its tow. Merit was only understood as serving the purpose of existing power, not as challenging it and even less as serving the peasant mass. The Volga Deutsch mostly existed as a controlled and controllable experiment somewhat disconnected from the rest of Russian society, by design. The rise of intellectual (urban) life was likely understood initially as an epiphenomenon of little incidence on the general way of doing things beyond the city walls. Of course this took a different turn once serfdom was abolished and cities became hotspots of cross-class intellectual debate. And while one might read the socialist troubles and the Revolution as proof of a functioning intellectual meritocracy. One can also look at it as the result of only a partial one coming to terms with its own contradictions, that is: meritocracy only sponsors social mobility up to bourgeois status but the higher strata of society (nobility) remains out of reach regardless of merit or wealth. And like in all places where a taste of social mobility was granted it eventually explodes in social challenges for the Man/Woman on top (e.g. English or French Revolution).
So yes the state changed after Peter, but in that Russia tried to have it both ways: economic dynamism through some meritocracy while maintaining the Czar's power base of stable aristocracy and absolutism. This never works. Freedom always reshapes power structures. Post-revolution Russia has since alternated between phases of somewhat liberalization (which tend to create disorder has no institution beyond the state can give it a framework) and phase of brutal stabilization orchestrated by the man on top. Even to this day any accumulation of power - regardless of the means, maybe allowed through the modicum of meritocracy - by a regular Russian eventually ends up as a dilemma: integrating the power structure supporting the Man on top or being crushed by it.
@@TheRedAirOn Well Kraut is biased so.
@@thibautnarme6402
Physically large countries are more prone to authoritarianism and centralization unless they are set up from the beginning as decentralized federations with limited powers for the federal government and a division of power between province/state and federal governments so that neither level can act on absolute authority. Even then the federal government may grab more power over the centuries anyways as more loopholes are found and supreme courts are more willing to interpret constitutions in "creative" ways.
If there is another Russian Revolution the people need to be given the absolute right maybe even an obligation to firearm ownership.
One of the main reasons why Novgorod had balance of rule was because they upheld older tradition. Originally “princes” were nothing more than Scandinavian mercenary leaders, who would protect the trade route from Scandinavia to Greece. Most of them forgot their role and overtook power.
A lot of Russia as we know it was borne from these trading posts along the great rivers to inland Russia and Greece; Byzantines, Scandinavians and even Muslim.
Novgorod was a city state whose primary source of income was trade. It was more centralized, more urban and less in need of a strong centralized government that can wrangle a massive and sparese country
@@dango470 it was a country for a while, with territories and smaller towns and villages under it’s rule. It was less of need, and more of keeping your words.
@پیاده نظام خان well, someone missed their simple Russian history class
Also if we really look into it. Novgorod wasn't really Slavic, it was actually Finnic.
Kraut makes an interesting point about the Mongols, personally I find them fascinating but I think part of the reason why they are seen as a positive force by some historians and UA-camrs is because for a long time they got demonized to the extreme by western culture and media, to the point where it was basically shorthand for monster or brute to be compared to mongols, I'm thinking of Tolkien's orcs as a specific example, or course to an that means studying the mongol empire has more in common with studying the British or Spanish empire, right down to the millions of people killed by plague
Your comparison to European empires imo is pretty accurate. The details are of course different, but as far as general concepts the mongols and the Europeans starting at the industrial revolution are very comparable. They killed a ton of people along the way of making massive empires, but then what they did for the world completely and irreversibly altered history and greatly advances technology and the whole world's economy (except the mongols ofc didn't effect the americas and the Europeans fucked up all of Africa but Ethiopia, who screwed themselves over by being an empire in their own right and then keeping that land to this day, and also the middle east)
@@kevincronk7981 Well, both cases of imperialism did more than just take lives, they fucked up everybody they touched first. And the Europeans never absorbed themselves into any of the cultures they touched, they imposed themselves on everyone, as opposed to the Mongols with China and Iran.
@@peterwang5660 because where the european imperialism touches natives die. mongols were much more tolerable. they require one thing. money. pay it in time and ur good. europe require money,people,land,culture all of it to be exploited.
@@kevincronk7981 Except that western armies did not go on pillaging and slave capture trips, did not kill people for fun and did not collapce entire states just because their diplomat was killed.
@@dwarow2508 You can't be serious with your factually incorrect statement.
Zemskiy sobor was not a "Counsel of aristocrats", it included people's representatives from different classes and from different parts of country. The word "zemskiy" itself means, there were firstly representatives from regions (zemlya in that context means the place, where people live - a city, a village, a region). Also I don't think you can call Novgorod's Veche a parlament, cuz there were not only representatives, there were all the people of Novgorod with equal rights formally, though there was a real power in those, who could buy votes (merchants and aristocrats). And though the Moscow really ended the Novgorod's reign, you shouldn't forget that Novgorod wasn't and couldn't become the center of gathering territories: it was never intended to and it couldn't make a some kind of alliance with the Pskov city, similar to Novgorod state. They even fought sometimes. Novgorod was a great city with interesting state structures, but they were never oriented onto something other than trading, crafting and raiding neighbours because of nature of those, giving them the state power.
BTW, funny to see the picture-reference to "Бурлаки на Волге" (Burlaks at Volga), which was painting the realities of tsar's Russia when author mentions the teeeeerrribleee "GULAGs"! Hahaha
Russia had a trader and bourgeoisie classes. Kuptsy (купцы) and fabricants (фабриканты).
Well. Novgorod was just like any European city as the video says that did not dream of creating an empire, however, Novgorod was active in invasion into finish-hungarian lands in the North East. Kuptsy and fabricants did not have any political rights in Russia, they were dirt even in comparison with bancrupt aristocrats, real rise of merchants and fabrikants began only in late 19th after abolishment of serfod, creation of a real court system and start of modernization of Russia before that any person in Russia was just a property of a tsar
@@alexanderakh4955 тот самый знаток истрии, подписанный на варламова ХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХ
@@alexanderakh4955 это тебе варламов рассказал?
@@alexanderakh4955 фанаты варламова виднее
@@alexanderakh4955 потому что до Новгорода не добрались татары и не сожгли его.
I've been watching your content for a while now and I've enjoyed every second of it. You've given me a deeper look into concepts I never thought I would understand on my own as well as a deeper understanding of history. Thank you for all your hard work. Please keep making vids.
The biggest irony with the effect of the Church on democracy in the difference between the Western vs Eastern dichotomy was the former divvied up the power of the monarch and the lords by granting them the legitimacy and the right of kings and lordship through the grace of god - the Catholic Church had a hand in the draft of the Magna Carta in the 13th century, and their insistence of the Church's role being made discrete in the form of legislated rights and powers that were distinct from the barons is sometimes cited as a marker that would inspire the role of the separation of church and state.
In a way, the albeit intolerable influence of the western Church we've grown so accustomed to ridicule as decrepit and backwards compared to modern institutions may well have actually been the primitive force that was able to push for exchange of powers through civil debate rather than brute force between our "moral" institutions and secular estates.
In a similiar sense in western europe the church and state were rivals, while in the islamic world they were rather allied. The end of the islamic golden era which coincides with the mongols conquering arabia was made possible by an combined effort of state and church. Unthinkable in europe
It's strange. I don't think people should be shaking the Catholic Church's hand, but we should give credit where it's due in the advent of a plurality of power that prevents pure totalitarianism to form. Or, even worse, an alliance of elites instead of pitting them against each other.
The rise of absolute states and the end of universalism in the Western world being an reaction to the Catholic Church overreaching with the secular powers is my favourite irony in history.
Honestly, the trend of passing judgement on history's past using modern moral norms is very tiring, brings nothing of value to the science of history and quickly devolves into screaming matches and platitudes upon platitudes spewed out.
Guess it partly based on "we shouldn't repeat mistakes of the past", but we don't need this, humanity already committed it's fair share of atrocities in modern age (20th and 21st century) to learn from, which can be appraised via modern morals, no need for "catholic church was bad, m'key", or "mongols were bad m'key" or whatever.
@@pineapplethief4418 I dont read any of that here. Yet, it is clear that The mongols had a tremendous impact of europe and traumatised eastern europe, much like the two World wars traumatised europe and asia
3:21
Good job on making Mongolia look terrifying AF. I mean, that smile really tops it off (I know it's a crescent, but it looks like a smile).
3:32 and 3:51 too
So...many...mistake. In the first 5 minutes, no less. From the total ignorance of the fact that Alexander Bogolubsky did exist and during his reign Vladimir-Suzdal Rus was already a pretty centralised powerhouse, who was powerful enough to do with Kyiv/Kiev/Kijów/whatever to do what he liked - before the Mongols. To the fact that the Russians really started to employ Golden Horde tactics during Ivan the Great - and it was during the end of Tatar Yoke in Russia, dude.
Oh well, just from checking your sources everything becomes clear to me.
"Next video we will cover the past millennia of political, economic, and social developments in China and India" oh is that all?
Fantastic video as usual!
And do so in 20 mins!
Very interesting video. I've always figured that Putin's death would lead to a power vacuum that would be very destabilizing, maybe to the point of collapse. But this gives me food for thought, maybe the authoritarianism is so baked into the system that it will automatically produce a new authoritarian.
It definitely will unless the entire system is overhauled, which has never happened - even during the establishment of the Soviet Union
Russia is a country that has never in it's entire history had a genuine democratic government. Currently, knowing many russians, the people there have actively been primed against western liberal democracies. Thus I don't belive that we'lI see a democratic Russia for at least another generation.
I know many young Russians who simultaneously adore many forms of western wealth, like cars and entertainment, and despise the "sinking degenerate west". These people are found mostly on the Putinist side, but plenty of people supporting Navalny and the opposition also think the same way. Many also see China in a similar way as many Europeans still saw America some decades ago, a land of fast economic growth and opportunity. I was talking to a girl a while back who said that she would not want to move to the USA due to her not getting along very well with feminists, but would be open to moving to China, this despite the objectively more discriminatory nature of the mainland Chinese people.
Nah I do think Putin is to the Russian Federation what Stalin was to the Soviet Union, it's peak authoritarian ruler.
Who become so overwhelmingly powerful, that during their "reign", they try so hard to make sure there is no other big names to even begin to challenge their influence, and when they die, there is really no another authoritarian replacement with the same capacity to grip to power.
There will be a vacuum, and it for sure will be interesting to witness in real time.
@@ferchi9953 You probably do not know that the Russians have voted Stalin as the greatest leader of Russia above and beyond Lenin.The Soviet power and Stalin expressed and served the interests of the millions of the working class and the poor peasantry. The Soviet Union's giant contribution to the Victory against Germany and its Allies was achieved because of the Soviet workers' authority power to the advantages which offers the socialization of the means of production and the pivotal planning of the economy in the leading role of the people and in the leading role of the Communist Party of the workers' as a revolutionary vanguard.Stalin appears as a criminal figure, the anti-communism has Stalin as its main peak , because during to the period when he was general secretary of the communist party he completed the abolition of capitalist relations of production. With the abolition of the exploitation of wage labor the foundations laid ,for the new socio-economic system. with ''arguments'' like Stalin slaughtered people and he was ''bloodthirsty'' , they attempt to tarnish the class struggle of the workers who defended the socialism especially at that time against the sabotage done by the capitalists and their supporters ''Fifth column'' ''CIA Liberals''. Stalin argues that the class struggle continues within the socialism system that the defeated bourgeois forces did not abandon their struggle for restoration that the forces of the opportunists of the liberals as expressed in his days helped the anti-socialist currents to reorganize theirs forces and to counterattack the Soviet authority. And the history has shown us that these forces were also behind the overthrow of socialism.These forces hit in the head In a fierce class struggle, the Soviet Communist Party, led by Central Committee Secretary Joseph Stalin and it is no coincidence that these forces raised the anti-Stalinist flag first of all.
@@ferchi9953 I was thinking Marshall Tito but y'know what
Sure
I love how starkly contrasting Kraut's seriousness of narration and joviality, meme-ness of animation is. It's like finding the perfect middle-ground between history channels and meme channels.
@grand nagus they are clearly talking about how they enjoy the channel because of the seriousness of the narration, and the cheekiness of the animation, creating a great dynamic for the video, increasing their enjoyment of the content. Are you incapable of comprehending what you read?
So, what about geography?
You're missing this important thing. The European part of Russia is a steppe, with forests and swamps to the north, we did not have a warm climate, fertile soil like Europeans or our own iron until the 13th century.
By the way, we built fortresses out of wood not because we, like Mongols, burned everything, but because there was no stone on our territories.
Stone construction was very expensive and was considered as a sign of the wealth of the principality.
Unlike you Europeans, we could not afford to build something like Notre Dame De Paris.
In order to survive in the conditions in which we settled, it was necessary to rally resources and sacrifice the personal for the sake of the public, for the sake of survival. I do not dispute that the Mongols had a great influence on us, but you put all the blame only on them, completely ignoring the geographical factor and our difficult conditions, so your analysis of where Russian absolutism comes from is superficial and incomplete
Ну вот вы же русский, в конце концов вы же должны хоть что-то понимать про свою историю, но нет, вы садитесь в ту же лужу, что и неофит на авторе.
Нотр Дам - это признак «не абсолютизма»?
Назревает вопрос, если на Руси не было камня, то из чего построен Кремль и десятки, сотни древних соборов и храмов? Это ещё те, которые сохранились/были восстановлены, а на самом деле их было куда больше, но они уничтожались большевиками. Впрочем, не то что бы всё это имело какое-то отношение к теме.
И тем не менее, да, Собор Парижской Богоматери - это символ абсолютизма. По конституции Франции, все её граждане считаются французами, она является сверхунитарной по устройству, в ней даже президент играет значительную роль, в отличии от большинства остальных стран Европы, являющихся строго парламентскими республиками/монархиями. Да, Франция - это страна победившей централизации и это вытекает из её абсолютисткого прошлого. Параллели очевидны: русский Петр I - «король-солнце» Людовик XIV, а погромы Ивана Грозного выглядят не так уж и противоестественно, если просто посмотреть на кровавые расправы Генриха II над гугенотами, в частности на варфоломеевскую ночь. К слову, Россию можно соотносить вообще с любой страной Европы: столь же мрачными, как и Иван IV, были, например, английский Генрих VIII и владевший большей частью Европы Карл V.
В целом, исторический путь России пускай и отличается в деталях, но абсолютно идентичен по своей сути с историческим путём любого западноевропейского государства. Конечно же кроме одного века, XX. И именно всё то, что с нами произошло тогда, и является источником всего отвратительного в нашей действительности. Только вот кое-кому очень выгодно, чтобы мы боролись не с последствиями XX века (то есть с этими самыми «кое-кеми»), а с ветряными мельницами: монголами, половцами, крестоносцами и ещё Бог весть с чем. Подумайте об этом на досуге.
@@Ragulenschaft так в том то и суть, что камень был дорогим и его до определенного периода пускали только на храмы и соборы, потому что это святые места и показатель статуса владения, то есть, чем больше в каком-нибудь княжестве белокаменных церквей, тем оно благороднее и статуснее, для массовых каменных застроек по типу средневековых европейских замков камня не было, просто взгляните на карту древней Руси, а позже Московского княжества, все эти территории это голая степь или леса с болотами, и лишь редкие защёлки песчаника, который и пускался на постройку храмов, тоже самое касается и Кремля камень, а позже кирпичи из которого он строился был привозным. И причем тут Нотр-Дам как признак абсолютизма, когда я привожу его в пример как памятник архитектуры из камня, строившегося не один век, как показатель того, что в Европе было полно камня, в отличие от наших условий, где ходовым строй. материалом было дерево
@@Ragulenschaft мне ваши "мудроствования" и "наставления" по типу "подумайте об этом на досуге" не уперлись, я понимаю все причинно-следственные связи и понимаю, что исторический путь России отличался от Европейского, хотя мы и жили с ними на одном континенте, это вам нужно тогда задуматься, раз все отличия сводите к одному веку и коммунистам, которые нам насрали в душу очень серьёзно я не спорю, но говорить, что это исключительно они нас совратили с истинного европейского пути очень опрометчиво
@@ВалерийПойманов-н1ы не передёргивайте. В остальной Европе камнем как-то по-другому распоряжались? Строения из него были там «не элитными»? Крестьяне может себе халупы из камня строили? Нет, всё точно так же. И замков там возможно было больше, чем каменных кремлей и прочих укреплений, но не существенно и говорить о «массовой застройке», конечно, не приходится.
Что же касается истории, то да, всё упирается в один век, потому что вся история России и остальной Европы именно до XX века вполне соотносится. А если исторические перепетиии сразу нескольких наций на европейском континенте не так уж разительно друг от друга отличаются (как я уже показал самые одиозные исторические личности определенных эпох вполне сравнимы и, что самое главное, схожи именно между Россией и остальной Европой, а не, скажем, Азией), значит по-другому быть и не могло, хоть монголы, хоть какие исторические выборы кто делал бы, хоть кто побеждал в каких-угодно междоусобицах - все равно бы русские вышли бы к такому моменту в период нового времени, который по содержанию был бы идентичен манифесту 17 октября 1905 года, то есть заключался бы в распространении базовых прав для этих самых русских.
А теперь вопрос, если вся история от призвания Рюрика до начала XX века по итогу нас привела к наделению правами, то когда русские люди стали бесправными (вроде же это подразумивалось под «Russian Authoritarianism»?)? В следствии чего и действий кого? Это монголы тот манифест аннулировали? Монголы создали вчк? Монголы создали колхозное рабство? Монголы уничтожали русское культурное наследие, взрывали храмы вплоть до построек XIV века?
@@Ragulenschaft строения из камня в Европе хоть и также были доступны весьма состоятельным людям, но были НАМНОГО распространённее чем на Руси, я еще раз повторю в Европе сохранились десятки, если не сотни замков средневекового периода, не говоря уже о храмах, усадьбах, аббатств и т.д. в то время как в России - немногочисленные (в сравнении с Европой очень немногочисленные) белокаменные церкви и Кремль. Замков не просто было "возможно больше" их было ЗНАЧИТЕЛЬНО БОЛЬШЕ. Даже горожане в Европе могли позволить себе в средние века каменный дом, в то время как у нас в БЕЛОКАМЕННОЙ МОСКВЕ продолжали дома быть деревянными у всех
I think it's very ironic that communism first happened in Russia at all given that Russian history seems to be a living disproof of the theory of Marx's historical dialectic.
That just shows how reality due to countless factors can end up completely different than theory that on paper sounds perfect
I think Marx was turning in his grave from how his theory was interpreted by soviets faster than GeForce3090 cooler )
@@kostam.1113 well Marx was talking about a Utopia and the dude should have known even the ancient greeks already knew a Utopia could never exist.
@@frankpolly Marx had some good points
Capitalism is extremely flawed
But communism that has been established later has been even more flawed
Not to mention that Capitalism unlike communism is very flexible
I have to ask, how is Russian history a disproof of the theory of historical dialectic?
Please, talk about South American nations on one of your videos! it would be interesting to hear the story of Argentina or Brazil one day, sounds similar to Russian absolutism
It is, more or less, we (I'm Argentine) were colonized by an absolute monarchy, Spain, which appointed the viceroys (Virreyes), which sort of deferred power to the local oligarchies in the cities and to the caudillos (warlords) in the more climatic harsh parts of the country. Eventually both caudillos and oligarchies seize the chance to revolt against the crown but we never break away from the absolutist culture, even though we establish a constitution and reform it several times, culturally we still have the same ''vertical structure'' that power comes from above, that means weak institutions that don't hold politicians accountable. Extreme oversimplification of course, didn't even talk about dictatorships or Peron, but you get the gist.
More similar to democratic Turkey maybe.
But it's complicated. Even here we can't completely understand it because all the sources and analysis are flawed by the views of fanatics and irrational people that want to throw all the dirt to their "oponents"
Yes. I think what a lot of Liberals need to learn is that all events in that part of the world need to be viewed in a very particular way. Or to be more precise, through the prism of the Hispanic Conquests, and their long term aftermath. Most notably, the old Iberian ruling elites and its deeply corrupting nature towards to body politic as a whole. You name any of the main countries in South America, and you will see the indigenous population trying, in one way or another to free themselves from this almighty millstone.
Novgorod, along with other princedoms, submitted to Mongols. That was essentially why Alexander Nevsky became the Grand Prince.
Nevsky is celebrated in Russia is a hero, but his ancestors were very likely either slaughtered or expropriated during Ivan the Terrible's massacres of Novgorod. I guess this does make him "Russian", if you take the idea that "Russian" is more a joint historical trauma than anything else.
too radical an opinion and does not give a complete picture of the situation.
The part about north-eastern principalities isn't true. Kiev started to lose its importance since the Rus became more and more fragmented and Kiev needed strong defences provided by a relatively centralized state to avoid nomad raids. + Kiev was the center of many feudal wars so it's people suffered from that too, especially the rural folk. The climate was also getting warmer at the time which made settling in the north easier. And lastly, the trade routes also changed, so Kiev was gradually losing its status of a trade hub. There's much more to it than just "Mongols came, Kiev ded" because many cities were rebuilt and restored much of their previous glory, but not Kiev despite the fact that, if anything, it would've been safer after the invasion since Mongols wouldn't constantly attack and pillage their own tributaries. And yeah, the Russians build wooden fortresses long before the Mongols since the wood was just much more easily accessible
good comment.
well yes, since before the mongols burned down Kyiv it was also burnt down by Andrey the first of Muscovy, aswell as his father Yuriy Dolgorukiy (the founder of moscow) trying to capture the Ruthenian crown aswell
Если что, то еще за 100 лет до нашествия монголов, владимир стал новой столицей руси, вместо киева
@@hohli_pidorasiЧто такое Русь вообще?
Титул киевского князя. Владимир наоборот свой титул создавал.
I would like to point out that tethering this north-east migration solely to mongol invasion is a mistake. The migration started a century before the invasion. The reasons were compound: the feudal fragmentation and Cuman raids. The migration of power to north-east was pretty much cemented in 1169 by Mstislav Alexeevich the son of Vladimir-Suzdal principal sacking of Kiev and moving the de facto capital to Vladimir. Kiev still was treated as a de jure seat of the Great Knyaz, but most of them since that time didn't reside there and ruled Kiev by means of appointing vassals. Mongol invasion indeed is important, but don't make it as if it is the only thing. Especially concerning the emergence of north east. It was set to be long before.
U know, that Stalin was Georgian. Brejnev and Khrushev was Ukrainians? Lenin was Jew. So , why you are speaking about russians?
Nikita Krushchev was russian his mother Kseniya Krushcheva was a russian peasant and his father Sergei krushchev was a russian peasant too, just info
Vladimir Lenin's father is russian, just info
I love the Hunnic references to Unbiased History, truly a man of culture
@@ahmedbolbol9243 go away abuser
Ahmed you are insane
Wot
Never used the description “predatory” to describe such systems but makes complete sense
Listen here mister I mean no problems but it is convenient for british colonial system of extracting wealth from conquered lands like India. Also kraut didn't tell anything about Napoleon, First World War and bloody as hell war against nazis. According to his view, Europe was just in process of building parliamentary systems. Europe got freedom from Russia several times you sons of parliament!
@@cardinalerror1 well, now NATO needs to give ruzzia some freedom.
@@mikhaelgribkov4117 well in that case NATO will receive some a few of Sarmats I'm afraid
@@mikhaelgribkov4117 Comment that absolutely didn't age well.
I would love longer extended versions of these videos. Your narrations and your voice is 77% of why I love your videos. If u did hour long voice-only narrations of ur research, I would still listen/watch that, and I think many of ur fans would too!
Watch his previous works
so many hypocracy, one-side view and nazi agenda in one video😂
2:15 "the Chagatai Turks conquered India...", Although it is true that Amir Timur worked for the Chagatai Khanate in the beginning, his descendants including Babur always traced their lineage from Timur, thus calling them Timurids would be more accurate. Babur if you read the Baburnama (his autobiography) has nothing but disdain for the Mongol mercenaries in his army calling them greedy and cowardly, by no means does he consider himself a Mongol. In the first half of the book getting back Samarkand and Ferghana means the greatest thing to him because those were his ancestral lands (Samarkand being Timur's capital) and he gets them only to be chased out to Kabul by Shaibani Khan Uzbek and even after his conquest of Northern India, he tells Humayun his oldest son to one day return back and take Ferghana their ancestral homeland.
@nano death sounds like kraut needs to do another 2 hour long video on the history of the mongol empire
@nano death The Golden Horde was Mongol, it was the Khanate given to Chinggis's (Genghis's) oldest son Jochi's Family. Timur's descendants did not consider themselves Mongols.
@nano death
1. The Golden Horde was at its peak between the period when Genghis Khan died and Jochi received it to when Möngke Khan died and it got further broken up. It briefly became militarily strong under the rulership of Uzbeg Khan.
2. There is no Turkic tribe called the "Tartars", it's a generic term used by Europeans to describe steppe nomads all the way from Avars and Kipchaks to the Mongols so your statement that it turned "tartar" is grossly wrong on top of that Turkic tribes were assimilated with Khamag Mongols (Chinggis Khan's Tribe) from the beginning of his conquest that doesn't make his empire Turkic, at no point after the Mongol conquest did a Turkic non Mongol sit on the throne of any khaganate because after Chinggis's death the title of Khan became hereditary meaning you had to trace your lineage to the Borjigin lineage (Chinggis's Lineage) i.e a Turkic ruler can't become a Khagan, that is why Amir Timur could never take the title of Khan and was stuck with using Amir (Major Islamic Noble Title).
@@disce. Timur was from the turkified Barlas tribe, a mongol tribe who migrated into central asia and adopted turkic culture. Interestingly enough his descent could even be traced back to a great ancestor between him and Genghis and he would even later marry a Borjigin princess. Thus i find it frankly ironic that Babur considers himself to be Timurid but not mongol.
@@googane7755
1. The only common ancestor between Chagatai and Qarachar Barlas, his retainer and the scion of Barlas clan is the common ancestor of Bodonchar (a legendary khan) and the only proof of this lineage was that Barlas claimed that was case, they couldn't and have never traced his lineage back to Bodonchar, he could've just as easily lied about their lineage to secure his position as a Chagatai retainer (an extremely common practice in the medieval age).
2. Lineage does not start with the oldest, it starts with the greatest, you might find it ironic that Babur would call himself a Timurid while being born in Ferghana (Central Asia), near Samarkand (Timur's Capital) even though Timur had carved an empire only three generations ago as an Islamic Amir (which coincidentally was what Babur was too) instead of a pagan shamanist Mongol (who were seen as barbaric invaders by almost all settled people till recent times) retainer to a son of Chinggis (Chagatai) whose lineage would lose all political power to the Toluid line (Kublai, Ariq Boke were all Toluids) but to Babur and his family made all the sense. Timur looked up to Chinggis even married a Borjigin woman and even Babur was matrilineally related to Chinggis but to him religiously, politically and culturally the Mongols were foreigners because if his family identified themselves as Mongol then they would have to swear fealty to the Borjigin Khans (closest being the Chagatai Khanate) but as Timurids (which is what they identified as) they were an independent group who owed their greatness to Timur which they did.
Kraut: in *insert central and western European country here* there was *insert good thing here*
Kraut 10 seconds later: in Russia
tbf it is need to provide further contrast and context as russia identify itself as european and majority of its history was trying to catch up to Western European Development while expanding in Central Europe
Прошу зауважити автора.Що з київської русі вийшли три різні народи.Та три різні держави.
Зі слов'ян Київської Русі*. Народів там було багато, і не всі з них слов'яни.
While it is true that the Mongols dealt the final blow to destroy the Kievan Rus, it is important to remember that by the time they came it was already crumbling. The reason for that was that the Crusades had severely crippled Byzantium, disrupting trade across the Varangian-Greek route and thus destroying the main incentive for the Rus to remain a unified state.
*Dude... I'll tell you a terrible secret, there was no Kievan Rus, this is the name of the period when the capital of Rus' was in Kiev, the term Kievan Rus was coined by the historian Solovyov in the 19th century! And for that formation, Kiev became one of the first cities that the Golden Horde destroyed, because they attacked Rus' not from the east, but from the South, there is such a people in Russia, Kalmyks, they are the only people in Europe who profess Buddhism, they are descendants of the Golden Horde!*
@@UltraTotenkopf Kalmyks are not from the golden horde, they are oirat mongols that migrated after converting to buddhism and the dzungar massacre by the Qing i.e a very long time after the golden horde.
"now typically the mongols would become absorbed into the ruling class of the conquered nation, unless of course, your the Russians" cue Hercules and the Mongols clip
Wait the mongols are supposed to be the exception, not the other way around
@@kevincronk7981 Rus was the only conquered region to the north of their original area. The settled everything to the south of the steppes, but they never tried to move north into harsher climate
what are you talking about, Mongols write in cyrillic
@@dango470 Because they became a Russian sphere of influence in the late 19th/20th century and changed their alphabet to fit their benifactors. Mongolians in Outer Mongolia(which is part of China), use the original Mongolian text.
@@jojoni1134
joke
^
|
|
|
|
o
^
|
^
Thanks for this. I love your history channels for it has a unique perspective that makes complex history easier to understand without oversimplification.
if this is history, then astrology is cosmology.
hi from Russia!
I definitely clicked on a video named "The Origins of Russian Absolutism" and am now watching a video named "The Origins of Russian Authoritatianism" somehow... strange
Kraut Made an error on the naming , and he didn't correct it since he felt, in the context of this video they are the same thing
Another Mandela effect...
Me: Why Putin?
Kraut: Let me tell you about the Mongols, son
Me, 10 minutes later: Putin?
Kraut: *WE GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE*
Kievan Rus never exist
cool story
@@fernandowhitmore9281 I mean, he’s right. There was no Kyivan Rus', it was just Rus'. The term Kyivan Rus' was created like in the 18th century by russian historians.