Autocracy and centralization of power helped them to mobilize resourses and curb dissent. Whereas, for Poles, liberum veto messed up attempts of conducting any coherent policy and blocked all reforms.
>Whereas, for Poles, liberum veto messed up attempts of conducting any coherent policy and blocked all reforms.
lol this, why did they try to have le democracy when they were surrounded by enemies on all sides? literally every direction was a significant enemy.
Its aristocracy not democracy, nobles were large chunk of population and had enormous influence. And the election of new kings meant that every new king would have to promise concessions to get chosen. It was fine at first, but eventually spiraled out of control.
The lands were vast and Russia's enemies never cooperated properly while Russia took advantage of its central location to deal with enemies piecemeal.
Plus, the enemies to the East of Russia were backwards and less of a threat than picrel suggests. By the time Russia engage in prolonged conflict with the formidable western opponents its Eastern flanks has been largely secured and turned into a reliable and valuable asset for Russian war effort
The late khanates were in horrible dogshit states and literally depopulated areas. It was easy for a centralized state to sweep in and frick their shit up with rifles once the steppe horsemen were rendered obsolete.
Autocracy and centralization of power helped them to mobilize resourses and curb dissent. Whereas, for Poles, liberum veto messed up attempts of conducting any coherent policy and blocked all reforms.
>Whereas, for Poles, liberum veto messed up attempts of conducting any coherent policy and blocked all reforms.
lol this, why did they try to have le democracy when they were surrounded by enemies on all sides? literally every direction was a significant enemy.
Its aristocracy not democracy, nobles were large chunk of population and had enormous influence. And the election of new kings meant that every new king would have to promise concessions to get chosen. It was fine at first, but eventually spiraled out of control.
Why do Russians compare Baltic states with a rooster?
Rooster means prison homosexual in Russia
Truly the Black folk of Europe
h-hot...
Surely you don't mean that homophobes are disgusting hypocritical sodomites?
cuz it looks like one
Hello where is proofs :DDD
Chick is young Prussia
It's a ghetto thing. A "rooster" in Russian slang is somebody who has been made another man's b***h in prison.
these russians memes are the best, if only i knew what the dialogue means
It's various swear words in local lingo and in slavonic script.
It's to signify local color and dissent.
The lands were vast and Russia's enemies never cooperated properly while Russia took advantage of its central location to deal with enemies piecemeal.
Plus, the enemies to the East of Russia were backwards and less of a threat than picrel suggests. By the time Russia engage in prolonged conflict with the formidable western opponents its Eastern flanks has been largely secured and turned into a reliable and valuable asset for Russian war effort
Katsaps are so pathetic
>ДЇЇЇЇЇЇДЬКO
molodets
>Map shows Russian control of Caucasus and Turkestan in 18th century
It was until like 1870 that stuff started solidifying there
The late khanates were in horrible dogshit states and literally depopulated areas. It was easy for a centralized state to sweep in and frick their shit up with rifles once the steppe horsemen were rendered obsolete.