Is it true that Russia would be culturally and politically more like Scandinavia if the Mongols hadn’t invaded and corrupted them into authoritarians? An Italian guy explained to me how Russia’s centuries long transformation into a corrupt gangster state is a larger scale parallel to Sicily turning into a gangster state due to cruel invasions by Greeks, Arabs, Frenchmen, Spainiards, and Italians.
Orthodox Christianity (where the faith is directly subordinate to the king) was simply a cherry on top
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Exactly
Its not that mongols changed the russian genetics (that would be later with the USSR) its that they changed their mentality/morality
>Is it true that Russia would be culturally and politically more like Scandinavia if the Mongols hadn’t invaded and corrupted them into authoritarians? An Italian guy explained to me how Russia’s centuries long transformation into a corrupt gangster state is a larger scale parallel to Sicily turning into a gangster state due to cruel invasions by Greeks, Arabs, Frenchmen, Spainiards, and Italians.
Nope, because Russia turning to despotism wasn't caused by mongols.
Google Ivan the Third reform.
It's all began from cargo-cult of Ottoman/Late Byzantine Empire.
Lol, medieval russian (aka proto modern Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians) mentality before mongol invasion was "kill your uncle along with his family"
How could you reverse this process?
Stop pandering to vatnigs fairy tales
Why can't liberal subhumans just bite the bullet and say that 90s Russia was hell on earth that it ended with Putler becoming dictator?
Russia acted like any imperialist/autocratic nation of it's time
not my problem
Putin mirrors Stalin in russia's fluctuation of being shitty and weak or shitty but also strong enough to threaten to rest of europe. Whatever improvements Putin made, millions of russians watched him and the other oligarchs steal everything that wasn't nailed down, and continues to employ the same ruthless authoritarianism that goes back to the Tsars. -
>Whatever improvements Putin made, millions of russians watched him and the other oligarchs steal everything that wasn't nailed down, and continues to employ the same ruthless authoritarianism that goes back to the Tsars. -
You are missing few details.
Nah such situations wasn't alien for 90s
Although Putin wasn't responsible for stabilising society.
>You are missing few details.
correct me
>correct me
Millions of russians wasn't simply watching how Putin and Co. doing their business, but were granted semi-normal and stable income, to not bother when he began (form 2001) building his little "empire"
Due to the post-coup purges (mostly high ranked bolsheviks) and Putin's pardon shitton of low and middle rank soviet functionaries were happy to return to their average life, but even better, because now they had access to money and right to spend them as they wanted
High gas and oil prices and of course Germany
Longstory-shgort: Putin managed to share some pennies from enourmous export revenue with population in hist first two terms and build finished building of propaganda machine in his second two terms.
Fair enough, there's some parallels with modern China in that regard. Do you think Putin's model will last after he's gone?
>Putin mirrors Stalin in russia's fluctuatio
source: my bum btw
i wouldn't find this hugely shocking, but i strongly suspect this image is fake based on the kid's lighthearted reactions. some of you guys are really gullible.
A lot of child prostitutes and kids in CP actually like their jobs. Even FBI reports have said as much. Imagine what it was like for you when you were a horny kid now imagine getting paid to frick.
We didn’t make child prostitution illegal on the basis that kids never enjoyed it…
>We didn’t make child prostitution illegal on the basis that kids never enjoyed it
It's not something the state can make money off of is why. The legality/illegality of almost anything is not really tied to public morals so much as it is the amount of tax revenue it can generate.
why do nonces delude themselves into thinking 10 year olds would enjoy being shagged by fat hairy 50 year old blokes?
You speak like Russia still isn't a shithole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Kievan_Rus%27#Initial_contact
>The Mongols attacked from several directions. One section attacked Suzdal, one from the Volga, and another from the south towards Ryazan. According to Rashid al-Din Hamadani, the Siege of Ryazan was conducted by Batu, Orda, Güyük, Mengu Qa'an, Kulkan, Kadan, and Buri. The city fell after three days.[12] Alarmed by the news, Yuri II sent his sons to detain the invaders, but they were defeated and ran for their lives. Yuri II also fled Vladimir for Yaroslavl.[11] Having burnt down Kolomna and Moscow, the horde laid siege to Vladimir on February 4, 1238. Three days later, the capital of Vladimir-Suzdal was taken and burnt to the ground. The royal family perished in the fire, while the grand prince retreated northward. Crossing the Volga, Vladimir mustered a new army, which was encircled and totally annihilated by the Mongols in the Battle of the Sit River on March 4.
>And the Tartars took the [Ryazan] on December 21... They likewise killed the [Prince] and Knyaginya, and men, women and children, monks, nuns and priests, some by fire, some by the sword and violated nuns, priests' wives, good women and girls in the presence of their mothers and sisters.[13]
>—Novgorod Chronicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Kievan_Rus%27#:~:text=The%20Mongol%20invasion%20of%20Kievan,destruction%20being%20Novgorod%20and%20Pskov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Samara_Bend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kiev_(1240)
It’s true in terms of Russia’s political organization. The mongol invasion really changed everything and set the stage for modern Russia politics. The mongol invasion devastated Russia generally, but it particularly destroyed Russia’s nobility and narrowed it greatly. Most of them died to the mongols and only a few were left to pick up the pieces. Whereas places like England had a lot of nobles who could be quarrelsome and could demand more decentralized rights, the Russians were left with just a few guys at the top, particularly the Grand Dukes. There were so few nobles for the Dukes of Muscovy and early Russia to choose from to help run things that the Dukes/Tsars had to just pick people and elevate them, but this put their role in government totally at the whim of the monarch. The same checks and balances in the form of landed vassals just didn’t exist in Russia in the same way it did in England or elsewhere. This lack of nobility plus threats of steppe invasions resulted in a very centralized state that had no counterbalances to an absolute monarch. Then you also must consider the religious beliefs of the Russians following the end of Byzantium. They believed that they were the only true and independent Christian state left. Their Orthodox religion spurred them on to survive and expand at all costs—the whole third Rome thing and all that. Whereas something like the Magna Carta is the political tradition of more decentralized and individual minded British (and Americans), the political tradition of Russia is the strong centralization and absolute rule of post-mongol Muscovy. That tradition would shape the mentality and attitudes of Russians until today (hundreds of years of absolute tsar rule and then many years of dictatorship).
t. Guy who took a Russian politics course three years ago and is trying to remember it.
high quality post
>There were so few nobles for the Dukes of Muscovy
May be because Mucovy wasn't even a principality, but a relatively small trade town of Grand Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal when Mongol arrived? In fact, if anyone who benefited from mongol invasion it was 3 towns: Tver', Moscow and Novgorod
Not sure what's worse, the idea that Norseshit mutts from Sweden, a state that formed in the 11th century, founded Russia, or these liberal-tier takes of Russian history based on preconceptions. Now, onto the matter:
1. One of the most important things about the Mongol invasion was the mass de-urbanization it resulted in. A lot of the economic structures of the Kievan Rus' were the same as the rest of Europe, but the destruction wrought led to a collapse of proto-capitalism in the Russian principalities. This is one of the reasons that the weight of the Rus' moved north-east: as peasants left the cities to settle in the virgin lands of the Finno-Uralic peoples (who were mostly semi-nomadic). This led to an economic recovery that was based on primary industries, as opposed to the post-black death recovery which saw a growth in secondary industry. As such, Russia was stun-locked into agrarianism it didn't break out of properly until WWII.
2. The introduction of serfdom was, in part, a result of the migration to the north-east: as lords were scared of peasants moving to these virgin lands and thus removing their income (since they had no taxes from secondary industry, due to this kind of proto-deindustrialization), they instituted serfdom. What needs to be mentioned is that Russia had a system of debt slavery alongside serfdom: but this slavery was far harsher, and allowed non-nobles to acquire labor, which was obviously a threat to the developing boyar class. This slavery was outlawed but serfdom was universalized.
3. The princes themselves did have Veche (local assemblies) as Novgorod did, it was just that they were again a threat to their extractivist rule under the Mongols, so they explicitly used the Mongols to crush them. It wasn't just that the princes were authoritarian to emulate the Mongols, they used their ability to enforce state violence to crush the assemblies that in Europe would develop into parliaments. (1/2).
>
Is it true that Russia would be culturally and politically more like Scandinavia if the Mongols hadn’t invaded and corrupted them into authoritarians? An Italian guy explained to me how Russia’s centuries long transformation into a corrupt gangster state is a larger scale parallel to Sicily turning into a gangster state due to cruel invasions by Greeks, Arabs, Frenchmen, Spainiards, and Italians.
Orthodox Christianity (where the faith is directly subordinate to the king) was simply a cherry on top (OP)
>
t. Guy who took a Russian politics course three years ago and is trying to remember it.
>
Nope, because Russia turning to despotism wasn't caused by mongols.
Google Ivan the Third reform.
It's all began from cargo-cult of Ottoman/Late Byzantine Empire.
Lol, medieval russian (aka proto modern Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians) mentality before mongol invasion was "kill your uncle along with his family"
4. On the church, caesaropapism is integral to it, but it must be stressed that the power of the church was also destroyed by the Mongol invasion. They had wealth like the Catholic Church and were accruing political capital (especially since in the divided situation the Kievan states existed as they were one of the few transnational institutions). The Mongols plundered and destroyed a lot of the wealth the church had, leading to the weakening of its position as an independent entity, even though it had a lot of cultural capital at the time of Moscow overthrowing the Mongol empire, like the one cultural unifier of all the Rus'.
5. There was a post-Mongols period where a parliamentary system could have established itself in Russia. The Zemskiy Sobor during the Time of Troubles had immense power and crowned several Tsars. However, it never used that power to give itself power by making the Tsar sign a document akin to the Magna Carta, and accepted each time the Tsar wanted absolute authority to rule. (2/2).
Norseshit historiography, and to an extent, Western historiography, has the gall to assume minor raids aimed at Antean fishing villages carried greater sociopolitical ramifications than the Wends sacking several of the largest cities in Northern Europe, including Konungahella, which was the largest "civitas" in N. Europe at the time. Regarding Russian influence on Northern Europe, that one is overlooked for reasons that are entirely ahistorical, just during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, Northern Europe was his political and economic playground, let alone during Novgorod's tenure in the Hanseatic League.
>Sobor during the Time of Troubles had immense power and crowned several Tsars.
Only two. Mikhael Romanov and his son Alexios
>the mass de-urbanization it resulted in.
Actually no, since Russian population didn't suffer much from the invasion, as westerners wants to believe. Only political centres suffered.
>3. The princes themselves did have Veche (local assemblies) as Novgorod did,
Most of them didn't Ryazan had, but Halych, Wolyn and Vladimir abbandonned vecha traditions (not sure about Polotsk), when Daniel of Wolyn seized control over Kiyv he dismantled Kiyvan veche as well, it was only re-established by locals durring the siege
The population centers shifted from the traditional south to the "seasonal" north because of the weaponized autism of the Mongols, I wonder how Ukrainians if they're even aware of it, interpret this information.
>The population centers shifted from the traditional south to the "seasonal" north because of the weaponized autism of the Mongols,
It's actually no. centers were shifting since Vladimir Monomach, due to several economic reasons
Interesting, can you name these reasons, if it's not a problem?
Surely
- Trade route "from Varyag to Greeks" (aka from Novgorod to Kiyw and down to the Black Sea vie Dniepr and smaller rivers) had declined due to:
1) Constant wars between Byzantine and Seljuks over Asia Minor, especially northern ports
2) Establishing Crusader states which allowed Europeans (mostly Italians) sieze direct control over sea routes in Middleterranean sea from Levant to Europe
3) Kipchaks, despite Monomach victories over them they remained much stronger force than previous pechenegs, so Souther principalities acces to the Black Sea was less stronger, they also separated principalities from Crimean theme
And all while Dniepr was becomming more and more local trade route, rather than international Volga trade route (from Varyags to Persians) remained actual, since it was under control of Volga Bulgaria who kept good relatonships with kipchaks and allowed direct access to Iran and Kwarezm, which forced russians merchants begin establishing outpost and towns closer to northern Volga (becuase Bulgaria was also pretty rich trading with them was more profitable than with kipchaks) which increased economical and industrial growth of the North-East principalities
- Food. All russian principalities (if you compare Russian Empire, USSR and Ukraine map with medieval map you will see that future breadbasket wasn't under control of southern principalities, it was steppe) used slash-and-burn agriculture. so once they runnued out of good forest to burn in the older lands peasants began to move where forest remained untouched
- Population decrease due to political instability. Kiyw principality was becomming more like a playground for the newly emerged Grand Duchies Halych-Wolyn from the West and Vladimir-Suzdal from the East, and each of them was treating locals not very different from the Mongols. When Mongols besieged Kiyw there were no prince, just voevoda appointed by the Daniel of Wolyn
Do you have sources that are available for download? I'd like to read more into this.
>Do you have sources that are available for download?
Sorry m8, I am Russian (citiezen) so most of my books are on Russian language, but if thread will remain alive for 1-2 days, I will look for the translated versions. Btw you can try to google something "economical history of Russian principalities"
>Actually no
Actually yes
>only 1 huge city was destroyed
>no drastic changes in demography between pre-invasion period and population census commited by mongols
>if the Mongols hadn’t invaded and corrupted them into authoritarians?
You're definitely on to something here. The fact that the Khans were able to successfully invade their lands left a kind of cultural impact on the political theory, which is a kind of ruthless might makes right mentality. On some level, their pride forces them to grudgingly recognize that the Khans were right, but wish it was them instead of the Mongols, so they subconsciously turn their new Great City, Moscow, into the realization of that ideal. The ideal of a khanate running a massive land army and acting just like Genghis. Instead of being a third Rome, it's more of an imitation of the Yurt caravan of old Genghis. Interestingly enough, this is also what influenced the Chinese dynasties of the Qing and the PRC. Their "great city" that wants to imitate the Mongol's success is Beijing, aka Khanbaliq. A city that was literally founded by Kublai Khan. Located far to the north of the historical capital cities of ancient China, they have consciously chosen multiple times to have their capital be in the old winter capital of Kublai and they subconsciously want to imitate his success, similar to Russia. The psychology they want to project is one of dominating by fear, similar to the 13th century Mongols, because even though they were conquered, they are almost forced to grudgingly recognize that this way of conquering by zerg rush and pillaging was somehow "right," because it worked on them in one time. This is where China (PRC/Beijing) and Russia (Moscow) are both at mentally.
>The ideal of a khanate running a massive land army and acting just like Genghis. Instead of being a third Rome, it's more of an imitation of the Yurt caravan of old Genghis. Interestingly enough, this is also what influenced the Chinese dynasties of the Qing and the PRC.
Nice boogeyman, but Russia's problems began exactly from adopting concept of the Third Rome and turning it's population from free people into serfs
>turning it's population from free people into serfs
The biggest change from freedom to serfdom happened under katherina the great
Truly germs are bane of Russia dont matter if they rule or invade it
>The biggest change from freedom to serfdom happened under katherina the great
Factually incorrect. Under Katherina hapenned the largest pre-Revolution peasant and cossacks revolt, but the Russian instute of serfdom began forming since Ivan the Third/, became almost irreversable under Ivan the Terrible and finished by Peter the Great
>Truly germs are bane of Russia dont matter if they rule or invade it
I would rather say Moscow Westaboosm is the bane of Russia
Also I should add, anything that has its capital elsewhere, like in Nanjing or Taipei, or in Kiev/Kyiv (arguably), represents resistance to this rule.
Both examples are incorrect, and rather put on banner for the sake of propaganda and ideology
>Do you think Putin's model will last after he's gone?
Depends how he will gone. I doubt he will be able to leave this world in nuclear blaze (he loves life too much to press the button while he can walk and enjoy luxury, but when he will be on the deathbed none will take his orders seriously (like Lenin's last years)), but it's rather a question will Russia began to collapse after War with Ukraine will be over, or it will be able to crawl back like Saddam after Desert Storm.
If none (EU, US-UK, or China for some reason) from withing decide "okay we are finishing Russia and kickstarting our neo-bolsheviks" there would be some political power-struggle since Putin doesn't have heir, but it could end simmiliar to rising of Khruschev (small inner strife without major changes) after death of Stalin
Beijing has been the northern terminal of the grand canal since the 6th century AD and they were the southern capital of the Liao dynasty and then the capital of the Jin. You're really stretching this subconscious psychoanalysis.
The Ming also only moved the capital to Beijing because it was Zhu Di's former princely fief as prince of Yan and he launched a rebellions against his nephew to take over as the Yongle emperor and he moved the national capital to his own princely capital.
The first Ming Emperor had no intention of using Beijing as the capital. In fact he investigated the feasibility of moving the capital to Xi'an which his son the crown prince inspected but the crown orince died and the move was halted.
The first Northern Song Emperor also wanted to move the capital to Chang'an but his officials objected and demanded the capital stay in Kaifeng Bianjing.
>Beijing has been the northern terminal of the grand canal since the 6th century AD and they were the southern capital of the Liao dynasty and then the capital of the Jin.
There were cities located nearby but the historical center and founding place of Beijing proper is the town center, which is a set of towers build by Kublai, and the town was originally called Khanbaliq rather than Beijing. Anything before this is referring to a different city.
>The first Ming Emperor had no intention of using Beijing as the capital.
I didn't mention the Ming dynasty for this reason because they're more of a mixed bag. I was talking about why the Da Qing and the CCP chose Beijing specifically because of the Mongol connection.
>I was talking about why the Da Qing and the CCP chose Beijing specifically because of the Mongol connection.
...
Da Qing and CCP know they're foreign. They are just like the Yuan dynasty through ruling by fear and big armies, and they want everyone to know it by making Kublai Khan's city Khanbaliq be their headquarters. Similar story with Moscow, although at least that city wasn't literally founded by Genghis Khan.
Or may be both captured Beijing early than they captured Nanking
That can't be it because at one point Nanjing was a candidate to be capital of the PRC before they settled on Beijing as the final HQ for the CCP.
>That can't be it because at one point Nanjing was a candidate to be capital of the PRC before they settled on Beijing
Yeah because they were forced to leave Southern China by Gomindan forces and relocate to the north
The simplest answer as to why they chose Beijing is precedent.
Wrong. The surviving city of Beijing was constructed by the Ming. The Forbidden city, temples of heaven and agriculture and Beijing city walls and layout are Ming constructions and not from the Yuan dynasty.
The Qing inherited nearly all the architecture and walls in Beijing from the Ming.
Kraut is Italian?
Russia is the political inheritor of the golden horde
Rus was already Slavicized in the 900s. There was no trace of anything Nordic there. Stop wewuzzing you chinlet balding bastards.
>if the Mongols hadn’t invaded and corrupted them into authoritarians
>corrupt gangster state
No you can blame the Bolsheviks for that.
> Is it true that Russia would be culturally and politically more like Scandinavia if the Mongols hadn’t invaded
No, it would be their own thing, but far more European and far more aestetic.
Russia was Slavenized already by the 960s, by the 1100s it was utterly Slavic.
Basically you would have a continuation of Rus cities and culture into the late Medieval world and a Russia nearly entirely focused to the west.
It would be a completely unrecognizable Russia, a Russia that likely would have never even expanded eastwards, it would be like a massive continental Italy of the east, with a bunch of various urbanized states existing under a vague identity for centuries onwards.
it is on point that you post a painting of the Massacre of Novgorod, an event that basically decided the future of Russian culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Novgorod
jealous primitive Mongomuscowites just could not handle the sight of wooden paved streets and such a wealthy city
motherfrickers literally made IRL Rivendell and the Muscowites had to destroy it because of how fricking aestetic it was
Classic eastoid move really. Glad all the shitty subhuman types of asiatics are bugmen now who can't into such moronic violence.
>Classic eastoid move really
Yeah because westerners never sacked the cities, am I right?
>open any article on massacre of novgorod
>ctrl+f
>0 results for hanseatic league
>0 results for muscovy company
>close worthless article
How come the pop history narratives about the massacre of Novgorod always leave out the fact that it was a critical Hanseatic League port city, and that Ivan was in the process of forging an extensive trade relationship with the English (the main competitors of the Hanseatic League, alongside the Dutch), and granting extensive legal trade privileges to the newly established Muscovy Company, i.e. the original English trade corporation whose charter and practices later ones like the East India Company copied?
Dude signs an exclusive trade deal with one corporation and immediately destroys its main competitor, and popsci presents it as a random chimpout without any connection.
>popsci
*pophist rather
>being israeliteed by anglos into killing your gentle brothers
is that supposed to make it better?
>Novgorodians
>gentle
Novgorodians burned Moscow and were making a serious killing off of selling Norsemen and Finns into slavery.
>gentle brothers
Sven please, you are no different than Hanz
No, it makes it worse.
But more importantly, I think it's always important to highlight situations where history is presented as wacky monarchs doing wacky things while ignoring powerful organizations and economic factors involved in said things.
> Is it true that Russia would be culturally and politically more like Scandinavia
Actually it is quite possible that Scandinavia would become far more like Russia, because without the Mongol conquest, Novgorod, Pskov and the likes remain far more powerful and influential in the Baltic, and likely influencing Sweden to a large degree over the 1300s-1500s, not to mention Finland.
In fact the Novgorodian slavshit marauders regularly raided Sweden for a century and more after Sweden stopped being viking.
In 1187, the ushkuiniks(Novgorodian bear raiders, called that because they killed polar bears and stuck their heads onto the wows of their ships) took the Swedish city of Sigtuna and razed it.
In 1318, they took Abo shortly, then basically the main city of Finland, and took its treasury as loot.
In 1320 and 1323, they attacked Norway to such a degree that Norway wrote to the Pope pleading for help against the Orthodox heretics attacking them.
In fact, those famous massive decorated gates of the cathedral of Novgorod that still stand there today were looted and stolen from a cathedral in Sweden in the 1300s.
This all stopped when the Mongols forced Novgorod to focus entirely inward and be weakened.
> ushkuiniks
It is truly incredible how overlooked those guys were.
The motherfrickers raided the Golden Horde on a regular basis lol
They even took and razed the capital city of the Horde, Sarai Batu in 1374 lol
Didnt know about those guys thanks
> Pskov
The Pskov Republic is really interesting.
Also quite fascinating how so far in the east you had two quite large actual republics.
I mean yeah, basically oligarchies, but still, republics, right there, in the fricking northeast of Europe...
Why would a state that has never instituted anything even remotely similar to the Danelaw be culturally and politically more like Northern Europe?
The Mongols had nothing to do with it.
Ask yourself does Poland and the Baltics have the same culture or history as Scandinavia?? No.
By the time the Kievan Rus expanded to Northwest Russia, the Vikings weren't even relevant among them.
In the High and Late Middle Ages, beginning with the Northern Crusades you had German and Scandinavian Crusaders and Teutonic Knights waging war across the Baltics, Poland and parts of Northwest Russia. Their initial goal was to Christianize the pagans to Catholicism, but they subsequently continued wars against the Catholic Poles and Eastern Orthodox.
Poles just never were actual catholics
> Ask yourself does Poland and the Baltics have the same culture or history as Scandinavia?? No.
Yeah, wonder why that would be,
almost like some massive eastern Empire,
like the one we are literally talking about was turned Mongolized,
conquered them and kept them that way for 250 years
or something
I think most people here have very high opinion on alleged "European" elements and very low one on what they consider to be "Asian". They are also, unintentionally maybe, supporting the "Eurasian" exceptionalism thesis of some Russian nationalists.
How do they explain that Russia became even worse of an authoritarian and oppressive state under Western influence in the 1700-1917 period?
Russia had a part German Imperial family, a Baltic German military and economic elite, plus many other smaller Western groups, like Scandinavian and French immigrants, they copied French and Italian architecture, plus Western uniforms, military tactics, technology and so on.
Yet Russia was an oppressive state with serfdom, almost total illiteracy outside the few major cities, and treated even its own Slav like cattle, not just the Turkic and Caucasians ones.
Also, it was Baltic German commanders that massacred Caucasian people.
"Asians" didn't do these things. Mongols and Tatars were long rendered irrelevant by that point.
It was "barbarian" and "Asian-looking" Cossaks who rebelled against this Empire.
Yep.
Germs are blight on all free people and Earth.
>Authoritarism
You can't take something if there it doesn't exist. Mongols fricking CHOOSE their leaders, the best argument against it what mongols thrown away veche institution, even so, veches were already largely supressed by local princes (Especially Vladimir) before the mongol invasion
Shhhhhh.....
Don't break Eastern Europeans delusions, despite their hate to each other they all believes that the reason why they are poorer than Germany, or Scandinavia, or France or Italy is someone else, Mongols, Russians, Prussians, Austrians, Soviets.
It's a disgrace because children are impressionable and can be and are being exploited/abused.
Then again, exposing them to sodomites, like some westerners (i.e. woke Judeo-secular progressives) do, is just as bad if not worse. They both deserve a place in hell.
>makes empty threats of showing up to fight
>doesn't show up and shuts up
Esek-Turk tiny dick energy, I blame your maternal side for that.
Devastating invasions of people with very different mentality can cause some alteraion in mentality of conquered. Russia is one of thousand examples so theres some merit of what you said OP. Polish, Greeks, Georgians, etc all had their mentality in some ways changed after suffering invasions from east.
Pinning the blame on the Mongols is stupid.
The Mongolians successfully revolted against the Communist Party and become a multi-party Democracy with frequent elections. Economically they are a resource state but politically might as well be the West. The Mongolians were also always willing to dabble to new religion to the point that in the 17th century the Khalkha decided to subordinate their state to a theocratic ruler as in Tibet.
why do peoples ignore byzantine's negative influence on russians?
Because morons here jerk off to Byzantium as some le epik rome magical place.
While in fact it was as degenerate as modern globohomosexual states. Greek were lazy corrupt, inept morons that prostituted their own daughters with every invader.
Protestant plz. Epicureanism is much better philosophy than anglos mumbling and emotional supression
All in all the blame lies on russians themselves, they certainly had very unlucky spree of tyranical rulers who destroyed all consultative/representative institues in 150 years and left role model for the future rulers.
don't think you can blame the mongols for how muscovites turned out to be like the mongols wrecked everything in their path all the way to europe until they suddenly just decided to turn back and let rome rot in its own corruption and filth
the mongols were brutal conquerors but they also tried to get along with people, most of the time people saw them as savages because they were migratory instead of building wonders which lead them to war after their diplomats got beheaded by muslims in india etc
the usual way they acted was going to a place, trying to trade / diplomacy or raid them, the locals thought they were bunch of hicks on horses and then the locals got their asses handed to them because horse archers op and their leaders actually knew how to recruit people who knew siege tech etc by "convincing them" to help them
there are very few places on the old world that weren't touched by the mongols at least some way they spread really far through the steppes and i think they learned their brutality from hostile environment of the steppes and their enemies treating them like shit and disrespecting them thinking they were just some idiots on horses
You're morbidly fat, mixed to the point where you cannot even identify as anything but that phantom state Turkish identity, and you pussied out after making promises to drag your drug-using ass to fight me.
You're a pussy, Afshar, like your runaway forefathers, don't you forget that.
No, you need need to stop projecting, there's no shame in your israeli heritage, which is maternal, therefore making you israeli too.
Now you're denying that you're projecting because you hide the fact that your mother is israeli? What are you ashamed of, fatty? What's with steroid usage in high school, not man enough to produce testosterone on your own?
>Mongols hadn’t invaded and corrupted them into authoritarians?
Political structure of muscovy has nothing to do with mongols. It was modeled after byzantine monarchy, which muscovites adopted and perfected. Muscovys government was coherent (morons like you call it authoritarian), stable and effective unlike that of the mongols, who collapsed every time their ruler died.
>where the faith is directly subordinate to the king
Expect it wasn't, what you just described is protestantism. In Russia church and government were on equal footings until Peter 1 installed moronic protestant policies and established synod.
>In Russia church and government were on equal footings
Nope
Nice counterargument. Ever heard of byzantine symphonia?