Kamil Galeev Profile picture
Feb 14, 2022 24 tweets 8 min read Read on X
How Russia became Polish (spoiler: Ukraine helped)

Russia's been historically affected by many cultures. German impact of 18-19th cc is well-recognised, Tatar impact of 14-16th - only grudgingly. But ppl are unaware of Polish influence that transformed Russia in 17th c (thread) Image
It all started in 1598 with the death of Fyodor Ivanovich. He was the last Rurikid on the Russian throne - descendant of Vikings who reportedly ruled Russian states since 862. After his death Russia entered into dynastic crisis and quickly spiralled into chaos Image
Poland-Lithuania first entered the conflict by supporting pretenders - False-Dmitry I and II. Then Poland got involved directly. Poles smashed Russian armies, captured Tsar Shuisky and occupied Moscow. They raided Russia very deep north and east putting it to fire and sword Image
I just randomly chose one of many towns that were burnt down - Galich-Mersky. 'Mersky' refers to 'Merya' - Finno-Ugric tribe. That means it was a very remote fort built in then Finnic land and isn't easily accessible even now. Still Polish cavalry got there and burnt it Image
What did Russia do? Well, it submitted. The Bojar Duma (kinda House of Lords) elected Polish prince Wladislaw as the new Tsar. Why didn't he become a Tsar then? For two reasons. First, he didn't convert to Orthodox Christianity. Second, he didn't bother to come to his coronation Image
In other words, Polish prince didn't become Russian Tsar because he didn't do the formalities. So the chaos continued. Finally, the levy from Nizhny Novgorod made Polish garrison of Kremlin to surrender and slaughtered them all. Next year, new Romanov dynasty was elected Image
One could assume that the Old Muscovy was restored. I disagree. I will argue that the Old Muscovy died in the Time of Troubles and new New Muscovy was different. The effect of Polish destruction of Old Muscovy was far stronger than that of destruction of Old Prussia by Napoleon Image
Let's start with the language. How were the noblemen called? In Old Muscovy the aristocracy were called Bojars, and the gentry - Dvorjans. In New Muscovy gentry called themselves шляхта. It was a borrowed Polish term szlachta. Russian nobles styled themselves after the Poles
Let's open biography of admiral Ushakov: 'In 1761 he was admitted to a Szlachta (Dvorjan) Naval College'. Sounds strange. Well, initially both Army and Navy academies were called Szlachta colleges. They were renamed to Dvorjan in 1760s when old Polish terms became problematic Image
So the new Russian nobility called themselves szlachta and probably thought of themselves similarly. That coincided with a huge social revolution in Russia which is described empirically but not conceptualised theoretically. The enormous expansion of serfdom in 1610-1620s Image
How did Russia look like in 16th c? According to the tax documents (we remember these are 'sources-remains' not BS chronicles), it was predominantly a country of:

1. single-homesteads or small villages
2. personally free peasants
Ofc serfdom existed. But it was mostly clustered in:

1. Moscow
2. Tver
3. Novgorod

Moscow (orange) was the seat of power and much of slaveowning class lived here. Tver and Novgorod were new conquests of Ivan III (pink) and their population was mostly turned into property Image
What happened in the 1610-1620s was the huge expansion of serfdom. What had previously been one of many statuses of peasants now became the one predominant. Almost every farmer living all the way northward till Beloozero (see that small lake above Moscow) became private property
Clerical serfdom by monasteries occasionally expanded even further, till the White Sea. Consider a case from Arkhangelsk. In the 1600s Siiski monastery was suing peasants of two villages, insisting they're its property. Peasants objected. In 1610 they won the case in the court
But with Romanov election rules of the game changed. Now monastery hegumen Jonah simply sent his armed servants who destroyed houses, broke stoves and forced peasants to remove to the monastery villages. They had to kill one of them to persuade others spbiiran.nw.ru/wp-content/upl…
This shows the social trend of the age. New authorities award gentry with land and serfs. To control their property better new landlords move them into bigger villages. What used to be a country of small farms and free peasants becomes a country of large plantations and peons
Very good book that I strongly recommend. It's a pre-Revolutionary study of the land tax of Muscovy and what data we can draw from the tax documents. I must warn it's not narrative-entered and is not an easy reading Image
This one is more pleasant. It's a very erudite and well written book by early Soviet historian Pokrovsky. Promoted in 1920s, cancelled in 1930s. His approach and conclusions were very similar to what Braudel or Wallerstern were doing much later. Kinda world-systems theory Image
That wasn't unique. Everywhere to the East of Elbe peasants were losing their freedom, their rights were reduced, duties expanded = second serfdom. Why did it happen? Usual explanation is - so that landlords could export food to feed the booming cities of the Western Europe Image
That was a major factor in Poland with its huge grain export via Danzig which fed much of the Northern European cities. But Muscovy didn't really export grain. It didn't even have decent access to the world ocean. Why were its trends so similar to Eastern European then? Image
I'd speculate this can be impact of the Polish folwark. May be that's an example of what Warren Buffet called institutional inertia. Most of what we're doing, we're doing cuz we did it in the past or cuz someone else's doing it. Especially someone attractive, whom we'd like to be Image
Polish effect was apparent in the most important institute - in the army. Many assume Westernisation of the army was started by Peter. Some know it started earlier. In fact, the first 'Foreign-styled regiments' in Muscovy were raised in the year 1630 for the war with Poland
They were established by Alexander Leslie - a Scottish mercenary who previously served in Poland. Very typical. Poland had many Scots, too many. In fact English parliamentarians in 1600s pointed to the unfortunate Poland overrun by the Scotch immigation, arguing against the Union Image
That was only the prelude however. The real rapid and irreversible Polonization of Russia which as later Eurasianists (e.g. Trubetskoy) lamented, destroyed the old Muscovite culture and tradition started with the annexation of Left-Bank Ukraine in 1654. To be continued tomorrow

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

Aug 9
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:

Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions Image
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one

And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong

What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
Read 7 tweets
Jul 7
Victory has a hundred fathers, defeat is an orphan

Everyone is trying to appropriate the rise of China for their own purposes, like it proves their theory, ideology whatever

No one, however, wants to appropriate the post-Soviets, who, by the way, also made capitalist reforms
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power

That was almost entirely state's job
Read 4 tweets
Jul 1
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:

“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry

(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)

So, yes, living under the actual communism sucks
Read 5 tweets
Jun 28
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani’s victory

Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc

Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one Image
1. Public outrage does not work anymore

If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while

For a while, this tactics worked

Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
Read 8 tweets
Jun 28
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
Theory: X -> Y

Reality:

There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.

Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation

And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
Read 6 tweets
Jun 26
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani's victory:

1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.

In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings

Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(