The Origins of Russian Authoritarianism 

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 :(

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..

Well maybe you can in the future when in time the RU-vid 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

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?

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 ?

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

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?

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

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.

@@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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

In this case it's more Raid Mongol Legends.

@@Silver_Prussian +15 roubles, shill

Quality content with effort.

Krauts German actually

Austrian gentleman, say that slowly

German*

He is Bavarian

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.

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.

That's the morning of the Streltsy execution, a famous Russian painting but remade in countryballs

Thank you!

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

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.

*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 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.

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.

Ba dum-tss 🥁

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.

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".

How can we know that your source wasn't biased either where you only recommend one book instead of multiple ones and while i don't think Cambridge's has a lot of bias on it, for me it's certainly important to look at some other sources to paint the whole picture of Russian's authoritarianism

Russian absolutism is a tendency linked to the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, which would eventually become the Grand Principality of Moscow. Including pre-Mongol events such as the sacking of Kyiv and stronger princely authority in Vladimir and later Moscow, the Mongols granting Ivan I Kalita the privilege of Yarylk, or the right to gather tributary from the Christian principalities under the Golden Horde, including the Rus and the principalities established in the north by Kyiv, including Tver, Rostov, Beloozero and other colonial establishments that had by this time mostly Slavicised and Christianised their Finno-Uralic inhabitants. While the Muscovite Church and the Orthodox Byzantine tradition had a defining influence in the development of the Muscovite autocracy that we know all too well today, it only really gave a Christian face to an already long-established tradition of despotism and lawlessness (i.e. the decrees of the Tsar rather than any real law) that defined Muscovite civilisation in contrast to Rus. Serfdom was indeed not codified until the 17th century, but it existed in Muscovy well before then. English accounts of serfdom during the reign of Ivan IV show that serfdom and slavery were alive and well within Muscovy, regardless of whatever ukazy the Tsar gave at the time. To say that Muscovy had no codified class system is accurate, as there was a deep inequality between a peasant and the Grand Prince, and later Tsars, where the entire land under Muscovite rule was the property of the Grand Prince. This created a system of the autocrat and those he ruled, with the ruled divided into the simple divisions of the peasants, the clergy, and those who helped rule, those being the nobles. It is due to the modernising efforts of various emperors to take advantage of unseen talent to more efficiently and ruthlessly rule that we see the lessening of the caste system that was established in 1649, and indeed there would be a growing bourgeoisie in many cities by 1917, as you said. However, it is important to note that the caste system would continue to exist, this time in the form of the Party and those ruled by the Party, after 1918, as well as the continuation of the time-honoured tradition of brutal, cruel autocracy justified by what-about-isms and other bullshit. Lastly, the Mongol Yoke theory is not much of a theory. Much of our post-Soviet systems of power, including the idea of verticals and using them to consolidate power around oneself to prevent power going to any sort of opposition, is still a thriving strategy in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and other post-Soviet dictatorships.

@@masonharvath-gerrans832I do not approve of Ukrainian chauvinism.

@@Человеквпиджаке projection much? Today I have learned that any criticism of Russia is [insert country] chauvinism.

@@masonharvath-gerrans832 This is not criticism, this is an ideology designed to strengthen the Ukrainian nation around the myth of Kievan Rus. When you write a people out of their ethnicity because you don't like the country and its actions, this is not a healthy criticism. On the topic of criticism of Russia, you can find much more important and interesting than the clichés of chauvinists about clean Ukraine and dirty Finno-Ugric peoples from Muscovy.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

But there is no such claim at that timemark?

@@Medicus_Asur I corrected the time mark, my bad

I don't know much about the specifics you've mentioned, but what you've described isn't a "bourgeoisie", it's more in line with today's Oligarchs. What he means is "middle class"; tradespeople living in more urbanized areas who aren't peasants and live more comfortably but aren't necesarily wealthy either.

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

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.

So what is "medieval Russia" then?

@@JimmySaulGoodmanMcGill1960 According to Ukrainians, Russia did not exist in those years. but most of these "historians" do not know that Novgorod was the first capital of Rus.

@@_No__Name_ and even before that, there was the kingdom of Ladoga, from what I know

@@JimmySaulGoodmanMcGill1960 Historians dispute this. But the main fact is that the first capital was not Kyiv

@@_No__Name_ Novgorod? That was an important city of Kyivan Rus, really, and, after this - of Hanza. Before it was conquered by moskovitian forces in 1471 year ;-) And that was not enough - in 1570 it was burned and massacred by the tsaar Ivan IV. How many times have HRE rulers conquered, burned and massacred their own capitals?)

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

Timestamp ?

@@Snp2024 19:10

@@iWatchFromBehind thanks

I just realized it says “dicks out for Harambe”!

I am somewhat familiar with the subject and have spotted several mistakes in this video. Now I question all the other videos from Kraut that I watched.

By the way, what exactly do you consider outdated? What would you recommend to read?

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.

And do so in 20 mins!

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.

@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?

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.

Nope it was, it had a centralized government in Kyiv, Rus Church under Constantinople Patriarchate, a silver coin with Trident and Yaroslav The Wise Father-in-Law of Europe with biggest number of political marriages. You can google it easily, if you'd want

@@serhii3194 u misuderstood. He meant russians never called themselves kievans neither their state was ever called Kievan in foreign or local documents. Kievan Rus is a termin used in russian historical science to Great Rus' (thats how it was actually called or just Rus') for time period directly from 882(date when Oleg captured Kiev and made it capital) till 1240 years(Mongol invasion). Before establishing the capital in Kiev there was a Novgorod Rus' but state was still called just Rus' back there too. He just tried to notify that Kievan Rus' was not the actual name of the state.

@@ArgelTal-xc6ce They were not calling themselves "Russians" as well, nobody will tell you how they were actually calling themselves "Rus", "Rusyn" , "Ruthyn" or "Rutyn" or how they were calling own state, cause there are no documents preserved, only speculations and fabrications. Also town existed long before Oleg, as well as Novgorod State, that Moscowians later destroyed, plundered and annexed as a present to Golden Horde Khan for Jarlig

@@ArgelTal-xc6ce Intresting thingy here why Russians are doing that? What the point in emphasising that? You can say also “Egyptian Kingdom” never existed, it is just period, cause they never called themselves like that. That is absolutely pointless until you want slide with that statement some other meaning and narrative

@@ArgelTal-xc6ce don't even try to explain it lol you won't find understanding, all you'll hear back is that you're a "russian-moscowite who's trying to rewrite history" or something like that. unfortunately, these days people (especially the audience of channels like this one) are more interested in demeaning and devaluing everything Russian than in taking an objective view of things.

Roman femboys appreciation club

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.

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

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.

3:32 and 3:51 too

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.

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

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.

*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.

Watch his previous works

@@ahmedbolbol9243 go away abuser

Ahmed you are insane

Wot

Democracy is a lie westerners tell themselves to feel superior.

У нас была надежда на демократию и мы потеряли её 30 лет назад.

@@НосокТёплый you mean that puppet who nearly collapsed Russia?

@@wrpg9955 Я говорю про советский союз. У нас могла бы быть демократия если бы он успешно реформировался, а не развалился.

@@НосокТёплый у нас могла бы быть нормальная страна, но как всегда все прое*али. И даже в 90х можно было бы развиваться а не деградировать, но коррупция убила все начинания

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

Yeah cause some country over the ocean paid a lot of dollars to see it this way

@@Slippin_Jimmy1012 yeah so much corruption there too

@jabroni destroyer yeah, Ghenghis was clearly a sleeping agent...

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

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 ^ | ^

Well... How did you conclude your work? since as far as definitions go, democracy has yet to come to exist.

@@-the_emperor-1660 it existed for a full blown 2 years before yeltsin decided to crack down on the DUMA (or something like that)

Germany has democracy? Why they seem to be occupied?

U know, that Stalin was Georgian. Brejnev and Khrushev was Ukrainians? Lenin was Jew. So , why you are speaking about russians?

​@@ПростоКосмос-я5шSo it's still Russia. Putin is also a Jew (in the end, Jews are to blame as always)

слышал такое изречение: никакой свободы врагам свободы? Можно перефразировать: никакой толерантности к врагам толерантности.

@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.

Localism / mestnichestvo - the principle according to which the nobility received positions NOT because of favoritism, but because of the degree of nobility of the family. At the same time, the historian Dmitry Volodikhin believes that despite the obvious flaws, localism at the very least reconciled the serving aristocrats, determining who could apply for which official level. The nobility of the Russian state consisted of the old Moscow aristocracy, princely families from the annexed Russian lands, fugitive Lithuanian-Russian princes and serving Tatar princes. According to the researcher, without a regulatory system, noble people would now and then arrange strife and coups, arguing for a place at the helm of power. Thus, localism protected the Russian state from difficult internal wars. The oprichnina didn't start like that at all. Tsar Ivan escaped from Moscow and took the treasury with him. The people, of course, were very surprised and even frightened, since the Tsar refused to rule the country; he sent 2 letters to the capital. In one, he turned to the people and said that he did not hold evil "on the simple good people". In another letter he sent to the boyars, Ivan accused them of many evil deeds. According to Russian Wikipedia: "After reading the message of the Tsar in Moscow, the anti-boyar situation sharply escalated - thousands of Muscovites came to the Kremlin, enraged by the betrayals of the boyars named in the message, and the Boyar Duma had no choice but to ask Ivan to return to the kingdom." At the same time, historians (like Skrynnikov) note that the split between the tsar and the elite was heating up for a long time. Many managed to escape abroad, someone was caught but forgiven, someone was exiled to a monastery, some lands were taken from someone, etc. Although the oprichnina existed after 1572, it was changed, and terror was brought to naught, because. in 1571, the Crimean hordes burned Moscow, and the Oprichnina army simply fled. By the way, there are studies that show that Ivan did not achieve anything by terror, because the boyars did not lose their enormous influence and privileges. So the author of the video exaggerates the horrors of Oprichnina. And boyar families have always been few historically. They were in the Boyar Duma - the council under the Tsar. Well, speaking of journalists; you can find similar listings for many other countries in Europe. Russia is not alone here, and journalists are killed not only by the authorities - media figures stepped on toes to many people. As for Novgorod, the local republic very quickly became a plutocracy and an oligarchy. And Russian goods, by the way, were often not allowed into Europe. In addition, trade was barter, not monetary. Already in the 15th century, the Hansa fell into decline, and in the second half of the 16th century it completely bent - therefore, Russia would hardly have been so cool and democratic if it had developed not on the basis of Moscow, but of Novgorod, which militarily was VERY weak. Even as part of "despotic" Moscow, Novgorod actively traded with the Hansa. Novgorod tried to leave Moscow and go to Lithuania - they called for one of the Lithuanian princes to rule. Many soldiers did not want to fight for the boyars they hated, and the personal army of the Novgorod lord generally stood inactive throughout the battle in 1471. After the battle, Ivan III moved with the main army to Novgorod. Meanwhile, there was no help from Lithuania. The people sent the archbishop to ask the prince for mercy. As a result, Novgorod renounced communication with the Lithuanian sovereign, ceded part of the Dvina land to the Grand Duke and undertook to pay an indemnity. Ivan dealt with many representatives of the local nobility, taking away their lands, and exiling them to the central regions of the country (this is not the Gulag, as the author of the video says, Moscow is located in Central Russia). In 1477-78 Novgorod was finally annexed. In 1477, a group of pro-Moscow Novgorod boyars sent a petition to Ivan III asking him to take power in Novgorod into his own hands. Delighted by this proposal, the prince sent ambassadors to Novgorod to find out what kind of government they would like. Veche spoke in favor of maintaining the existing order. After that, Ivan III set out on a new campaign - Novgorod lost again. As for Parliaments, there were almost none in Europe either. Estates General in France is no better than Zemsky Sobors in Russia. The feeding system reached its greatest development in the 14th-15th centuries (and from the author’s video it comes as if it existed in the new Russia after 1480 and right up to Peter the Great). Russian Wiki: "Feeding gave rise to arbitrariness and abuse of local authorities interested in enrichment during their stay in the feeders. Therefore, already from the 15th century, the Moscow Grand Dukes regulated the income of feeders by issuing special “kormlenny`kh” and statutory letters. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, natural feed was converted into cash. As a result of the zemstvo reform of 1555-56, the feeding system was abolished. In 1555, a decree was issued on the abolition of feedings, which was applied, however, not immediately and not everywhere: sources continue to mention feedings during the second half of the 16th century. Fees for the maintenance of feeders have been converted into a special tax in favor of the treasury (“kormleny`i` okup”), set at a certain amount for various categories of land." Increasing the retirement age is more than normal in today's world. Even if Russia were more developed, this would postpone the reform, but would not cancel it. In Russia, every year there are more and more pensioners per working person - the population is rapidly aging due to demographic pits. Russia has a solidary system of pensions: the pensions of current pensioners are partly state money, and partly taxes from working citizens in favor of the Pension Fund of Russia. Well, to expose everything as if the only thing she did was to squeeze all the juice out of the common people, it’s completely wrong. Peasants are property and an instrument of earning. It is unprofitable for the owner that they be poor and hungry - such peasants do not work well. The owner helps his peasants when, for example, their house burned down. The owner gives them tools and seeds if necessary. And that further... And some strange comparison with China: he says, their bureaucracy controlled the Emperor, while our Tsars did whatever they wanted. The aristocracy in the same way limited the Royal Power, being a significant counterbalance to the central power. Many Russian rulers could not realize one or another of their ideas only for the reason that most of the aristocrats were against it, some of them were killed.

@@AlexanderSergeevRus By the time absolutism started to develop in Russia in 1700s, nobles gradually ceased to be a political force which would counteract Tsars power. More often than not they sided with the monarch in order to guard their rights and privileges, as more and more of them became dependent on the royal family for money and influence. By the time this time of absolutism had ended, russian tsars essentially could have done whatever they wanted to within their realm.

@@Pelaaja20 But it was the nobles and the army who overthrew rulers in Russia that they did not like during the entire 18th century. So Catherine the First, and Anna Ioannovna, and Elizabeth Petrovna, and Catherine the Great ascended the throne. It was the nobles who did not allow Catherine the Great to begin the process of emancipating the peasants. She wrote about this to Baron Melchior Grimm (if I remember correctly). She said that she would immediately be stoned to death for trying to abolish serfdom. Her husband Peter III was also overthrown by the nobles and the guards. Her son (Paul the First) was killed in the same way by aristocratic conspirators in 1801. After his death, a joke arose that in Europe autocracy is limited by parliaments, while in Russia it is limited by a noose around the neck of the Tsar. Catherine's grandson - Alexander the Blessed - created 2 advisory bodies with him: the Private Committee and the State Council. The first was disbanded over time. The second had many predecessors, but the State Council then existed in this format until 1917, even having been the upper house of Parliament. It was the State Council that prevented the Tsar from implementing projects to abolish serfdom. Under Catherine's other grandson and Alexander's brother, Nicholas I the Unforgettable, the reorganization of the country's economy began and the first serious steps were taken to emancipate the peasants and grant them certain rights. During these decades, a series of reforms were wilyly introduced that would legally abolish serfdom in 1861 and make it die out completely by the early 1900s. But Nicholas the First was indeed a military man by education and strongly crushed liberal ideas in the country, however, he was also afraid to anger the nobles. Moreover, since the time of Catherine the Great, city and noble self-government began to develop normally in the country for the first time. After the reforms of Alexander II the Liberator in the 1860s, it intensified and strengthened even more. If the terrorists had not blown it up, then perhaps His Son and Grandson would not have strengthened their power and crushed the opposition...

@@AlexanderSergeevRus Man, you're just the best

Лайк тебе, добрый человек

Спасибо

Скорее наоборот. Княжества на юге Руси имели бояр и дворян в большом количестве изза плодородности. В 14 столетии в королестве Руси короля вьІбирали бояре. Познее данная особенность привела к тому что местная знать призвала литовских князей на княжение, что привело к созданию ВКЛ. На севере же в период 12-13 столетия не хватало уделов, изза чего и появились долгорукие и боголюбские.

@@sircatangry5864 ну вы написали то же самое. Уделов не было, потому что земля хуже и территории вновь колонизированные. Другое дело, что ход истории доказал, что Боголюбские и Долгорукие более адекватны тому историческому периоду.

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...

@Manfredas Lamsargis You keep on talking about some vague idea of "Russians" like it's some hivemind. You don't even know there were more than a hundred distinct national ethicities in USSR. You aren't even able to wrap your head around the vast social and economic differences between the Russian Empire, the USSR and current-day Russian Federation. Not really surprising, because you dweebs get your impressions of USSR from American movies, thinking every Soviet citizen was a white dude wearing ushanka and drinking vodka. That's some orientalist surface-level braindead geopolitical analysis. Also - do you honestly count the fascist invaders among "victims of Russia"? A bit of a mask-off moment.

Вы не правы насчёт кавалерии. С концом эпохи викингов, княжеские дружины становятся конными, и на тот момент русский воин по своему комплексу защиты и вооружения практически ничем не отличался от европейского рыцаря. В сравнении с тогдашней западной Европой Русь была достаточно бедной. Благодаря этому, экономическим последствиям монгольского ига и тесному соседству с кочевниками вообще, начиная с 15 века русское войско стремительно ориентализируется, и значительную его долю начинают составлять конные лучники, снаряженные куда легче своих славных предков времён битвы на Калке.

@@von_rabenhorst они не ориентизировались, а перенимали византийские тактики боя, вооружение и броню, отсюда взяли на вооружение конских лучников, в мизерном количестве и в более свободной броне, нежели чем у Византии, т.к. территория более обширная и реагировать надо быстрее. Конница по сравнению с европейскими рыцарями и монголами на Руси составляла ничтожную часть войска в больших боях, как против Речи Посполитой, так и против ханств, и использовалась для фланговых атак, совсем иначе, нежели клиновые построения рыцарей или монгольские hit and run тактики. По вашей логике и римская империя ориентизировалась после столкновения с гуннами, в следствие чего Рим начал использовать конницу для патрулей и охраны границ, но по аналогии с Русью конница там и близко не составляла костяк армии, разве что в совсем поздний период.

Cope 😂

I don't listen to people with FAS

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.

Украинцы вообще интересные люди. Я недавно одного такого видел. Он говорил, что беларусы якобы не славяне, а финно-угры смешанные с балтами, и это все из-за того, что Беларусь дружит с Россией

@@fenaseek Разговаривал пару раз с поляками на исторические темы, один из них 3 года сидел коммерческим директором в Киеве. Так вот они угорают от украинских учебников истории и молодых украинцев, которым за неимением будьяких достижений их власти десятилетиями инсталлировали в головы все это ура-патриотическое псевдоисторическое говно. Общее мнение поляков: среднирй поляк и средний россиянин неплохо знают свою историю, адекватно, со всеми плюсами и минусами с высоты сегодняшнего дня. У среднего украинца в голове вместо истории голимая пропаганда! По поводу Белоруссии и белорусов: в 2014 году проезжая из Гомеля в Чернигов понимал в каком дерьме живут украинцы по сравнению с белорусами.- вымытые с мылом улицы Гомеля против засранных почти центральных дорожек Чернигова, по которым ходили козы и ели траву. 🙂

​​@@СергейБулкин-ъ1иесли рабсияне знают свою историю, то зачем они по кругу повторяют одни и те же ошибки государственного устройства? Итог: третья попытка за последний век построить империю на основе копиума про мощь ррррррррусссссских, потому что они ррррррррусссссские и с ними бох(никаких исторических параллелей). Даже все комментарии тут это копиум на тему того, что омерыка скоро развалится, а ррррррррусссссские всем покажут (как превратить трёхдневное взятие Киева в 550 дней удержания 3 областей, после 8 лет накопления ресурсов и подготовки армии)

От части он прав. Сами белорусы так говорят. @@fenaseek

Если знаем историю, зачем мы опять меняем учебник истории России? @@СергейБулкин-ъ1и

Or stairs

You just wouldn't stop with your hatred toward russians. We're ok with that.

@@hulking_presence wat

Russia has had many eras of scientific and artistic rises. It's not that the whole country is backwards, it's just that their economy is backwards

Why, every country's or regions path is unique. Haven't read too much on Napo, but I do think that Russia is quite unique in lacking a bourgeoisie (primarily nobles and serfs, historically) and going off by e.g. Tolstoy, an inherent authoritarian structure. No two countries follow the same development path

@@DodoEmperor The bourgeois revolution took place in Russia in 1913. In other countries this event happened much earlier, in some countries it has not happened yet. As I claim, Russia is not unique, it follows the same path as other countries, it lags behind the most developed, but is definitely not the most backward.

@@АндрейКаминский-г9в I don't think it's a law of nature that countries follow the same path - colonized countries have followed different paths than the colonizers. I do feel taht the European bourgeoisie refers more to a class of semi-rich, merchant, non-noble, atheist people that spent their money on leisure, while this was less the case in Russia (those were peasants). I'm from Europe so I know that history better, but if I remember correctly, in Anna Karanina Tolstoy actually hints on the lack of a presense of a proper bourgeosie, to start the actual textbook marxist revolution

@@DodoEmperor I am from Europe, just like you, as is known, the part of Russia west of the Urals belongs to Europe. Russia is changing very quickly, even I have seen 4 very different Russias and I am not very old. The lack of bourgeoisie in Tolstoy's novel was obviously overcome by 1913, moreover, in 1917 the Bolsheviks believed that there was an excess of bourgeoisie and tried to solve this problem by shooting. As for the difference in the paths of development of the colonizing countries and the colonized countries, of course one cannot expect that the former colonies will start their development from scratch and go through the era of the birth of capitalism and bourgeois revolutions, they went through these stages as provinces of the empire. But one way or another, the laws of development are common to all.

Additionally, the topic of your next video is extremelyyyyy interesting. And I am sure that you have enough material to make an hours-long video. I am really wondering, whether you could make a long video (let's say 3 hours) but not upload it as a single video, and instead divide it into 6 parts (each being 30 minutes-long)? Wouldn't that work for you?

pretty on point, yeah

Which is why it's so fun.

This video is full of inaccuracies and loose generalizations like this. And the actual question is: why is Russia even supposed to be something Western-Europe-like?

The Hungarians and Turks did not assimilate the locals. The Pannonian basin had already been depopulated by the huns as was most of the Balkans, there wasn't much of a local population to assimilate into. As for Turkey, Anatolia remained 1/3rd Greek until the 1920s when a "PoPuLaTiOn ExChAnGe" between Greece and Turkey was agreed upon to put all the Greeks in Greece and the Turks in Anatolia. They barely count. Also ignore the Moscal f***** talking his shit there. He's just salty that his country is too weak to even conquer its smaller neighbour.

@@moritamikamikara3879 I think the genetics of Modern Hungarians and Turks speak for themselves. The original Magyars were almost certainly far more north Asian (east Eurasian) as their homeland were the Ural mountains and the speakers of the closest languages to Hungarian, Khanty and Mansi are very east Eurasian. Yet Modern Hungarians have very little east Eurasian DNA. "Pannonian basin depopulated by the Huns"? The Hunnish empire fell in 469 AD and the Huns fade into history shortly after Atila's death, the Magyars came to Pannonia in late 800s! So you suggest Pannonia somehow remained empty for 400 years? Not to mention at least two significant states that ruled the region in between and had their capital in Pannonia: the Gepid kingdom and the Avar khaganate. So you're either wrong about depopulation or someone else has done it, maybe Charlemagne? Also the Hungarians didn't have to had assimilated anyone when they arrived, it could've happened later. For example, the Mongol invasion killed a lot of people in Hungary. Maybe they brought Slavic peasants to settle the land and those Slavs assimilated to Hungarian culture.

Oh man, are you in for a surprise when I make the video on Poland and Hungary.

@@Kraut_the_Parrot coming in 2024?

@@Kraut_the_Parrot honestly I’m more interested in why Poland and Hungary did not end up like Russia, given they have a similar regress in state institutions following Mongol conquest.

@@jasonnung2645 they were not under a Mongol rule obviously

@@oishagoysha8988 China and Persia were also under mongol rule, but in those places the mongols assimilated into their cultures instead. I guess a better question for me is “why is Russia so unique?”