This didn't actually explain how the Russian Empire worked. It was just a brief history lesson of a certain period. How did the empire manage communication over such vast distances? How did it manage taxation, military recruitment and transport? What were the main products, exports, imports? Etc, etc.
finns definitely liked alexander II. in many major towns such as: tampere, helsinki, and lahti have streets named after him, and there's a statue of him on the senate square in helsinki
The empire was so large and so disconnected because of its size and it's difficult to manage population as well as it's terrain and weather, it's a surprise it lasted so long. By the way I have a history channel of my own, I hope you give it a visit!
Loving these types of videos. You've captured a niche and I'm looking forward for more videos on the political governance/administrations of past states
Just a correction: Russia was never feudal. Feudalism is a system of reciprocal contractualism where lords must benefit their vassals in return for their service and loyalty. Under feudalism, a lord's authority is derived not from divine right or a vague appeal to obedience, but from the fulfillment of the legal obligations the lord has promised their vassal in the hommage contract. When a lord broke said obligation, all authority was removed (see Barcelona's independence from France in 987 if you want an example... The King of France did not offer help in protecting Barcelona from the Saracens, so the hommage between Borrell II, the then count of Barcelona, and the King of France, was broken, not to be renewed) and the lord ceased to be such. Granted, these obligations extended to other nobles (vassals) and to free men, not to serfs, but regardless, this was not present in Russia. Additionally, under feudalism, serfs were co-owners of the land they worked (yes, under feudalism work = property). There was a division between direct property and usage property (this is a contract called emphiteusis). So serfs would be proprietors of their work and houses so long as they kept working the land, and their obligations weren't to any particular lord, but to their land (and that land could be that of a lord, commonly owned, or of the church). Although the values behind capitalism are different to those of feudalism, a lot of its components (contractualism, a high trust society, etc.) are evolutions of components already present under feudalism. There is a reason why countries like Russia, or Spain (with the exception of Catalonia) remained "backwards" and corrupt while the rest of Europe adopted capitalism and democratic institutions: they were never feudal. Feudalism created a system of checks and balances, oath fulfillment, rule of law, and contractualism, that allowed capitalism to take hold of Europe. Spain (Castille) and Russia, lacked those components, so they remained seigneurial, authoritarian societies, where the King set the law in accordance to their own convenience. (In Castile this was less intense because the Catholic church enforced the rule of law and "just kingship") For future reference, feudalism is generally found in the descendants of the Frankish empire (Catalonia, France, Occitania, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Germany, England through the Norman conquest) and a few other countries like early Hungary and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Countries like Greece, Russia, Spain (Castile, Leon, Galicia, Portugal), Iceland, etc. weren't feudal.
Yet iceland is more successful than russia overall. Imo its only a matter of time when russia turns into democratic state. First was france after defeat in 1810s, then it was germany 2 times in 2 world wars, now its russias turn to lose and review their worldview
@@bloodkelp I mean, Iceland may not have had feudalism, just like Russia, nevertheless, the systems of these 2 countries were worlds apart. Iceland was, in many ways, an alternative to feudalism. One could even say, a more democratic path to a society built upon rule of law. Unlike feudalism, where the parliaments were comprised of the aristocracy (be that nobles, the high officers of the church, or wealthy free men), Iceland's Allþing was open to all free men, and the laws set by the high chieftains were socially upheld rather than imposed through the use of force. The ending result was a society that democratically organized itself and socially enforced its internal rules. A high trust society built upon consensus. Both feudal societies and Iceland's system depended upon the fulfillment of oaths (be them individual or collective -like the laws set by the allþing). Russia instead, evolved to give almost total authority to the king, who used the law as he pleased, had no oaths to keep to his inferiors, etc. Russia doesn't necessarily have an inferior system, but it has a fundamentally different system which emphasizes authority over justice. Both the feudal and icelandic (more democratic) systems emphasized justice over authority. So for a Russian, justice was what the Tsar said to be just. For a Catalan, a Swiss person, or an Icelandic person, authority is held by he who is just. Russia changes its laws, Feudal societies and Iceland changed their leaders. In a sense, Russians are right when they say they are a separate civilization to the West.
0:48 "The Russian Army played an important role in the defeat of Napoleon" Yup. Just a little. During the invasion of Russia, Napoleon's army numbered 685 thousand, and during the retreat it decreased to 75 thousand. Wellington's army, which destroyed 27 thousand Napoleon's soldiers at Waterloo, of course made an equal contribution to the defeat of Napoleon's army as Russia did.
Yes it did. It was an autocratic empire that was constantly changing to survive a shifting world without losing it's autocracy. A breakdown of how it operated over time will look like a history video, and it's true imperial nature meant the czar was the only true central power since poland, finland, and other regions were governed separately
David Smith, my professor at Eastern Illinois University, taught us that absolutism didn't exist in reality. The sovereigns (like the Czar's) relied on the support of the nobility, military, and even the support of the majority of the populace. Just look at the coup against Paul I, Peter I, and other Czar's. Their was even a significant peasant revolt against Katherine the Great during her Reign. One can look at all of these examples to say that Absolutism didn’t actually exist in Europe, where the sovereign's "Divine Right," met everyone had to shut up and do what they said.
Возможно вы и правы, но стоит так же учесть, что крестьяне в те времена были необразованны и сильно религиозными. Так как в России с давних времён цари считались посланниками Бога, то крестьяне крайне редко(лишь при острой необходимости) начинали восстания
@@bloodkelp i'm not seeing Russia balkanizate any time soon Considering Russia managed to stay together in their most brutal civil war, i don't think we Will ever be alive until that happens
@@elyisusking3603 i mean it will cease to be authocratic imperialist state after inevitable loss in ukraine. The only ones who might possibly separate from us are chechens
Hello, my friend! Thank you! Your video is very great! Do you have this book: "Nations and states : an enquiry into the origins of nations and the politics of nationalism" by Seton-Watson Hugh ? I couldn't find it and download it free.
0:57 and 9:10 Once again the border between Prussia and Belgium / Netherlands are the modern bordes, since 1919. I wonder why? You already have it correct at 0:41 Good Video so, well done.
Hi! Could you do a video on India and how the republic was formed? Ie the ousting of Indian Rajas and the confederation of the provinces of the former Raj.
You have the border of the Grand Duchy of Finland wrong trough out the whole video. The border showed in the video is only from the 1940s. The border of the Grand Duchy in the 1800s ran trough the Karelian isthmus and lake Ladoga.
Tsars and Tsarinas were ethnic Germans under nickname "Romanovs". General-governors of Muscovy, Poland,Siberia,Finland,Turkistan,Georgia,Kievan province,etc. were also Romanovs. 300 years ethnic Germans ruled Russia,even bigger territory,than it is now.
@@olegshtolc7245 How did they “become Germans”? Interesting that boomer Soviet Russians like you and Anna who left the original comment, become suddenly racist against Germans and Imperial family for no reason.
@@americanmapping832communism destroyed Russia, killed up to 20 million Russians, and the USSR lagged behind the rest of the West. Before WW1 Russia was industrializing fast, it had more engineers than Germany. William Howard Taft praised the Empire's labor laws. Lenin admitted that if Pyotr Stolypin's reforms had succeeded, the Bolshevik Revolution would have failed. The French economist Edmund Thierry said that if trends continued, Russia would dominate Europe by 1950. Russia would have caught up to Europe if not for the Bolshevik Revolution, which was a major catastrophe for Russia, the West and the world.
@@americanmapping832Brezhnev era was more like a horizontal line. Near end of it and after it was recession. And after the collapse of USSR it was in steep dive.
@@americanmapping832Russia declined after communism only because it lost a lot of valuable land and population, nothing to do with the lack of communism its self, if anything it was because of communism it lost that land in the first place. If Russia would have transitioned like uk rather than went into civil war it would have been still powerful today
Mass majority of Russian population was uneducated and followed the church which said the czar ruled through divinity. Basically the same reason why a country like France was able to rule over its population until the people became educated enough to revolt
This is just a bad historical video. Very much west-centric view of Russia. If you look at Russian writings from the 19th century and early 20th century, it's far from what this video described. But it's not that I expected any better than a westerner trying to explain Russian history...
The class collaboration between workers in the factories and peasants in the fields. It's just a shame the communists were so afraid of the peasants and their control over the nation's food that they were effectively brought back into serfdom with the onset of forced collectivization. Can't have people helping people, that's the state's job, you filthy Kulak.
Question is I hardly ever comment on RUclips videos but any expert here in Russian history able to provide me with an answer to my question was the Tsarist Regime more repressive than Authoritarian regimes like Fascist Italy, lastly was Imperial Russia a totalitarian regime in the 1880s by the standards of the time? If anyone is able to provide me with response I will be very thankful
Failure to "read the room" has often been the primary reason why Russia failed as an Empire. A vague attempt at democracy after a brutal (useless, misguided) experience with a concept (Communism) proved that "Russia" could create a union based on a self serving ideal of egalitarianism, wholeheartedly and consistently proclaimed... Inconsistently applied..
@@michaelfritts6249 watch jay dyer i think it was either his book review on either angloamerican establishment or tragedy and hope he can explain a lot better than i can
I like the Russian Empire but the thing I hate is the Emperors,and the surfs, at least pay them and give them food and care for them and everyone not just your friends, but still I like them but not how they rule the country.
The ruler of the Russian Empire (Imperiya) was the Emperor (Imperator Rossii), not Tsar. Tsar means King. The Tsardom (Kingdom) ended in 1721, when Peter I the Great made russia an empire, ceasing to be a Tsar. colloquially however, the Emperor was unofficially called the Tsar. Much like the old title Tsarevich (Prince, as the eldest son of, and heir apparent to, the Tsar), literally meaning "King-descendent" under the Tsardom became Tsesarevich (Crown Prince), and Tsarevich became how people colloquially referred to all Princes "of the Blood" (Knyaz), including those who held the title of Great Prince (Velikiy Knyaz) and Crown Prince (Tsesarevich, literally Ceaser-descendent, as in the old Roman Imperial title "Ceasar") - but again, these were unofficial references.
what? this is just Putin's "Lenin made the ukranians" ukranian people are real (can't believe i have to say this,but yes) they're a separate nation with a different language, different culture, different traditions. ukranian language is still a dialect from the russian.
@@machnimismic People LIVING on the LAND which is NOW ukraine have always existed. Just like in case of any single inch land all over the world. Ukraininan identity, as we know it today, was created by communists.
Gonna be actually guy and say that peasantry didn't "support the monarchy", because they were pretty much oppressed (and were oppressed centuries before) And you can't speculate on their opinion on political regime because it's simply impossible to do, and peasantry opinion was very irrelevant anyway. It also is simply not polite to say that peasants supported the state. You got migrants, who traveled the country to evade the government, you got tons of minorities, and even then among orthodox russians large portion of population didn't trust the church and the governmen as their religion states. So the situation was pretty much complicated and fucked. But at least we got cool political philosophies, political movements and full force anarchist societies revolved around the idea of peasantry freedom and happiness
I have a theory that the Russian state collapsed in the 1990s, as the Soviet union, because of what happened in 1917. In fact, I believe that the slaughter of the Bolshevik revolution that killed the vast majority of the professional Civil servants killed the system that was holding that huge territory together. If you look at the demographic statistics, by the 1980s all the possible civil servants that had been prepared before 1917 had already died whether because of natural causes or because of repression. By 1989 the territory of the former Russian empire had to be govern entirely by the aparatchiks brought up and educated by the Soviet system where disingenuousness and incompetence were encouraged and cultivated by state institutions. The abysmal level of incompetence that was fostered during the Soviet union is even strongly seen now with the way Putin is managing his war in Ukraine and the way his cronies are governing Russia.
You're ridiculously brainwashed. How can you even say at the same time that the entire intellectual and professional class was destroyed, and then attribute all the achievements of the Soviet Union to it? The people killed by the "Bolshevik Revolution" (the Bolsheviks were supported by the entire working class of the RSFSR and most of the population) lost their war. Although not completely, but for the most part the army and economy were built anew in Soviet times, after the revolution, which was, of course, incredibly destructive (although we must not forget that a huge number of tsarist generals, such as Brusilov, as well as a huge part of the Russian intelligentsia supported the Bolsheviks). The Soviet people did not destroy the Soviet Union, it was destroyed in 7 years by the Gorbachev government (you can just compare the GDP of the USSR in 1984 and in 1991). I agree that the Soviet System has rotted at some point, but 1-it started back in the 60s, 2-it's not because the monarchists died. The man who launched us into space-Korolev studied in the Soviet Union.
@@marcusaurelius4941 1.What did I get wrong? 2.Which of this argumens is neostalinist? 3.Which of this facts isn't true? 4.You can't response to big argument with: "nah, you're wrong"
@@lox000zavr You are also spreading false information, the Bolsheviks were not supported by all of the workers, or even close to a majority of the RSFSR population. They in fact lost the elections before they dissolved it. And they do not fight or murder “monarchists” only, there were many factions of White Army in Civil War.
The planet would be better if humanity didn't exist. And your comment reminds me of what a famous Austrian artist tried to do, are you by any chance a fan?
This didn't actually explain how the Russian Empire worked. It was just a brief history lesson of a certain period. How did the empire manage communication over such vast distances? How did it manage taxation, military recruitment and transport? What were the main products, exports, imports? Etc, etc.
I see your point, but it is really supposed to be an explanation on how the Russian government worked
He did explain how the empire work
Ruler:Czar
Legislature:Czar
Upper and lower legislature:Czar
Parliament:Czar
Litteraly the army command:Czar
I guess it goes to prove that how Russia was ruled was an open question before the Soviet Union
Exactly
@@alisagman362 Yes, since its in the title of the video.
The big reason why Russia sold Alaska to the US was so Britain couldn't get it
finns definitely liked alexander II. in many major towns such as: tampere, helsinki, and lahti have streets named after him, and there's a statue of him on the senate square in helsinki
There were also many statues of him in Russia, and the streets too, but the Bolsheviks got rid of all of them
It's quite surprising that they held a kingdom that large
united kingdom: am i a joke to you?
It helped that a lot of the empire's land was quite sparsely populated.
@@Portugalisbased by the time they had an empire, Parliament had long became the real power, the Monarchy was already a figurehead at that point
@@1224chrisng that doesn't stop it from being an empire
@@Portugalisbased it's still an empire, just not really a kingdom
The empire was so large and so disconnected because of its size and it's difficult to manage population as well as it's terrain and weather, it's a surprise it lasted so long. By the way I have a history channel of my own, I hope you give it a visit!
Loving these types of videos. You've captured a niche and I'm looking forward for more videos on the political governance/administrations of past states
Good to hear, because I like making them.
I like this series on how empires worked. Please do the Ottoman Empire next.
Possibly! I do have a video on the end of the empire if you need something to tide you over.
Borders of the Grand Duchy of Finland in this video are those of Republic of Finland after 1945.
well done, than we already have 2 modern borders. Good work indeed
Just a correction: Russia was never feudal. Feudalism is a system of reciprocal contractualism where lords must benefit their vassals in return for their service and loyalty. Under feudalism, a lord's authority is derived not from divine right or a vague appeal to obedience, but from the fulfillment of the legal obligations the lord has promised their vassal in the hommage contract. When a lord broke said obligation, all authority was removed (see Barcelona's independence from France in 987 if you want an example... The King of France did not offer help in protecting Barcelona from the Saracens, so the hommage between Borrell II, the then count of Barcelona, and the King of France, was broken, not to be renewed) and the lord ceased to be such. Granted, these obligations extended to other nobles (vassals) and to free men, not to serfs, but regardless, this was not present in Russia.
Additionally, under feudalism, serfs were co-owners of the land they worked (yes, under feudalism work = property). There was a division between direct property and usage property (this is a contract called emphiteusis). So serfs would be proprietors of their work and houses so long as they kept working the land, and their obligations weren't to any particular lord, but to their land (and that land could be that of a lord, commonly owned, or of the church).
Although the values behind capitalism are different to those of feudalism, a lot of its components (contractualism, a high trust society, etc.) are evolutions of components already present under feudalism.
There is a reason why countries like Russia, or Spain (with the exception of Catalonia) remained "backwards" and corrupt while the rest of Europe adopted capitalism and democratic institutions: they were never feudal. Feudalism created a system of checks and balances, oath fulfillment, rule of law, and contractualism, that allowed capitalism to take hold of Europe. Spain (Castille) and Russia, lacked those components, so they remained seigneurial, authoritarian societies, where the King set the law in accordance to their own convenience. (In Castile this was less intense because the Catholic church enforced the rule of law and "just kingship")
For future reference, feudalism is generally found in the descendants of the Frankish empire (Catalonia, France, Occitania, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Germany, England through the Norman conquest) and a few other countries like early Hungary and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Countries like Greece, Russia, Spain (Castile, Leon, Galicia, Portugal), Iceland, etc. weren't feudal.
Yet iceland is more successful than russia overall. Imo its only a matter of time when russia turns into democratic state. First was france after defeat in 1810s, then it was germany 2 times in 2 world wars, now its russias turn to lose and review their worldview
@@bloodkelp I mean, Iceland may not have had feudalism, just like Russia, nevertheless, the systems of these 2 countries were worlds apart.
Iceland was, in many ways, an alternative to feudalism. One could even say, a more democratic path to a society built upon rule of law.
Unlike feudalism, where the parliaments were comprised of the aristocracy (be that nobles, the high officers of the church, or wealthy free men), Iceland's Allþing was open to all free men, and the laws set by the high chieftains were socially upheld rather than imposed through the use of force. The ending result was a society that democratically organized itself and socially enforced its internal rules. A high trust society built upon consensus.
Both feudal societies and Iceland's system depended upon the fulfillment of oaths (be them individual or collective -like the laws set by the allþing). Russia instead, evolved to give almost total authority to the king, who used the law as he pleased, had no oaths to keep to his inferiors, etc.
Russia doesn't necessarily have an inferior system, but it has a fundamentally different system which emphasizes authority over justice. Both the feudal and icelandic (more democratic) systems emphasized justice over authority. So for a Russian, justice was what the Tsar said to be just. For a Catalan, a Swiss person, or an Icelandic person, authority is held by he who is just.
Russia changes its laws, Feudal societies and Iceland changed their leaders.
In a sense, Russians are right when they say they are a separate civilization to the West.
@@alejandror.planas9802 i got you. So it seems that russia is neither asia nor the west
so much gross generalization
@@igoralmeida9136 Which parts do you believe are grossly generalized?
Love the vidoes! The way you structure the information is amazing!
0:48 "The Russian Army played an important role in the defeat of Napoleon"
Yup. Just a little. During the invasion of Russia, Napoleon's army numbered 685 thousand, and during the retreat it decreased to 75 thousand.
Wellington's army, which destroyed 27 thousand Napoleon's soldiers at Waterloo, of course made an equal contribution to the defeat of Napoleon's army as Russia did.
You do know that a centralised autocracy in a feudal society is a oxymoron
Thanks!
This didn't explain at all how the russian state worked?? It was just stated that serfs existed and that the tsar ruled as an autocrat.
Yes it did. It was an autocratic empire that was constantly changing to survive a shifting world without losing it's autocracy. A breakdown of how it operated over time will look like a history video, and it's true imperial nature meant the czar was the only true central power since poland, finland, and other regions were governed separately
Click bait. Correct title would've been 'a brief history of the Russian empire.
Didn't even talk about how it worked, just politics.
great video, keep doing more of these
quite enlightening. we should learn something from the management of such a vast state
David Smith, my professor at Eastern Illinois University, taught us that absolutism didn't exist in reality. The sovereigns (like the Czar's) relied on the support of the nobility, military, and even the support of the majority of the populace. Just look at the coup against Paul I, Peter I, and other Czar's. Their was even a significant peasant revolt against Katherine the Great during her Reign. One can look at all of these examples to say that Absolutism didn’t actually exist in Europe, where the sovereign's "Divine Right," met everyone had to shut up and do what they said.
Возможно вы и правы, но стоит так же учесть, что крестьяне в те времена были необразованны и сильно религиозными. Так как в России с давних времён цари считались посланниками Бога, то крестьяне крайне редко(лишь при острой необходимости) начинали восстания
Well made video, this channel is really underrated.
Dude, very cool!
Could you make one on the late Ottoman Empire?
what do you use for your maps?
Nice vid bro!
...
watch it first lil bruv
@@merwthegreat Oh... but i did 😜
Yes new video!!
I want a video like this for Ethiopia 🇪🇹
How did it work?
Did it even work?
Well they managed to last quite long
In fact russia is the only remaining empire in modern world (not for long ofc)
@@bloodkelp i'm not seeing Russia balkanizate any time soon
Considering Russia managed to stay together in their most brutal civil war, i don't think we Will ever be alive until that happens
@@elyisusking3603 i mean it will cease to be authocratic imperialist state after inevitable loss in ukraine. The only ones who might possibly separate from us are chechens
@@bloodkelp ohhh i see
By saying dibs first which legally binding everyone knows that
Very true! 😆
Hello, my friend!
Thank you! Your video is very great!
Do you have this book: "Nations and states : an enquiry into the origins of nations and the politics of nationalism" by Seton-Watson Hugh ? I couldn't find it and download it free.
Very interesting
0:57 and 9:10 Once again the border between Prussia and Belgium / Netherlands are the modern bordes, since 1919. I wonder why? You already have it correct at 0:41
Good Video so, well done.
You drew Finland with her 1947 borders.
correct, thats 1 out of 2 errors (so far) . Can you find the 2nd?
Can we get a, “How did the (late) Ottoman Empire work?”
Very cool
I had heard of the assassination of Alexander II before, but this was the first I had heard it was done by bombs.
The joys of the modern world! :/
that's the neat part, it didn't
Hi! Could you do a video on India and how the republic was formed? Ie the ousting of Indian Rajas and the confederation of the provinces of the former Raj.
is it normal that you have a history based on Soviet textbooks?
You have the border of the Grand Duchy of Finland wrong trough out the whole video. The border showed in the video is only from the 1940s. The border of the Grand Duchy in the 1800s ran trough the Karelian isthmus and lake Ladoga.
Tsars and Tsarinas were ethnic Germans under nickname "Romanovs". General-governors of Muscovy, Poland,Siberia,Finland,Turkistan,Georgia,Kievan province,etc. were also Romanovs. 300 years ethnic Germans ruled Russia,even bigger territory,than it is now.
Well, no one denies Romanovs german origins. The thing is, they were as much germans, as russians. Both genetically and culturally.
Like all european monarchies
Like about 500 thousand of German ethnic Russians living in Russia now.
@@burnadze wrong , the origin was russian. But they kept marrying the germans to the point they become one
@@olegshtolc7245 How did they “become Germans”? Interesting that boomer Soviet Russians like you and Anna who left the original comment, become suddenly racist against Germans and Imperial family for no reason.
I loved the part where he actually explained how the country functioned
Interesting
2:26 - 2:42 BAAAAAASED
Has anyone ever told you you kind of sound like the guy from Biographics?
Why are certain countries always one color? Whenever i see russia its green, prussia is always grey, france is always blue
Its propably a combination of the colours on the countrys flag and just what fits best.
@@Kirb-kc4vs yes , and its also done historically i think
Just what’s associated with the countries
@@Kirb-kc4vs Russia had green flag?
@@Snp2024 No but the country Was always seen as very agrarian, and combining this with the blue and White a more nature like colour would fit well.
The Russian Empire looked very based 😎
quite st nicholas ii and the holy romanov family is the best royal family ever
Russia before Communism 📈📈📈📈
Russia after Communism 📉📉📉📉
Not really tho
Russian before communism 📉📉📉📉
Russia during communism 📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈
Russia during the Brezhnev era 📉📉📉📉📉📉📉
Russia after communism 📉📉📉📉📉📉📉
@@americanmapping832communism destroyed Russia, killed up to 20 million Russians, and the USSR lagged behind the rest of the West. Before WW1 Russia was industrializing fast, it had more engineers than Germany. William Howard Taft praised the Empire's labor laws. Lenin admitted that if Pyotr Stolypin's reforms had succeeded, the Bolshevik Revolution would have failed. The French economist Edmund Thierry said that if trends continued, Russia would dominate Europe by 1950. Russia would have caught up to Europe if not for the Bolshevik Revolution, which was a major catastrophe for Russia, the West and the world.
@@americanmapping832Brezhnev era was more like a horizontal line. Near end of it and after it was recession. And after the collapse of USSR it was in steep dive.
@@americanmapping832Russia declined after communism only because it lost a lot of valuable land and population, nothing to do with the lack of communism its self, if anything it was because of communism it lost that land in the first place. If Russia would have transitioned like uk rather than went into civil war it would have been still powerful today
Could you do a video on why France changed governments so much in 1800s while prussia/austria/russia didnt as much?
Mass majority of Russian population was uneducated and followed the church which said the czar ruled through divinity. Basically the same reason why a country like France was able to rule over its population until the people became educated enough to revolt
back then finlands borders were different.
What happened to the Irish royal family?
This is just a bad historical video. Very much west-centric view of Russia. If you look at Russian writings from the 19th century and early 20th century, it's far from what this video described. But it's not that I expected any better than a westerner trying to explain Russian history...
Explain what is gotten wrong
What’s the Dumer?
If you Look at the Sovjet's Flag its clearly what tools where used by the russian peasants at that time and the state of industrialism
The class collaboration between workers in the factories and peasants in the fields. It's just a shame the communists were so afraid of the peasants and their control over the nation's food that they were effectively brought back into serfdom with the onset of forced collectivization.
Can't have people helping people, that's the state's job, you filthy Kulak.
Question is I hardly ever comment on RUclips videos but any expert here in Russian history able to provide me with an answer to my question was the Tsarist Regime more repressive than Authoritarian regimes like Fascist Italy, lastly was Imperial Russia a totalitarian regime in the 1880s by the standards of the time? If anyone is able to provide me with response I will be very thankful
Er the Crimean war was fought under Nicholas.... not Alexander
Failure to "read the room" has often been the primary reason why Russia failed as an Empire.
A vague attempt at democracy after a brutal (useless, misguided) experience with a concept (Communism) proved that "Russia" could create a union based on a self serving
ideal of egalitarianism, wholeheartedly and consistently proclaimed...
Inconsistently applied..
russia fell because a western funded coup and a masonic aristocracy that the church condemned too lat
@@BozheTsaryaKhrani ok... please explain.
@@michaelfritts6249 watch jay dyer i think it was either his book review on either angloamerican establishment or tragedy and hope he can explain a lot better than i can
long live the russian empire hope it gets reinstated long live st nicholas ii and the holy romanov family
So. It mostly didnt?
I like the Russian Empire but the thing I hate is the Emperors,and the surfs, at least pay them and give them food and care for them and everyone not just your friends, but still I like them but not how they rule the country.
Those evil tzars tried to force their silly orthodoxy on central Asia and sibir but we resisted until now we are dominant.
The ruler of the Russian Empire (Imperiya) was the Emperor (Imperator Rossii), not Tsar. Tsar means King. The Tsardom (Kingdom) ended in 1721, when Peter I the Great made russia an empire, ceasing to be a Tsar. colloquially however, the Emperor was unofficially called the Tsar.
Much like the old title Tsarevich (Prince, as the eldest son of, and heir apparent to, the Tsar), literally meaning "King-descendent" under the Tsardom became Tsesarevich (Crown Prince), and Tsarevich became how people colloquially referred to all Princes "of the Blood" (Knyaz), including those who held the title of Great Prince (Velikiy Knyaz) and Crown Prince (Tsesarevich, literally Ceaser-descendent, as in the old Roman Imperial title "Ceasar") - but again, these were unofficial references.
Yeah, but everyone called them the Tsar colloquially and we still do today.
Насколько я знаю титул императора не лишал титула царя. Так что их правильно называть и императорами и царями
In most empires the king is the emperor
It did work?
Fun fact: Ukraine doesn't exist until 1991,but many people say Ukraine is a old country......
what? this is just Putin's "Lenin made the ukranians"
ukranian people are real (can't believe i have to say this,but yes) they're a separate nation with a different language, different culture, different traditions.
ukranian language is still a dialect from the russian.
@@machnimismic
People LIVING on the LAND which is NOW ukraine have always existed. Just like in case of any single inch land all over the world. Ukraininan identity, as we know it today, was created by communists.
@@burnadze No it was not. Ukrainian national identity was formed in 19th century.
Kievan rus existed but it was conquered by the mongols.
Also fun fact Kievan rus was the political entity that chartered the founding of moscow.
The Cossack hetmanate of the 16th 17th and 18th century was known as the “country of ukraine”
It worked?
300 years, you only got 70 😂
Ukraine was always Russian. They will be again.
Cope
Lords didn't own serfs
..did it? Lol **jk, it did just not very well**
Gonna be actually guy and say that peasantry didn't "support the monarchy", because they were pretty much oppressed (and were oppressed centuries before) And you can't speculate on their opinion on political regime because it's simply impossible to do, and peasantry opinion was very irrelevant anyway. It also is simply not polite to say that peasants supported the state. You got migrants, who traveled the country to evade the government, you got tons of minorities, and even then among orthodox russians large portion of population didn't trust the church and the governmen as their religion states. So the situation was pretty much complicated and fucked.
But at least we got cool political philosophies, political movements and full force anarchist societies revolved around the idea of peasantry freedom and happiness
【ｐｒｏｍｏｓｍ】
I have a theory that the Russian state collapsed in the 1990s, as the Soviet union, because of what happened in 1917. In fact, I believe that the slaughter of the Bolshevik revolution that killed the vast majority of the professional Civil servants killed the system that was holding that huge territory together. If you look at the demographic statistics, by the 1980s all the possible civil servants that had been prepared before 1917 had already died whether because of natural causes or because of repression. By 1989 the territory of the former Russian empire had to be govern entirely by the aparatchiks brought up and educated by the Soviet system where disingenuousness and incompetence were encouraged and cultivated by state institutions. The abysmal level of incompetence that was fostered during the Soviet union is even strongly seen now with the way Putin is managing his war in Ukraine and the way his cronies are governing Russia.
You're ridiculously brainwashed. How can you even say at the same time that the entire intellectual and professional class was destroyed, and then attribute all the achievements of the Soviet Union to it? The people killed by the "Bolshevik Revolution" (the Bolsheviks were supported by the entire working class of the RSFSR and most of the population) lost their war. Although not completely, but for the most part the army and economy were built anew in Soviet times, after the revolution, which was, of course, incredibly destructive (although we must not forget that a huge number of tsarist generals, such as Brusilov, as well as a huge part of the Russian intelligentsia supported the Bolsheviks). The Soviet people did not destroy the Soviet Union, it was destroyed in 7 years by the Gorbachev government (you can just compare the GDP of the USSR in 1984 and in 1991). I agree that the Soviet System has rotted at some point, but 1-it started back in the 60s, 2-it's not because the monarchists died. The man who launched us into space-Korolev studied in the Soviet Union.
I speak as a Russian you're mostly right but the union's problems were much broader. Collaborationist regimes don't last forever.
@@lox000zavryou clearly didn't get what they were trying to say in the slightest, and just spat out some senseless neostalinist propaganda
@@marcusaurelius4941
1.What did I get wrong?
2.Which of this argumens is neostalinist?
3.Which of this facts isn't true?
4.You can't response to big argument with: "nah, you're wrong"
@@lox000zavr You are also spreading false information, the Bolsheviks were not supported by all of the workers, or even close to a majority of the RSFSR population. They in fact lost the elections before they dissolved it. And they do not fight or murder “monarchists” only, there were many factions of White Army in Civil War.
DijOTsvv8
Bismark said that Russia is German India,colony,which gives resources and food and get technology for them.Still not much changed from that time
Bismarck never said anything like that...
I don't think Bismarck would ever say that.
But anyway, we just returned to everything what we left after the October Revolution.
Poorly
POORLY!!!
It didn't.
It worked 300 years
I think the whole world can agree that if Russia never existed, the planet would be much much better off
No
@@elyisusking3603 cope
The planet would be better if humanity didn't exist. And your comment reminds me of what a famous Austrian artist tried to do, are you by any chance a fan?
@@ArdaSReal the world would be better if the germans didn't exist because of the nazis
see how dumb you sound ?
No, it wouldn't be...