en.wikipedia.org
>The city state of Novgorod had developed procedures of governance that held a large measure of democratic participation far in advance of the rest of Europe.
Just imagine that the Novgorod Republic united all Russian lands, not Moscow. Now Russia would be a democratic, liberal and developed Nordic country and a paragon of modern civilization. How much the world would be better now.
Tell me more
hahaha imagine believing that
Did you know the death penalty was rare or outright banned in most medieval Russian kingdoms? They were ahead of their time. What went so wrong?
en.wikipedia.org
Novgorod had a developed culture when other Slavs, especially Muscovians still lived in swamps and forests.
This is actually true.
Tвoй Hoвый гoд пo тeмнo-cинeй
вoлнe cpeдь мopя гopoдcкoгo
плывeт в тocкe нeoбьяcнимoй,
кaк бyдтo жизнь нaчнeтcя cнoвa,
кaк бyдтo бyдeт cвeт и cлaвa,
yдaчный дeнь и вдoвoль хлeбa,
кaк бyдтo жизнь кaчнeтcя впpaвo,
кaчнyвшиcь влeвo.
>putting a dangerous criminal in a small room for the rest of their life while taxpayers fund it instead of quickly and painlessly ending it is more humane
yikes
Novgorod was basically merchant republic. They didnt have the drive to unite shit. Moscow vs Novgorod was like Rome vs Carthage
they had a lot of what you would call "democracy." They had a big bell tower and when bell war rung, all people assembled and voted over something. Novgorod was also connected to balt and had trade connection with Hansa cities. That brought money and western ideas. Also when mongols came, Novgorod was shielded by marshes. Before mongols get through them, Novgorod paid them some tribute to gtfo. Since mongols didnt want to swim through swams, they inded gtfo.
Unfortunately what they didnt have was grain. Moscow sold them grain mostly, but over time Novgorod got dependent on grain imports and Moscow used this to gain power and influence over them. When mongols were kicked out, Novgorod was forcibly annexed by moscow soon after. (at that time it was 3rd biggest city in Rus after Moscow and Kiev)
It got totally BTFO during one schizo episode of Ivan the Terrible. He thought Novgorod wants to defect to Poland, so he sacked the city and executed big number of citizen. Today its irrelevant provintial city
They got conquered by barbaric mongol muscovy
at least if after 20 years you find him not guilty, you can release him
>They didnt have the drive to unite shit.
Why? Merchants and boyars did want to unite all Russian lands to get more clay they can exploit and people they can sell their goods to.
Thriving civilization of booming economic activivity freedom democracyand prosperity of people ruined by savages
Nothing personal Novgorod
:(
Moscow region probably was baltic and finnish before slavic colonisation.
Novgorod was the power of northern europe when KAREL bulls ran it
>you will never be a novgorodian citizen gathering up goods to trade to the hanseatic league to obtain money and products, working in your trade in the city crafting or providing services.
I'm talking about 14th century, when Novgorod was a thriving city and Moscow was a village.
I miss Novgorod, they were closer to Poles than any other East Slavic nation, their language retained nasal vowels, Slavic perfect tense and they were politically connected to us for many years.
m8, if Novgorodians knew what expects them under Moscow, they would beg the Swedes to come in and stay
It was shit repblic, lying under hanze merchants.
then why didnt they expand when they had a lot of wealth and power as a rich Hansa city. Even when they were strong enough to BTFO Teutons. Meanwhile Moscow started as literal village fort in tundra and they expanded all the time and strive towards more power and influence. Novgorod just cared about comfry trade and money. I dont say thats necessarily bad, but it didnt help them much good in the long run. The analogy of Carthage and Rome is fitting IMO
Do Russians consider the history of Novgorod as "theirs" or it's the history of a different country for you and the history of Russia is basically the history of Moscow?
When westeuragatans were slaves of feudal lords who dicked them.novgodians were free men who elected their rulers and were imcluded in the political system.
this
>At the end of the Mongol Yoke during the 15th century, in order to try to keep Ivan III at bay, Novgorod tried to form an alliance with Lithuania, a Catholic country. Seeing this as a betrayal to not only all of Rus, but also God himself, Ivan III, on July 1471, sent troops to the outskirts of Novgorod and defeated the Novgorod army in the battle at the river Shelon. With this, the free “democratic” city of Novgorod ceased to be, and was replaced by Ivan III sympathizers.
BAITED
You are a brainlet. Moscow united all those lands precisely because it was not like Novgorod.
And we've all seen how these "democratic" oligarch republics fared with PLC - pathetic. Absolutism was the way back then.
Swedes and Finnish tribes (yes Finnish) were the first ones who tried rob and destroy Novgorod. SWEDES made Russia evil. How would Swedes apologize?
>then why didnt they expand when they had a lot of wealth and power as a rich Hansa city.
I don't know. But Poland was also an oligarchic republic in 16-17th centuries and it did expand everywhere it could. I don't know why Novgorod didn't follow the same way (or maybe Poles learnt from their mistakes and that's why Poland expanded its territory).
based russkie tells it as it is. N*vgorod was full if dirty kulak merchants and based Ivan blow them the fuck out. Too bad he let some of them live
>that asiatic collectivist mind
The fall of Novgorod was a true tragedy, but trying to imagine how things could have been different is pure fantasy. If Novgorod prevailed against Moscow, they probably would have been destroyed by someone or something else. Tragedy seems to be a common theme in Russian history.
>lying under hanze merchants.
Just like every rich country in Europe back then
>(at that time it was 3rd biggest city in Rus after Moscow and Kiev)
Only at that time Kiev has long lost its relevance. It was totally devastated by the Mongols and was reduced to a small regional city of GDL.
Swedes are uncivilized apes. They invite niggers to their country to watch how negroes copulate with swedish women. Disgusting.
Merchant republics tend not to expand because their diffuse and decentralized power structure makes control of large territories difficult. Historian Charles Tilly presents an interesting theory on why merchant republics didn't come to dominate the international political system in the pictured book which I recommend reading.
But so was Novgorod.
1000 years of anti-russian actions, compare that to kokhols who recently realized they were a nation of their own
When the musgolites invade
I wonder what Novgorod would have been like under Swedish rule. I guess a lot of conflicts with Moscow could have been prevented, but I'm not sure
England, Germany, Italy, France, all were the same.
>And we've all seen how these "democratic" oligarch republics fared with PLC - pathetic
We were doing pretty well for most of 15th and 16th century and democratic Poland raped Germans, Russians, Swedes, Turks and many other enemies.
It's just Cossacks who destroyed it. But it's not that absolutist countries never collapsed.
Are you stupid? Moscow was not a village in 14th century...
>democratic Poland raped Germans, Russians, Swedes, Turks and many other enemies.
>In the XI-XVI centuries in Novgorod, there was almost always a shortage of bread. Often, Russian princedoms and Lithuania declared the embargo on the supply of grain for political reasons to the republic, and their own crop was rarely when it was itself. Novgorod had to make up to a third of the bread to be baked from the bark, swans or moss.
comparing to Novgorod it was, especially mentally.
en.wikipedia.org
so? If all their neighbors imposed sanctions against them, no wonder they had shortages, their political system had nothing to do with it.
that book triggered my historical autism. Im sure gonna read it (if I find it somewhere, that is). Thanks. How do you even know this stuff?
Not sure why you would cherrypick the battle of Kircholm since we came back a while later and conquered it again. What I meant, however, is that you can't really call Poland under that time democratic in the proper sense, or at least in the modern sense.
What does Millenium of Russia stands for? Not foundation of Moscow, but invitation of Varangians. So no, not just Moscow.
AFAIK Russkies consider post Kievian Rus period as a sort of "warring states" period of Russia. An unpleasant transition time when the original big state fell apart and everybody was just waiting until one of the pieces gets strong enough to unite them again
Yes, you can call Poland democratic state at that time. We had many more privilaged people to participate in votings than any European country at that time. That was the reason of our doom btw.
Thanks
Anymore non-soviet russian stories?
You are quite literally retarded. All successful European empires were absolutist. Simply because it was the best way back then. The problem is that Russia didn't really transition to modern times.
>in my mind we were successful
Whatever makes you sleep better at night.
do you have any other good gems you could recommend? pic related. It doesnt even have to be russia related
And yeah it wasn't democratic, you are delusional. It was an oligarchy.
Got any good links or books I can read about this in? I'm particularly interested in the Swedish-Polish union as well as the Swedish kings on the Polish throne, which seems to have been a bit of a failure
>All successful European empires were absolutist. Simply because it was the best way back then.
What does "successful" mean then? Oligarchic Poland conquered literally all of Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.
You sound like a child.
Because Rurikids, Rurikids everywere.
where is the ukrainian from?
kek pun
>Not sure why you would cherrypick the battle of Kircholm since we came back a while later and conquered it again.
But there were also many battles and wars we won, at some point Poland owned whole Latvia and most of Estonia. And we eventually won the Deluge and pushed back Swedes.
And where is the huge Poland now, friend?
Lol ironic OP, you are polish
And where is the huge absolutist Sweden? Or the huge French Empire? Or Prussia?
>comparing to Novgorod it was
No, it wasn't. They had comparable population.
> especially mentally.
The fuck does it even mean? One BTFOed another, united all the lands and carved out one of the biggest empires in the World. But the other was "mentally superior", ok...
Dunno, but I know there is Russia :^)
>And we eventually won the Deluge and pushed back Swedes.
Yes, it was certainly well fought but we took back all those lands and more so it didn't really make too much of a difference in the end. The Deluge was unfortunately mostly about stealing riches and wealth to build the military and create a proper empire.
Where is russian empire or Soviet union?
Mongols. [cue clip of mongols raiding]
The history of Russia didn't even begin in Kiev.
F*nns
never said that. I was talking about Kiev Rus. Are you being butthurt or something? I srsly cant tell
>literally all of Eastern Europe
Except not even close. And you didn't conquer it. You just filled the power vacuum in former Southern Rus' lands after its complete devastation of Mongols. You would NEVER be able to expand into these lands otherwise. And you couldn't even hold it, after time passed and those lands semi-recovered. You were pathetic.
>of Mongols
*by Mongols
Comfy
>Except not even close.
We owned everything except for few stripes of land at the Black Sea, like Crimea.
> You just filled the power vacuum in former Southern Rus' lands after its complete devastation of Mongols.
Lol, by this logic, Sweden and Russia only "filled the power vacuum in former Commonwealth land after its complete devastation by Cossacks" and they would never be able to expand into Poland otherwise - that's why they didn't do it in 15 or 16th century, when it was Poland raping all its neighbors.
Your all arguments are like "if Russia had strong, Poland would have never conquered it". It applies to literally every country in the world because every country fails, only when it has problems and it's weak, never when it's strong.
>And you couldn't even hold it, after time passed and those lands semi-recovered.
The same could be said about absolutist Sweden, absolutist Russia, absolutist Prussia etc., none of these countries exists anymore.
>You were pathetic.
Just like any of the countries mentioned above.
>if Russia had strong,
if Russia had been strong*
All that Ukrainian's arguments are like
>if Poland turned out to be weak, it was because it wasn't absolutist, but when absolutist countries turned out to be weak, it was always because of different factors"
literally "real communism has never been tried"
oh look, bydlo Polaks and Hohols shitted up the thread with their Kangposting. Time to let it die
this should have been a thread for karelians eastern swedes and north western russians
Agreed
I'm on phone, so I can't really provide any links atm. Just search for our nobles ('szlachta') during the first commonwealth times. We had a unique system at that time that allowed way too many people to take a part in elections. This resulted in chaos because ordinary people were easy to bribe. Prussians and Russians took advantage of this retarded system. Also Jews took an advantage of that and we had this saying (sorry for my english): "Those who are with Jews, have already taken (the bribe). Those who are yelling against them, are screaming to get (the bribe)".
Another example: Only Poland had a system of electing kings. We did not have a system that was everywhere else where the throne was passed to a son. We instead were electing our kings and the result was that we disappeared at the end of XVIII century. Also as far as I remember (I read it somewhere) about 10% of our population could vote. Wheras in France for instance it was about 5%. In the UK it was less than 3%.
btw, Poland raped Ivan the Terrible's absolutist Russia as well
en.wikipedia.org
and while in absolutist countries, when the absolute ruler dies, the country turns into shit, just like it happened in Russia after Ivan died, in oligarchic countries like Poland, kings could die, nobles could die, oligarchs could die, but it didn't matter at all, other people replaced them and since the country was ruled by the collective parliament, death of one, two or even more people couldn't affect its stability
Poland was so "weak", that three major absolutist powers of Europe had to ally to eventually destroy it. Meanwhile, all absolutist countries in Central and Eastern Europe collapsed due to internal tensions in WW1, without the actual invasion from a foreign country.
seeing as the concept of absolutism is more so an ideal of statehood that a state may be near or far from, his argument is true that more absolutist states are stronger than less autocratic states (in that time period at least), We're comparing the power of states, not how they fulfill a model of an ideal society, so the 'real communism' meme is irrelevant here.
>emocratic Poland raped Germans, Russians, Swedes, Turks and many other enemies.
The eternal Pole daydreaming as usual, everybody.
>democratic
>good