Change of pace; question on WW1 history / LC?

[Alan Grayson]

As you probably know, Barbara Tuchman was awarded a Pulitzer prize for The Guns of August (1962). In a later work, The Proud Tower (1966), focused on European history in the two decades preceding WW1, she writes the following in chapter 5 (emphasis mine);

JOY, HOPE, SUSPICION—above all, astonishment—were the world’s prevailing emotions when it learned on August 29, 1898, that the young Czar of Russia, Nicholas II, had issued a call to the nations to join in a conference for the limitation of armaments. All the capitals were taken by surprise by what Le Temps called “this flash of lightning out of the North.” That the call should come from the mighty and ever expanding power whom the other nations feared and who was still regarded, despite its two hundred years of European veneer, as semi-barbaric, was cause for dazed wonderment liberally laced with distrust. The pressure of Russian expansion had been felt from Alaska to India, from Turkey to Poland. “The Czar with an olive branch,” it was said in Vienna, “that’s something new in history.” But his invitation touched a chord aching to respond.

What expansion is she referring to? TIA, AG

[Lawrence Crowell]

The Russians had a pan-Slavic ideology, where all the Slavic regions of the world would be under the tutelage of Russia, This included much of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where this was a sore point. Bohemia, now the Czech Republic, Slovakia and areas formerly within Yugoslavia and prior to that within the Austro-Hungarian empire were intended to be a part of a greater pan-Slavic domain. This required by geography influence over Romania and Hungary. This was finally achieved by the USSR in the end of WWII.

There was also something called the "Great Game," where Afghanistan the Hindu Kush and that general region was contested by Russia and the British Empire. The current problems with Kashmir is a carry over from this, where a Muslim majority region is a part of Hindustan India. This is an elevated region that in a sense looks over India, and was the staging area for the Mogul invasion of India. The UK was loathe to having Russia perched in that position over the "Jewel in the Crown" that was the British Raj in India.

Then finally there is the middle east or the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Tsarist Russia hovered over these archaic and declining regions. Russia coveted the straits and a return of the "Truth Faith" of Orthodox Christianity to Constantinople, and this would give Russia more naval access. The Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe, and the Crimean war was fought to keep Russia out of the straits of Dardanelles and Anatolia, and Russia worked to foster the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Russia also sought increased influence in Persia. 

LC

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:28:18 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

The Russians had a pan-Slavic ideology, where all the Slavic regions of the world would be under the tutelage of Russia, This included much of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where this was a sore point. Bohemia, now the Czech Republic, Slovakia and areas formerly within Yugoslavia and prior to that within the Austro-Hungarian empire were intended to be a part of a greater pan-Slavic domain. This required by geography influence over Romania and Hungary. This was finally achieved by the USSR in the end of WWII.

There was also something called the "Great Game," where Afghanistan the Hindu Kush and that general region was contested by Russia and the British Empire. The current problems with Kashmir is a carry over from this, where a Muslim majority region is a part of Hindustan India. This is an elevated region that in a sense looks over India, and was the staging area for the Mogul invasion of India. The UK was loathe to having Russia perched in that position over the "Jewel in the Crown" that was the British Raj in India.

Then finally there is the middle east or the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Tsarist Russia hovered over these archaic and declining regions. Russia coveted the straits and a return of the "Truth Faith" of Orthodox Christianity to Constantinople, and this would give Russia more naval access. The Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe, and the Crimean war was fought to keep Russia out of the straits of Dardanelles and Anatolia, and Russia worked to foster the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Russia also sought increased influence in Persia. 

LC

I really appreciate having access to your command of history. One other thing while we're on the subject of European history. What exactly is a "Slav"? I once looked it up on Wiki and the definition or concept seemed unintelligible; vague at best. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 11:09:57 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:28:18 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

The Russians had a pan-Slavic ideology, where all the Slavic regions of the world would be under the tutelage of Russia, This included much of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where this was a sore point. Bohemia, now the Czech Republic, Slovakia and areas formerly within Yugoslavia and prior to that within the Austro-Hungarian empire were intended to be a part of a greater pan-Slavic domain. This required by geography influence over Romania and Hungary. This was finally achieved by the USSR in the end of WWII.

There was also something called the "Great Game," where Afghanistan the Hindu Kush and that general region was contested by Russia and the British Empire. The current problems with Kashmir is a carry over from this, where a Muslim majority region is a part of Hindustan India. This is an elevated region that in a sense looks over India, and was the staging area for the Mogul invasion of India. The UK was loathe to having Russia perched in that position over the "Jewel in the Crown" that was the British Raj in India.

Then finally there is the middle east or the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Tsarist Russia hovered over these archaic and declining regions. Russia coveted the straits and a return of the "Truth Faith" of Orthodox Christianity to Constantinople, and this would give Russia more naval access. The Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe, and the Crimean war was fought to keep Russia out of the straits of Dardanelles and Anatolia, and Russia worked to foster the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Russia also sought increased influence in Persia. 

LC

I really appreciate having access to your command of history. One other thing while we're on the subject of European history. What exactly is a "Slav"? I once looked it up on Wiki and the definition or concept seemed unintelligible; vague at best. AG

Offhand, I think a "Slav" is likely defined on religious grounds; that is, differentiated from other Christians as Roman Catholicism is differentiated from Greek, Ukrainian, and Russian Orthodoxy. But what is that difference if my basic assumption is sound? AG  

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 12:09:57 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:28:18 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

The Russians had a pan-Slavic ideology, where all the Slavic regions of the world would be under the tutelage of Russia, This included much of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where this was a sore point. Bohemia, now the Czech Republic, Slovakia and areas formerly within Yugoslavia and prior to that within the Austro-Hungarian empire were intended to be a part of a greater pan-Slavic domain. This required by geography influence over Romania and Hungary. This was finally achieved by the USSR in the end of WWII.

There was also something called the "Great Game," where Afghanistan the Hindu Kush and that general region was contested by Russia and the British Empire. The current problems with Kashmir is a carry over from this, where a Muslim majority region is a part of Hindustan India. This is an elevated region that in a sense looks over India, and was the staging area for the Mogul invasion of India. The UK was loathe to having Russia perched in that position over the "Jewel in the Crown" that was the British Raj in India.

Then finally there is the middle east or the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Tsarist Russia hovered over these archaic and declining regions. Russia coveted the straits and a return of the "Truth Faith" of Orthodox Christianity to Constantinople, and this would give Russia more naval access. The Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe, and the Crimean war was fought to keep Russia out of the straits of Dardanelles and Anatolia, and Russia worked to foster the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Russia also sought increased influence in Persia. 

LC

I really appreciate having access to your command of history. One other thing while we're on the subject of European history. What exactly is a "Slav"? I once looked it up on Wiki and the definition or concept seemed unintelligible; vague at best. AG

A part of my heritage is Slavic. It really is more a language distinction. Anyone who has Slavic heritage just means someone in their family tree spoke Russian, Ukranian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian or Slovenian etc. It is not really a race, It is much the same distinction as Germanic, which can include Anglo-Saxons as much as what might be called the German-Saxons. 

Slavs have been considered less civilized than the rest of Europe, and define the more tattered eastern European region. It is the case that war and violence have been more severe in this region. Poland, part of my heritage, was treated largely the way a baby treats a diaper by Russia and Germany. The first Slavic nation to reach some par with the rest of Europe was Bohemia, now Czechia. Then maybe next was Poland. Remember that Copernicus was Polish and Kepler Czechian. Even prior to that the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Charles was Czechian. Russia was regarded as a barbaric howling human wilderness for a long time. My experience with Russia is that it is quite impoverished and there is an unusual deference for authority. 

BTW, Hungary is not Slavic, it is Uralic. That language, a language "invented by the Devil," is more related to Finnish, Turkish and even Mongolian.

LC

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 12:54:20 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 11:09:57 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 7:28:18 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

The Russians had a pan-Slavic ideology, where all the Slavic regions of the world would be under the tutelage of Russia, This included much of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where this was a sore point. Bohemia, now the Czech Republic, Slovakia and areas formerly within Yugoslavia and prior to that within the Austro-Hungarian empire were intended to be a part of a greater pan-Slavic domain. This required by geography influence over Romania and Hungary. This was finally achieved by the USSR in the end of WWII.

There was also something called the "Great Game," where Afghanistan the Hindu Kush and that general region was contested by Russia and the British Empire. The current problems with Kashmir is a carry over from this, where a Muslim majority region is a part of Hindustan India. This is an elevated region that in a sense looks over India, and was the staging area for the Mogul invasion of India. The UK was loathe to having Russia perched in that position over the "Jewel in the Crown" that was the British Raj in India.

Then finally there is the middle east or the Ottoman Empire and Persia. Tsarist Russia hovered over these archaic and declining regions. Russia coveted the straits and a return of the "Truth Faith" of Orthodox Christianity to Constantinople, and this would give Russia more naval access. The Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe, and the Crimean war was fought to keep Russia out of the straits of Dardanelles and Anatolia, and Russia worked to foster the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Russia also sought increased influence in Persia. 

LC

I really appreciate having access to your command of history. One other thing while we're on the subject of European history. What exactly is a "Slav"? I once looked it up on Wiki and the definition or concept seemed unintelligible; vague at best. AG

Offhand, I think a "Slav" is likely defined on religious grounds; that is, differentiated from other Christians as Roman Catholicism is differentiated from Greek, Ukrainian, and Russian Orthodoxy. But what is that difference if my basic assumption is sound? AG  

The Eastern Orthodox Church includes a lot of Slavs, but Greeks who are Orthodox are not Slavs, and Poles, Czechians, Slovenians and Croatians are Catholic for the most part. Saint Cyril went from Constantinople to Christianize the Rus, which were largely tribal people living in what is now Russia. The Rus were a mixture of Vikings, Goths, Tartars and other ethnic groups. The term Slav is connected to the word slave, and the Vikings did a sort of slave trade with people there. The Viking network was extensive and they traded all the way south and east with the Persians. The Viking sword was very strong based on Persian steel that was hardened with phosphorus. Cyril developed the Cyrillic alphabet based on Greek letters for the language largely spoken by the Rus. This lead to modern Russian, which is related to the language then in a way English today is related to pre-1066 ancient English.

LC

[Tomasz Rola]

A nice and short explanation about word root "slav-" is being given
here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs_(ethnonym)#Etymology

It boils down to come from "slovo" which in English means "a word".

By my understanding, another explanation may be by connecting to
"slava", which means "fame", more or less. There is a number of names
in Polish containing "-slav" ending:

Mscislav = famous avenger
Stanislav = stand up and say about him
Vodzislav = famous leader
Miroslav = famous around the world
Sviatoslav = as Miroslav

etc etc. If you are not famous, go away :-).

> Slavs have been considered less civilized than the rest of Europe,

Wrt barbarism, depends on point of view...

Vikings were widely known barbarians, but it takes a lot of guts and
curiosity to sit into a boat, sail for days in open ocean and come to
North America via the less traveled route. I mean, without even
knowing there was some America out there. Someone has got to be
first.

Perhaps they did not like "worldly" people's court intrigues so much.

> and define the more tattered eastern European region. It is the case
> that war and violence have been more severe in this region. Poland,
> part of my heritage, was treated largely the way a baby treats a
> diaper by Russia and Germany.

Well, Poland has a strange location. Anybody invading westward will
have to ride through Poland. And anybody invading eastward will have
to ride through... you guessed it, Poland.

Maybe we should start selling tickets or something.

> The first Slavic nation to reach some
> par with the rest of Europe was Bohemia, now Czechia. Then maybe
> next was Poland. Remember that Copernicus was Polish and Kepler
> Czechian. Even prior to that the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

Also, Johannes Hevelius spent his life in Gdansk (sometimes called
Danzig, I guess the dual name was not a big deal until XIX century), at
that time belonging to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

[...]

> BTW, Hungary is not Slavic, it is Uralic. That language, a language
> "invented by the Devil," is more related to Finnish, Turkish and
> even Mongolian.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) ]

--
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
** **
** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomas...@bigfoot.com **

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:20:10 PM UTC-5, Tomasz Rola wrote:

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 05:13:42AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I really appreciate having access to your command of history. One
> > other thing while we're on the subject of European history. What
> > exactly is a "Slav"? I once looked it up on Wiki and the
> > definition or concept seemed unintelligible; vague at best. AG
> >
>
> A part of my heritage is Slavic. It really is more a language
> distinction.  Anyone who has Slavic heritage just means someone in
> their family tree spoke Russian, Ukranian, Polish, Czech, Slovak,
> Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian or Slovenian etc. It is not really a
> race, It is much the same distinction as Germanic, which can include
> Anglo-Saxons as much as what might be called the German-Saxons.

A nice and short explanation about word root "slav-" is being given
here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs_(ethnonym)#Etymology

It boils down to come from "slovo" which in English means "a word".

If you read on the connection between Slav and slave is made. The Vikings did capture people of the Rus and trade them as slaves. 

 

By my understanding, another explanation may be by connecting to
"slava", which means "fame", more or less. There is a number of names
in Polish containing "-slav" ending:

Mscislav = famous avenger
Stanislav = stand up and say about him
Vodzislav = famous leader
Miroslav = famous around the world
Sviatoslav = as Miroslav

etc etc. If you are not famous, go away :-).

> Slavs have been considered less civilized than the rest of Europe,

Wrt barbarism, depends on point of view...

Vikings were widely known barbarians, but it takes a lot of guts and
curiosity to sit into a boat, sail for days in open ocean and come to
North America via the less traveled route. I mean, without even
knowing there was some America out there. Someone has got to be
first.

Perhaps they did not like "worldly" people's court intrigues so much.

When the Vikings reigned supreme the western world was pretty much in disarray. The Europeans who took the hardest blows from Vikings were the Merovingian Franks of 500 to 700 CE. The Franks were not at any high point of great culture or civilization either. The Vikings established one long lasting kingdom in Normandy, which had a future big impact on Britain. The Vikings were a pretty rough group, and if you were a Frank living in a village that got taken by the Vikings, chances you would not live to see the next day. The Vikings also put an end to a fledgling literary renaissance in Ireland.

 

> and define the more tattered eastern European region. It is the case
> that war and violence have been more severe in this region. Poland,
> part of my heritage, was treated largely the way a baby treats a
> diaper by Russia and Germany.

Well, Poland has a strange location. Anybody invading westward will
have to ride through Poland. And anybody invading eastward will have
to ride through... you guessed it, Poland.

Maybe we should start selling tickets or something.

> The first Slavic nation to reach some
> par with the rest of Europe was Bohemia, now Czechia. Then maybe
> next was Poland. Remember that Copernicus was Polish and Kepler
> Czechian. Even prior to that the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

Also, Johannes Hevelius spent his life in Gdansk (sometimes called
Danzig, I guess the dual name was not a big deal until XIX century), at
that time belonging to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

[...]
> BTW, Hungary is not Slavic, it is Uralic. That language, a language
> "invented by the Devil," is more related to Finnish, Turkish and
> even Mongolian.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) ]

--
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

I know Russian, though I have not used it in over 20 years, but Russian is easy to understand compared to Hungarian. People think German is hard, but it really is about as hard as Russian, and both are somewhat more difficult than French. To be honest my knowledge of languages has lead me to consider Spanish the most sensible language in the world. I spent some time in Budapest, and the language was difficult to work around, and I hardly remember any fragments of it. The difficulty is that to make a statement you have to mentally frame the whole thing completely before uttering. English is word/time ordered and with Russian you can order things as you want with declensions, but Hungarian is terribly tough. 

Your name sounds Hungarian. I found it curious how common the name Atilla was. 

The other tough language is Polish, which is a really deformed variant of Slavic language. I never figured it out. 

LC 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:40 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

When the Vikings reigned supreme the western world was pretty much in disarray. The Europeans who took the hardest blows from Vikings were the Merovingian Franks of 500 to 700 CE. The Franks were not at any high point of great culture or civilization either. The Vikings established one long lasting kingdom in Normandy, which had a future big impact on Britain. The Vikings were a pretty rough group, and if you were a Frank living in a village that got taken by the Vikings, chances you would not live to see the next day. The Vikings also put an end to a fledgling literary renaissance in Ireland.

And yet the Vikings were responsible for one of the great flowerings of medieval literature and culture in the Icelandic Sagas, which are as much about the history of the Vikings (they were a brutal lot!) as of the settlement of Iceland/Greenland/North America.

Bruce

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 05:40:34PM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:20:10 PM UTC-5, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> >

[...]

> > A nice and short explanation about word root "slav-" is being given
> > here:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs_(ethnonym)#Etymology
> >
> > It boils down to come from "slovo" which in English means "a word".
> >
>
> If you read on the connection between Slav and slave is made. The Vikings
> did capture people of the Rus and trade them as slaves.

There seems to be a connection, but when you capture someone and trade
him, I doubt they would keep pointing at themselves and saying "man, I
am Slavian". I guess the origin of word "slave" may be a bit of them
folks being of Slavian ethnicity and a bit because they stubbornly
kept asking their masters "what is this word" (in Polish: "co to za
slowo", in other Slavic languages "slowo" may be spelled more like
"slavo", too). Nice way to be a PITA to whoever bought you.

[...]

> When the Vikings reigned supreme the western world was pretty much in
> disarray. The Europeans who took the hardest blows from Vikings were the
> Merovingian Franks of 500 to 700 CE. The Franks were not at any high point
> of great culture or civilization either. The Vikings established one long
> lasting kingdom in Normandy, which had a future big impact on Britain. The
> Vikings were a pretty rough group, and if you were a Frank living in a
> village that got taken by the Vikings, chances you would not live to see
> the next day. The Vikings also put an end to a fledgling literary
> renaissance in Ireland.

I guess any other invader would do exactly the same. So there is
nothing unusually brutal in Viking behaviour - slash, burn, get spoils
and leave your enemies weakened. This pattern of action may be
observed in all wars since the beginning of time (at least those I
have read about).

[...]

> I know Russian, though I have not used it in over 20 years, but Russian is
> easy to understand compared to Hungarian. People think German is hard, but
> it really is about as hard as Russian, and both are somewhat more difficult
> than French. To be honest my knowledge of languages has lead me to consider
> Spanish the most sensible language in the world. I spent some time in
> Budapest, and the language was difficult to work around, and I hardly
> remember any fragments of it. The difficulty is that to make a statement
> you have to mentally frame the whole thing completely before uttering.
> English is word/time ordered and with Russian you can order things as you
> want with declensions, but Hungarian is terribly tough.

I enjoy deciphering texts in unknown (to me) languages, despite not
knowing so many of them. Well, the more one can do with small means,
the bigger the fun. With Hungarian, however, I do not even try. Maybe
later.

> Your name sounds Hungarian. I found it curious how common the name Atilla
> was.
>
> The other tough language is Polish, which is a really deformed variant of
> Slavic language. I never figured it out.

Polish is not deformed. It is encrypted :-).

My name is 200% Polish, which makes sense because I am Pole. Albeit
(from what I have read) "Tomasz" is derived from Arameic "Toma", which
supposedly means "a twin". My surname means "arable soil".

--
Regards,
Tomasz Rola