Attn: John AtkinsonRe: Warriors of the Steppe
Shadow-Eyes
John M. Atkinson wrote:
[John's original question left in for reference]-------------------
> I've noted you mentioned this book several times on the group, so I
> thought I might bounce a kinda minor question off you. On the front
> cover, a horseman is depicted, presumably from the Golden Horde(?).
> The most striking point of that painting is that his lance is
> painted/stained bright red. I was wondering if you might know whether
> this was a tradition among certain steppe groups, or if it was adopted
> in Russia, or if it might simply be personal preference of the
> horseman in question. Thank you.
John,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. Here is
Hildinger's reply. I'm also sending it up to the group because I'm not
sure I am getting past your spam blocker.
-------[Insert Pasted material-Hildinger's reply]-------------
The horseman on the cover of my book is actually a Russian and not a
member of the Kipchak Khanate. He's there for dramatic effect and
because
the Russians, for centuries under the influence of the Tatars,
equipped themselves and fought like them. Who knows what color the
Tatars
painted their lances or if there was any uniformity. Under Tamerlane
there may have been some of this: recall his campaign against Bayazet
in
which he had some elite unites with color-coordinated outfits.
Erik,
----------[End pasted material]-------------------------
For those of you interested. The book in question is:
Warriors of the Steppe : A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. to
1700
A.D.
by Erik Hildinger
Published by Sarpedon Pub
Publication date: August 1, 1997
Dimensions (in inches): 9.33 x 6.32 x .99
ISBN: 1885119437
> PS--watch out for the spamblocker, as I'm sending this via my
> newsreading software.
>
> John M. Atkinson
>
> Cogito Ergo BOOM!
> --Button purchased at a Con
-- John Jimenez
-----------[The mother of all 'lines'<g>]------------------------
You're gettin' ready to blow? I'm a mushroom-cloud-layin'
M***********, M***********! Every time my fingers touch brain I'm
"SUPERFLY T.N.T," I'm the "GUNS OF NAVARONE" ready to explode. In fact,
what the f*** am I doin' in the back? You're the M********** should be
on brain detail! We're tradin'. I'm washin' windows and you're pickin'
up this n****** skull.
Jules_(Samuel L. Jackson's character) from Pulp Fiction
Alex Milman
Shadow-Eyes wrote:
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
>
> [John's original question left in for reference]-------------------
> > I've noted you mentioned this book several times on the group, so I
> > thought I might bounce a kinda minor question off you. On the front
> > cover, a horseman is depicted, presumably from the Golden Horde(?).
> > The most striking point of that painting is that his lance is
> > painted/stained bright red. I was wondering if you might know whether
> > this was a tradition among certain steppe groups, or if it was adopted
> > in Russia, or if it might simply be personal preference of the
> > horseman in question. Thank you.
>
> John,
>
> Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. Here is
> Hildinger's reply. I'm also sending it up to the group because I'm not
> sure I am getting past your spam blocker.
>
> -------[Insert Pasted material-Hildinger's reply]-------------
>
> The horseman on the cover of my book is actually a Russian and not a
> member of the Kipchak Khanate. He's there for dramatic effect and
> because
> the Russians, for centuries under the influence of the Tatars,
> equipped themselves and fought like them.
Not exactly true. Certain things had been definitely adopted, for
examplesabres instead of the swords and eventually small round shields
became
adopted (at least by a cavalry) instead of the bigger shields of an earlier
period. You can also trace a modification of the helmets but they were not a
direct borrowing from Tatars and neither were bows (mostly wooden, AFAIK).
Chainmail was neither Tatar nor Russian invention and, AFAIK, the scaled
armor
often used by Mongols never was very popular in Russia. Development in this
area
went halfway into a western direction: pieces of an armor plate would be
either
incorporated into a chainmail or weared on the top of it.
There were definite borrowing from Tatar tactics but, AFAIK, they were
mostly in
an area of the administrative arrangements: army had been divided into the
divisions
following a Mongolian model (wings, advanceguard, main body, reserve).
Russians could not fight exactly like Tatars because they did not posess (en
mass) the
same level of a horsemanship and also because they usually pursued different
goals
than their Tatar counterparts (I'm not talking about Mongols here): their
usual goal
was either defense or conquest vs Tatar's looting raids. Different goals ask
for different
means. To provide fighting Tatar-style Russian princes and Tzars quite often
used
real Tatar contingents.
> Who knows what color the
> Tatars
> painted their lances or if there was any uniformity. Under Tamerlane
> there may have been some of this: recall his campaign against Bayazet
> in
> which he had some elite unites with color-coordinated outfits.
>
IIRC (can't garantee),this was a pre-Tatar Russian habit. They used to paint
theirshields red and probably the same applied to the lances.
Shadow-Eyes
In article <3523A5C1...@gte.com>,
These are "equipment" and arms.
> direct borrowing from Tatars and neither were bows
Yes they were. They might also have made their bows in the same steppe fashion
or had the tartars of kasimov manufacture them for the cavalry.
maybe they had acces to these weapons before the advent of the mongols in 1237
but their experience with the tartars for the following two hundred years iis
what ensured their full scale adoption of thier weapons and tactics.
>(mostly wooden, AFAIK).
They were probably constructed the old way, from horn as well.
> Chainmail was neither Tatar nor Russian invention and, AFAIK, the scaled
> armor
No, but it passed to the Russians of Grand Duke Basils time directly from the
Tartars. If they didn't use them before (and they probably did, especially
Kieven Russia) they were using them from the 1300's on, and all because of the
Tartars. Being ruled by them and having to take part in their campaigns
against the Ilkhans of Persia would have made an impression.
> often used by Mongols never was very popular in Russia.
Among the Cavarly it was. A visiting Polish dignatary who went to see Basil II
in 1445 noted how much the Moscuvy cavalry was like that of the Tartars. He
also noted that they had adopted the pracitce of wearing Silk under the wool
that was layered under thier scale mail, just like the Tartars to reduce the
damage that could be done by arrows.
Development in this
> area
> went halfway into a western direction: pieces of an armor plate would be
> either
> incorporated into a chainmail or weared on the top of it.
> There were definite borrowing from Tatar tactics but, AFAIK, they were
> mostly in
> an area of the administrative arrangements: army had been divided into the
> divisions
And in taxation.
> following a Mongolian model (wings, advanceguard, main body, reserve).
> Russians could not fight exactly like Tatars because they did not posess (en
> mass) the
> same level of a horsemanship and also because they usually pursued different
> goals
> than their Tatar counterparts (I'm not talking about Mongols here): their
> usual goal
> was either defense or conquest vs Tatar's looting raids. Different goals ask
> for different
> means.
That's a given.
> To provide fighting Tatar-style Russian princes and Tzars quite often
> used real Tatar contingents.
They were their subjects for the most part after Basil II.
>
> > Who knows what color the
> > Tatars
> > painted their lances or if there was any uniformity. Under Tamerlane
> > there may have been some of this: recall his campaign against Bayazet
> > in
> > which he had some elite unites with color-coordinated outfits.
> >
>
> IIRC (can't garantee),this was a pre-Tatar Russian habit. They used to paint
> theirshields red and probably the same applied to the lances.
>
I've never heard of this before. Old Russian was essentially scandanavian from
the influence of the Varangians. Hildinger is a published historian on the
steppes and he would have noted this if he had ever heard of it. It was
Turkish practice to color coordinate. The Sipahi's of the Ottomans and the
Jannisaires both used color cordination in their orgainization and uniforms.
The early Ottoman armies were the first in Medieval/EArly modern Europe to
have marching bands accomplany them into battle.
John Jimenez
-----------[The mother of all 'lines'<g>]------------------------
You're gettin' ready to blow? I'm a mushroom-cloud-layin' M***********,
M***********! Every time my fingers touch brain I'm "SUPERFLY T.N.T," I'm the
"GUNS OF NAVARONE" ready to explode. In fact, what the f*** am I doin' in
the back? You're the M********** should be on brain detail! We're tradin'.
I'm washin' windows and you're pickin' up this n****** skull.
Jules_(Samuel L. Jackson's character) from Pulp Fiction
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Alex Milman
Shadow-Eyes wrote:
Yes, there are. But this does not mean that Russians "equipped themself" as
Tatars.
Some parts of equipment had been definitely borrowed, but not all of them.
Protective
armor had been different, "arkan" never had been adopted, "berdish" (halebard) was
not a Tatar weapon and sabre was not a Tatar invention.
> > direct borrowing from Tatars and neither were bows
>
> Yes they were. They might also have made their bows in the same steppe fashion
> or had the tartars of kasimov manufacture them for the cavalry.
>
Bows made in Russia had been quite different: bigger and made from wood. IIRC,
Prince Kasim went into a Russian service during the reign of Ivan III. Big time
gap
between this event and Batu's conquest.
Tatar contingents eventually became a part of Russian army and they indeed had a
Tatar equipment. Your statement about a massive manufacturing of the Tatar bows
for the need of Russian cavalry needs some confirmation. At least until the reign
of
Ivan IV Russia did not have any regular cavalry (Oprichnics could be counted as
one). Each noble was obliged to go to the Great Prince/Tzar's service with the
band
armed at his expense. AFAIK, Tatar bows had been expensive and very few people
could afford to buy them. Of course, some people could get them as a trophey.
> maybe they had acces to these weapons
To which weapons? They definitely had bows, spears, etc. Sabres also werenot a new
item.
> before the advent of the mongols in 1237
> but their experience with the tartars for the following two hundred years iis
> what ensured their full scale adoption of thier weapons and tactics.
>
There was no "full scale adoption" of Mongolian weapons and tactics. First of
all,Russians could not fight as Mongols: on a national level they were not a
nation
of the horsemen. Can you produce any reliable reference showing each Russian
warrior having 2 - 3 spare horses? Or Russian forces adopting a decimal
administrative
structure?
At the late MIddle Ages, when there were numerous nomadic contingents on Russian
service (Nogai, Kasimov, nomads of Volga, etc.) these units had been extensively
used,
mostly as advance troops, to destroy enemy's territory. Their tactics had been
quite
different from tactics of the main Russian army (which also included an infantry).
> >(mostly wooden, AFAIK).
>
> They were probably constructed the old way, from horn as well.
Bows made from horn had been expensive and their manufacturing was acomplicated
process. Mongols did not have too much choise but Russians
had plenty of wood.
>
>
> > Chainmail was neither Tatar nor Russian invention and, AFAIK, the scaled
> > armor
>
> No, but it passed to the Russians of Grand Duke Basils time directly from the
> Tartars. If they didn't use them before (and they probably did, especially
> Kieven Russia) they were using them from the 1300's on, and all because of the
> Tartars. Being ruled by them and having to take part in their campaigns
> against the Ilkhans of Persia would have made an impression.
>
Russian had been using chainmail well before Tatar conquest. There are plenty
ofartifacts to prove this. Scaled armor never had been widely used in Russia
beofre
or after this period and what had been used, had been borrowed rather from
early Scandinavian models than from Tatars (looks different)
> > often used by Mongols never was very popular in Russia.
>
> Among the Cavarly it was. A visiting Polish dignatary who went to see Basil II
> in 1445 noted how much the Moscuvy cavalry was like that of the Tartars. He
> also noted that they had adopted the pracitce of wearing Silk under the wool
> that was layered under thier scale mail, just like the Tartars to reduce the
> damage that could be done by arrows.
>
Unfortunately, memories of various foreigners produced more desinformationthan
information. The fact remains that Russians had been predominantly using
chainmails. Sometimes this chainmail had been strenghtened by the pieces of a
plate armor ("zertzalo" or "bachtertsy", depending on a type) but this was not a
Tatar fashion. Silk, AFAIK, had been pretty expensive and very few people could
afford it. Actually, big part of the military class could not afford afford a
chainmail.
They had been using "tagilay": a very thick padded overcoat. You can find multiple
pictures (Western) of Russian cavalry wearing them.
> Development in this
> > area
> > went halfway into a western direction: pieces of an armor plate would be
> > either
> > incorporated into a chainmail or weared on the top of it.
> > There were definite borrowing from Tatar tactics but, AFAIK, they were
> > mostly in
> > an area of the administrative arrangements: army had been divided into the
> > divisions
> And in taxation.
>
Field army had been divided into advance division, main body ("Bolshoy
Polk"),right and left wings, reserve. This had nothing to do with a taxation.
> > following a Mongolian model (wings, advanceguard, main body, reserve).
> > Russians could not fight exactly like Tatars because they did not posess (en
> > mass) the
> > same level of a horsemanship and also because they usually pursued different
> > goals
> > than their Tatar counterparts (I'm not talking about Mongols here): their
> > usual goal
> > was either defense or conquest vs Tatar's looting raids. Different goals ask
> > for different
> > means.
> That's a given.
>
Which means that "full scale" adoption of a Tatar tactics would be
useless.Russians had 2 major types of external enemies: Tatars on the East and
Western
countries (mostly Poland - Lituania). They could not fight Tatars with Tatar
methods
because raids would not work (Cossacks of Zaporozie used to raid Tatar and Turkish
lands in a later period). They had been building the extensive defense systems and
launched some large-scale campaigns against Tatar states on Volga (Kazan and
Astrakhan). On these ocassions Russian army included cavalry, infantry and
artillery. Quite different from Tatar tactics. Against the Western enemies, as I
mentioned before, Tatar (and other) nomadic contingents had been widely used with
the main army following.
> > To provide fighting Tatar-style Russian princes and Tzars quite often
> > used real Tatar contingents.
>
> They were their subjects for the most part after Basil II.
>
But they had been only a part of the Russian army.
> >
> > > Who knows what color the
> > > Tatars
> > > painted their lances or if there was any uniformity. Under Tamerlane
> > > there may have been some of this: recall his campaign against Bayazet
> > > in
> > > which he had some elite unites with color-coordinated outfits.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC (can't garantee),this was a pre-Tatar Russian habit. They used to paint
> > theirshields red and probably the same applied to the lances.
> >
> I've never heard of this before. Old Russian was essentially scandanavian from
> the influence of the Varangians.
This influence did not last until Tatar conquest. There were centuries betweentime
of Ruric and Batu conquest. Kiev Russ did not exist in XIII century.
> Hildinger is a published historian on the
> steppes and he would have noted this if he had ever heard of it.
Does he mention the red shields?
> It was
> Turkish practice to color coordinate. The Sipahi's of the Ottomans and the
> Jannisaires both used color cordination in their orgainization and uniforms.
>
AFAIK, influence of Janissares on Russian warfare had been limited.If this
historian did not mind to put a picture of the Russian warrior on a cover
of the book about Mongols, why would he care?
Btw, how this warrior looked (I did not see this book myself)? Was he a rather
old man, with his lance kept horisontally and a mace hanging from his right hand?
Joseph Askew
Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
: Bows made from horn had been expensive and their
: manufacturing was acomplicated
: process. Mongols did not have too much choise but Russians
: had plenty of wood.
The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
It wouldn't be too much to ask you stay within the 60 characters
per line limit would it?
: Which means that "full scale" adoption of a Tatar tactics would be
: useless.Russians had 2 major types of external enemies:
: Tatars on the East and
: Western
: countries (mostly Poland - Lituania).
Very true and in the West Tartar tactics were mostly useless.
: They could not fight Tatars with Tatar
: methods
: because raids would not work
I disagree totally. They could *only* fight Tartars with Tartar
tactics until they foolishly started to settle down and build
cities which later the Russians could take. The only way to
fight nomads is with nomadic tactics - using light horsemen to
go out on the steppe, find their women, children and animals
and kill them all. Which the Russians did when they started to
win. That is what the Cossacks were for as you point out.
: (Cossacks of Zaporozie used to raid Tatar and Turkish
: lands in a later period).
Who much later are we talking? Too much before that the Russians
simply didn't win much at all.
: They had been building the extensive defense systems and
True. With Cossacks to spot invading groups. But this was pretty
much all defensive. As Russia came out of the forest belt they
turned to nomadic tactics - Cossacks mostly. Raids and counter-
raids as a general rule.
: launched some large-scale campaigns against Tatar states on Volga (Kazan and
: Astrakhan).
But by then these places were not really nomadic.
They had nomads in them, but they were often ethnically different (as
the distinction between Nogai and Crimean Tartars) and not many of
them either.
: On these ocassions Russian army included cavalry, infantry and
: artillery.
Yep. Especially when it came to taking cities.
And a large part of the Russian Army was Cossack by this time. In
fact Cossacks were conquering Siberia at about this time.
: But they had been only a part of the Russian army.
They didn't have to be more than that.
: > Hildinger is a published historian on the
: > steppes and he would have noted this if he had ever heard of it.
: Does he mention the red shields?
Hildinger is a lawyer, not a professional historian. But let's not
be snobbish about this as he has written a pretty good book. A pity
he didn't feel the need to give a proper bibliography, but he has
clearly done his homework, read his sources and produced a decent
history. But that doesn't mean he would have published every little
thing if he had heard of it. He makes mistakes, some times quite
serious ones. He is far too Western oriented and the further he
gets from Europe the less he knows. Just as an example he says the
Qing conquest was the last nomadic state formation (although only
with far more grace and style). This is wrong on two levels. First
the Manchus were not nomads even though he specifically says they
were. And second it is just not true. The Qajars took power in
Iran a century later.
So use him as a source if you like, but don't expect miracles.
: AFAIK, influence of Janissares on Russian warfare had been limited.If this
: historian did not mind to put a picture of the Russian warrior on a cover
: of the book about Mongols, why would he care?
I'm not sure that is so true. There is some evidence that the Russians
did copy parts of the Turkish system including attempts at infantry on
the Janisarry model. Just without the slave recruitment.
The book isn't about Mongols alone. He doesn't really do the Mongols
that well in my opinion. He isn't bad though. The field is full of
much much worse books.
Joseph
--
Alex Milman
Joseph Askew wrote:
> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>
> : Bows made from horn had been expensive and their
> : manufacturing was acomplicated
> : process. Mongols did not have too much choise but Russians
> : had plenty of wood.
>
> The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
> has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
> coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
> as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
> to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
> of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
> with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
>
Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
(presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources. But these bows
usually: (a) weapons of the outstanding warriors, and (b) made of Tur's horn
(extinct wild bull, don't mix with the mountain sheep that lives in Caucas
Mountains).
Most of Russian archers used simpler and cheaper bows made of wood.
Besides, for Russians bow never was a primary weapon as it was for Mongols.
> It wouldn't be too much to ask you stay within the 60 characters
> per line limit would it?
> : Which means that "full scale" adoption of a Tatar tactics would be
> : useless.Russians had 2 major types of external enemies:
> : Tatars on the East and
> : Western
> : countries (mostly Poland - Lituania).
>
> Very true and in the West Tartar tactics were mostly useless.
>
Actually, Russians used Tatar tactics against the West. Each and every
campaign,starting from Ivan IV Livonian campaign and to the Great Northern War,
involved a more or less extensive use of the Tatar (and other) contingents
which raided and looted the territory. Of course, this was not a "pure" Tatar
tactics because these contingents usually had been supported by the regular
troops.
OTOH, Crimea Tatars had been successful in their raids into Russian and
Polish territory until at least XVII. Their intervention had been one of the
crucial factors in Ukrainian war for independence (XVII). So their tactics
was reasonably effective for their limited goals (looting vs conquest).
> : They could not fight Tatars with Tatar
> : methods
> : because raids would not work
>
> I disagree totally. They could *only* fight Tartars with Tartar
> tactics until they foolishly started to settle down and build
> cities which later the Russians could take.
AFAIK, Tatars started building cities (Batu Sarai) before they werethrough with
the conquest of Russia.
> The only way to
> fight nomads is with nomadic tactics - using light horsemen to
> go out on the steppe, find their women, children and animals
> and kill them all. Which the Russians did when they started to
> win. That is what the Cossacks were for as you point out.
>
There were 3 problems with Cossacs. 1-st, most of them initiallyhad been Polish,
not Russian subjects. 2-nd, they had been difficult
to control and the most militant (and useful) part of them usually was
almost completely out of control and/or at odds with authorities.
Leaders of the successful expeditions could became the loyal subjects
(as Ermak, conqueror of Siberia) or a leader of the antigoverment
upraising (as Rasin, who launched a successful expedition against
Persia).
A 3-rd problem was their social status. They had been personally free.
To make a big cossack army meant to make considerable changes in
Russian social structure. As a result, a main body of Russian army (until
middle XVII) consisted of feodal militia and streltsy. Nomadic
contingents (Tatars, Bashkirs, etc.) and Cossacks of Ukrain and Don had
been auxiliaries.
As you well know, Russian fought nomads by setting a system of the
frontier fortifications, by launching expeditions against their vulnerable
points (cities) and by inviting them into Russian service. Their eventual
success shows that nomadic tactics was not _the only_ way to fight
nomads. BTW, later Russian conquests in Asia also had not been
conducted with a nomadic tactics.
> : (Cossacks of Zaporozie used to raid Tatar and Turkish
> : lands in a later period).
>
> Who much later are we talking?
They definitely did not do it in XIII - XIV centuries.
> Too much before that the Russians
> simply didn't win much at all.
>
Cossacs of Zaporozie had not been Russian subjects until secondhalf of XVII.
AFAIK, their raids were mostly looting expeditions
along the coast of Black Sea and did not pursue and conquest (so they
did not "won" anything). IIRC, during the reign of Alexey
Michailovitch (XVII) Cossacks of Don captured Azov and kept it
for a while. More extensive conquest was in the Eastern direction, starting
from Ermak's (unfinished) conquest of Siberian Horde.
> : They had been building the extensive defense systems and
>
> True. With Cossacks to spot invading groups.
My impression was that besides Cossacks there had been permanentgarrisons and
relatively regular warning service. Cossack inhabitat was
on Don (Ukrain was Polish) and it did not cover all possible roads to
Russia.
> But this was pretty
> much all defensive. As Russia came out of the forest belt they
> turned to nomadic tactics - Cossacks mostly. Raids and counter-
> raids as a general rule.
>
AFAIK, the big-scale anti-Tatar expeditions mostly relied on the"conventional"
armies. Ivan's expeditions against Kazan and
Astrakhan had benn conducted by the "regular" army. Campaign
of Vasily Golitsin against Crimea involved Cossack contingents
(from Ukrain) as auxiliary forces. Prout Campaign of Peter I also
had been launched by a regular army and so was Crimean campaign
of Fieldmarshal Minich. IIRC, one of the last Tatar appearences
on a battlefield (as an independent force) had been at Larga where
they had been defeated by general Rumiantsev (again regular army).
I agree that small-scale hostilities over all this period had been
conducted in a fashion you described.
> : launched some large-scale campaigns against Tatar states on Volga (Kazan and
> : Astrakhan).
>
> But by then these places were not really nomadic.
>
> They had nomads in them, but they were often ethnically different (as
> the distinction between Nogai and Crimean Tartars)
AFAIK, some of them had not been Tatar at all.
> and not many of
> them either.
>
Agreed
> : On these ocassions Russian army included cavalry, infantry and
> : artillery.
>
> Yep. Especially when it came to taking cities.
>
> And a large part of the Russian Army was Cossack by this time. In
> fact Cossacks were conquering Siberia at about this time.
>
Actually, they represented a very small part of the Russian army.Ermak's band had
been few hundred strong. Don't forget, he was
a moderately successful bandit who operated on Volga and had been
in a hopeless situation when rich merchant Stroganov hired his band
to launch a looting campaign against Siberian Horde. It was more or
less along the standard conquistador lines. Ermak's band had been
well eqiped with the firearms (and presumably consisted of the good
fighters). Siberian Horde had been (AFAIK) on decline and disunited.
After first spectacular successes, Ermak's band had been ambushed
and exterminated. The following Cossack expeditions (like Deznev's)
also had been conducted by the small bands.
A number of Cossacks on Russian service increased dramatically after
Ukrainian unification with Russia but even then they did not represent
a significant part of the whole Russian armed forces. At least they did
not play any decisive role in any big campaign.
> : But they had been only a part of the Russian army.
>
> They didn't have to be more than that.
>
> : > Hildinger is a published historian on the
> : > steppes and he would have noted this if he had ever heard of it.
>
> : Does he mention the red shields?
>
> Hildinger is a lawyer, not a professional historian.
My point was that the fact that he did not mention some insignificantdetail does
not mean that it did not exist.
>
>
> : AFAIK, influence of Janissares on Russian warfare had been limited.If this
> : historian did not mind to put a picture of the Russian warrior on a cover
> : of the book about Mongols, why would he care?
>
> I'm not sure that is so true. There is some evidence that the Russians
> did copy parts of the Turkish system including attempts at infantry on
> the Janisarry model. Just without the slave recruitment.
>
As I said, it was "limited" as well as Tatar's influence. It definitely existedbut
this was not a full scale copying as initial post implied. Janissares
may give an idea of Streltsy organisation but their equipment had been
different as well as their tactics and quality.
> The book isn't about Mongols alone. He doesn't really do the Mongols
> that well in my opinion. He isn't bad though. The field is full of
> much much worse books.
>
Initial question was about the red-painted spear of a Russian warrior.Among other
things, I was trying to figure out the source of this image
(I did not see the book). My "primary suspect" is one of the well-known
Russian pictures and I'm asking for a description of this warrior.
If it's what I'm thinking, an answer to the question will be "never mind the
color": the painting is one big anachroinism. :-)
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>
>: Bows made from horn had been expensive and their
>: manufacturing was acomplicated
>: process. Mongols did not have too much choise but Russians
>: had plenty of wood.
process. Mongols did not have too much choise but Russians had plenty of wood.
well at least if all fits in the original form.
>The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
>has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
>coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
>as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
>to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
>of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
>with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 1234567689 123456789 123456789
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
>It wouldn't be too much to ask you stay within the 60 characters
>per line limit would it?
Is "60" a typo? (NO! it is a MISTAKE!) <cough>
I must admit that staying below 70 on first posts is nice but I don't
think there is any hard and fast limit. At least one person here
has an editor that wraps everything beyond something like 60
(never bothered to count)
Robert
JohnS426
Hello again,
Reading these comments on medieval Russian arms, armor and
tactics has been interesting. I have mentioned before that the
best recent book with full illustrations of all the various
'warriors of the Steppe" is by Mikhael Gorelik and is titled
Warriors of Eurasia published by Montvert Publications.
Gorelik is recognized as military artist and has strong
archeology background.
For full descriptions of the origins and developments of the
various components of medieval Kievan- Muscovite
arms and armor you can see the illustrations and
text at my web page
http://members.aol.com/johns426/xenophon.htm
and there is a bibliography of Russian references including
several pre-revolutionary. There are photos of the Russian
medieval reenactment society -Alexander Nevski society
whose members go to considerable lengths to make as
accurate reproductions as they can.
I have quite a few chapters written for a book on the development
of medieval Kievan-Muscovite military and am converting them
to html as quickly as I can to publish for your consideration
on the web site. So I will defer discussion of tactics and
organization and the source influences for creation of Streltzi
and role of Cossacks etc until later.
best wishes
Joseph Askew
Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
: > The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
: > has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
: > coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
: > as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
: > to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
: > of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
: > with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
: Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
: (presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources.
I'm sure there are. I don't see why you need the presense of Mongols
to produce Mongol-type bows. Composite bows were common on the steppe
a long time before the Mongols showed up.
: Most of Russian archers used simpler and cheaper bows made of wood.
: Besides, for Russians bow never was a primary weapon as it was for Mongols.
Surely all bows are made of wood, just with horn inserts in some and
I agree about the Russian bows. In forests bows have a lesser range
of useful applications. No good trying to pull one if someone jumps
out fron behind a pine tree.
: > Very true and in the West Tartar tactics were mostly useless.
: Actually, Russians used Tatar tactics against the West. Each and every
: campaign,starting from Ivan IV Livonian
: campaign and to the Great Northern War,
Didn't want to stick to a convenient limit?
: involved a more or less extensive use of the Tatar (and other) contingents
: which raided and looted the territory. Of course, this was not a "pure" Tatar
: tactics because these contingents usually had been supported by the regular
: troops.
More to the point did the Russians use them because they were there
(my opinion) or because they were extremely useful? They used light
horse units in most of their wars against the West, but I'm not sure
they were useful until the nineteenth century when the Russians begin
to regularise their Cossacks and deploy them in the West in large
numbers.
: OTOH, Crimea Tatars had been successful in their raids into Russian and
: Polish territory until at least XVII. Their intervention had been one of the
: crucial factors in Ukrainian war for independence (XVII). So their tactics
: was reasonably effective for their limited goals (looting vs conquest).
I would agree with most of this. Which is why the semi-nomadised
Cossacks were usually found on the steppe end of the Russian border
and not in the West. Look at the Cossack "hordes" - the Don, the Kuban
and Terek, the Yaik/Ural, the Orenberg, the three Siberian groups. All
in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border.
: > The only way to
: > fight nomads is with nomadic tactics - using light horsemen to
: > go out on the steppe, find their women, children and animals
: > and kill them all. Which the Russians did when they started to
: > win. That is what the Cossacks were for as you point out.
: There were 3 problems with Cossacs.
: 1-st, most of them initiallyhad been Polish,
: not Russian subjects.
True. Polish subjects that is. Not Poles. I assume you meant that.
I don't see what the relevance is as they were for use against
nomads and Tartars generally rather than in the West.
: 2-nd, they had been difficult
: to control and the most militant (and useful) part of them usually was
: almost completely out of control and/or at odds with authorities.
Very true again. Part of the problem with semi-nomad peoples let
alone full nomads. But did they protect the Poles and Russians
against the Tartars? Yes they did. Which is why they were allowed
to get away with being militant for so long.
: Leaders of the successful expeditions could became the loyal subjects
: (as Ermak, conqueror of Siberia) or a leader of the antigoverment
: upraising (as Rasin, who launched a successful expedition against
: Persia).
All true. And some Cossacks went over to the Turks - settled in
the Danube delta where their descendents still remain. An annoying
habit for their neighbours I expect.
: A 3-rd problem was their social status. They had been personally free.
True but I don't see what the problem is.
: To make a big cossack army meant to make considerable changes in
: Russian social structure. As a result, a main body of Russian army (until
: middle XVII) consisted of feodal militia and streltsy. Nomadic
I agree with this too. Sort of. The Russians had more problems than
just the Tartars and they needed a regular Army for fighting the
Turks and in the West.
: contingents (Tatars, Bashkirs, etc.) and Cossacks of Ukrain and Don had
: been auxiliaries.
In regular fighting at least. Not in the ordinary job of protecting
the borders, controlling nomads and eventually crushing the Khanates
around Russia.
: As you well know, Russian fought nomads by setting a system of the
: frontier fortifications, by launching expeditions against their vulnerable
: points (cities) and by inviting them into Russian service. Their eventual
: success shows that nomadic tactics was not _the only_ way to fight
: nomads. BTW, later Russian conquests in Asia also had not been
: conducted with a nomadic tactics.
Indeed I do. But all this depended on the Cossacks to provide some sort
of semi-useful border protection. Which is why they were settled where
they were. And why they were so useful which they undoubtedly were.
Only after that could the Russians build up the strength to take their
cities (and that took them a long time to do successfully) and force
them into Russian service. I doubt many went voluntarily. Their
eventual success shows that a sedentary state that adopts most of
the steppe's characteristics and weds that to a regular system of
administration can control nomads. With modern guns.
It is not a stunning example of how a sedentary state can fight
nomads.,
: Cossacs of Zaporozie had not been Russian subjects until secondhalf of XVII.
And soon after they were broken up, turned into peasants or sent to
the Kuban/Black Sea region. Cossacks in Europe were dangerous but
not useful. The groups that survived all survived because they were
near border regions with nomads or semi-nomadic enemies.
: AFAIK, their raids were mostly looting expeditions
: along the coast of Black Sea and did not pursue and conquest (so they
: did not "won" anything).
Looting right down to Istanbul I hear.
: > But this was pretty
: > much all defensive. As Russia came out of the forest belt they
: > turned to nomadic tactics - Cossacks mostly. Raids and counter-
: > raids as a general rule.
: AFAIK, the big-scale anti-Tatar expeditions mostly relied on the"conventional"
: armies.
And look how many of them, especially against the Crimea - not even
particularly nomadic - flopped.
: Ivan's expeditions against Kazan and
: Astrakhan had benn conducted by the "regular" army. Campaign
True. With Cosasack support. Made all the easier because they were
located on bloody big rivers which solved most of the Russian's
supply problems and rendered nomadic hostility fairly irrelevant.
: of Vasily Golitsin against Crimea involved Cossack contingents
: (from Ukrain) as auxiliary forces.
Yep. So they did.
: Actually, they represented a very small part of the Russian army.
That depends on what you count and how. I disagree they were a small
part of the Russian Army. They just weren't all called out all the
time. Especially when fighting in the West.
: A number of Cossacks on Russian service increased dramatically after
: Ukrainian unification with Russia but even then they did not represent
: a significant part of the whole Russian armed forces. At least they did
: not play any decisive role in any big campaign.
Not a decisive role in any Western campaign. But the point wasn't
the big campaigns at all but the safety they provided to the Russian
Heartland and the constant on-going fighting with people over or just
inside the Russian border. The Caucasus Mountains for instance. I
don't think the Russians could have held them without the Cossacks.
Steppe warfare is not about big campaigns until the sedentary states
have been worn down to nothing (Genghiz being the obvious exception).
They are about thousands of pin pricks that end up bleeding someone
to death. This is what the Cossacks prevented and ultimately did to
their enemies.
: > Hildinger is a lawyer, not a professional historian.
: My point was that the fact that he did not
: mention some insignificantdetail does
: not mean that it did not exist.
Well I have no idea what this dispute is about and I thought I
was replying to someone else anyway. If it makes any difference
to anyone the Russian picture he put on the front of his book is
of some Russian guy with a red spear but no red shield. At least
in the copy I have seen.
: Initial question was about the red-painted spear of a Russian warrior.
Ahh. I should really try to keep up more.
: Among other
: things, I was trying to figure out the source of this image
: (I did not see the book). My "primary suspect" is one of the well-known
: Russian pictures and I'm asking for a description of this warrior.
If you had asked me two days ago I could have told you. It is a
Russian picture by some Russian painter but I forget exactly who.
It is written on the backcover and as soon as I get back from
inter-state I'll look it up if you like.
: If it's what I'm thinking, an answer to the question will be "never mind the
: color": the painting is one big anachroinism. :-)
Most likely Nineteenth Century Russian Romanticism.
Joseph
MtLoweMan
Nomad tactics were always suited for plains of grass and deserts. They really
were not suitable for placed that had a lot of forested land.
Joseph Askew
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
: 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 1234567689 123456789 123456789
: 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
: >It wouldn't be too much to ask you stay within the 60 characters
: >per line limit would it?
: Is "60" a typo? (NO! it is a MISTAKE!) <cough>
No. It is an aspiration. If I aim for 60 then I usually end up
within 70. I expect most people are pretty much the same.
: I must admit that staying below 70 on first posts is nice but I don't
: think there is any hard and fast limit. At least one person here
: has an editor that wraps everything beyond something like 60
: (never bothered to count)
I don't think there is a hard and fast limit either. Certainly no
rule. It depends on what your editor does. I've used ones which will
show *my* post up perfectly and deal with others just as well. Only
it will screw some people's up. Now it depends on what I'm using
and where, but going beyond the page limit can be a serious problem
for my editor and computer. So it is just something to keep in mind
as a generally polite thing to do.
Joseph
--
Of the common run of Shan-hsi men it is hard to say much good. They are
mean and cunning, and though by relentlessly skinning fleas for the hide
and tallow they often become wealthy, they remain to the end ignorant
and narrow. [...] For these reasons they have often been involved in
comparison with the Jews, which is a little hard on them perhaps.
-- Owen Lattimore _High Tartary_
Serge
On 18 Apr 1998 04:13:56 GMT, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph
Askew) wrote:
>Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>I would agree with most of this. Which is why the semi-nomadised
>Cossacks were usually found on the steppe end of the Russian border
>and not in the West. Look at the Cossack "hordes" - the Don, the Kuban
>and Terek, the Yaik/Ural, the Orenberg, the three Siberian groups. All
>in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border.
Not in the West? None on the Polish border? The Ukranian Cossacks were
one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
Also, I disagree with your characterization of them as semi-nomadised.
While it may have been partially true of the groups in the East, some
of which weren't even Russian, agiculture (apart from raiding) was
the main source of income of the Ukranian, Kuban groups
>: > The only way to
>: > fight nomads is with nomadic tactics - using light horsemen to
>: > go out on the steppe, find their women, children and animals
>: > and kill them all. Which the Russians did when they started to
>: > win. That is what the Cossacks were for as you point out.
>
>: There were 3 problems with Cossacs.
>: 1-st, most of them initiallyhad been Polish,
>: not Russian subjects.
>True. Polish subjects that is. Not Poles. I assume you meant that.
>I don't see what the relevance is as they were for use against
>nomads and Tartars generally rather than in the West.
This is in direct conflict with the earlier statement "All
in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border."
>: 2-nd, they had been difficult
>: to control and the most militant (and useful) part of them usually was
>: almost completely out of control and/or at odds with authorities.
>
>Very true again. Part of the problem with semi-nomad peoples let
>alone full nomads. But did they protect the Poles and Russians
>against the Tartars? Yes they did. Which is why they were allowed
>to get away with being militant for so long.
True. Also, let us not forget the wars in the Dagestan region.
-deleted some exellent discussion of the topic-
>
>Joseph
Serge.
Alex Milman
Joseph Askew wrote:
> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>
> : > The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
> : > has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
> : > coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
> : > as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
> : > to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
> : > of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
> : > with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
>
> : Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
> : (presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources.
>
> I'm sure there are. I don't see why you need the presense of Mongols
> to produce Mongol-type bows. Composite bows were common on the steppe
> a long time before the Mongols showed up.
>
Not only in steppe: Russian composite bows had been made of the horns ofa
forest-dwelling wild bool. But, AFAIK, they had been a luxury weapon
used by a very limited number of people.
> : > Very true and in the West Tartar tactics were mostly useless.
>
> : Actually, Russians used Tatar tactics against the West. Each and every
> : campaign,starting from Ivan IV Livonian
> : campaign and to the Great Northern War,
> Didn't want to stick to a convenient limit?
> : involved a more or less extensive use of the Tatar (and other) contingents
> : which raided and looted the territory. Of course, this was not a "pure" Tatar
> : tactics because these contingents usually had been supported by the regular
> : troops.
>
> More to the point did the Russians use them because they were there
> (my opinion) or because they were extremely useful? They used light
> horse units in most of their wars against the West, but I'm not sure
> they were useful until the nineteenth century when the Russians begin
> to regularise their Cossacks and deploy them in the West in large
> numbers.
>
Judging by the sources they had been extremely useful. Big part of a
Russianpre-XVIII century strategy was a systematic destruction of the enemy's
territory. Light troops had been very useful in looting of the countryside
while main army was busy with the sieges. Even in early XVIII pattern was
the same. During the Northern War, Russian Fieldmarshal Sheremetiev
used the light troops to loot Livonia. At some point he reported that his
army is too burdened with the captured civilians and asked for a permission
to send them in Russia. At the same report he mentions that only fortified
cities are left uncaptured. Soon afterwards, Peter moved in with more
regular infantry and siege artillery.
AFAIK, irregular troops did not play a noticeable role in the battles that
Sheremetiev fought. IIRC, he defeated Shlippenbach using regular troops.
So my answer to the question of usefulness will be: they were useful up
to a certain degree.
> : OTOH, Crimea Tatars had been successful in their raids into Russian and
> : Polish territory until at least XVII. Their intervention had been one of the
> : crucial factors in Ukrainian war for independence (XVII). So their tactics
> : was reasonably effective for their limited goals (looting vs conquest).
>
> I would agree with most of this. Which is why the semi-nomadised
> Cossacks were usually found on the steppe end of the Russian border
> and not in the West. Look at the Cossack "hordes" - the Don, the Kuban
> and Terek, the Yaik/Ural, the Orenberg, the three Siberian groups. All
> in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border.
>
Well, you forgot the Ukrainian Cossacks. In a middle XVII border betweenRussia and
Poland was by Dnieper and Cossacks lived on both sides of
this border (before this all of them were on the Polish side of the border with
Russia and Tatars). But their initial use was against Tatars so we are in an
agreement here
> : > The only way to
> : > fight nomads is with nomadic tactics - using light horsemen to
> : > go out on the steppe, find their women, children and animals
> : > and kill them all. Which the Russians did when they started to
> : > win. That is what the Cossacks were for as you point out.
>
> : There were 3 problems with Cossacs.
> : 1-st, most of them initiallyhad been Polish,
> : not Russian subjects.
>
> True. Polish subjects that is. Not Poles. I assume you meant that.
>
Yes
> I don't see what the relevance is as they were for use against
> nomads and Tartars generally rather than in the West.
>
>
My point was that Russians could not use Polish subjects and thatCossacks of Don
initially had not been numerous. But Poles used
Ukrainian Cossacks in the way you described.
> : 2-nd, they had been difficult
> : to control and the most militant (and useful) part of them usually was
> : almost completely out of control and/or at odds with authorities.
>
> Very true again. Part of the problem with semi-nomad peoples let
> alone full nomads. But did they protect the Poles and Russians
> against the Tartars? Yes they did. Which is why they were allowed
> to get away with being militant for so long.
>
>
One of the problems was that sometimes their plans had been in acontradiction with
those of their goverments. Raid into the Turkish
territory in a middle of a peace could provoke a harsh response.
In the case of Poland there was also an issue of a religion and a very
delicate issue of the number of Cossacks in a "reester" (officially
recognized and personally free). As a result, there were numerous
upraisngs. Russian goverment had less problems with it's Cossacks
but there were at least 3 impressive upraisings: Rasin's, Bulavin's and
Pougachev's.
> : Leaders of the successful expeditions could became the loyal subjects
> : (as Ermak, conqueror of Siberia) or a leader of the antigoverment
> : upraising (as Rasin, who launched a successful expedition against
> : Persia).
>
> All true. And some Cossacks went over to the Turks - settled in
> the Danube delta where their descendents still remain. An annoying
> habit for their neighbours I expect.
>
Quite possible. I simply don't know enough about them. IIRC there wasan opera
"Zaporozets on Danube". The only line that I remember was
the husband who suffers from a shrew of a wife and and tells her that he
is going to convert to Islam (they are on a Turkish territory), divorce her
and get himself 3 brand new wives. After which she calms down.
> : A 3-rd problem was their social status. They had been personally free.
>
> True but I don't see what the problem is.
Bad example. It was tempting for Polish and Russian serfs to run from
their masters, join Cossacks and became a free man. AFAIK, by
middle XVII Cossacks did not accept these people anymore (in the
noticeable numbers). But one of the isuues of initial Khmelnitsky's demands
to Polish Goverment was to increase a number of "reester" Cossacks.
> Indeed I do. But all this depended on the Cossacks to provide some sort
> of semi-useful border protection. Which is why they were settled where
> they were. And why they were so useful which they undoubtedly were.
> Only after that could the Russians build up the strength to take their
> cities (and that took them a long time to do successfully) and force
> them into Russian service. I doubt many went voluntarily. Their
> eventual success shows that a sedentary state that adopts most of
> the steppe's characteristics and weds that to a regular system of
> administration can control nomads. With modern guns.
>
Yes, the last item is extremely useful.
> It is not a stunning example of how a sedentary state can fight
> nomads.,
>
> : Cossacs of Zaporozie had not been Russian subjects until secondhalf of XVII.
>
> And soon after they were broken up, turned into peasants or sent to
> the Kuban/Black Sea region. Cossacks in Europe were dangerous but
> not useful. The groups that survived all survived because they were
> near border regions with nomads or semi-nomadic enemies.
>
No doubts. IMHO, by the time of WWI most of Russian Cossacks existedmostly due to
the tradition and usefulness against "internal enemies" than due
to their military usefulness (except Turks)
> : AFAIK, their raids were mostly looting expeditions
> : along the coast of Black Sea and did not pursue and conquest (so they
> : did not "won" anything).
>
> Looting right down to Istanbul I hear.
Probably. Definitely in Anatolia and other areas of the Black Sea Coast.Plus some
ventures into the Caspian Sea against Persia.
>
>
> : > But this was pretty
> : > much all defensive. As Russia came out of the forest belt they
> : > turned to nomadic tactics - Cossacks mostly. Raids and counter-
> : > raids as a general rule.
>
> : AFAIK, the big-scale anti-Tatar expeditions mostly relied on the"conventional"
> : armies.
>
> And look how many of them, especially against the Crimea - not even
> particularly nomadic - flopped.
Oh, yes. The problem with Crime was that it was very difficult to get toTatar
settlements. To the North of a peninsulla there was a wild steppe
with the limited water supply. If an invading army was lucky enough to
get through this (often burned) steppe, it faced massive fortifications of
Perekop (the only land way into Crimea). If it successfully stormed Perekop
(as Minich did), it should cross most of the peninsula to get to the Tatar
cities. Northern and Central parts of Crimea were (probably still are) the
same steppe with even less water.
The invade successfully, a navy support had been necessary and Russia
did not have Black Sea Navy until the time of Catherine II (Peter's attempt
to build a naval base in Azov had been aborted after disaster at Prout).
>
>
>
>
>
> Not a decisive role in any Western campaign. But the point wasn't
> the big campaigns at all but the safety they provided to the Russian
> Heartland and the constant on-going fighting with people over or just
> inside the Russian border. The Caucasus Mountains for instance. I
> don't think the Russians could have held them without the Cossacks.
>
Cossacks definitely were one of the decisive factors. Besides fightingthey also
squeezed natives from their territories and secured a
base for the military operations.
> : > Hildinger is a lawyer, not a professional historian.
>
> : My point was that the fact that he did not
> : mention some insignificantdetail does
> : not mean that it did not exist.
>
> Well I have no idea what this dispute is about and I thought I
> was replying to someone else anyway. If it makes any difference
> to anyone the Russian picture he put on the front of his book is
> of some Russian guy with a red spear but no red shield.
My "primary suspect" did not have one.
> At least
> in the copy I have seen.
>
> : Initial question was about the red-painted spear of a Russian warrior.
>
> Ahh. I should really try to keep up more.
>
> : Among other
> : things, I was trying to figure out the source of this image
> : (I did not see the book). My "primary suspect" is one of the well-known
> : Russian pictures and I'm asking for a description of this warrior.
>
> If you had asked me two days ago I could have told you. It is a
> Russian picture by some Russian painter but I forget exactly who.
> It is written on the backcover and as soon as I get back from
> inter-state I'll look it up if you like.
You can simply describe him in some details (much more fun to try tofigure him out,
but I need at least some info)
>
>
> : If it's what I'm thinking, an answer to the question will be "never mind the
> : color": the painting is one big anachroinism. :-)
>
> Most likely Nineteenth Century Russian Romanticism.
>
It's simply a differrent name.
Alex Milman
Serge wrote:
> On 18 Apr 1998 04:13:56 GMT, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph
> Askew) wrote:
>
> >Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>
> >I would agree with most of this. Which is why the semi-nomadised
> >Cossacks were usually found on the steppe end of the Russian border
> >and not in the West. Look at the Cossack "hordes" - the Don, the Kuban
> >and Terek, the Yaik/Ural, the Orenberg, the three Siberian groups. All
> >in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border.
>
> Not in the West? None on the Polish border?
He meant Russian border with Poland. Until middle XVII there were noRussian
Cossacks here because Ukrian and Ukrainian Cossacks had been
part of the Rzech Pospolita. And the primary opponent of the Ukrainian
Cossacks had been Tatars. Of course, they also participated in wars against
Russia and there had been numerous anti-Polish upraisings.
> The Ukranian Cossacks were
> one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
Don't want to hurt anybody's feelings but, IMHO, the more correct termwould
be "upraisings against Poland". OTOH, I recall Senkevich referencing
to "Cossack Wars". Probably, as a Pole he knew better. :-)
Serge
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:12:06 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
>
>Joseph Askew wrote:
>
>> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>>
>> : > The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
>> : > has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
>> : > coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
>> : > as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
>> : > to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
>> : > of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
>> : > with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
>>
>> : Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
>> : (presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources.
>>
>> I'm sure there are. I don't see why you need the presense of Mongols
>> to produce Mongol-type bows. Composite bows were common on the steppe
>> a long time before the Mongols showed up.
>>
>
>Not only in steppe: Russian composite bows had been made of the horns ofa
>forest-dwelling wild bool. But, AFAIK, they had been a luxury weapon
>used by a very limited number of people.
One big advantage of a composite bow is its greater range (current
record is over a 1000'). Most hunting in the woods does not require
powerful bows, as most game is taken from around 40'. This alone would
make a composite bow unnecessary and indeed a luxury.
Serge.
Serge
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:20:11 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
>
>Serge wrote:
>
>> On 18 Apr 1998 04:13:56 GMT, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph
>> Askew) wrote:
>>
>> >Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>> The Ukranian Cossacks were
>> one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
>
>Don't want to hurt anybody's feelings but, IMHO, the more correct termwould
>be "upraisings against Poland".
No chance. I am not Ukranian. Keep in mind, however, that the
territory was not historically Poland, nor the Cossacks Polish. In
addition, I do not believe they were ever really controlled by Poland
for it to really justify the term "uprising".
>OTOH, I recall Senkevich referencing
>to "Cossack Wars". Probably, as a Pole he knew better. :-)
>
I would not be surprised if he termed Pozharsky's action as uprising
as well.
Serge.
Alex Milman
Serge wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:20:11 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Serge wrote:
> >
> >> On 18 Apr 1998 04:13:56 GMT, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph
> >> Askew) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>
> >> The Ukranian Cossacks were
> >> one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
> >
> >Don't want to hurt anybody's feelings but, IMHO, the more correct termwould
> >be "upraisings against Poland".
>
> No chance. I am not Ukranian. Keep in mind, however, that the
> territory was not historically Poland, nor the Cossacks Polish. In
> addition, I do not believe they were ever really controlled by Poland
> for it to really justify the term "uprising".
>
Territory had been a part of Poland for centuries. Longer than Baltic stateshad
been a part of Russian Empire. Cossacks were not
Poles but they had been Polish subjects (not an unique situation, esp. in
Eastern Europe). At least until Khmelnitsky's upraising (war for independence,
revolution, pick whatever you want) there was no doubt, even among Cossacks,
who is their sovereign. Even during his upraising, Khmelnitsky more than once
tried to negotiate with Polish goverment, mainly about the better terms
(expansion
of the reester, religious issues, etc.). In other words, he was asking for an
autonomy.
Regarding control, as far as Polish kings had been concerned, they often could
not control even Poland proper, not only it's border territories. Nobles like
Wishnevetsky, Radzivill, Sapega had been almost independent rulers on their
lands.
Still, there was some degree of control over Ukrain. Polish goverment had been
able to press religious issues ("Union") up to a certain degree. And each
Cossack
upraising (except Khmelnitsky) had been eventually crushed by Polish military
forces. IIRC, the last one, lead by Gonta and Zelezniak, happened in middle
XVIII
(and had been defeated).
> >OTOH, I recall Senkevich referencing
> >to "Cossack Wars". Probably, as a Pole he knew better. :-)
> >
> I would not be surprised if he termed Pozharsky's action as uprising
> as well.
>
AFAIK, he did not wrote anything on the subject. BTW, you did notread carefully.
He called it "War".
Alex Milman
Serge wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:12:06 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Joseph Askew wrote:
> >
> >> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> : > The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
> >> : > has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
> >> : > coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
> >> : > as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
> >> : > to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
> >> : > of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
> >> : > with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
> >>
> >> : Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
> >> : (presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources.
> >>
> >> I'm sure there are. I don't see why you need the presense of Mongols
> >> to produce Mongol-type bows. Composite bows were common on the steppe
> >> a long time before the Mongols showed up.
> >>
> >
> >Not only in steppe: Russian composite bows had been made of the horns ofa
> >forest-dwelling wild bull. But, AFAIK, they had been a luxury weapon
> >used by a very limited number of people.
>
> One big advantage of a composite bow is its greater range (current
> record is over a 1000'). Most hunting in the woods does not require
> powerful bows, as most game is taken from around 40'. This alone would
> make a composite bow unnecessary and indeed a luxury.
>
> Serge.
These bows had been war weapons, not the hunting ones (they could serve
forhunting also). BTW, Medieval Russia was not a single big forest. You forgot
that it's Southern border had been steppe.
Joseph Askew
Serge (dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net) wrote:
: >I would agree with most of this. Which is why the semi-nomadised
: >Cossacks were usually found on the steppe end of the Russian border
: >and not in the West. Look at the Cossack "hordes" - the Don, the Kuban
: >and Terek, the Yaik/Ural, the Orenberg, the three Siberian groups. All
: >in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border.
: Not in the West? None on the Polish border? The Ukranian Cossacks were
: one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
But that was slightly different. They were there because that was
the southern most border of "Europe". They were there for the Turks,
and Tartars. They fought to keep away from Polish control. So no
none on the polish border. And their usefulness can be seen by the
fact that the Zap. Cossacks were abolished very early. If they were
useful to Russia in the West, being sort of near the Polish border,
surely the Russians would have kept them. They did not see the need.
: Also, I disagree with your characterization of them as semi-nomadised.
: While it may have been partially true of the groups in the East, some
: of which weren't even Russian, agiculture (apart from raiding) was
: the main source of income of the Ukranian, Kuban groups
In later times yes. But at the start they lived a fairly full nomadic
life. I agree that by the time there was any sort of Russian control
they had settled down and agriculture was important. But even so I
think semi-nomadised is a fair description. Even if they weren't
nomads. They had most of the culture including a contempt for any
other form of sedentary life.
: >True. Polish subjects that is. Not Poles. I assume you meant that.
: >I don't see what the relevance is as they were for use against
: >nomads and Tartars generally rather than in the West.
: This is in direct conflict with the earlier statement "All
: in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border."
No it isn't.
It is clearly not in direct conflict, or even implied conflict,
with anything I have written. I don't see what your case might
be. Poland was bigger then. Would you care to explain?
: >Very true again. Part of the problem with semi-nomad peoples let
: >alone full nomads. But did they protect the Poles and Russians
: >against the Tartars? Yes they did. Which is why they were allowed
: >to get away with being militant for so long.
: True. Also, let us not forget the wars in the Dagestan region.
Indeed let's not. Some of the best documented and easily accessable
references thanks to Lermontov, Pushkin and of course Tolstoy.
Alex Milman
Joseph Askew wrote:
> Serge (dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net) wrote:
>
> : >I would agree with most of this. Which is why the semi-nomadised
> : >Cossacks were usually found on the steppe end of the Russian border
> : >and not in the West. Look at the Cossack "hordes" - the Don, the Kuban
> : >and Terek, the Yaik/Ural, the Orenberg, the three Siberian groups. All
> : >in Asia more or less. None on the Polish border.
>
> : Not in the West? None on the Polish border? The Ukranian Cossacks were
> : one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
>
> But that was slightly different. They were there because that was
> the southern most border of "Europe". They were there for the Turks,
> and Tartars. They fought to keep away from Polish control. So no
> none on the polish border.
Joseph, I disagree here. They were on the Polish side of a Polish border.:-)
As you correctly stated, this side had been exposed to Tatars and Turks.
> And their usefulness can be seen by the
> fact that the Zap. Cossacks were abolished very early. If they were
> useful to Russia in the West, being sort of near the Polish border,
> surely the Russians would have kept them. They did not see the need.
>
By the time it happened, Zap. Cossacks had been closer to the Crimea
(don't remember if it was already annexed by Russia, but it was not a
major military threat at this time) than to Poland. And Poland was not a
military factor at this time (reign of Catherine II). As you know, Zap.
Cossacks
had been resettled in the "trouble areas": Kuban and Dnestr (IIRC, some
went to Turkey).
But Zap.Cossacks represented only a small, even if the most militant, part
of the Ukrainian Cossacks. The whole Ukrain "Cossackdom" had been
abolished during the reign of Catherine II: they were not military useful
anymore and their autonomy (Hetmanship) did not go well with the idea of a
Russian centralized and absolute monarchy.
Closer to this NG, Cossacs had been very active not only against Turks and
Tatars (or rebelling against Poland). They did not miss an opportunity to
participate in the Russian "Smuta" both on Polish side and as independent
force. Part of them (don't remember Don or Ukrainian)
even allied with the Russian army during retaking of Moscow. Some kept
fighting, initially in support of so-called "Tushinsky Vor" (the last pseudo
Dmitry)
then in support of Marina Mnishek (wife of the 1-st pseudo Dmitry).
Eventually
they had been defeated, Mnishek was sent to nunnery and Cossack leader
(Zaruzky ?) had been impaled.
Serge
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:38:30 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
>
>Serge wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:12:06 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Joseph Askew wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : > The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
>> >> : > has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
>> >> : > coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
>> >> : > as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
>> >> : > to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
>> >> : > of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
>> >> : > with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
>> >>
>> >> : Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
>> >> : (presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure there are. I don't see why you need the presense of Mongols
>> >> to produce Mongol-type bows. Composite bows were common on the steppe
>> >> a long time before the Mongols showed up.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not only in steppe: Russian composite bows had been made of the horns ofa
>> >forest-dwelling wild bull. But, AFAIK, they had been a luxury weapon
>> >used by a very limited number of people.
>>
>> One big advantage of a composite bow is its greater range (current
>> record is over a 1000'). Most hunting in the woods does not require
>> powerful bows, as most game is taken from around 40'. This alone would
>> make a composite bow unnecessary and indeed a luxury.
>>
>> Serge.
>
>These bows had been war weapons, not the hunting ones (they could serve
>forhunting also). BTW, Medieval Russia was not a single big forest.
As warriors, Russians were not known for their archery. Although some
of their bows were flat bows, backed with sinew, I am not aware of
them constructing true compound bows in the tradition of Mongols and
Persians.
>You forgot that it's Southern border had been steppe.
And for a good reason. Beyond was the nomad domain. The Slavs were
forest dwellers.
Serge.
Alex Milman
Serge wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:38:30 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Serge wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:12:06 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Joseph Askew wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> : > The Mongols always had plenty of wood too remember. The Secret History
> >> >> : > has one mention of Mongol trade and that involved a Muslim merchant
> >> >> : > coming to trade sheep for skins - mostly tree dwelling species such
> >> >> : > as sable and lesser pelts. Mongols clearly had a great deal of access
> >> >> : > to the vast Siberian forests. Not to mention the well wooded parts
> >> >> : > of Mongolia and Manchuria (Genghiz was forced to hide in the forest
> >> >> : > with his Mother and Brothers after his Father was murdered).
> >> >>
> >> >> : Whatever. The point is that there are multiple references to the
> >> >> : (presumablycomposite) horn bows in Russian premongolian sources.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sure there are. I don't see why you need the presense of Mongols
> >> >> to produce Mongol-type bows. Composite bows were common on the steppe
> >> >> a long time before the Mongols showed up.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Not only in steppe: Russian composite bows had been made of the horns ofa
> >> >forest-dwelling wild bull. But, AFAIK, they had been a luxury weapon
> >> >used by a very limited number of people.
> >>
> >> One big advantage of a composite bow is its greater range (current
> >> record is over a 1000'). Most hunting in the woods does not require
> >> powerful bows, as most game is taken from around 40'. This alone would
> >> make a composite bow unnecessary and indeed a luxury.
> >>
> >> Serge.
> >
> >These bows had been war weapons, not the hunting ones (they could serve
> >for hunting also). BTW, Medieval Russia was not a single big forest.
>
> As warriors, Russians were not known for their archery. Although some
> of their bows were flat bows, backed with sinew, I am not aware of
> them constructing true compound bows in the tradition of Mongols and
> Persians.
>
At least some folk heroes are, among other things prominent archers (AFAIK,Ancient
Greeks did not have a bow as a primary weapon but Heracles was a
great archer). In some cases it was explicitly mentioned that hero's bow was
made of tur's horn. Tur in question was an extinct wild bull (do not mix with a
Caucassian tur or "kozlotur" :-) ).
BTW, bows of, say X century, hardly could follow "mongolian tradition"
due to the fact that Mongols had not been anywhere around Russ (did they
exist as a tribe at this time?). AFAIK, composite bows had been used in
Asia before and beyond Mongolian domain and, with an existing trade
exchange, idea (and samples) could be widely spreaded.
Due to the fact that archery was not a nation-wide occupation in Russ, composite
bows would not be a widely used weapon.
It also possible that folklore mixed things and substituted the form ("like
tur's horn") with the material (made of tur's horn). In this case, bows in question
simply could be imported expensive weapons.
As a luxury weapon bow of this type would be useful not only during the war
but also as a hunting weapon. Hunting the big game was one of the popular
occupations for a nobility (everywhere) and to shoot an animal like zubr or tur
you need a lot of a penetration. AFAIK, Polish nobility had been using crossbows
for zubr hunting. Composite bow would provide a comparable penetration.
Wounded animal could be very dangerous: Prince Vladimir Monomach wrote
in his will that he was more than once thrown out of the saddle by an attacking
tur.
> >You forgot that it's Southern border had been steppe.
>
> And for a good reason. Beyond was the nomad domain. The Slavs were
> forest dwellers.
>
There was no such a clear cut because premongolian Russ was not one biguninterrupted
forrest and areas to the South and East were not one big uninterrupted
steppe. But you are right that most of the premongolian Russ was a heavily forested
territory.
Peter Wilkinson
In<353BB136...@gte.com>,
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
>
>Serge wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:20:11 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Serge wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 18 Apr 1998 04:13:56 GMT, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph
>> >> Askew) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>>
>> >> The Ukranian Cossacks were
>> >> one of the largest groups and their wars with Poland are legendary.
>> >
>> >Don't want to hurt anybody's feelings but, IMHO, the more correct termwould
>> >be "upraisings against Poland".
>>
>> No chance. I am not Ukranian. Keep in mind, however, that the
>> territory was not historically Poland, nor the Cossacks Polish. In
>> addition, I do not believe they were ever really controlled by Poland
>> for it to really justify the term "uprising".
>>
>
>Territory had been a part of Poland for centuries. Longer than Baltic stateshad
>been a part of Russian Empire. Cossacks were not
>Poles but they had been Polish subjects (not an unique situation, esp. in
>Eastern Europe).
Weren't the Cossacks under Lithuanian rather than Polish rule until
some significant territorial adjustments were made as part of the
Union of Lublin in 1569? And while Poland and Lithuania had usually
been under the same ruler since 1386, this was, in constitutional
theory, no more than a personal union of crowns.
While, of course, in practice the union had become rather closer than
this, I get the impression that the Cossacks will still have had
rather more autonomy as part of Lithuania than as part of Poland.
While Poland may never have had really strong central control, the
major noble families who ran things in practice still seem to have
very much shared a common, Polish, culture.
Peter Wilkinson
p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk