Monthly Archives: February 2014

The Effects of Mongol Rule in Rus

Posted on by

The articles by Halperin and Sakharov both pose opposite arguments regarding the Mongol’s effect on the development of Rus. Halperin claims that the view of the Mongols as “blood-sucking infidels” (106) was a result of the Orthodox Church’s so called “Ideology of Silence”. He argues that The Mongol’s actually did a lot to help advance Rus culture through integration of their own methods rather than only doing harm as the writings of the Church would have us believe. For example, many of the Princes were able to gain position with the hoard through marriage and then learn about and use the knowledge that they gain of the Mongol’s military and political techniques. The Church, Halperin states, could not accept the Mongols as having been in any way beneficial to Rus as they may have felt that acknowledging anything positive about a culture that followed a different religion undermined their own, and thus they simply refused to acknowledge the positive effects that the Mongols had.

Sakharov takes the opposing view, stating that any and all putting down of possible historical information was done by the Mongols themselves. He claims that all types of craftsmanship, from architecture and construction to art and literature, suffered under the rule of the Mongols (137) and that the growth of the nation was practically stunted because of it.  He says that the Mongols destroyed a great number of books, and therefore knowledge, which we now have no way of knowing what might have contained. Overall, he views the effect of the Mongol rule in Rus as one of profound negativity that in no way aided the nation in any way.

Sakharov talks about the Mongols using very general terms, applying them widely and without exception, saying that they “… enriched [Rus] with nothing whatever” and claiming that the negative effects of the invasion were an “indisputable historical fact” (138). Claims on such a dramatic scale are very difficult to back up, and I felt only went to make his argument read as more of a biased rant than a logical argument. Had he allowed for some movement and acknowledged even the possibility that any good might have come from the Mongols I may have found his argument to be more convincing. I certainly did find some of his points, such as the destruction of books, to be interesting, though even that idea is based on the absence of something rather than hard evidence. Although I was not convinced by Sakharov that the Mongols were an unarguable evil, neither was I convinced by Halperin that the Mongols aided Rus to the extent that he claimed they did. Although I agreed that they must have benefited Rus in several ways, I wonder how much that is weighed down by harm that they might have done. Is it possible that, had the Mongols not invaded,  and had Rus therefore not had to cover certain expenses and meet certain expectations because of that, Rus may have developed in an equally efficient yet distinctly different way? As many “what-if” questions, it’s impossible to know for certain. I do, however, believe that while Halperin’s claims were accurate, he does not consider enough how the harm they brought as well may have effected Rus’s growth.

Sakharov and Halperin’s Conflicting Viewpoints

Posted on by

When reading Charles Halperin’s and A. M. Sakharov’s one can clearly see two very opposing viewpoints on what the Mongols brought to Russian society. Halperin’s point of view illustrates that despite the fact the Mongol’s did significant damage, their culture was an integral part of society and would influence Russia for many years to come. He states that the invasion did not impact the governmental system in place beforehand much: “The Mongols restructured the social and political order of the steppe, the mainstay of international commerce and nomadism, but they left the political infrastructure of Russia alone because of its lesser importance to their economy and polity.” Russian princes remained to rule under the close watch of the Mongols. In addition to this, the Orthodox Church was never interfered with. The Mongol’s leader Genghis Khan tolerated all religions in his empire.

Contrasting Halperin’s outlook, Sakharov believes that Mongol’s were detrimental to Rus’ in most ways and did not positively influence society. He points out that the Mongol-Tatars took craftsmen captive and destroyed Russian architecture. By exterminating or exiling craftsmen, many construction techniques disappeared and things like masonry construction ceased completely. He also boldly claims that the Mongols did not enrich Russian society in any way and only a few Eastern words are retained in the Russian language.

I personally think Sakharov’s viewpoint is much too extreme and that the Mongols influence the way Russia formed in many ways. I think they showed Princes how to properly rule, and created a more centralized Rus. They also were not persecuted for their religion and were allowed to practice their own customs. It’s interesting to see how efficient and smart the Mongols were with their rule. By not destroying people’s lives around their empire, they were able to control a huge area of the world for a long time.

The Mongol Yoke

Posted on by

The excerpts from Halperin and Sakharov are drastically different. Halperin’s article, Interpreting the Mongol Yoke: The Ideology of Silence, sheds a harsh light on the church, and those who seek to discredit any innovation the Mongols might have brought to Rus. Evidence demonstrates that the Rus people borrowed from nearly all aspects of Mongol life, with the one exception being religious culture. Rus princes married Mongol princesses, and the conquered peoples borrowed Mongol political and military institutions, as well as adopting the postal network of the Mongols. On the other hand, Sakharov’s article suggests that he blames Mongols for a lack of craftsmanship during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He claims that the Mongols destroyed a “vast number of artifacts of the written world” (137). Sakharov goes on to blame the Church for blocking Moscow’s connections with the Western world during the second half of the fifteenth century, which he perceived to be the time period of a ‘pre-Renaissance.’

Upon closer reading, Sakharov seems as if he’s grasping at straws while simultaneously making sweeping generalizations. He takes the Chronicles as complete fact, citing a few stories about destroyed books as an indicator of “how seriously Russian writings suffered from the onslaughts of the Mongol-Tatars” (137). His entire excerpt completely slams the Mongols, deciding that nothing good could have come from the Mongol-Tatar Yoke.

Upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that his article, entitled The Mongols and Cultural Change, comes from a larger book entitled Soviet Studies in History. Most likely, Sakharov wrote his article with a tremendous bias. It seems unlikely that the Soviet Union would admit that anything good came from the Mongol Invasion, let alone a political system or military institutions (which would have been pivotal to society during the thirteenth century).

What kind of bias was Sakharov writing with? Is there more evidence of his bias? Was he even biased at all?

Marx Contrasting Smith

Posted on by

In the writings of the Compte de Sainte Simon, Robert Owens, and Karl Marx, an alternate perspective- other than laissez faire capitalism- regarding industry is approached. Adam Smith- a strong proponent of the productivity that the division of labor supplied the economy- stated that industrial perspectives were the ideal way to support the economy. However, these three writers offer contrasting perspectives that certainly align more with socialism. In “Estranged Labour,” written in 1844, Marx specifically discusses how these economic changes towards industry will actually cause a cultural collapse. Instead of the idea that Smith discusses where industry will expand our economy through efficiency, Marx notes that this move will actually sever the two classes, of which only one will economically benefit. Smith’s focus of production proves to Marx that the quantity of production has overshadowed the quality of lives of those producing the goods. Marx sees that society will become even more divided and the property and factory owners will excel- be able to buy afford more, have more choice due to expanded production, etc- and yet those doing the producing will see none of the benefits of what they create. The gap between the classes will be entirely exacerbated as the workers will never live in the type of society that the goods they produce belong to. Not only does these create an economic gap, but also a largely societal one where the owners and the producers cannot relate on a basic human level: the owner does not respect the worker and the worker resents the owner.

When looking at Marx’s theory of the alienation of the workers and the owners, it is evident that these issues still exist. However, instead of simply having one owner and many workers in a community, the workers that are isolated from society are out of sight in other countries that are easy to exploit and the citizens of wealthy, western nations serve the role of the owners. Our nations’s wealth provides access to the products that the workers slave all day to make, yet they would never be able to afford those products. They work their whole day to create a society they will never live in. In a world that understands both Smith and Marx, have we consciously chosen that exploitation of others because we truly believe in Smith and laissez faire or because Marx is inconvenient?

Debates over the Effects of the Mongol Invasion

Posted on by

Halperin’s and Sakharov’s articles offer different historical intepretations of the reception and effects of the Mongol invasion in Rus’. Halperin argues that, contrary to teachings perpetuated by the Church, the Rus adapted many aspects of Mongolian life which advanced Rus’ society. For instance, during the Mongol occupation, Rus’ society learned to use the Mongols’ efficient military structure and postal service. The Mongols also “rerouted the fur trade to extract greater revenue” (Halperin 106) for Rus’, thus assisting the culture they had conquered. Halperin makes the point, however, that the Mongols did not force every aspect of their culture onto the Rus’ people, such as their religion. Such an interpretation portrays the Mongol invasion as a kind and enriching period in Rus’ history. On the other hand, Sakharov, in a study of Rus’ culture after the Mongol occupation ended, argues that the Mongols had no positive effect on Rus’. He explains that the Mongols, in taking away Rus’ best craftsmen, created centuries of a Rus’ with inferior architecture. Sakharov then contends that, after the Mongols left, Rus’ culture became much more sophisticated and enlightened, thus underscoring the dark period that had been the Mongols’ reign.

Sakharov writes, “Reborn and developing Russian culture regained its national character in full. The Mongol-Tartars enriched it with nothing whatever, and their influence was quite insignificant in practice” (Sakharov 138). I find this claim to be a little too broad and definitive to be taken as fact. Even disregarding the period after the occupation, the Mongol invasion was clearly significant in its empowering of Moscow and ultimate depowering of Kiev. But moreover, the fact that Rus’ culture exploded in literature and architecture after the occupation also signfies that the Mongols affected Rus’. Perhaps, Rus’ culture wouldn’t have advanced as quickly as it did if the Mongols had not stunted it (if indeed they did stunt it) for so long.

I wonder how the effects Mongol occupation is viewed in other parts of the world. Does the Middle-East and China contend that the Mongols had a positive or negative impact on their cultures? Furthermore, do different geographic sections of Russia today claim different interpretations about the Mongol invasions?

On Division of Labor

Posted on by

Smith states that the division of labor significantly improves the productive power in manufacture through three ways: the increased dexterity of workman by repetition, the reduced time brought by the quick transition between workers, and the efficiency brought by the machines. These workers, who perform repetitive and tedious work in order to make accommodations, are only a small part of labor in the industry world. A large quantity and variety of labor is needed in every chain of the manufacturing industry, from collecting the raw material to transporting goods from one place to another. As the industry thrives, more jobs are provided and the economics improves. Therefore it seems that a large supply of labor is good for a country to flourish industrially. In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on Population,” however, oversize population, which means the people residing on the land exceed the land’s ability to feed them, eventually results in oversupply in the labor market, and the poor will have to live a harder life because the price of labor decrease. “The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before,” as Malthus clearly stated in the essay. When putting the two essays together, a question is raised: if the labor lives a worse life while the economy is thriving, who lives a better life? Obviously, the employer.

Is Adam Smith intentionally deviating from the fact that employers are exploiting the labors? He discusses the great efficiency and employment brought by the industrialization, and the peasants actually live a better life than before, in contrast to what Malthus has argued, because, “perhaps, that the accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.”

Capitalization

Posted on by

It seems like the Kievan Rus’ empire just dissolved under unfavorable circumstances. The general population became dissatisfied with their Grand Prince in Novgorod, and the Mongols’ invasion of the region further extinguished the flame of Rus’ society. Kievan Rus’ again proved to be highly religious in its political endeavors, and although a split between Prince Ivan and his people occurred – it arguably proved to be a step in the right direction for Rus’ society. Even Kaiser and Marker argue that the kingdom of Rus’ deserved the pummeling it received by the Mongols as punishment for the careless and selfish princes who ignored the wise words of Iaroslav (100).

In line with the ‘princes’ punishment,’ one thing that I questioned throughout the reading was – why was that the reason – the sole heavy hitting reason for the Mongol invasion? Even if Rus’ society was incredibly religious, were they in denial of the Mongols’ strength? Were they in denial of their situation? Was the Mongol invasion a ‘wake up call’ of sorts? The list of questions like this can go on and on, but that’s because the number of lacking answers to questions about this transitional period in Kievan Rus’ society goes on and on. Most of the explanatory language used by the authors is highly religious and ‘mythological’ to an extent, which leads me to assume they don’t know too much about these occurrences (they being the authors and members of Rus’ society).

Development of the Post-Kievan State and the Mongal Conquest

Posted on by

Novgorod and Muscovy became one united state under the command of a Grand Prince, Ivan III. The chronicles assigned for this evening depict the development of Ivan’s control over a span of territory that would eventually become a state in and of itself instead of a loosely united set of principalities with no strong connection to a secular leader. Ivan executed his control with a complete political force, ranging from military intimidation to religious conviction. The Grand Prince also employed a tactic favored by Assyrian generals in the days of humanity’s first civilizations in the fertile crescent; a technique known as ‘calculated frightfulness’. Much like Assyrians did to conquered people, Ivan proposed (and eventually succeeded in) moving people from his own ethnicity into conquered territories (Muscovites into Novgorod) and taking potentially threatening members of the Novgorod community and sending them into military service in the Nizovskaia land, far and away from their homeland and any potential of uprising in the land recently acquired by the Grand Prince.

The chronicle jumps out of order. Following the addressing of Post-Kievan Rus, the chronicle in RS tackles the history of the Mongol invasion that lasted from 1235 to 1238. This period in Russian history completely redefined the way in which the Rus people identified themselves, as well as the society as a whole functioned. The chronicles describe the Mongols as an all destroying devil-race, “from whose beginning wished no good to the human race.” The chronicles go on to describe the ways in which the Mongols shed Christian blood, as well as a plethora of other atrocities, including the dethroning and subsequent murder of multiple Rus princes, effectively ending the governmental structure of the land which now lay in Mongol control.

Christian Rus

Posted on by

I think that this reading really helps to give a sense of how ingrained the Russian Orthodox Church was in early Rus society. The most obvious example of this is clearly the Chronicles themselves and how they are written. For instance, when Novgorod did not want to submit to the rule of the Grand Prince, the Chronicles portrayed it as not a political schism, but one of deep religious controversy. Instead of saying that the people of Novgorod had betrayed the Grand Prince, the Chronicles claim that Novgorod betrayed the commandments of God himself. As such, the battles between the Novgorodians and the armies of the Grand Prince are horribly skewed in favor of the Muscovites, making ridiculous claims that an army of 4000 Muscovites was able to defeat the Novgorod army, which mustered nearly 40,000 men.

Another indicator of the power the church had during this time period are the records that we have from after the Mongol invasion. In the analysis given by Kaiser and Marker, they talk about how the Mongols were viewed as pagans sent by God to punish the people of Rus for the infighting going on at the time. In spite of these views and the Chronicles consistent criticizing of the Mongols as being “godless pagans” the Orthodox Church was allowed to survive under Mongol rule and was given vast amounts of power. As long as the khan’s tax was paid, the Orthodox Church was allowed to continue its existence and it was able to develop a level of influence among the people that would never truly vanish. I believe that this was the point in Russian history were the Orthodox Church began to latch onto the power it now holds. Very few places in the world show so much dedication to their religion as Russia does; despite decades of oppression by the Soviets, the Orthodox Church immediately resurfaced after the fall of the Soviet Union and is still heavily influential in the government. I believe that without the Mongol invasion this may not have happened.

Wealth and Population

Posted on by

Adam Smith primarily focuses the relationship individuals have with one another in a capitalist society, which he describes within An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  Adam Smith begins his inquiry with a look into the division of labor among a population.  Smith determines that the individuals are most productive when they do what they are best at, through their own discovery of his/her own talents and abilities.  With his pin-maker scenario, Smith’s provides an easy to understand example for his ideal working conditions.  In which, Smith says that each step of pin-making is to be completed by a number of different individuals who specialize on one specific part of the process.  Smith views this division of labor to be vastly superior in contrast to an individual doing all the steps in creating a pin.  He believes it this division of labor will increase the amount of work and goods an individual can do, as well as cutting down on the length of time is takes to create a product. Additionally, he states that machinery can be put to more efficient use.Smith continues his inquiry, calling the possibility of maintaining subsistence for humankind.  He thinks that earth is simply incapable of keeping up with the forever increasing human population.

Smith’s sees the division of labor as a vital step into creating a healthy and productive economy.  The specialization of work in each individual allows for a large quantity of a specific piece of a product to be traded and sold to create a more completed product.  This product can then be traded for other products that individuals may require, thus promoting a large scale economy that spreads across nations and continents.