Russian Nobility Association in America
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Northern Black Sea Region in Classical Antiquity 4
The Northern Black Sea Region by Kerstin Susanne Jobst In historical studies, the Black Sea region is viewed as a separate historical region which has been shaped in particular by vast migration and acculturation processes. Another prominent feature of the region's history is the great diversity of religions and cultures which existed there up to the 20th century. The region is understood as a complex interwoven entity. This article focuses on the northern Black Sea region, which in the present day is primarily inhabited by Slavic people. Most of this region currently belongs to Ukraine, which has been an independent state since 1991. It consists primarily of the former imperial Russian administrative province of Novorossiia (not including Bessarabia, which for a time was administered as part of Novorossiia) and the Crimean Peninsula, including the adjoining areas to the north. The article also discusses how the region, which has been inhabited by Scythians, Sarmatians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns, Khazars, Italians, Tatars, East Slavs and others, fitted into broader geographical and political contexts. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Space of Myths and Legends 3. The Northern Black Sea Region in Classical Antiquity 4. From the Khazar Empire to the Crimean Khanate and the Ottomans 5. Russian Rule: The Region as Novorossiia 6. World War, Revolutions and Soviet Rule 7. From the Second World War until the End of the Soviet Union 8. Summary and Future Perspective 9. Appendix 1. Sources 2. Literature 3. Notes Indices Citation Introduction -
'The Distinction': Russian Nobility and Russian Elites In
The ‘Distinction’: Russian Nobility and Russian Elites in the European Context (the 18th – 19th Century)* Vera S. Dubina Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow ABSTRACT Historiography for a long time supposed that the Russian nobility, because of its character of service, did not possess a class con- sciousness, which is expressed in point d'honneur and distinction nobiliaire (Bourdieu 1987). It corresponds to the proclamation opposition ‘Russian-European’, which came from the old theory of Russian special way (Sonderweg). In my contribution, I refrain from proclaiming an a priori incompatibility of the Russian nobili- ty with Western European principles and try to show that the re- search on the Russian nobility and elites can benefit to be recon- structed within a European conceptual sphere and from using the concepts like ‘Adeligkeit’. The objective of this essay is to put key concepts of European noble habitus to test by the help of three conceptions: ‘elite’, ‘point d'honneur’ and ‘service’ by Russian example. While the history of Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries is de- scribed in terms of Europeanization in the areas of the governmen- tal system, education and everyday life, in scientific tradition the results of this European influence are for the most part judged as not corresponding to European standards: According to this tradi- tion, neither a constitutional state existed – despite the orientation towards the theory and codification of the law according to the European (mainly German) model – nor a bureaucracy in accor- dance with the Western model, with a delegation of power1. -
Mughals at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, 1500 - 1605
Mughals at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, 1500 - 1605 A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew de la Garza Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: John F. Guilmartin, Advisor; Stephen Dale; Jennifer Siegel Copyright by Andrew de la Garza 2010 Abstract This doctoral dissertation, Mughals at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, examines the transformation of warfare in South Asia during the foundation and consolidation of the Mughal Empire. It emphasizes the practical specifics of how the Imperial army waged war and prepared for war—technology, tactics, operations, training and logistics. These are topics poorly covered in the existing Mughal historiography, which primarily addresses military affairs through their background and context— cultural, political and economic. I argue that events in India during this period in many ways paralleled the early stages of the ongoing “Military Revolution” in early modern Europe. The Mughals effectively combined the martial implements and practices of Europe, Central Asia and India into a model that was well suited for the unique demands and challenges of their setting. ii Dedication This document is dedicated to John Nira. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Professor John F. Guilmartin and the other members of my committee, Professors Stephen Dale and Jennifer Siegel, for their invaluable advice and assistance. I am also grateful to the many other colleagues, both faculty and graduate students, who helped me in so many ways during this long, challenging process. -
Social Misfits: Veterans and Soldiers' Families in Servile Russia
Social Misfits: Veterans and Soldiers' Families in Servile Russia Author(s): Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 215-235 Published by: Society for Military History Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2944572 . Accessed: 26/11/2012 16:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for Military History is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Military History. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:22:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Social Misfits: Veterans and Soldiers' Families in Servile Russia. Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter BEGINNING with the reforms of Peter the Great in the early eigh- teenth century, the unprivileged elements of Russian society were identified first and foremost by their obligations to the state, specifically liability for military service and the capitation (poll tax).1 To impose these obligations effectively, the government needed to register each and every male in periodic censuses, which then served as the basis for col- lecting taxes and selecting recruits.2 The very process of registration- particularly the assignment of individuals, based on heredity, to the appropriate category and place of residence-was supposed to ensure a precise accounting and delineation of social groups and communities. -
The Rise of Russia
THE RISE OF RUSSIA FROM GRAND PRINCE OF MOSCOVY TO TSAR OF ALL THE RUSSIAS EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA Elbe River Boundary, Eastern/Southern Europe – Lands east and south of line Elbe River to Port of Trieste on Adriatic – Created a historical region dominated by nobles, landlords, serfs, conflict, tensions – Tended to escape most of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment Change over Time – 1450: Poland-Lithuania was the largest state; Hungary was second; many states – 1750: Austria, Prussia, Russia, Ottoman Empire dominate; Poland about to depart Deep Ethnic and Religious Divisions – Catholics: Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Hungarians, Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians – Orthodox: Russians, Belarus, Ukrainians, Bulgars, Rumanians, Greeks, Serbs – Protestants: Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Germans, some Hungarians – Muslims: Turks, Bosnians, Albanians, Tatars, Mongols – Many ethnic groups, religious minorities include Jews, Gypsies Multinational States, Autocratic Governments – One dominant ethnic group (Russians, Germans, Poles, Hungarians) dominates state – Many lesser ethnic groups subject to assimilation, exploitation by largest ruling group – Russia, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Poland were multinational – Most states had autocratic rulers who could ignore assembles, nobles in decisions – Constant drive to increase state power at expense of all opponents including nobles, faith Social and Economic Themes – Elites: Land nobility (Russian = Boyars) controlled vast estates – Serfdom, forced peasant labor wide spread, serfs often exploited, -
The Jesuits in Chin A
THE JESUITS IN CHIN A by Feodosy Smorzhevsky An Eyewitness Account by an Eighteenth- Century Russian Orthodox Monk Translated by Barbara W. Maggs Translation © 2018 Barbara Widenor Maggs TABLE OF CONTENTS TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE .............................................................................. 4 NOTES ON THE TRANSLATION ITSELF ................................................. 4 ORIGINAL PUBLICATION ............................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR OF SIBIRSKII VESTNIK, GRIGORY SPASSKY ..................................................................... 6 PART I: THE GUISES IN WHICH THE JESUTIS ARE SENT TO CHINA, THEIR OCCUPATIONS, AND WHAT THEY PRACTICE THERE .................................................................................................................... 7 The Ranks of the Jesuits in China and their Residential Colleges .............. 7 The Jesuit Way of Life in Peking ................................................................... 11 The Jesuits' Charge to Spread the Christian Faith among the Chinese ... 12 On the Service of Worship and Various Religious and Secular Ceremonies of the Jesuits ................................................................................ 16 PART II: HOW FAVORABLE IS THE CHINESE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE JESUITS? ................................................................................ 29 The Beginning of the Persecution of the Jesuits ......................................... 32 The Investigation of Jesuit -
About Peter the Great
CK_5_TH_HG_P104_230.QXD 2/14/06 2:23 PM Page 211 Ivan III, also known as Ivan the Great, had come to power as the Grand Prince of Moscow in 1462. During his reign of 43 years, he extended Moscow’s Teaching Idea control over a large area, annexing land from other city-states and from the Poles, Using Instructional Master 25, Czars Lithuanians, and Mongols. of Russia (1613–1917), have students The government was centralized and Ivan asserted his influence over the keep a chart of the czars, their dates, church. He surrounded himself with the splendor and ceremony befitting an and their accomplishments. emperor and adopted as the symbol of the czar the Byzantine symbol of the dou- ble eagle. Ivan’s reign laid the foundation for the later Russian state. Ivan IV Ivan IV, also known as Ivan the Terrible, reigned from 1533 to 1584. He greatly expanded Russia’s borders, extending Russian rule throughout the Name Date Czars of Russia (1613–1917) Volga River Basin to the Caspian Sea and pushing across the Ural Mountains Study the family tree and use it to answer the questions on Master 25b. Mikhail Feodorovich Evdokia Lukianovna (1596–1645) Streshneva 1613–45 Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina Alexei Mikhailovich Maria Miloslavskaya into Siberia. His attempt to win a foothold on the Baltic Sea was less success- (1629–76) 1645–76 Sofia Alexeena Feodor Alexeevich Ivan V Praskovia Saltykova (1657–1704) (1661–82) (1666–96) ful. The Swedes and Poles defeated the Russian forces. 1682–89 1676–82 1682–96 Evdokia Fedorovna Lopuhina Peter the Great Ekaterina Skawronska (1672–1725) 1682–1725 Crown Princess Czarevich Alexei Unknown Anna Ivanovna Sofia Charlotta Petrovich (1693–1740) Ivan earned his nickname because of his cruelty. -
DUNFORD Paul UMD Submission 08 Revision B
ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: THE PERSISTENT POGONI AT THE VICTORY PARADE OF 1945: STALIN’S CHOICE TO COSTUME THE SOVIET PRESENT IN THE UNIFORMS OF THE IMPERIAL PAST Paul Dunford, Master of Arts, 2008 Thesis Directed by: Professor Catherine Schuler Department of Theatre The military uniform in which the Imperial Army of Tsar Nicholas II marched westwards toward its disastrous confrontation with that of his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II was the culmination of three hundred years of dress reform on the part of the Romanovs. Each of the dynasty’s emperors and empresses imparted their own particular stylistic mark on the uniform; it in turn was symbolic of that ruler’s reign and communicated a complex package of political, cultural, and social messages. The uniform of 1914 was symbolic of the uneasy reign of Nicholas II and it was therefore a natural target for the Bolshevik revolutionaries who physically tore them apart. Yet when Stalin sent the Red Army west to meet Hitler’s Wehrmacht his soldiers were dressed in a uniform nearly identical to that which had been ravaged and reviled over two decades prior. By 1941 Stalin transformed the uniform of Imperial Russia into that of Soviet Russia, even though the political and cultural life of these two periods stood in stark contrast to each other in many ways. This highly successful transformation will be examined through application of an adaptation of the theories of stage semiotics. THE PERSISTENT POGONI AT THE VICTORY PARADE OF 1945: STALIN’S CHOICE TO COSTUME THE SOVIET PRESENT IN THE UNIFORMS OF THE IMPERIAL PAST by Paul Alexander Dunford Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2008 Advisory Committee: Professor Catherine Schuler, Chair Professor Misha Kachman Professor Heather Nathans Table of Contents Table of Figures.......................................................................................................... -
Implementation of the Russian Table of Ranks During the Eighteenth Century
NOTES AND COMMENT JAMES HASSELL Implementation of the Russian Table of Ranks During the Eighteenth Century Peter the Great in 1722 introduced an entirely new system of ranking for the government service. His system embodied two marked departures from former practice. It provided for the separation of the civil from the military service, and it promised ennoblement to any commoner who attained a sufficiently high level of rank. A promotional ladder of fourteen steps was established, the eighth step from the top being designated as the one that would confer upon its fortunate possessors the status of nobility (dvorianskoe svanie)—that is, if they did not already enjoy such distinction through birth or royal favor. This system, maintained with modifications until the downfall of the Russian Empire, was officially entitled the Table of Ranks (Tabel' o rangakh).1 Various principles were expressed in the Table of Ranks, and it is the purpose of this study to discover what meaning they had in eighteenth-century practice. Some principles the government consistently attempted to uphold, some it violated, and in certain cases practices were established that the Table had not dealt with at all. I have concerned myself almost entirely with the civil service and have relied particularly upon legislation of the period as an indica tor of administrative developments. An understanding of the fate that befell the Table of Ranks should provide insights into the problems of eighteenth- century Russian administration. The Table of Ranks contained specialized terminology which was quickly assimilated by government servitors and provided a common and familiar ground of understanding for those interested in public office. -
“Tsar and God” and Other Essays in Russian Cultural Semiotics Ars Rossica
“Tsar and God” And Other Essays in Russian Cultural Semiotics Ars Rossica Series Editor: David Bethea University of Wisconsin—Madison “Tsar and God” And Other Essays in Russian Cultural Semiotics Boris Uspenskij and Victor Zhivov Translated from Russian by Marcus C. Levitt, David Budgen, and Liv Bliss Edited by Marcus C. Levitt Boston 2012 The publication of this book is supported by the Mikhail Prokhorov Foundation (translation program TRANSCRIPT). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A catalog record for this title is available from the Library of Congress. Copyright © 2012 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-936235-49-0 (cloth) ISBN 978-1-61811-124-1 (electronic) Book design by Ivan Grave Published by Academic Studies Press in 2012 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com Effective December 12th, 2017, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. The open access publication of this volume is made possible by: This open access publication is part of a project supported by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book initiative, which includes the open access release of several Academic Studies Press volumes. To view more titles available as free ebooks and to learn more about this project, please visit borderlinesfoundation.org/open. -
Absolutism in Eastern Europe: C. 1600-1740
AP European History: Unit 3.3 HistorySage.com Absolutism in Eastern Europe: c. 1600-1740 I. Overview of Eastern Europe (―HOP RAP‖) Use space below for A. Three aging empires—Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman notes Empire and Polish Kingdom—gave way to new empires of Russia, Austria and Prussia 1. Holy Roman Empire (HRE): religious divisions due th th to the Reformation and religious wars in 16 and 17 centuries split Germany among Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist princes 2. Ottoman Empire: could not maintain possessions in eastern Europe and the Balkans in the face of Austrian and Russian expansion a. Ottoman Empire was built on expansion The Sultan had absolute power in the empire After 1560 the decline in western expansion resulted in the gradual disintegration of the empire b. Suleiman the Magnificent (r. 1520-1566) was perhaps the most powerful ruler in the world during the 16th century Nearly conquered Austria in 1529, captured Belgrade (Serbia), nearly 1/2 of eastern Europe including all Balkan territories, most of Hungary, and part of southern Russia. c. Highly talented Christian children from the conquered provinces were incorporated into the Ottoman Empire’s bureaucracy d. “Janissary corps”: those Christian slaves who were not selected for the Ottoman bureaucracy served loyally instead in the Turkish army e. Ottoman Empire was fairly tolerant regarding religion in its conquered provinces 3. Poland: liberum veto – voting in Polish parliament had to be unanimous for changes to be made; thus, little could be done to systematically strengthen the kingdom Russia and Prussia encouraged certain members to invoke the liberum veto to weaken Poland. -
Trial by Jury in Russian Military Courts Nikolai P
Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Criminology Laurier Brantford Summer 2008 Trial by Jury in Russian Military Courts Nikolai P. Kovalev Wilfrid Laurier University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/brantford_cc Recommended Citation Kovalev, Nikolai P., "Trial by Jury in Russian Military Courts" (2008). Criminology. 3. http://scholars.wlu.ca/brantford_cc/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Laurier Brantford at Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Criminology by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trial by Jury in Russian Military Courts 2 Nikolai P. Kovalev Trial by Jury in Russian Military Courts 1 Although de jure Russian legislation considers military tribunals as courts of the common jurisdiction (sudy obshchei iurisdiktsii)1, de facto Russian military courts constitute a separate system which is different from ordinary courts in several respects. Firstly, military courts try a special category of defendants, military personnel or citizens, who were called out for military training in military units (voennye sbory)2. Secondly, as opposed to judges in ordinary courts military judges are military officers, who have military ranks3 and wear military uniform, which means they have a more hierarchical organization and management. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of military courts does not correspond to jurisdiction of ordinary courts of the same level. There is one feature, however, which is shared by both courts for civilians and military personnel. It is the right to a jury trial for certain criminal cases.