The Kenesary Kasymov’s rebellion was critically scrutinized by Yuriy Malikov, who describes the nature of this rebellion. One of the great events occurred in Kazakh lands in 19th century is the rebellion, which was driven by Kenesary Kasymov and his people against Russian colonization. The period of ten-year struggle, between 1837 and 1847, coincides with many possible factors that is argued by Western and Kazakhstani historians. Some contend that the aims of the rebellion was national-liberation movement that Kenesary wanted to embody symbolizing whole nations’ wish. Another interpretation of revolt was “a protest of restoration” – Kenesary’s effort to retrieve Kazakhs’ traditions and past sociopolitical position. In Yuriy Malikov’s words, the primary aim of Kenesary’s uprisings was neither national-liberation movement nor “a protest of restoration.” In his view, fundamentals of the revolt’s composition in both national-liberation movement and anti-modernizing protest were not satisfied. Lack of massive support did not make the Kenesary’s rebellion widespread and national movement and was the reason of the revolt’s failure. However, Malikov gives quite implicit arguments, which are not clearly supported by other authors. Even though, he surpassed the Kenesary’s letters to the Russian government and has many restrictions tangent to Russian colonization, which was the main point of Kenesary’s revolt. I disagree with the Malikov’s hypothesis because lack of comprehensive information about Russian colonization, not including the Kenesary’s letters and biased arguments which was not actually supported or supported only by one group of people in society. Kenesary Khan’s insurgency has attributes of national solidarity, which fostered ... ... middle of paper ... ...t, was not “a protest of restoration” as many believe. Malikov’s argument that Kenesary Khan’s rebellion was neither a national liberation movement nor an anti-modernizing protest of restoration and preservation is not persuasive. Moreover, some points related to the Russian colonization are quite arguable. The author did not include the actual point of rebel and showed that Kazakh people themselves asked the Russians for protection and to create okrugs on their territory. There is no strong evidence that the steppe people themselves wanted to be under the Russian control. The author highlighted key features of Kenesary’s rebellion; however, the arguments are vague and have weak support. The main source that is relevant to this issue was not used, the Kenesary’s letter to Nikolai I and other Russian governors, where it can be seen the true aim of Kenesary’s revolt.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and Rethinking the Russian Revolution. Writing of an annotated bibliography of the topic. 2. Selection and reading of the sources to determine which ones are the most relevant and comprehensive 3. Finding opposing arguments to give and analytical view with multiple perspectives 4.
"History & Culture of Russia / The Mongols and the Emergence of Moscow." History & Culture of
In order to be able to assess the reasons as to why it was that the
After the crippling defeat in the Crimean War, Alexander II knew that Russia could not be allowed to lag behind the Western world any longer if it was to maintain its independence. The reform of the state had been advisable for a long time, but for Alexander III it was necessary. He knew that before any real changes could be achieved, the main problem had to be solved: the problem of serfdom. However many limits and imperfections his edict of Emancipation carried with it, most importantly it allowed for further modernizing reforms in the legal, government, education and military spheres.
Most popular uprisings in recent history have been characterized by a brief period of incredible potential and hope, only to collapse in failure and despair. Even the supposedly 'successful' Russian Revolution of 1917 followed this pattern. Revolutionaries threw off centuries of imperial rule and oppression in order to create a new world of freedom, peace and equality... only to end up with Stalin, purges, gulags, dekulakization - and ultimately decades of Bolshevik1 rule and oppression. Although it can sometimes be disheartening to review this long history of failure and oppression, valuable insights can be gained by investigating these past revolutions. The achievements and promise of the revolutionaries can be studied and their strengths marked. The weaknesses that led to their eventual defeat and decay must also be understood, so that the same mistakes are not made again. This article will address these themes in the context of the Russian Revolution at the Kronstadt navel base.2
Imagine yourself in prison. You are awakened one day by the guard, who orders you and others to the prison yard. You are being moved, but no one has told you where. If you move to the left or the right, you will be shot on the spot. You and 50 other prisoners are loaded into small trucks- There is little room for you to move, the air hot with the breath of the other prisoners. After an incredibly long journey, you are moved from the trucks to a train, specifically a cattle car. Where will this train take you? No prisoner knows. The guards do, though, and allow you to take some winter clothing- a scarf, a pair of gloves, a coat. This does not tell you much though, as Russia in winter is usually a cold place. In talking with your fellow prisoners, you realize that everyone has been arrested for similar reasons, reasons for which many of them advocate their innocence. They were forced to sign the confession, they said. They were tortured; they might have not even known why they were arrested. Soon you piece together the commonalities between them- You all are political prisoners- imprisoned for your political beliefs, or imprisoned because you were supposedly a part of a giant conspiracy to overthrow the ‘People’s Government’ and sell the country to the greedy and exploitive capitalists. For Ekaterina Olitskaia, this story would be similar to her experiences shared in “My Reminiscences,” and for millions of others in the Soviet Union during the 1930s this story would be similar. How did this situation come to be? Why were people jailed for their political beliefs? One has to look back to the situation of Russia from 1900 to the 1930s to trace the path and beliefs of Olitskaia and others to determine why they were jailed during the Gr...
When Russians talk about the war of 1812 they do not mean the war in which Washington was burned by the British, but the war in which, apparently, the Russians burned Moscow. This war between the French republican empire and the Russian Tsarist Empire was as remarkable a high - spot in the history of the latter as it was a low - spot in the history of Napoleon. For Russia, it was one of those rare moments in history when almost all people, serfs and lords, merchants and bureaucrats, put aside their enmities and realized that they were all Russians. Russia, sometimes called ‘a state without a people’, seemed to become, for a few precious months, one people, and never quite forgot the experience.
The famine in Russia alone led the peasants to become angry and fed up with the Russian government, suggesting a future revolution. Because of the peasants’ unrest, they began to break the law by as stealing food for their families and shouting in the streets. Russia had attempted revolution before, and a fear of an uprising was feared again. Their everyday routi...
In Russian history, the eighteenth century was characterized by significant changes to the political, economical, social and cultural fabric of Russian life that shifted Muscovite Russia’s isolated position and mindset of the Middle Ages into modernization and westernization. The driving force of reformation is accredited to Peter the Great whose reign (1694 – 1725) ushered in European ideas, models, manners, and philosophies. Willingly accepted or not, government intervention was evident in almost all aspects of life. The Petrine reforms, although extensive and multi-faceted, can be generally catalogued into the following areas: military; administrative; ecclesiastical; economical and fiscal; cultural; and social. A synthesis of the reforms, and their effect on and significance to Russia, are examined here. The Muscovy past was irreversibly changed, but the Petrine reforms were not particularly a break from Russian tradition, as evidenced by institutions such as serfdom and the faith of the Old Believers. Instead, Peter initiated a shift towards a new perspective of consciousness that must be balanced between what worked and what did not for Russia and it’s population. However, the character of the reforms was not uniform and proved to be difficult to support in future years.
The Russia system of serfdom that operated dated back to 1649, basing its operation of the relationship between lord and serf on the land one owned. This system was proof of the backwardness of the country and needed to be remedied. If one were to believe that the emancipation of the serfs stemmed only from the ideas of Alexander II as he aimed for modernization, it would be incorrect. Since the reign of Peter I, mod...
I think that the only reason the Russian revolution was carried out and eventually became successful was that Marxism was appealing to the Russian people. Led by the Bolshevik party leader Lenin, Marxism was spread through Russia, causing an uprising against the government and the czar, Nicholas II. The uproar led to a storming of the capital, and the easy way of seizing power for Lenin and the protesters. Lenin then began to form a new, Marxism way of running the country. The Bolsheviks managed to gain even more power by seizing more of Russia after signing a harsh “treaty”, giving Lenin and the protesters more land and supporters.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2005. Print.
107-112. World History in Context. Accessed 15 Feb. 2018. Quenoy, Paul Du, and David L. Ruffley. “Tsar Nicholas II: Did the Decision of Tsar Nicholas II to Take Personal Command at the Front Accelerate the Fall of the Russian Empire?”