NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anybody else noticed how Russia tends to get cut out of history up until ~1950? I find it very odd, but when you look at it, it seems clear. Every time Russia scores a major victory, or even gets involved in a nasty war with big casualties all around, the particular events just sort of...vanish.
Starting with the Great Northern War in 1700, which is hardly ever mentioned (at least in the books IVE seen), and defined the politics of the region for some time and resulted in Sweden losing its power, never really becoming powerful again.
The Napoleonic Wars (where Russia was critical to the defeat of Napoleon and the 'big hero' of Europe for a few decades), where Russias role is usualy confined to a paragraph or a page at most. The Battle of Borodino rarely gets any mention at all, despite being the critical turning point of the war. Usualy the section focuses on the French casualties at the hands of Cossack raiders, seemingly casting Russia as the 'bad guy'.
The Crimean War, essentially the first 'modern' war that proved that the end of marching around in formation was on us (although people didnt catch on for another seventy years or so), which is, like the Great Northern War, hardly ever mentioned.
In World War I and II, Russia is rarely mentioned either, except to say that they suffered terrible casualties and that Stalin inflicted more lossess on his own people than the Axis caused thorughout the war.

Personaly, I think the main cause of this is simply that most of the historical sources of the era are taken from British and French texts, which would be rather biased. The British of the era viewed themselves as lords of the world and so forth and the French simply didnt like the fact that some Russian guy totaly destroyed their army.
And, of course, there is simply the fact that throughout most of its history Russia was 'That big thing over there', with little else being known about it.

Any other opinions and/or rants?

I think some of it is bias, since culturally speaking Russia wasn't really considered "European" by the other European powers, but rather "Asian".

Plus, with their autocratic governments and agriculturally based economy they lagged behind the West in terms of scientific literature and history which meant that their past was most likely documented by the English, French, or Germans, whose relations with Russia were far from ideal for most of the past 4 centuries.

I lean to the idea that people just didn't give a shit about Russia/Soviet Union before it got nukes and became a viable threat.

I lean to the idea that people just didn't give a shit about Russia/Soviet Union before it got nukes and became a viable threat.
As pointed out, Russia was a MAJOR threat for some time, during the reign of Peter the Great it was (arguably) the most powerful nation in Europe, and then it was just out of the Dark Ages, essentially.
The problem was that they got the 'Red' treatment back then as well, they were viewed as so much of a threat that any attempt at expansion into Europe or some parts of Asia was met by some sort of multi-national force (See the Crimean War).
Vetalia seems to have got it, though. Since Russians were 'barbarians' up until the 1900's or so :P

Vetalia seems to have got it, though. Since Russians were 'barbarians' up until the 1900's or so :P

They were the Golden Horde until the 15th century...it doesn't get more "barbaric" than to be called a horde. :p

How do you mean cut out of history, I don't know about where you live but in all the history sections of the libraries and book stores round here you'll find plenty of books about Russia before 1950. In my history class way back in high one half of the year was devoted to Russia/USSR from 1900-1940. I've never heard of Russia being cut out of histories about Napolean, the Crimean War (be pretty damn hard) or any other way. Sorry but this just didn't make much sense to me.

In Soviet Russia, history forgets you!

I don't entirely know, the Russians were pretty weak in WW1, and dropped out for their own revolution. I think they were mentioned pretty heavily in the history books I've studied. The battles of Kursk, Kiev, Stalingrad (ww2), were all major Nazi Defeats, and Stalingrad may well have been the turning point in the European front of WW2. As far as before that, we all know about napoleon, but I'm not too familiar with much before that.

Depends on the class.

The Napoleonic wars mentioned Russia a little bit ;)

Well, keep in mind the fact that 'World History' classes only teach about Egypt during the time of the Phaorohs, Palestine during the time of the Hebrews, and Greece during the ancient Greek city-states. From Rome on, it's strictly Eurocentric. The Americas don't exist until Christopher Columbus sets foot in them, China doesn't exist until the Opium War, and Japan doesn't exist until Mathew Perry forces it open at gun point.

All in all, world history courses are anything but 'world' history.

I have actually read about Russia's involvement in the Crimean War and earlier conflicts with Turkey. The 1917 Revolutions (both of them) and inter-war reforms are extensively covered in the British A-Level syllabus, the one I did anyway.

I would say prior to 1800 I am fairly ignorant of Russian history. And I was born there, LOL.

Has anybody else noticed how Russia tends to get cut out of history up until ~1950? I find it very odd, but when you look at it, it seems clear. Every time Russia scores a major victory, or even gets involved in a nasty war with big casualties all around, the particular events just sort of...vanish.
Starting with the Great Northern War in 1700, which is hardly ever mentioned (at least in the books IVE seen), and defined the politics of the region for some time and resulted in Sweden losing its power, never really becoming powerful again.
The Napoleonic Wars (where Russia was critical to the defeat of Napoleon and the 'big hero' of Europe for a few decades), where Russias role is usualy confined to a paragraph or a page at most. The Battle of Borodino rarely gets any mention at all, despite being the critical turning point of the war. Usualy the section focuses on the French casualties at the hands of Cossack raiders, seemingly casting Russia as the 'bad guy'.
The Crimean War, essentially the first 'modern' war that proved that the end of marching around in formation was on us (although people didnt catch on for another seventy years or so), which is, like the Great Northern War, hardly ever mentioned.
In World War I and II, Russia is rarely mentioned either, except to say that they suffered terrible casualties and that Stalin inflicted more lossess on his own people than the Axis caused thorughout the war.

Personaly, I think the main cause of this is simply that most of the historical sources of the era are taken from British and French texts, which would be rather biased. The British of the era viewed themselves as lords of the world and so forth and the French simply didnt like the fact that some Russian guy totaly destroyed their army.
And, of course, there is simply the fact that throughout most of its history Russia was 'That big thing over there', with little else being known about it.

Any other opinions and/or rants?
History at my school was basicly the same as yours regarding Russia. The main difference is we spend some time learning about Russia's victories/losses in World War I/II and a breif (2 page) discussion of the Cold War. Although, in History 12, Russia is involved in everything covered (1900-~1970).

There's a lot of history in the world so I suppose it's only natural that only part of a nation's history would be focused on. Though if anyone here really wants to read about Russian history pick up The Icon and the Axe.

I took a Russian history class in college and that book is pretty much the standard when it comes to Russian history in English.

Has anybody else noticed how Russia tends to get cut out of history up until ~1950? I find it very odd, but when you look at it, it seems clear. Every time Russia scores a major victory, or even gets involved in a nasty war with big casualties all around, the particular events just sort of...vanish.
Starting with the Great Northern War in 1700, which is hardly ever mentioned (at least in the books IVE seen), and defined the politics of the region for some time and resulted in Sweden losing its power, never really becoming powerful again.
The Napoleonic Wars (where Russia was critical to the defeat of Napoleon and the 'big hero' of Europe for a few decades), where Russias role is usualy confined to a paragraph or a page at most. The Battle of Borodino rarely gets any mention at all, despite being the critical turning point of the war. Usualy the section focuses on the French casualties at the hands of Cossack raiders, seemingly casting Russia as the 'bad guy'.
The Crimean War, essentially the first 'modern' war that proved that the end of marching around in formation was on us (although people didnt catch on for another seventy years or so), which is, like the Great Northern War, hardly ever mentioned.
In World War I and II, Russia is rarely mentioned either, except to say that they suffered terrible casualties and that Stalin inflicted more lossess on his own people than the Axis caused thorughout the war.

Personaly, I think the main cause of this is simply that most of the historical sources of the era are taken from British and French texts, which would be rather biased. The British of the era viewed themselves as lords of the world and so forth and the French simply didnt like the fact that some Russian guy totaly destroyed their army.
And, of course, there is simply the fact that throughout most of its history Russia was 'That big thing over there', with little else being known about it.

Any other opinions and/or rants?

Yeah, but in my schools books russia is well mentioned during ww2, and after that beside the cold war was in the hungarian uprising. (It didnt even mention Bosnia/Kosovo and the Afghan war)

I think some of it is bias, since culturally speaking Russia wasn't really considered "European" by the other European powers, but rather "Asian".

That's a... strange thing to say. Why asian, exactly?

They were the Golden Horde until the 15th century...it doesn't get more "barbaric" than to be called a horde. :p

The Golden Horde were never the Russians. They just happened to be in the same place for a long time. Kinda like the Russians and Germans never were the Poles.

They were the Golden Horde until the 15th century...it doesn't get more "barbaric" than to be called a horde. :p

Actually, the word 'horde' comes from the Mongolian 'ordu', which refers to a group of nomads. 'Horde' as a barbarian thing is very much revisionist history.

Which is beside the fact that much of Europe looked up to the Mongolians as being the pinnicle of civilization for a very long time. Probably with the same love/hate they now have for America.

Well, it's simple, world history is taught from the viewpoint of the nation/s that has/have the dominant cultural impact, and let's face it, Russia didn't leave much of a cultural footprint anywhere until fairly recently. Beyond that, Russia also is a notoriously closed country, sure there are a handful of the cosmopolitan cities that have characterized Europe for some time now, such as St. Petersburg, yet most of Russia has remained inaccessible. Nor have the varied autocratic regimes that have ruled Russia over the ages fostered much in the way of radical innovation.

For example, one would think that Russia, after thumping sweden and basically becoming the most militarily capable country in Europe, would get some recognition. But it didn't, because for all of it's force, it had very little force projection. Russia could not have founded a vast global empire with the might it had.

Russia gets about a paragraph in your average middle school history book's napoleonic wars chapter becuase the napoleonic wars only get a handful of pages, in spite of their importance for the European world.

Any other opinions and/or rants?
well i guess i havnt gone to university, so i dont really have this problem, i read and study history because i love it, and am well aware of everything you mentioned from the g northern war on. i have a great atlas of world history (i love those) which has really good maps on northern war (ooooh 2 of them, pretty good when were covering all of history). you also seem to be forgetting russia before then as well, although it isnt really recognizable as russia as we know it i guess, but the era of the mongol invasions is pretty fun. interesting side note that most people dont know, not to do with russia but meh kiev was founding by norse vikings

if you wanna talk about nations forgotten in western history lets talk about china, did you know that in 1422 (i think maybe 23 or something) china discovered the carribean, and that it settled colonies in both north and south america aroudn that time

if you wanna talk about nations forgotten in western history lets talk about china, did you know that in 1422 (i think maybe 23 or something) china discovered the carribean, and that it settled colonies in both north and south america aroudn that time

And just how do you intend for them to discover the Caribbean from where they are? Without accidentally bumping into the rest of America?

And just how do you intend for them to discover the Caribbean from where they are? Without accidentally bumping into the rest of America?
It's a theory by some guy that Zheng He didn't turn around from Southern Africa, but went on and crossed the Atlantic.
But in the TV show I watched about it, pretty much all his evidence turned out to be bullshit, and the whole story sounded very constructed in the first place.

Still, Zheng He's voyages are impressive, America or not. And his fleet easily was the most powerful of its time.

Actually, the Russian military had little to do with the defeat of Napoleon. He marched his Grande Armee on Moscow, and they froze to death, and were then harried out of Russia.

That said, my AS and A2 courses at college (in history) focus on Peter the Great and the Great Northern War, then on Catherine the Great and the War with the Turks and Swedes.

The Russians under Peter the Great started out as an appallingly equipped and lead force (Peter was the first to flee at Narva), yet by the end, new equipment and tactics saw them crush the Swedes at Poltava, destroy the Swedish position as a Great Power in Europe, established a Black Sea port at the expense of the Ottomans and their Crimean vassals and built the first Russian Navy.

Ergo, I wouldnt say they were under-studied or less focused on.

That's a... strange thing to say. Why asian, exactly?


Because Russia is located in Asia of course. "Europe" is more of a cultural construct, which does bleed more into Russia, at least since modern times, than Chinese or other far eastern cultural influences. Though that doesn't mean Russia isn't located in Asia. Being a cultural creation, the border lines for Europe are not completely definite, it is not like Europe is its own continent. To define it as European or Asian is greatly a matter of focus and semantics.

I think it's just mostly down to general cultural ignorance on the part of the Europeans, who tended to look down on Russia as a big clumsy cousin, fed by millions of serfs tied to the land. For socieies like Napoleonic France, this idea was anathema...

Theres alwats been a Western bias in European History as a school subject, and I doubt the Cold War did anything to help the trend. Russias part in the defeat of Germany is still woefully understated.

I don't entirely know, the Russians were pretty weak in WW1, and dropped out for their own revolution.

Actually no. The Russians were producing more arms and munitions than Germany at one point. They also had a great number of big victories over the Austro-Hugarians and at one point German troops had to be dirverted from other areas to secure the Austrain border. There were also many fierce battles between the Russians the Germans. Even after the Tsar abdicated the provesional government continued the war until the Boshlivecks became a big problem.

As for the original comment I agree completetely.

It is almost impossible to get history information about Russia save for the revolution and its participation in the Second World War

Well, keep in mind the fact that 'World History' classes only teach about Egypt during the time of the Phaorohs, Palestine during the time of the Hebrews, and Greece during the ancient Greek city-states. From Rome on, it's strictly Eurocentric. The Americas don't exist until Christopher Columbus sets foot in them, China doesn't exist until the Opium War, and Japan doesn't exist until Mathew Perry forces it open at gun point.

All in all, world history courses are anything but 'world' history.
What the fuck world history classes have you been taking? Mine covered the whole damn world for the whole damn time. Even Southeast Asia. Now that stuff’s a bitch to remember.

Speaking of Russia, in my American History class we learned about the fact that the revolutionary war was primarily only won because Britain was busy fighting the whole rest of the world at the same time, including Russia. So it isn’t left out. Maybe in the rest of yalls shitty education, but not mine.

You know who was cool from Russia. Ivan the Terrible
Ivan IV (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_bio.htm)

What the fuck world history classes have you been taking? Mine covered the whole damn world for the whole damn time. Even Southeast Asia. Now that stuff’s a bitch to remember.

Speaking of Russia, in my American History class we learned about the fact that the revolutionary war was primarily only won because Britain was busy fighting the whole rest of the world at the same time, including Russia. So it isn’t left out. Maybe in the rest of yalls shitty education, but not mine.

Heh the first American ever to admit that The American Indepedance war wasn't entirely an American effort. It had a lot to do with the French and other rival European powers.

Has anybody else noticed how Russia tends to get cut out of history up until ~1950? I find it very odd, but when you look at it, it seems clear. Every time Russia scores a major victory, or even gets involved in a nasty war with big casualties all around, the particular events just sort of...vanish.
Starting with the Great Northern War in 1700, which is hardly ever mentioned (at least in the books IVE seen), and defined the politics of the region for some time and resulted in Sweden losing its power, never really becoming powerful again.
The Napoleonic Wars (where Russia was critical to the defeat of Napoleon and the 'big hero' of Europe for a few decades), where Russias role is usualy confined to a paragraph or a page at most. The Battle of Borodino rarely gets any mention at all, despite being the critical turning point of the war. Usualy the section focuses on the French casualties at the hands of Cossack raiders, seemingly casting Russia as the 'bad guy'.
The Crimean War, essentially the first 'modern' war that proved that the end of marching around in formation was on us (although people didnt catch on for another seventy years or so), which is, like the Great Northern War, hardly ever mentioned.
In World War I and II, Russia is rarely mentioned either, except to say that they suffered terrible casualties and that Stalin inflicted more lossess on his own people than the Axis caused thorughout the war.

Personaly, I think the main cause of this is simply that most of the historical sources of the era are taken from British and French texts, which would be rather biased. The British of the era viewed themselves as lords of the world and so forth and the French simply didnt like the fact that some Russian guy totaly destroyed their army.
And, of course, there is simply the fact that throughout most of its history Russia was 'That big thing over there', with little else being known about it.

Any other opinions and/or rants?

It is a real shame that pre 20th century Russia is so woefully neglected not only by mainstream historical writings but also by the media. I am currently doing some reading on Russia, finding it far more interesting than most of Europe, and the best I have found so far is a fairly academic work written by G.Hoskings (probably the foremost English scholar on Russian history) which evaulates the two states that exist in Russia, the courtly imperial classes and the traditional, autocratic and Orthodox peasantry. It is a highly thematic work but interesting neverthless. I have been scouring the bookshelves for more, especially biographies of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. Alas my search has been unsuccessful

Well, keep in mind the fact that 'World History' classes only teach about Egypt during the time of the Phaorohs, Palestine during the time of the Hebrews, and Greece during the ancient Greek city-states. From Rome on, it's strictly Eurocentric. The Americas don't exist until Christopher Columbus sets foot in them, China doesn't exist until the Opium War, and Japan doesn't exist until Mathew Perry forces it open at gun point.

All in all, world history courses are anything but 'world' history.


Come now, you live in the west, you ought to expect history classes to deal with the history of the western cultural heritage.

Doubtless if you lived somewhere besides europe or north america, you'd get, rightly, quite a different 'world history.'

Because Russia is located in Asia of course. "Europe" is more of a cultural construct, which does bleed more into Russia, at least since modern times, than Chinese or other far eastern cultural influences. Though that doesn't mean Russia isn't located in Asia. Being a cultural creation, the border lines for Europe are not completely definite, it is not like Europe is its own continent. To define it as European or Asian is greatly a matter of focus and semantics.

Russia "proper" - that is to say, the area that was Russian before they started colonizing eastwards - is well within what is normally considered the borders of Europe, i.e. the Uralic mountains and the Caucasus. You are of course right that Europe and Asia are not clearly separate continents geographically, but - as you yourself remark - are distinct cultural and historic entities. Culturally and historically, Russia is firmly linked to the rest of Europe. Even after the Mongols arrived. That's why I find it strange that you suggest Europeans traditionally have regarded Russians as Asians. That, and the fact that if you shave off their beards, they look like the rest of us Europeans underneath,