Why was Russia historically so expansionist?
Once it was conquered, no one else bother to dismantle it due to shitty weather conditions
>>1281182
>Large as fuck territory even for Russia proper (roughly Ivan III's Muscovy)
>No national identity existing per se. It's got a lot in common with Habsburg empire as Austrian identity didn't coherently exist among actual Austrians at all, though it's not as extreme as there
>Collectivism that stems from large but hostile territory with terrible climate
>Places to expand to
>Ideas to legitimize the expansion in their own eyes
>>1281189
It's not that shitty in the Russian core and it's possible to dismantle it easily. Muscovy goes alone, North goes alone, Volga-Kama region goes alone. There, it's done.
>>1281200
>No national identity existing per se. It's got a lot in common with Habsburg empire as Austrian identity didn't coherently exist among actual Austrians at all, though it's not as extreme as there
When did the Russian identity come into being? What did they think of themselves (excluding Poles and other non-"Russia" ethnicities) as?
I think that this video does a somewhat good job describing why.
https://youtu.be/HE6rSljTwdU
>>1281207
The Russian identity came into being roughly after the battle of Kulikovo.They thought of themselves as orthodox Russian first,Slavic second and everything else later.
>>1281223
You really believe that a Turk is going to be good at "describing " the Russian mindset.
>>1281234
He's Azerbaijani I believe
>>1281223
This is good
>>1281207
>When did the Russian identity come into being?
Modern Russian identity appeared approximately after the Patriotic War of 1812. Prior to that, for example, Russian noblemen mostly spoke French. War and Peace, while obviously fiction, portrays that quite well. Many other stereotypically Russian features such as matryoshka dolls or samovars also appeared only around that time and of course Alexander Pushkin was the first person who wrote in what is considered modern Russian language.
>What did they think of themselves (excluding Poles and other non-"Russia" ethnicities) as?
Russians are very xenophobic, for one, so they dislike all foreigners as a rule of thumb.
Also this is what I'm not sure of but I did read that while other Russian neighbors (including what's now Ukraine and Belarus) think of Russia as a completely separate identity, Russians themselves didn't feel any ethnic difference between those, they didn't really have any ethnic sentiment in their mindset in the first place. It all appeared quite late, in 17th century, probably as a result of Khmelnintsky's uprising and following Russian protectorate over Ukraine. I think it's quite close to the truth since Russian lands were colonized and thus they didn't have any strong ethnic values and mindset. It's kind of like US born and raised Americans calling themselves Greek or German, I suppose.
>>1281235
Yeah, and a russian guy is involved in the making of those videos
>>1281235
Sadly,that's basically the same.
>Russian noblemen mostly spoke French
That solely depended on the city in which they've lived.French was popular among the southern and western branches of the Russian nobility,while the Russian language prevailed among the nobles who've lived in northern and northeastern territories of the Russian Empire/Tsardom.
>>1281251
Because from time to time,he applies "western ways" of assessing Russian history.
>>1281258
Are you implying Russia is some kind of a special little snowflake that can only be understood by Russians themselves? It's not, far from it. In fact, in order to understand Russia properly one has to understand it's no different from other countries and has to be evaluated as such.
>>1281182
same reason every other empire was historically so expansionist.
half of Russia is empty arctic lands occupied by nomadic tribes that don't even know what Russia is.
>>1281267
I'm implying that Western academic societies have always had a hard-on on revising Russian history in a way that makes her appear "as less than human" .Also,there is a fine difference in "evaluating" something and purposefully pushing your point of view and vehemently ridiculing anything that opposes it.
>>1281291
Russians ARE xenophobic, aggressive and expansionist. That's just how they operate and they like it. Less than human, definitely not, but saying Ivan was a good boi who just wanted more security for himself (as an example) is just as bad. They did a lot of nasty shit, no need to whitewash that.
>>1281273
>nomadic tribes that don't even know what Russia is
Citation needed
>>1281876
Go find it yourself faggot.
P.S. It's up you mom's asshole
>>1281291
>Svetojeb
Literally why? Do you really fuck the light?
>>1281182
Because historically, it had weak neighbors that were easy to expand into.
They were obsessed with living up to the 3rd Rome title and were massive romaboos
>>1281182
>so expansionist
They weren't more expansionist than other European nations. It's just happened that they expanded by land, not by sea.
>>1281996
The world, more like.
I heard from a guy that with each time they expanded further eastward, they would stop at a river or mountain range and that would form the Russian eastern frontier. The point of expanding eastwards was that in the case of the territory west of the Urals being taken, there would still be a vast amount of territory beyond the Urals which the enemy would have to venture into and conquer (a nigh-impossible task) and therefore Russia would never ultimately perish at any point.
Large land empire with no natural borders.
This makes for an uneasy imperium, so it continues to expand in order to find security.
Has nothing to do with race or culture.
Pure Realpolitik.
>>1282373
Well, no. Good old colonialism was the reason, nothing about security or anything. Destroy Moscow and its surroundings and you'll destroy Russia as those territories in the East are the most sparsely populated in the world and they're still governed in a colonial way.
>>1281235
Azeri
>>1281182
once they started getting better rulers and armies they quickly realized how easy it would be to conquer the nomads who once terrorized them and they eventually came out the other side
>>1281182
>Why was Russia historically so expansionist?
Why was America historically so expansionist?
Because it has a long land border with a bunch of primitive and easily conquered savages.
>>1282397
in addition the territory rarely promotes development in what accounts for most of their land
"Pan-slavism" (which originated in russia) always had a serious messiah complex. This is despite the fact that "slavs" are not even a race, ie don't exist in a biological sense
>>1282068
I possess a godlike libido.
>>1282831
>That depended on the historical period.During most of their wars against the Golden Hordes of Asia,they were in fact,the underdog.
Are you on crack?
By the time you had a unified "Russia", as opposed to a scattering of Russian states like Muscovy, Tver, Ryazan, Novgorod, etc., they were way stronger than any of those Asian steppe kingdoms.
>>1282539
We're both an ethnic and linguistic group of people and that movement emerged in a time when we were denied equal status in almost all occidental countries of whom we were a part of and in that time,Russia was seen as "our savior" because she were the last remaining powerful Slavic country in existence.
>>1281182
Siberia, like America, was only sparsely-inhabited by nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal peoples. It was easy for the Russian empire to conquer the vast swath of land.
>>1282859
I'm not something called being"historically literate",It's an incredibly potent and vision-inducing drug.
They became significantly stronger than their Asiatic counterparts only after they've emerged victorious from the great stand on the Ugra river.
>>1281182
Everyone important was expansionist
>>1282881
Which was 2 years after annexing Novgorod, and before the annexation of other small Russian states.
But yes, once you had a unified "Russia" to work with, they were a lot stronger than the Asian steppe peoples, and almost immediately start pushing eastwards.
>>1281996
Хaхaхaхa кeк бpeтти гyд
:DDDDD
>>1281241
>Russians are very xenophobic, for one, so they dislike all foreigners as a rule of thumb.
Imo we aren't so much xenophobic as we only dislike those who are not respecting our culture while in our lands. As for immigrants, if they don't abandon their culture and adopt ours, then that's when we get riled up. See we aren't so much against immigrant as we are against foreign cultures polluting ours, if that's what xenophobia is, I guess I don't make a point in writing this as I misunderstood what xenophobia means.
>It's kind of like US born and raised Americans calling themselves Greek or German, I suppose.
I like that comparison, what do you think however about:
US born and raised Americans calling themselves Texans rather than Americans
>>1281182
because taking Siberia was a piece of cake.
Also, wtf is China doing in that map?
>>1283119
the image name is "soviet_empire_1960.png" so I would guess that some retard thought that anything communistic was part of the soviet union, not realizing that the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union are separate geopolitical entities.
>>1282539
Tfw you'll never see a proud united slav people, instead a group of eternally grudge bearing angry slavs who were permanently set to hate one another because of past differences
>>1282455
>Destroy Moscow and its surroundings and you'll destroy Russia as those territories in the East are the most sparsely populated in the world and they're still governed in a colonial way.
Didn't work for Napoleon. Didn't even work for the poles, and they won unlike Nappy.
Didn't know China was part of the Soviet Union.
You learn something new everyday on communist /his/
>>1283119
It's just the eastern bloc. Remember the sino-soviet split happened just after that date.
>>1283114
State identities don't exist in the US, past sport rivalries or random personal reasons.
For one, there isn't enough history in local areas to have identities. Second, it has always been very easy to move around to other areas in the US, and therefore it has always been common. There is rarely a strong connection to a specific part of the US unless your family has a history in such area dating back to the founding of the nation.
But overall, in the US, you are American first, everything else later.
It's called a melting pot for a reason.
Was Russian really more expansionist than say England or any other powerful country?
>>1282539
Why it needs to be a race? Cultural unity trumps any biological closeness.
>>1283955
Short answer is no.
The longer one is that there is a difference in who they focused their expansionism on.
The UK took their navy and colonized many, many places and people, but they were always less developed and in foreign (from a European perspective) lands.
The Russians, on the other hand, aimed their expansion at Europe, and many nations that were of an equivalent development as them.
Not only this, but they were in Europe, and I don't know if you can see the trend in history, but every time someone tries to conquer Europe, the whole continent works together in defense of each other. Countless times. This was a major reason that the Russians didn't conquer all of Europe.
That collective defense of the continent saved them, and united them against Russia.
With the UK, the peak of their imperialism ended half a century ago, in a relatively peaceful manner. Russia, on the other hand, only stopped expanding when their empire literally came crumbling down around them, torn apart from within. The nations that gained independence from the fall hated them for oppressing them, and the rest of Europe, feeling that they, too, were oppressed by the Russians acting aggressively against them, hated Russia.
It's more of a difference in circumstances, and a difference in the narrative.
Knowing all that, I would still say Russia was the worst between the two.
