Eurasianists

[Josh Wilson]

Vestnik, The Journal of Russian and Asian Studies, published a paper on the
effects of the Mongol Empire on Russia. The paper takes a largely
positive-to-neutral view of the topic and covers topics of language,
religion, government, and general development. 

 

http://www.sras.org/news2.phtml?m=477  

 

Best, 

 

JW 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list
[mailto:SEELANGS at listserv.cuny.edu] On Behalf Of Sergey Glebov

Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:12 PM

To: SEELANGS at listserv.cuny.edu

Subject: [SEELANGS] Eurasianists

 

Dear Alexandra,

 

 

 

all Russian historians had to say something about the Mongols, of course,
but apart from the Eurasianists very few people had anything positive to say
about them. Charles Halperin's argument regarding Karamzin's influence on
Vernadsky is substantiated because Karamzin saw the Mongols as an external
force that spearheaded the unification of divided Rus' princedoms. You have
this wonderful sentence in Karamzin's History: "". And Moscow owned its
greatness to the Khans." He also mentioned the re-enforcement of oriental
ties of Russia acquired through Byzantium by the Mongol invasion in his
Memoir but never specified what these ties were. 

 

But Halperin talks about the impact of the Mongols on the rise of the Moscow
STATE specifically. In all other respects, Karamzin believed that settled
and Christian Russians were infinitely superior to the "barabric" Mongols
and was reluctant to admit that these barbarians had any other impact on the
course of Russian history apart from utter destruction of civilization and
the subsequent need to unify the princedoms by Moscow. Karamzin saw the
Russian state as derived from Kiev, and the latter he described as similar
to other European states (feudal monarchies of Europe were founded by
Germanic barbarians, and so was Kievan Russia by Varangians).

 

This very positive mentioning of the Mongols in Karamzin needs to be read in
the context of his conception of the unique and positive protective role of
the Russian autocracy, which he developed under the impact of the French
Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic wars. Otherwise, Karamzin's view of
the Mongols doesn't seem to differ from that of other Russian historians.

Solov'ev, of course, dismissed the Mongols as "irrelevant" because they had
nothing to add to his Hegelian scheme of the development of state, and I
already mentioned Kliuchevsky's view.  I am not qualified to say much about
the North as a lieu of Russian identity in literature but I don't think the
East (meaning Muslim or nomadic east of "Eurasia") was ever (before the

Eurasianists) a powerful symbol of that identity.

 

 

 

With friendly regards,

 

 

 

Sergey

 

 

Josh Wilson

Asst. Director

The School of Russian and Asian Studies

Editor-in-Chief

Vestnik, The Journal of Russian and Asian Studies

www.sras.org

jwilson at sras.org

 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------