Russia did have many revolts but they were typically small scale local ones that were easily brutally put down. In the system the people could not really organize easily until russia started to industrialize.
6:00 the most incredible and horrifying thing about the Mongol conquests is that they killed so many people, that there was a significant decrease in global CO2 levels. Mongols killed so many people that the trees that grew back after the slaughter of entire cities absorbed some 700 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide...
Cgp gray’s video ”rules for rulers” should probably answer why the people didn’t revolt earlier. Besides, if anyone did successfully revolt, they’d just end up inheriting the authoritarian political infrastructure of their former oppressors. You’d probably require a long period of reforming the system before any structural revolution could take place. Don’t take it to mean that it’s a hopless case. Just that whoever wants to reform the system has their work cut out for them.
We Lithuanians have a historian who is rewriting history of what is Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and what it means to be the nationality of those countries. Basically there existed a united slavic tribe, which split into three/ four parts two of them became the proto Balkan and the proto Western Slavs (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia) third became the Kievan Rus proto nationality, while the firs stayed in the area that is where nowadays Moscow and became Ruskyans/Muscovites. After the mongols where kicked out, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania conquered former Kievan Rus territory and the proto Baltic nationality, parts of medieval Polish nationality and the Rus became the single medieval nationality called Ruthenian from which modern Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, in some parts Polish and Russian in XIX century. The last one is because of Poroshenka (probably butchered his name or mixed up with someone else) who derived from the Duchy and his works placed Russia from Novgorod to at the time controlled by Grand Duchy (yes his works were before the partitions) Smolensk and Naugard. His works also inspired Pushkin, one of the most key important figure in defining what it means to be Russian in XIX century. Yet their are both only mentioned in Kremlin’s history books and when tossed out. Their legacy is literally disenfranchised and the alternative derived by conquerers is put in place, since actually both Peter and Catherine are remembered as Great is because they conquered massive amounts of land. This also explained, that for a very long time the so called reunited ,,Russia” where still called Muscovites. This implies that today’s Russia is actually Ruskaya or Ruskyia and the majority is actually Ruskyan, while there exist small proportion of the real Russians. The Ruskya is not Russia and it definitely doesn’t have a normal Government, so it shouldn’t be treated like European, since it’s more Asiatic (not in the other Asian states connection, since that state doesn’t have any connections to them,but in more of how Ruskya is disconnected from the rest of Europe) and has ,except of classical philosophy, developed differently from the rest.
By the way: this whole comment could be incorrect in some parts, since I have heard the thesis of Bumblauskas (that historian) long time ago, but it’s worth mentioning that he had upseted established historical theory in Lithuania (he literally receives death threats) and, that the tsars unknowingly and the communist from the very beginning knowingly (meaning they tried it with a purpose) tried to dehumanize their nationality, which in part after recent events probably succeeded. Anyway, great video🙂
@@blugaledoh2669 Dehumanized nationality is a nationality, that is subservient to the state and abandoned every aspect of empathy and human nature, like the mother instinct. The events in Ukraine about mass killings and the fact, that mothers don’t really cry, that their sons died, just says ,,Potatoes are also for the betterment of family”. I’m not making that up: in some regions families of dead soldiers get a sack of onions, a sack of potatoes and a liter of oil. This is actually an insult to the common people, but because of dehumanization, they don’t care.
Their the best for when you have nothing to watch And their are some concepts he doesn't believe in the one that I have noticed is that he doesn't believe that geography influences the development of a nation
Russia and everyone else had an authoritarian system for centuries. Monarchy was this way by design. After the fall of the monarch, they chose to not move away from this. Even the provisional government before the Bolsheviks took power was a dictatorship in all but name. However, the Russian people clearly had the means and ability to overthrow a tyrannical government of it was the will of the people. The fact that the Soviet union was overthrown buy outside forces in combination with ambitious individuals within the government should tell you we're not getting the full story here.
Not really. It was more the case of the system being set up to make coordinating a large scale uprising basically impossible. There were MANY uprisings against the Tsar, but they were small, disjointed, scattered and easily crushed by the army. Many of these uprisings failed bc there was at least one aristocrat involved that would rather report the scheme to the Tsar in hopes of getting rewarded. Nobles were intentionally pitted against each other and though they had wealth, they didn't have anything even approaching the resources at the Tsar's disposal.
This video contains too many historical mistakes, loose interpretations and sometimes completely turning facts/historical events upside down. It looks like a free interpretation of Russian history by the author of the video (so that everything is the way the author wants, to confirm the idea that he wants to convey to the viewer), and not a real analysis of real events. Not to mention the fact that there is no strict adherence to the principle of historicism.
@@MrKosman123 I especially like how Kraut made it look like it was an uncompromised absolute rule of princes. Simply by ignoring the periods when the state was ruled by aristocratic councils (before Ivan 4, after him, between Peter 1 and Catherine 2, etc.) and how often power was transferred by the acts of these nobility circles. I guess he wanted to better connect it all to the mongols. Because of that CG thought that there were no coups and revolutions before 1917 at the end of the video. At the same time CG made a very good conclusion, that plays a huge role in the topic (but it wasn`t a point made by Kraut) - yes russians absolutely prioritise the state interests over themselves, it is one of the main parts of culture and it absolutely does work against the people.
Why the hell does Kievan Rus has the Ukranian symbol, the hell is wrong with this guy, its like saying that ancient egyptians were arabs like they are today
The "Ukrainian Trident" is based on the Princely symbol of Knyaz Volodymyr which probably one of if not the most famous ruler of the Kievan Rus'. It was a custom to use princely symbols on coins and heraldry most if not all of which were close to what we would recognize as the modern "Ukrainian Trident". Considering the power base of Kievan 'Rus' was Kiev most of the time and all the culture and civilization that developed around it, it makes sense as a national symbol. It is nothing like ancient Egyptians and Arabs; The early Arabic conquests changed so much of the culture, society, religion, government, etc of the lands that were conquered in most cases its not comparable where as the Slavic peoples were never really conquered and overwritten that way.
Ukraine has the Kievan Rus symbol. It's the same area, same people, same capital. So it's not unusual to take the symbol of a previous state that existed in the same place
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Russia did have many revolts but they were typically small scale local ones that were easily brutally put down. In the system the people could not really organize easily until russia started to industrialize.
Kraut has a really good video on how Mexico and the US formed almost simultaneously, yet so differently. It's really interesting to look into
He also has a really good video about India and Pakistan too!
@@DarthHoosier3038 And Turkey.
th-cam.com/video/T7AqOH0WXxg/w-d-xo.html
Kraut History videos suck he is not going neutral in history.
@@melkor3496 th-cam.com/video/de9YSrPuHyI/w-d-xo.html
6:00 the most incredible and horrifying thing about the Mongol conquests is that they killed so many people, that there was a significant decrease in global CO2 levels.
Mongols killed so many people that the trees that grew back after the slaughter of entire cities absorbed some 700 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide...
Cgp gray’s video ”rules for rulers” should probably answer why the people didn’t revolt earlier.
Besides, if anyone did successfully revolt, they’d just end up inheriting the authoritarian political infrastructure of their former oppressors. You’d probably require a long period of reforming the system before any structural revolution could take place.
Don’t take it to mean that it’s a hopless case. Just that whoever wants to reform the system has their work cut out for them.
Krauts videos are usually good, nice that you are reacting to his videos.
th-cam.com/video/FbftG-a01Cs/w-d-xo.html
Kraut history videos suck he is not going neutral in history.
We Lithuanians have a historian who is rewriting history of what is Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and what it means to be the nationality of those countries. Basically there existed a united slavic tribe, which split into three/ four parts two of them became the proto Balkan and the proto Western Slavs (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia) third became the Kievan Rus proto nationality, while the firs stayed in the area that is where nowadays Moscow and became Ruskyans/Muscovites. After the mongols where kicked out, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania conquered former Kievan Rus territory and the proto Baltic nationality, parts of medieval Polish nationality and the Rus became the single medieval nationality called Ruthenian from which modern Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, in some parts Polish and Russian in XIX century. The last one is because of Poroshenka (probably butchered his name or mixed up with someone else) who derived from the Duchy and his works placed Russia from Novgorod to at the time controlled by Grand Duchy (yes his works were before the partitions) Smolensk and Naugard. His works also inspired Pushkin, one of the most key important figure in defining what it means to be Russian in XIX century. Yet their are both only mentioned in Kremlin’s history books and when tossed out. Their legacy is literally disenfranchised and the alternative derived by conquerers is put in place, since actually both Peter and Catherine are remembered as Great is because they conquered massive amounts of land. This also explained, that for a very long time the so called reunited ,,Russia” where still called Muscovites. This implies that today’s Russia is actually Ruskaya or Ruskyia and the majority is actually Ruskyan, while there exist small proportion of the real Russians. The Ruskya is not Russia and it definitely doesn’t have a normal Government, so it shouldn’t be treated like European, since it’s more Asiatic (not in the other Asian states connection, since that state doesn’t have any connections to them,but in more of how Ruskya is disconnected from the rest of Europe) and has ,except of classical philosophy, developed differently from the rest.
By the way: this whole comment could be incorrect in some parts, since I have heard the thesis of Bumblauskas (that historian) long time ago, but it’s worth mentioning that he had upseted established historical theory in Lithuania (he literally receives death threats) and, that the tsars unknowingly and the communist from the very beginning knowingly (meaning they tried it with a purpose) tried to dehumanize their nationality, which in part after recent events probably succeeded. Anyway, great video🙂
@@xenamorphwinner7931 dehumanised nationality?
@@blugaledoh2669 Dehumanized nationality is a nationality, that is subservient to the state and abandoned every aspect of empathy and human nature, like the mother instinct. The events in Ukraine about mass killings and the fact, that mothers don’t really cry, that their sons died, just says ,,Potatoes are also for the betterment of family”. I’m not making that up: in some regions families of dead soldiers get a sack of onions, a sack of potatoes and a liter of oil. This is actually an insult to the common people, but because of dehumanization, they don’t care.
@@xenamorphwinner7931 bro uh what am I to say?
@@xenamorphwinner7931 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻☦️☦️☦️☦️🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
Yeah, Soviets invented photoshop.
When you decide to learn history "facts" from other people's cartoons...
about god damn time now more kraut more
MOREEE
@@melkor3496 moooooorrrrree
jeez. relax man.
Kraut history videos suck he is not going neutral in history.
Their the best for when you have nothing to watch
And their are some concepts he doesn't believe in the one that I have noticed is that he doesn't believe that geography influences the development of a nation
Check out Epic history TV video about Decembrists
3:53 hit and run?
Russia and everyone else had an authoritarian system for centuries. Monarchy was this way by design. After the fall of the monarch, they chose to not move away from this. Even the provisional government before the Bolsheviks took power was a dictatorship in all but name. However, the Russian people clearly had the means and ability to overthrow a tyrannical government of it was the will of the people. The fact that the Soviet union was overthrown buy outside forces in combination with ambitious individuals within the government should tell you we're not getting the full story here.
Nice example how antirussian propaganda looks like.
19:00 because tsar is god
Not really. It was more the case of the system being set up to make coordinating a large scale uprising basically impossible.
There were MANY uprisings against the Tsar, but they were small, disjointed, scattered and easily crushed by the army.
Many of these uprisings failed bc there was at least one aristocrat involved that would rather report the scheme to the Tsar in hopes of getting rewarded.
Nobles were intentionally pitted against each other and though they had wealth, they didn't have anything even approaching the resources at the Tsar's disposal.
About the revolutions and aristocratic coups: there were many dozens of them.
This video contains too many historical mistakes, loose interpretations and sometimes completely turning facts/historical events upside down. It looks like a free interpretation of Russian history by the author of the video (so that everything is the way the author wants, to confirm the idea that he wants to convey to the viewer), and not a real analysis of real events. Not to mention the fact that there is no strict adherence to the principle of historicism.
What are some examples?
and
examples?
You got no examples.
@@MrKosman123 I especially like how Kraut made it look like it was an uncompromised absolute rule of princes. Simply by ignoring the periods when the state was ruled by aristocratic councils (before Ivan 4, after him, between Peter 1 and Catherine 2, etc.) and how often power was transferred by the acts of these nobility circles. I guess he wanted to better connect it all to the mongols.
Because of that CG thought that there were no coups and revolutions before 1917 at the end of the video.
At the same time CG made a very good conclusion, that plays a huge role in the topic (but it wasn`t a point made by Kraut) - yes russians absolutely prioritise the state interests over themselves, it is one of the main parts of culture and it absolutely does work against the people.
Why the hell does Kievan Rus has the Ukranian symbol, the hell is wrong with this guy, its like saying that ancient egyptians were arabs like they are today
The "Ukrainian Trident" is based on the Princely symbol of Knyaz Volodymyr which probably one of if not the most famous ruler of the Kievan Rus'. It was a custom to use princely symbols on coins and heraldry most if not all of which were close to what we would recognize as the modern "Ukrainian Trident". Considering the power base of Kievan 'Rus' was Kiev most of the time and all the culture and civilization that developed around it, it makes sense as a national symbol. It is nothing like ancient Egyptians and Arabs; The early Arabic conquests changed so much of the culture, society, religion, government, etc of the lands that were conquered in most cases its not comparable where as the Slavic peoples were never really conquered and overwritten that way.
Ukraine has the Kievan Rus symbol. It's the same area, same people, same capital. So it's not unusual to take the symbol of a previous state that existed in the same place