Roots of Eastern Europe's Underdevelopment

[bailey_187]

I have been doing some reading on Eastern Europe history from non-Marxist sources, mainly Robin Okey's Eastern Europe 1740-1985. Obviously he didnt take specific attention to modes of production etc but he does attempt to explain the divergence between Eastern and Western Europe in economic development (this starting in the 16th Century).

Here are my notes on the causes he gives, please could people criticise or elaborate on them?

Notes:
--The Great Plague had effected Western Europe more and so serfs were given more rights, and allowed ot keep more surplus.
--Western Europe saw more trade (why?) and so saw more towns.
--The Ottoman invasion of Eastern Europe and the continuous warfare until the Ottoman expulsion in 1699 destroyed much of the Urban centres and damaged the fabric of urban life, reducing the power of any growing Eastern European urban bourgeosie
--The wars in Eastern Europe with the Ottomans led to the death of the Hungarian King. The result of this was Austria, Bohemia and Hungary were all given to the Habsburg Empire. The Habsburgs imposed an aritocracy of their own for administration rather than enlisting any of the rising bourgeosie as had happened in France. This strenghthend the Feudal classes in a bid for economic dominance.

Are these correct reasons for Western Europe developing capitalism quicker and before Eastern Europe? What critcisms of these does anyone have?

[Adil3tr]

This is what held Eastern Europe back, mabe you should also look at the factors that propelled western Europe forward.

[bailey_187]

This is what held Eastern Europe back, mabe you should also look at the factors that propelled western Europe forward.

Well thats a massive debate in itself lol, im reading about the Dobb-Sweezy debate now though in The British Marxist Historians - i might make a thread on this asking for some clarifications

[Robocommie]

Last year I wrote a paper on the Russian cities of the late Middle Ages to contrast their development with the development of the western European communes, and what stood out most of all in my research was that the Russian urban middle class, the craftsmen and traders, failed to mobilize politically and so they didn't rise as a class as they did in Europe. There were a couple of reasons for this, but the most significant to me seemed to be the fact that most of the large towns and cities of medieval Russia were the directly-ruled domains of a prince. Town government was his providence, so he would not have issued charters to a town council for urban self-rule the way the western feudal aristocracy often did, which made the burghers a privileged class with a powerful base of political power.

Obviously this relates more to Russia, particularly western Russia in the late Middle Ages, but if you want to look into this more, I found Lawrence Langer's essay "The Medieval Russian Town" in The City in Russian History to be most helpful.

[Rusty Shackleford]

now i know i have not read into this subject... but i have taken an interest in it.

what robocommie said about the failure of the pre-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie to become a dominant force leads to this question:

could the rise of the western bourgeoisie be tied very closely with the rise of imperialism? meaning new distant and bountiful lands fresh for exploitation and less connected with the aristocracy at home, leading to a strengthening of the bourgeoisie at home(france, spain, england, holland)?

eastern eourope and the balkans were in the middle of powerful states(russia, the german states, italian states, ottoman empire, sweden) with no real way of moving to the americas(western powers dominated the sea routes in the north and mediterranean, and of course the ottoman empire was a barrier even at sea to the south) and coupled with the wars with the ottomans, had no real chance and stagnated in development with no fresh anything.

also, as far as the russian empire went, it expanded in an almost explosive manner in the 16-1800s leaving very little time for the class composition(dominated by great russians) to change over such a large area. that coupled with direct land access between the new territories and the throne, and the relative uselessness of siberia could have stunted economic growth.

that and im guessing the oprichniki didnt help much with any non-tsarist phenomenon.

in my idea, i can alreasy see a problem with germany but maybe the hanseatic(sp?) league may have helped the prussian bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of some baltic cities like riga.

just a thought and i was wondering if this could be addressed.

[ComradeOm]

Its a good question and I don't pretend to have any quick answers. You've given some reasonable factors (although I'm not sure about the last one - the Hapsburg aristocracy was not notably reactionary) to what is undoubtedly a multi-causal scenario

One factor that is surprising by its absence, and perhaps someone more informed than myself could comment, is the impact of the Mongol invasions beginning in the 13th C. I know that they effectively reshaped the political map of Rus' and I'm sure that they had considerable effect on social structures as well


There were a couple of reasons for this, but the most significant to me seemed to be the fact that most of the large towns and cities of medieval Russia were the directly-ruled domains of a prince. Town government was his providence, so he would not have issued charters to a town council for urban self-rule the way the western feudal aristocracy often did, which made the burghers a privileged class with a powerful base of political powerThis would be my first reaction as well, although I'd have a slightly different emphasis

The development of 'oriental despotism' in Russia - particularly after the 15th C and ultimately developing into fully fledged Tsarist autocracy - actively inhibited the development of an independent landowning class like the feudal nobility of Western Europe. This produced a very different political dynamic and significantly reinforced both the power and conservative nature of the central state. It also probably played a role in the overdue maintenance of serfdom - economic pressures to abandon the practice were not as severe when landowners were effectively servants of the state

[Andropov]

One factor that is surprising by its absence, and perhaps someone more informed than myself could comment, is the impact of the Mongol invasions beginning in the 13th C. I know that they effectively reshaped the political map of Rus' and I'm sure that they had considerable effect on social structures as well
How did the Mongol invasion influence the political and social structures of Russia to your knowledge?

[Rusty Shackleford]

How did the Mongol invasion influence the political and social structures of Russia to your knowledge?


im going to say that it probably had a huge influence culturally and militarily on society. kind of like the huns in relation to the roman empire and the resultin state of hungary.

could the cossacks have their origin in the mongols? ill do some research later but i want to flirt with this idea. shoot it down it its wrong please.

i just looked it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks


The word Cossack is originally a Turkic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages) word, qazaq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qazaq), which means "adventurer" or "free man".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks#cite_note-britannica-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks#cite_note-4) Cossacks (Qazaqlar) were also border keepers in the Khanate of Kazan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanate_of_Kazan).

It is not clear when the Slavic people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples) started settling in the lower reaches of major rivers such as the Don (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River_%28Russia%29) and the Dnieper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_River). It is unlikely it could have happened before the 13th century, when the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols) broke the power of the Bulgars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars) on that territory. It is known that they inherited a lifestyle that persisted there long before, such as those of the Turkic Cumans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans) and the Circassian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassia) Kassaks (also spelled Kassogs).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks#cite_note-Shambarov-5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages



The characteristic features of the Turkic languages are vowel harmony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_harmony), extensive agglutination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language) by means of suffixes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix), and lack of noun classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_class) or grammatical gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender). Subject Object Verb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_Object_Verb) word order is universal within the family. All of these distinguishing characteristics are shared with the Mongolic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolic_languages) and Tungusic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungusic_languages) language families, as well as with the Korean language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_language) (with the exception of vowel harmony), which are by some linguists considered to be genetically linked with the Turkic languages in the proposed Altaic language family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages), a language family rejected by most linguists[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#cite_note-5) though accepted in the Voegelin & Voegelin classification (1977:18-19).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#cite_note-6)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Turkic_languages.png


so basically, i answered my own question about the cossacks. they are linguistically rooted in the turkic language group which is shared with the mongols.

the mongols reached as far as poland and to the baltic coast.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Mongola_1500_AD.jpg


Now, for the huns. roughly 4th century AD. really only reaches as far as west germany and engulfs the whole of eastern europe(excluding the balkans)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Huns_empire.png/800px-Huns_empire.png


So, maybe hunnic culture followed by mongolic culture may have had a huge impact on the societies of north eastern europe in the long run through the middle ages. during these thousand years, the west was left to its own devises just invading each other and mixing their culture most notably between the english and the scandinavians, and the english and the normans and dont forget the saxons. so, culturally, there may not have been a large amount of deviation in the west. probably the most significant in the west though was the magna carta in the middle ages for the west. so, once expansion to the west began, so did the rise of the western bourgeoisie.

the west didnt have to deal with new foreign societies as much and thus solidified and were able to export themselves unto the east and farther west. really, the moors in spain and italy were the only opposition as a society. they were also eventually pushed out. the huns sorta just... settled. the mongols just destroyed everything though. leaving their mark on eastern european society for sure.


Also, look at the roman empire.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/RomanEmpire_large.jpg

it stops short of germany and eastern europe. not until the norther ncrusades and eastern crusades did christianity(which was a huge driving force in the wests development) really take hold in lithuania. there were also two different brands, eastern orthodoxy and western catholocism.


http://usnaorbust.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/attila_the_hun.jpg
so, it could be the doing of this dude that eastern europe started on a different path. blocking the roman empire in the 4th century along with the german barbarians from expanding into eastern europe. thus, a huge split culturally and socially between the east and west. that, and it may just be geographic luck that the western europeans happened to be on the atlantic and thus having a monopoly on the "new world" to exploit thus acting as a sort of "miracle gro" for the western european bourgeoisie.

http://www.daytonnursery.com/products/miracle%20gro.jpg

^^^ the "new world" all purpose bourgeoisie growth supplement.

[ComradeOm]

How did the Mongol invasion influence the political and social structures of Russia to your knowledge?Don't know enough about the period to give exact reasons but here's a bit of what I do know

I've heard suggestions that the Golden Horse may have played a role in introducing 'oriental despotic'* practices to Russia (although obviously later Russian princes would play up the Byzantine connection) by favouring the rule of a single subject prince in a territory. They were certainly a factor in the rise of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy - which later pioneered Tsarist absolutism and ultimately subdued the more mercantile Novgorod Republic. There would also have been significant adoption of Mongol administrative/state structures

And of course there's the argument that the Mongol occupation effectively severed Russia's cultural links with the West, thus isolating it from the modernising currents that were developing there. These links would not really be restored, to any degree, until the 18th C or so. The constant question as to whether Russia is European, Asiatic, or something in between, probably dates from this period

But then, as I mentioned above, I'm no expert in this period of Russian history so I'm not great on specifics

*Itself not the most accurate of terms


so basically, i answered my own question about the cossacks. they are linguistically rooted in the turkic language group which is shared with the mongolsCareful here, the Mongols were only one of many Turkic peoples that moved across the steppes, and often into Europe*, in the middle ages but charting these movements is notoriously difficult. In addition, the Turkic language group is almost as broad, if not quite as diverse, as the Indo-European family. So don't read to much into the names

As for the Cossacks, some of their terms and traditions may derive from Turkic settlements/peoples on the steppes (particularly the Tartars) but I don't think that there was any real ethnic basis to the Cossacks. There's a lot of debate about their origins but I wouldn't argue that they were descended from the Mongols or any one Turkic people. Probably a mixture of Slavic, Turkic, and whoever else. This is not helped of course by the fact that the Cossacks are a remarkably diverse bunch - the term actually refers to about a dozen distinct hosts

*One theory I've heard is that the Huns spoke a Turkic language

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned but the growth of merchant capital and then capitalism in Western Europe reinforced feudalism in Eastern Europe. Serfdom was weakening in Western Europe but complex processes reinforced the role of producers of primary products in the East. Serfdom, a dying institution elsewhere, was reinforced thoughout the 16th-18th centuries.

The Mongol Conquest had a profound role in the development of Russia. Related to this was the fact that Russia was isolated from formative developments in the West-the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and to a large extent the Enlightenment.

The merchant republic of Novgorod, with a less autocratic system, represented an alternate direction Russia could have gone. This was destroyed by the Duchy of Moscovey, whose power was basically created and reinforced by the Mongols.

[Andropov]

it stops short of germany and eastern europe. not until the norther ncrusades and eastern crusades did christianity(which was a huge driving force in the wests development) really take hold in lithuania. there were also two different brands, eastern orthodoxy and western catholocism.
Cheers for the reply, maps and all. :thumbup1:
But from my own interpretation of this period the fact that The Papacy had an enormous amount of influence would have some form of impact on Russia's development.
Russia's Aristocracy in many ways saw themselves as inheritors of the Mantel of Byzantium while by this stage Byzantium was a dying man, failing to modernise and a reverance for the past that ment it was not developing as fast as the Western European states. The death knell for it obviously being the Battle of Manzikert where they were obliterated and from then on was on a downward spiral. So obviously the fact that the Russian Aristocracy hitched their star to a failing state would have an effect especially since they did not embrace Catholicism and the influence of the Papacy which was considerable.
As you mentioned above the Crusade against Lithuania which was indeed the last Pagan kingdom left in Europe was started by the Teutonic Knights who were returning from Palestine. But even if they did hold many ties to The Holy Roman Empire they were very much a rabid dog when taken off the leash and when they plundered swathes of Russian territory during this period it only further alienated Russia from Christendom and turned them further to Byzantium only to find themselves eventually isolated.
Also it must be noted the likes of Venice Plundering Byzantium on the way towards Palestine during the crusades which would have implications for The Russians own interpretations of their "Christian Brothers". The fact that they were Christian mattered little when not embracing the Papacy.
Novogrod was of course the hub of Russia's Medievel Mercantile class and its last hope in turning to Western Europe.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Cheers for the reply, maps and all. :thumbup1:
But from my own interpretation of this period the fact that The Papacy had an enormous amount of influence would have some form of impact on Russia's development.

Just a thought, but the Catholic church played a major role in Western and Central European politics, being used to solve disputes and such. Perhaps the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and the later destruction of the Byzantines served to isolate the Russian principalities even more from Catholic Europe.

Also the idea of the Mongols holding back development in Eastern Europe sounds about right. I remember reading a book that said the only reason the Islamic world of the Middle Ages didn't become the dominant power in Eurasia was the Mongol invasion that destroyed Arab infrastructure and technology and depopulated big urban centers, like the destruction of all the libraries in Baghdad, where the books were used to make a passage across the Euphrates. Of course nothing of this magnitude happened in Russia but it gives you an idea of how Eastern Europe was held back.


The Grand Library of Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom), containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river and red from the blood of the scientists and philosophers killed.


"Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (Steven Dutch)

[ComradeOm]

Russia's Aristocracy in many ways saw themselves as inheritors of the Mantel of Byzantium while by this stage Byzantium was a dying man, failing to modernise and a reverance for the past that ment it was not developing as fast as the Western European states. The death knell for it obviously being the Battle of Manzikert where they were obliterated and from then on was on a downward spiral. So obviously the fact that the Russian Aristocracy hitched their star to a failing state would have an effect especially since they did not embrace Catholicism and the influence of the Papacy which was considerableI don't think I'd agree with that. The connection it Greece wasn't a formal alliance or slavish copying of Byzantine styles but rather the despotic economic model in which all land rights were derived from a single supreme autocrat (contrast with the more feudal division of land in the West). That was a factor but I don't think that the demise of the Byzantine Empire itself was of any importance

(As an aside, the decline of Byzantium, much like the later Ottomans, can easily be overstated. By Manzikert the Empire had been 'declining' for centuries)

As for the Papacy, it did play a role in meshing the independent European states into a sort of pan-Christen community. Never anything formal but enough to keep communications and trade, to a degree, between cities/regions alive after the fall of Rome. Although as European society began to advance, say from the 16th C onwards, the Church became a significant obstacle to progress. Its no coincidence that virtually every modernising Catholic nation in the 19th C went through anti-clerical campaigns to break the influence of the Church. In Russia, where the church was entirely subservient to the state, this was not a problem

As for the Crusades, one of the often understated effects of these campaigns was in stimulating a revival of trade and commerce in their wake. The sheer logistical effort of moving these vast armies across Europe necessitated investments in infrastructure and helped rebuild trade links

[Andropov]

I don't think I'd agree with that. The connection it Greece wasn't a formal alliance or slavish copying of Byzantine styles but rather the despotic economic model in which all land rights were derived from a single supreme autocrat (contrast with the more feudal division of land in the West). That was a factor but I don't think that the demise of the Byzantine Empire itself was of any importance
Ya I was probably over-stating the importance of the collapse of Byzantium but it did serve to further isolate Russia when it was already very much on the periphery of the Western World both geographically and politically due to it fialing to embrace Catholicism.

(As an aside, the decline of Byzantium, much like the later Ottomans, can easily be overstated. By Manzikert the Empire had been 'declining' for centuries)
Absolutely and thanks to providence people like Belisarius helped stem the decline to a certain extent and halt the inevitable to a slower degree.

As for the Papacy, it did play a role in meshing the independent European states into a sort of pan-Christen community. Never anything formal but enough to keep communications and trade, to a degree, between cities/regions alive after the fall of Rome.
Not only that but it was also had quite significant influence in spreading the Western Sphere into territory previously untouched by Rome. The likes of Scandinavia where the Danish kings were the first to convert from Paganism and further increased the co-operation and communciation of peoples previously isolated.
Obviously there were also other significant factors behind the likes of Scandinavia's orientation towards the West but the Papacys influence was note worthy in this process.

Although as European society began to advance, say from the 16th C onwards, the Church became a significant obstacle to progress. Its no coincidence that virtually every modernising Catholic nation in the 19th C went through anti-clerical campaigns to break the influence of the Church. In Russia, where the church was entirely subservient to the state, this was not a problem
I agree with this to a degree.
I think that alot of the reasons for the European states anti-clerical campaigns was little to do with them beginning to strangle the intellectual sphere of society but in the very fact that the Papacys growing influence was becoming too much of a hindrence to European states.
This was a major problem as European states modernised and in the post-Crusade climate when Expansion into the East was cut off and the Iberian Peninsula was secured from the Moors there was little to no prospects of expansion only within Europe itself. What the ruling European Aristocracy didnt need was the Papacys interferance in internal political matters when these states declared war as the Papacy on many occasion would attempt to intervene when two big powers of Christendom were at loggerheads.

As for the Crusades, one of the often understated effects of these campaigns was in stimulating a revival of trade and commerce in their wake. The sheer logistical effort of moving these vast armies across Europe necessitated investments in infrastructure and helped rebuild trade links
I always wondered what would have society in Europe looked like if the likes of the Teutonic Knights were permitted to keep the lands conquered in the Baltics and indeed became a functioning state in Europe with the Teutonic Knights a permanent fixture.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I always wondered what would have society in Europe looked like if the likes of the Teutonic Knights were permitted to keep the lands conquered in the Baltics and indeed became a functioning state in Europe with the Teutonic Knights a permanent fixture.


werent the teutons a precursor to the prussians? prussia stretched all the way from brandenburg to konigsburg at least. had Gdanks not been given to poland after WWI, it would have had that tail shape that prussia added. a sort of remnant of the teutans.

Speaking of Poland, wasnt the grand duchy of poland and the lithuanian commonwealth a rather strong force, especially for eastern europe outside of russia?

[ComradeOm]

werent the teutons a precursor to the prussians?Its complicated

The Kingdom of Prussia was a 18th C creation that was actually based in Brandenburg (Berlin to be precise), which is some distance from (geographic) Prussia. The Duchy of Prussia was the successor state to the Teutonic Order after their Grandmaster converted to Protestantism in 1525 and became the first Duke. This new duchy was then inherited by the Mark of Brandenburg (or technically, the House of Hohenzollern) in 1618, the new entity generally being known as Brandenburg-Prussia. That was until 1701 when it was given sovereign status as the Kingdom in Prussia, so as not to offend the Holy Roman Emperor. It finally became the 'Kingdom of Prussia' in 1772 after 'Royal Prussia' (don't ask) was annexed from Poland

At which point its probably worth noting that the original (Old) Prussians, after whom the region was named, had long since been wiped out or assimilated by the Teutonic Order and other Germans


Speaking of Poland, wasnt the grand duchy of poland and the lithuanian commonwealth a rather strong force, especially for eastern europe outside of russia?Strong on paper, and a major player in Europe from around the 15-17th C, but never a real unitary state. Ironically, given my posts above, it was the strength of the nobility - and the corresponding weakness of the centre - that led to its decay. There were simply too many internal divisions to successfully compete with the new centralised states that were emerging in Western Europe