I know that they were not considered 'Western', - if such a dichotomy existed at the time - but were they viewed by Western Europeans as being part of 'civilization', or were they lumped together with the likes of the Ottomans or the steppe nomads?
Were the pre-Tsardom Russian states + 16th/17th century Russia viewed as European?
- Thread starter ersatz-york
- Start date
A little of both. The Russians were on one hand European, but on the other large areas of it were controlled by the Mongols and the Russians didn't conform to many European expectations as to how "civilized people" should act.
You mean were the Russians 'us or them' for the Western Europeans?
The Russians were definitely "them".
On the one hand they were slightly better than say Aztecs or the Incas as the Russians did not practice human sacrifices on a grand scale and things like that; the Russians even knew Jesus Christ and worship him.
But on the other hand the Russians worshiped Jesus Christ wrong way which made it even worse for some Western Europeans.
There was no conception of Europe as some transcendent identity at this time. There was a conception of Christendom, and the Russians were definitely part of Christendom. As Orthodox Christians, they were preferable to many of the Eastern Christians of the time. (In fact, Protestants of an earlier period had often looked at the Orthodox Church for inspiration- more for organizational theory than theology, but there was less of a rivalry than between the Catholic and Orthodox churches)
Actually, Western Europeans were a little leery of the orthodox. They still viewed them as schismatic a, to be brought back into the fold. Up until the reformation, "western" Europe was catholic Europe.
And catholic Europe ended at Poland/Hungary. They even promoted themselves as antemurale Christianitatis, the "bulwark of Christendom".
And catholic Europe ended at Poland/Hungary. They even promoted themselves as antemurale Christianitatis, the "bulwark of Christendom".
According to several treaties, no they were not. Russia was considered part of Asia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1518)). IDK if that was a permanent view, but from what I've read it wasn't until the reign of Peter the Great, with Russia's reforms and more active foreign policy in European affairs, that Russia was considered "part of the Group".
Ah ha, my bad.
Still, my impression was that for many Western Europeans, Russia was sort of half asian.
During that period, Europe was considered to end at the Don, but where Europe ended and Asia began north of it was a matter of some dispute. People eventually settled on the Don then the Volga.
No matter how you cut it though, most of what we call European Russia was considered Asia.
In fact, I would say prior to Peter the Great, Russia was more like a Christian Asian nation. Someone you could do business with, but still a little foreign.
The problem is that there was little to no conception of Europe as an identity for the peoples inhabiting that geographic area. They may have considered Russia a different part of the map, but they didn't consider their part of the map to have any special importance.
There was no identity of 'European'. There was barely an identity of 'French'. (And don't even get me started on 'Italian')
There was no identity of 'European'. There was barely an identity of 'French'. (And don't even get me started on 'Italian')
There was an identity of Catholic however. Up till the reformation all European nations were Catholic, so if nothing else they all shared a common religion. The mass held in Spain would be the same held in Denmark. Russia/Muscovy on the other hand, was Orthodox. Still Christian but not the same. They were like the cousins no one talks about. Their family but not really.
Sounds about right. For the most part Poland was the frontier nation of Europe and it wasn't until the late 1600s that Europe's great powers began to consider Russia a fellow European power. Well late 1600s/ early 1700s really.
You said everything I was going to say. I might only add that they were Orthodox, but lacked the prestigious antiquity of the earlier Byzantine Empire despite the links between the two.
Does the OP ask if Russia was Catholic? He also doesn't ask if Western Europeans thought Russians were Catholic. At an earlier period, they did (the Russians were similarly confused)
You mean before the schism?
As a non-Christian, I have to say I find the Orthodox Church got a raw deal in how they are viewed by the outside. From my reading of history, there was a united official church of the Roman Empire, and one of the five most important bishops tried to take over the religion, and left when he couldn't. And he only got away with this because his territory had fallen outside the retracting borders of the Empire. It seems very clear to me that it was the Catholics that were the split, and the Orthodox who have the better claim to continuity.
However, the subsequent discovery of the Americas and the Protestant-caused industrial revolution has meant Catholicism came to more prominence, and sidelined the original official church.
Both have continuity. The Pope always had some extra prestige, seeing as how he was the bishop of Rome. Really, it was the guy in Constantinople who was a bit of an upstart, seeing as how he rose to prominence only because the emperor wanted a prestigious bishop in his capital. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all had their authority. What really gave Rome a boost was Islam giving Eastern Christianity the kick in the nads.
The Pope always had a little extra prestige, tracing (well, claiming to) trace back to Peter. The problem was how everyone interpreted the first among equals bit. The other four emphasized the equals, the Pope emphasized the First.
The idea of Latin Christendom continued well after the reformation. You need only look at the use of Latin. Newton wrote his principia in Latin and he was in Protestant.
He wrote in Latin, same as Polish Copernicus and Italian Galileo. The original common identity of Catholicism left a lot of shared cultural assumptions even as the centuries wore on. Europeans recognized this.
And they very much recognized the Muscovites and other Russians as different Christians. It's how Lithuania held out so long. It's pagan dukes successfully played the Knights vs the Russians against each other in the game of which Christianity to pick?
The flirtation was heavier with Catholicism, and the Knights were right in thinking the Lithuanians would convert. It was just that Jogaila played his hand well and converted through Poland instead (getting a crown and a young princess in that deal made it awesome for him).
And the reason Jogaila converted to Catholicism, despite his mother being orthodox, was that he saw the benefits of Catholicism more advantageous. It gave Lithuania access to a whole cultural milieu with advanced tech that Russia did not have.
Because Russia wasn't part of it. Russia was still, in many ways, an other. It shared the religion, but not the common cultural markers of "western" Europe that Catholicism imparted.
Depends so much on who is saying it, and if there is a political connotation attached to it. For an educated Spaniard, Italian or Frenchman at the time the Russians probably seem extremely distant, not fully European like the Catholic southwest. On the other hand I do not believe they were viewed as Asian either. From my understanding both Scandinavia and anything beyond the Polish/Hungarian eastern borders were considered extremely distant and somewhat "Europeans, but different" by most of Southern and Western Europe. Noticing that the divide seems to resemble the same divide that existed between Christian and Norse/Baltic/Slavic beliefs around the millennial shift, not sure if it means anything, but it's interesting.
But I believe if you asked an educated German, Pole, Swede, Hungarian or Turk they would probably have viewed Russians as European at the time. They are close, share landmass, Christian, speak a Slavic language and engage in European trade and politics. But all in all the definition of Europe was even flimsier back then than it is today, so there probably is not anything close to a universal view of it at the time.
The real question is, if Australia is in the Eurovision Song contest, can we draw a line from Berlin southwest to Melbourne and claim all the land in between as rightful European clay?
But I believe if you asked an educated German, Pole, Swede, Hungarian or Turk they would probably have viewed Russians as European at the time. They are close, share landmass, Christian, speak a Slavic language and engage in European trade and politics. But all in all the definition of Europe was even flimsier back then than it is today, so there probably is not anything close to a universal view of it at the time.
The real question is, if Australia is in the Eurovision Song contest, can we draw a line from Berlin southwest to Melbourne and claim all the land in between as rightful European clay?
Last edited:
It might be interesting to think about how the Russians viewed themselves in relation to Europe. Up until Peter I, Russia was more engaged with Central Asia and the east than Europe; most of its conquests were in that direction.
Peter I was a fairly divisive figure in Russia. He without doubt made Russia stronger, but quite a few Russians felt that in forcing Russia to adapt a European mindset he stripped it of its unique "Russianness". And that doesn't even get into opinions on his new capital city.
So, at least by some native contemporaries looking into the past, Russia wasn't European (or at least, not just European), it was a unique culture onto itself.
As far as how Europeans might have viewed Russia; from what I've read, for a fair amount of Europeans Russia wasn't even on the radar until Peter I and his Europeanization programs. Peter was the one who really brought in the foreign scholars and technicians, who promoted European dress and language (particularly French), and all of this help spread the word of this hip new power in the East.
I'd wager that until him, most people just thought of Russia as this really far away land where they spoke some weird language. Of course, Russia's neighbors had better ideas.
Peter I was a fairly divisive figure in Russia. He without doubt made Russia stronger, but quite a few Russians felt that in forcing Russia to adapt a European mindset he stripped it of its unique "Russianness". And that doesn't even get into opinions on his new capital city.
So, at least by some native contemporaries looking into the past, Russia wasn't European (or at least, not just European), it was a unique culture onto itself.
As far as how Europeans might have viewed Russia; from what I've read, for a fair amount of Europeans Russia wasn't even on the radar until Peter I and his Europeanization programs. Peter was the one who really brought in the foreign scholars and technicians, who promoted European dress and language (particularly French), and all of this help spread the word of this hip new power in the East.
I'd wager that until him, most people just thought of Russia as this really far away land where they spoke some weird language. Of course, Russia's neighbors had better ideas.