Did slavery exist in ancient Russia: the controversy of historians

As the famous satirist said, Russia is a country with an unpredictable past. Sometimes we ourselves allow ourselves to relate to stories their own country in completely different ways, at different time periods.

There are many judgments about the same historical era, and often historians are ready not only to argue, but to fight each other on fists, trying to declare that the ultimate truth is exclusively their own point of view and no other. They break their spears in the Stalin era, discuss with mutually exclusive arguments the Mongol invasion of Russia or the absence thereof.

Another topic for controversy and controversy is related to whether or not slavery existed in Ancient Russia. Some historians believe that slavery in one way or another was inherent in the Day-Russian state practically from the moment of its formation, others are inclined to believe that no slavery existed in Russia, and the subsequent enslavement of the peasants cannot be called slavery.

One of the researchers of these issues is Igor Froyanov, Doctor of Historical Sciences. He prepared and published many works that are devoted to the issue of serfdom, the distinctive features of the lower classes in Ancient Russia.

In the program of the Day TV channel, Igor Froyanov presents his point of view on the question of whether slavery existed in Russia. He also talks about how exactly smerds, slaves, representatives of servants differed from each other.

Day of TV plot:

Comments

[Aaron Zawi]

Of course it existed, as in any early middle age state. Moreover, in a state that occupies a border position between the Great Steppe and settled Europe.

[Svarog]

Quote: Aaron Zawi

Of course it existed, as in any early middle age state. Moreover, in a state that occupies a border position between the Great Steppe and settled Europe.

It still exists ... that then they worked hard for food, that now a huge number of people have a salary that allows them not to die of hunger ..

[rocket757]

Quote: Svarog

It still exists ... that then they worked hard for food, that now a huge number of people have a salary that allows them not to die of hunger ..

Ha, show me a country where there is no such thing, in one form or another ??? difference in the number of "participants" ...
For us it is not, complacency, nothing ... we have different periods, in the history of the country there were, A LOT!

[Svarog]

Quote: rocket757

Ha, show me a country where there is no such thing, in one form or another ??? difference in the number of "participants"

And I'm not saying that this is only with us. Of course, the picture is the same all over the world, the only question is the number of people who work for food ... and we have a critical mass of them.

For us it is not, complacency, nothing ... we have different periods, in the history of the country there were, A LOT!

By and large, there was only one such period ... under the USSR.

[rocket757]

Quote: Svarog

By and large, there was only one such period ... under the USSR.

There is no need to idealize life in the USSR ... this is not useful, not at all!
There were different periods then, for different reasons, mainly for objective reasons ... to recognize that work for food and for an idea, faith in a bright future, this is different than just for food, not many will be able to.

[Svarog]

Quote: rocket757

There were different periods then, for different reasons, mainly for objective reasons ... to recognize that work for food and for an idea, faith in a bright future, this is different than just for food, not many will be able to.

Yes, the periods were different .. but there was an idea .. and this is very important, especially in the understanding that the idea gave movement forward and people's lives became better .. well, it's a fact that in the 70s and early 80s they lived better, than in the 50s .. and considering that there was a war of destructive power unparalleled in history .. and despite this we not only won, but managed to develop very dynamically. How not to idealize? After all, there is something to compare with .. it is clear that the USSR was not an ideal society, but was significantly fairer and more promising than what we see now.

[rocket757]

Quote: Svarog

After all, there is something to compare with .. it is clear that the USSR was not an ideal society, but was significantly fairer and more promising than what we see now.

On this issue, opinions are different, because people are different.
I also believe that then life was fairer, the citizens had more hopes ... but this is my opinion.

[Lionnvrsk]

Quote: Svarog

in the number of people who work for food .. and we have a critical mass of them.

You, as I understand it, are in critical mass?

[Flooding]

Quote: Svarog

It still exists ... that then they worked hard for food, that now a huge number of people have a salary that allows them not to die of hunger ..

Do you have an idea of ​​what you are writing?
Are you someone's wicked property with no vote?
Is need synonymous with slavery?

[Svarog]

Quote: Flood

Are you someone's wicked property with no vote?

Specifically, I don't. But I know a lot of people who have nowhere to go and have to work hard for 25 tons .. that's enough to eat. Voting rights? I beg you .. hint at a private trader .. and go look for another job .. where it will be exactly the same .. We had rights in the USSR and the state clearly respected these rights. Now everyone is for himself.

[Flooding]

Quote: Svarog

Voting rights? I beg you .. stutter at a private trader .. and go look for another job .. where it will be exactly the same.

The situation has cleared up. You have too much to make up for.
Don't have the right to vote? But you have it here at least.
You did not ask the landlord's permission to marry?
Do you have your own corner, more closet?
What are you talking about?
And why do you, not feeling like a slave, label others "whom you know" as slaves?
Start with yourself. Are you a free person?

[kamakama]

Well, in a tavern and a bathhouse in the 19th century and at a forum of 21, the voting rights are about the same in Russia. You can scold the authorities, but without burying. As for the permission to marry, it is, of course, good, although anyone could squeeze in the hayloft now and then. But with its own angle, everything is much worse - mortgage encumbrances in Western Europe have come close to life-long, we are taking a very vigorous step towards this. In different countries, the attitude towards delayed mortgages is different, but in any case it is very difficult, from being evicted on the street to a negative credit rating. KNRZHKH Nekrasov read? This is from there - "The great chain broke ... She hit one end at the master, the other at the peasant"

[Flooding]

Quote: kamakama

Well, in a tavern and a bathhouse in the 19th century and at a forum of 21, the voting rights are about the same in Russia. You can scold the authorities, but without burying.

That in the tavern, that in the bathhouse went to their own companies.
What does this have to do with a public forum now, when the state has the ability to practically global control?
Was there a lot of revolutionary talk in taverns and baths in those days?
And here, wherever you look - completely revolutionaries and conspirators.

Quote: kamakama

mortgage encumbrances in Western Europe have come close to life-long, we are taking a very vigorous step towards this

Do you know the difference between slavery and bondage? Slavery is a bondage and lifelong thing. Cabal is most often voluntary, time-limited, and offers some kind of dividend in the future.

Quote: kamakama

Have you read Nekrasov?

Like everyone else at school.

[kamakama]

Quote: Flood

Do you know the difference between slavery and bondage? Slavery is a bondage and lifelong thing. Cabal is most often voluntary, time-limited, and offers some kind of dividend in the future.

Well, since we got into such a question, then ... The labor of a slave (serf) guarantees that he will be fed, watered and provided with a roof over his head, because a slave is a purchased item that brings dividends, starving him is economically unprofitable for the owner. That's how it ceases to bring dividends, so it will be given back to the dogs (they will be put on a pension below the subsistence level). That is, there are at least 2 interested persons (a slave and a master) in the fact that everything would work, unless, of course, the slave is one of the violent :)) Then they kill him or sell him for a cheap price, writing off at a loss.
Cabal means the stakeholder is one. More powers, but higher risk. Here is another important point - in the long term, the role of inheritance law becomes great, and it was radically different in Russia and in Western Europe. In Russia, everything was divided equally, but in the West - everything to the eldest, the rest - a shish with butter (aha, puss in boots). After several generations, the volume of land in Russia (the main means of production) became such that he PHYSICALLY could not feed one family. Here, either bondage or death by starvation and everyone spit on it, except for the head of the family (where is voluntariness?). And with slavery, the owner also has a headache about this, and he is working on this issue as best he can, because the sovereign gave the land then or it needs to be conquered or how to deserve
So in the Middle Ages, personal freedom is more burdensome than useful, especially without land.
Yes, there is another form of addiction - tributaries. They don't get anything in return. By the way, people also paid tribute, including, for example, prisoners of war or their own relatives. This, I think, is worse than slavery and bondage

[Flooding]

Without going into details, although the topic is very interesting.
You yourself have come to the main point.
Freedom and lack thereof.
Yes, freedom by itself does not guarantee either a hearty meal or a roof over your head. But many appreciate it in itself, it is valuable in itself.
So back to the issue of slavery. Even well-fed.
Our freedoms are incomparable with the freedom of long-standing slaves and serfs.
Therefore, I think the conversation is over.

[Arpad]

Quote: Flood

The labor of a slave (serf) guarantees that he will be fed, watered and provided with a roof over his head, for a slave is a purchased item that brings dividends

well, just not life, but some kind of holiday

Quote: kamakama

and it was radically different in Russia and in Western Europe. In Russia, everything was divided equally

Well, it's not that simple. Ideally, if the first spouse died, the children and the boys are equally divided.
But-- there were differences between the well-to-do, smerds, daughters, widows, children from widows, etc.

Quote: kamakama

So in the Middle Ages, personal freedom is more burdensome than useful, especially without land.

this is how the card will fall.

[Flooding]

Quote: Arpad

Quote: Flood
The labor of a slave (serf) guarantees that he will be fed, watered and provided with a roof over his head, for a slave is a purchased item that brings dividends
well, just not life, but some kind of holiday

Be careful when quoting.
Do not attribute to me someone else's glory.

[smaug78]

Nikolai 1 - your words in the ears, yes to Alexander 2 By the way, somewhere there is slavery, do you want to become a slave, what life will begin

[kamakama]

So we're talking about an early feudal state, and not about the 19th century or today. In the 10-11 century, for the murder relied on vira and that's all, and then, if they find it ... There is no police, and if the gopniks (sorry, people are dashing) came to ravage their home hut from the neighboring forest, then the only hope is for themselves and for the nearest cooperation (neighbors ) yes to the owner (master, who is in armor), who is interested in the life of a slave. Such problems did not bother the prince at all, because he collected taxes from the owners. The effectiveness of single ownership (personal freedom) is possible only if there is a real state monopoly on violence. As soon as it disappears, then collective (voluntary or compulsory) ownership and responsibility is more effective than personal. This inhibits some other functions, such as economic development or scientific development, but sometimes security is now more important than prospects.

[smaug78]

Then your quote is even more incomprehensible, in the West everything is about the same ...

[kamakama]

What quote? a lot of them

[smaug78]

Quote: kamakama

Well, since we got into such a question, then ... The labor of a slave (serf) guarantees that he will be fed, watered and provided with a roof over his head, because a slave is a purchased item that brings dividends, starving him is economically unprofitable for the owner. That's how it ceases to bring dividends, so it will be given back to the dogs (they will be put on a pension below the subsistence level). That is, there are at least 2 interested persons (a slave and a master) in the fact that everything would work, unless, of course, the slave is one of the violent :)) Then they kill him or sell him for a cheap price, writing off at a loss.
Cabal means the stakeholder is one. More powers, but higher risk. Here is another important point - in the long term, the role of inheritance law becomes great, and it was radically different in Russia and in Western Europe. In Russia, everything was divided equally, but in the West - everything to the eldest, the rest - a shish with butter (aha, puss in boots). After several generations, the volume of land in Russia (the main means of production) became such that he PHYSICALLY could not feed one family. Here, either bondage or death by starvation and everyone spit on it, except for the head of the family (where is voluntariness?). And with slavery, the owner also has a headache about this, and he is working on this issue as best he can, because the sovereign gave the land then or it needs to be conquered or how to deserve
So in the Middle Ages, personal freedom is more burdensome than useful, especially without land.
Yes, there is another form of addiction - tributaries. They don't get anything in return. By the way, people also paid tribute, including, for example, prisoners of war or their own relatives. This, I think, is worse than slavery and bondage

[kamakama]

Almost the same, therefore slavery (serfdom) was there and here, such is the economic and political system. The only difference is in the accumulated effect across generations - the younger family members in Russia could try to feed themselves from the land allotment for several more generations (after all, older brothers also died without heirs sometimes and this was all divided further), but, say, in France there was no such opportunity - the youngest brothers go either to the army or to the church, that is, to serve the state (or the church) -the owner, otherwise - starvation. What kind of personal freedom is there? well, except that you could try to get into the army of your neighbor, and not your master. And before the opening of the New World, all these superfluous people vigorously contracted, for the early feudal lords were passionate about fighting each other. As a result, it turned out that natural selection left the best in the royal service, and on earth - just anyone.

[smaug78]

The article is called "Did Slavery Existed in Ancient Rus: Disputes of Historians" ...

[Bear]

Andrey, everything is very true and correct. And then there are too many “gorlopanov” who do not know their history at all.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

Start with yourself.

Let's try. So you most likely get a salary on the card, although by law you can demand salary in cash. But if you require it, then you will most likely find a reason for dismissal. Moreover, I am almost sure that the salary is credited to the card of one determined by the bank's management, and you cannot change this, although you have the right by law.
So, if you cannot achieve legality in such small things, can you be called a free person? And there are thousands of such little things in our life. Lace of small shackles.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Quote: Flood
Start with yourself.

Let's try. So you most likely get a salary on the card, although by law you can demand salary in cash. But if you require it, then you will most likely find a reason for dismissal.

It's funny. I suggested starting with myself. And what do I see?
Is my Russian so bad that the meaning of what is written eludes you?
Why on earth are you asking about me if I suggest otherwise?
Nobody wants to recognize themselves as a slave.
But everyone wants to delve into other people's lack of freedom.
Scream.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

Why on earth are you asking about me if I suggest otherwise?

From myself, from him, from me - what's the difference? I gave you an example of the ephemeral freedom of all (!) Of us. Do you think this is hilarious?

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

yourself, from him, from me - what's the difference?

Fundamental. Since you have applied the word bondage to yourself, it would be very interesting to know your personal feelings. Since the sensations of another person cannot be felt.

Quote: Ingvar 72

Do you think this is hilarious?

Of course. It was funny to see how a fairly straightforward question does not find understanding and answer.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

Fundamental. Since you apply the word bondage to yourself, it would be very interesting to know your personal feelings.

I advise you to listen to your feelings. For you are no more free than everyone else, although you do not recognize your own non-freedom.
And there is no fundamental difference, we all walk under the same sky.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I advise you to listen to your feelings. For you are no more free than everyone else, although you do not recognize your own non-freedom.

The difference is that I don't call my lack of freedom slavery, and I don't feel like a slave.
But you are free to consider yourself anyone. Or unwitting.

[Ingvar 72]

Frequent repetition of the word halva in the mouth will not become sweeter.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Frequent repetition of the word halva in the mouth will not become sweeter.

The opposite is true.
But the essence eludes you. Or you don't want to notice it.
You can think of yourself as anyone. As you can see, in our non-free society, even the rights of slaves are inviolable.
And don't call me to your camp. I'm not comfortable among slaves.

[Arpad]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I gave you an example of the ephemeral freedom of all (!) Of us. Do you think this is hilarious?

freedom is limited by many things - there is no absolute freedom.
There is power, customs, law, prejudice, etc., etc.
All this limits a person and his freedom.
By the way, there are no absolutely independent and independent states to the same extent.

[Ingvar 72]

Absolutely right. It's just that not everyone understands this, and not everyone recognizes it.
But here, too, there are nuances that can be learned in comparison. The nuances of attitudes towards "free citizens" differ from country to country. For example, the standard of living in some monarchies is incomparably higher than in individual democracies. Although democracy is declared by the presence of great freedoms.
This I mean that not all freedoms are good, and not all restrictions are evil. A balanced balance is important here, and a clear purpose of limiting freedoms. It's one thing when this happens for the benefit of the whole society, it's another when rights and freedoms are infringed for the sake of the interests of a handful of crooks.
A bit chaotic, but I hope you get the idea.

[nsm1]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Moreover, I am almost sure that the salary is credited to the card of one determined by the bank's management, and you cannot change this, although you have the right by law.

This is not necessary.
You just send on an erotic journey on foot, period.
Never had a problem.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: nsm1

Never had a problem.

Are you telling me this as a former employer?

[nsm1]

Yeah ...
Believe it or not, it is.
Recently it was - an accountant in response to my piece of paper with the details - "What, should you list it separately?", I - "Yes."
An ordinary oilfield service company.

[Ingvar 72]

Damn, it's easier to fire! But I bet it won't work with cash.

[nsm1]

Nope, accounting problems are generally parallel to the immediate superiors, from the words to spoil them ...
At one of the previous jobs, the employee wrote off something from the card (aliexpress, but then returned the bank), he was like, the boss to him - "Why are you telling me this, go to the accounting department!"

[ccsr]

Quote: Ingvar 72

So you most likely get a salary on the card, although by law you can demand salary in cash.

Only if you yourself will be the head of this enterprise and determine the method of payment. Who told you that an employee can demand something from his employer in terms of ensuring the labor process? And whether the rest of those working for the sake of one pretzel, who decided to receive cash, will agree to pay at their own expense the position of a cashier and collection services for the delivery of money is an interesting question for the team.
There is no need to engage in fantasies if you yourself have never even organized primitive production at the IP level, and did not pay workers both in cash and on a card. The card is more convenient - most will confirm this to you.

Quote: Ingvar 72

that the salary is credited to the card of one, determined by the bank's management, and you cannot change this, although you have the right by law.

But here you are mistaken, because you can make an automatic transfer of money from a salary card to another bank or even to the post office, but you will pay for this out of your pocket. By the way, where did you get the idea that the management has some kind of personal benefits from operations with some bank - most likely they choose the one where it is more reliable, less fees for services, and less reporting. In general, almost all of our banks have the same prices, and if something is cheaper for someone for some service, then for another it will be more expensive. What's the point of jerking a boss with the banks for some insane employee demanding cash?

Quote: Ingvar 72

So, if you cannot achieve legality in such small things, can you be called a free person?

Go to individual entrepreneurs - there you will have such "freedom and legality" that many then never go to hire someone else. True, you can stay without pants, this also happens not rarely ...

Quote: Ingvar 72

And there are thousands of such little things in our life. Lace of small shackles.

Nobody bothers you to live like Daria Lykova - no shackles, complete freedom. What else does a person of your mind need to wish in order to taste absolute freedom?

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: ccsr

And will the rest of those working for the sake of one pretzel, who decided to receive cash, agree

Each person has the right to choose for himself how he wants to receive salary. According to law. Wishlist of one right does not affect others in any way.
Further, transferring the salary of one person to another bank creates certain accounting problems. Therefore, the employer is always against.

Quote: ccsr

Go to individual entrepreneurs - there you will have such "freedom and legality"

Swam, we know.

Quote: ccsr

Daria Lykova

Agafya Lykova. But you should not exaggerate, as I said, there are thousands of such conventions.

[ccsr]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Each person has the right to choose for himself how he wants to receive salary. According to law. Wishlist of one right does not affect others in any way.

Do you happen to live in the city of the Sun of Tommaso Campanella? I would also like to live there with you ...

Quote: Ingvar 72

Further, transferring the salary of one person to another bank creates certain accounting problems. Therefore, the employer is always against.

Accountants don't care - now everything is almost automated. You just have to open another account, pay for its maintenance, and most importantly, several structures will have to notify about the opening of a new account or about its closure. And this arouses suspicion, even among the tax authorities.

Quote: Ingvar 72

Swam, we know.

Moreover, if you have tasted all this, then why are you pretending to be a hose? Would you personally, what would you do with such a figure if he began to demand cash, when everything is already debugged with hired workers and their salaries on the card? I would advise him to go through the forest ...

[nsm1]

Quote: ccsr

but pay for it out of your pocket

No.
You just write a statement and that's it.
I don’t know how in individual entrepreneurship, I didn’t work, in ordinary firms these are accounting problems, which are not a big deal for production.

[ccsr]

Quote: nsm1

No.
You just write a statement and that's it.

This is understandable, but for interbank transfers they also take a certain percentage, which the employer does not want to pay out of his pocket.

Quote: nsm1

I don’t know how in individual entrepreneurship, I didn’t work, in ordinary firms these are accounting problems

These are the general principles of interbank transactions. In any case, the employer must pay out of his own pocket for cashing out and for the maintenance of the cashier, if the employee demands that he be given cash at the enterprise. And he will smear these costs on the entire team. It's not for nothing that everyone has long since given up on this - at least I have not heard that it existed somewhere.

[nsm1]

Quote: ccsr

This is understandable, but a certain percentage is also charged for interbank transfers.

He worked under a contract, this is practiced instead of a probationary period.
They write the amount per day, such as 5674r (example), dirty.
So I received it, on the card that I indicated.
Yes, they said - go to the savings bank, get theirs.
I just didn't get it, I don't want to.
I think the problem is exaggerated.

[ccsr]

Quote: nsm1

I think the problem is exaggerated.

Quite right - the employer can transfer to the card that the employee himself indicates. But if he starts demanding cash at the enterprise, it will be inconvenient for the owner, which is why this practice is abandoned.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: ccsr

But if he starts demanding cash at the enterprise, it will be inconvenient for the owner, which is why this practice is abandoned.

Guys, we're talking about the same thing. But you won't deny that a person has the right to choose? So it is these little things that we seem to have the right to, but inaccessible (or difficult to access) make us slaves of modern society. With the viciousness of the authorities, everything is aggravated at times. You are entitled to free medicine, but you will have to wait a month for coupons for a banal ultrasound scan, but for money they will do it in an hour, in the same office.
In court, the judge in most cases will take the side of the traffic police, whether you are three times right. The budget workers will tell you about the "voluntariness" of vaccination.
And so it is everywhere.

[ccsr]

Quote: Ingvar 72

But you won't deny that a person has the right to choose?

In theory, yes. And in practice, his choice is always due to many restrictions or features of life in a given environment. That is why the classic long ago said that it is impossible to live in society and be free from it. This is what we have been observing all our adult life, regardless of whether it was the USSR (who found it, of course) or modern Russia.

[nsm1]

Quote: ccsr

And will the rest of the workers agree for the sake of one pretzel, who decided to get cash

I only remembered that a familiar gti-shnik (geological and technical research, while drilling) agreed to pay in cash.
Either he has a fine, or a loan ...
But this should be discussed right away when applying for a job.
And this rarely happens, cards are stupidly more convenient.
By the way, he received the latest ...

[ccsr]

Quote: nsm1

And this rarely happens, cards are stupidly more convenient.
By the way, he received the latest ...

Yes, this is all solvable, but not every boss wants to mess with it. I know from myself that if there is no cash in the company's turnover, then problems begin with obtaining it for salaries.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Svarog

Quote: Aaron Zawi

Of course it existed, as in any early middle age state. Moreover, in a state that occupies a border position between the Great Steppe and settled Europe.

It still exists ... that then they worked hard for food, that now a huge number of people have a salary that allows them not to die of hunger ..

Slavery is still not about income, since there were well-to-do slaves close to the body of the owner, but about the absence of the right to free choice of self-realization, and even more so the opportunity to enter social lifts.

[Svarog]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

Slavery is still not about income, since there were well-to-do slaves close to the body of the owner, but about the absence of the right to free choice of self-realization, and even more so the opportunity to enter social lifts.

Well, are there social elevators in Russia? there is the right to choose .. well, formally there is .. you can change one employer to another .. but that other will be exactly the same ..

[Arpad]

Quote: Svarog

Well, are there social elevators in Russia?

Of course, Putin has turned from an unknown KGB major into the de facto tsar of Russia. Isn't it a social lift?

[lucul]

Slavery is still not about income, since there were well-to-do slaves close to the body of the owner, but about the absence of the right to free choice of self-realization, and even more so the opportunity to enter social lifts.

Yes, everything is neglected here. It's like the syndrome of a slave who just got free. There are many options for action, but he is not used to deciding on his own, therefore he wants someone (the USSR) to decide for him again.

[Svarog]

Quote: lucul

There are many options for action, but he is not used to deciding for himself, therefore he wants someone (the USSR) to decide for him again.

You are mistaken and do not understand from the height of your well-fed life where there is wealth today. My life was different, and there were ups and downs, therefore, I very well understand people who have a low income and a complete lack of any prospects. Moreover, the lack of prospects will be at the age of 40-50, even for people with a good education and a profession in demand .. This is a fact.

[lucul]

You are mistaken and do not understand from the height of your well-fed life where there is wealth today.

You must understand - there are people who under no circumstances agree to live at the behest of others, but there are people who are not able to make their own decisions, and it is much better for them when SOMEONE else decides for them.

[Bear]

Comrade Aaron. But many people do not need social elevators - this is alien to our Russian mentality. Everyone works to the best of their strength and capabilities, wherever they work. Isn't it the same with you?

[lucul]

It still exists ... that then they worked hard for food, that now a huge number of people have a salary that allows them not to die of hunger ..

You were given freedom, freedom of self-realization as a person, and you still, over the past 30 years, do not know what to do with this freedom.

[Bear]

I'm embarrassed to ask, what collective farm are you broadcasting from?

[Machito]

Quote: Svarog

Quote: Aaron Zawi

Of course it existed, as in any early middle age state. Moreover, in a state that occupies a border position between the Great Steppe and settled Europe.

It still exists ... that then they worked hard for food, that now a huge number of people have a salary that allows them not to die of hunger ..

According to Vladimir Monomakh's Pravda, the lender could not receive from the client more than 150% of the loan amount. 900 years have passed.
And with GDP, the bank can rip off 200% from the client. It’s also like they pressed the Russian Standard Bank, which could rip off both 300% and 400%.
That is, the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh 900 years ago, after the popular uprising in Kiev in 1113 against the usurers, understood that it was impossible to tear off three skins from the people, otherwise the people would rebel and put the rich on the pitchforks. The modern government has video cameras and other digital ways to track the rioters, and they are not afraid to enslave the people.
Well, what about slavery in Russia now? The forms of slavery are different, but it is cooler than in the Middle Ages.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

Of course it existed, as in any early middle age state.

Very controversial, and definitely not in the Greco-Roman)) style.
But here it is:

and the subsequent enslavement of the peasants cannot be called slavery.

tales from fans of crunch and ardent admirers of the patriarch.

[Insurgent]

Did slavery exist in ancient Russia: the controversy of historians

And why argue, if the documents (chronicles) clearly reflect that the Baptist Prince Vladimir the Great, in addition to his lawful wife-princess, had a harem of slave-concubines, which he “dismissed as unnecessary” due to the adoption of Christianity ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Insurgent

And what to argue, if the documents (chronicles) clearly reflect that the prince-baptist Vladimir the Great, in addition to his legal wife-princess, had a harem of slave-concubines

Yes, now you can argue, because:

Orthodox sources claim that after baptism, the prince freed all former pagan wives from marital duties.

How is polygamy equal to slavery?

[Insurgent]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

How is polygamy equal to slavery?

Did you miss a moment in the comment?

Quote: Insurgent

there was a harem from slave-concubines

And Vladimir Svyatoslavovich himself was born slave , "housekeeper" Malusha, ("robichich" according to Rogneda) ...

[paul3390]

"Robicic" according to Rogneda

It is not a fact that the term robicic means precisely the personal lack of freedom of his mother. Perhaps - this is just a person who is forced to work, that is, - a commoner .. Still, it is doubtful that Svyatoslav - not only recognized the son of a slave, but also endowed the Novgorod reign. Surely there was something - and the offspring from the slaves of the noble people were above the roof .. For there were clearly no restraining factors in relation to the slaves - if you want, use it, especially for a pagan .. But for some reason, only one son was recognized of them. Unclear..

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Insurgent

Did you miss a moment in the comment?

Quote: Insurgent

there was a harem of slave-concubines

How I missed, it was him that I disputed:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

freed all former pagan wives from marital duties

Quote: Insurgent

Yes, and himself, Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was born a slave, "housekeeper" Malusha, ("robichich" according to Rogneda)

And why not translate "robichich" as the son of a worker, the princes of life, you know, who is lower is closer to the animal. And by the way, in the episode of the baptism, no slaves are mentioned, they drove all the inhabitants, townspeople into the river and that's it. You see how controversial!

[Insurgent]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

by the way, in the episode of baptism, no slaves are mentioned, they drove all the inhabitants, townspeople into the river and that's it. You see how controversial!

Controversial, especially considering that the baptism of Vladimir himself and the Baptism of Rus in the waters of the Dnieper are different events.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Insurgent

especially considering that the baptism of Vladimir himself and the Baptism of Rus in the waters of the Dnieper are different events

I'm talking about general bathing,)) and the baptism of Vladimir is a personal matter of a particular citizen. )))

[Black lotos]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

freed all former pagan wives from marital duties

All this is debatable.
In the first, these are data from Orthodox sources. (There are obviously no non-Orthodox ones. Destroyed by time or Orthodox)
Second, the release of "pagan wives" from marital duties does not mean their freedom. He invited his wife to leave (she chose monasticism). It's like "I don't like you now"
Considering the prince's maniacal passion for women and virgins .. He was compared with Solomon in terms of the number of women in possession.
Thirdly, the image of the Orthodox Church - I had to destroy a lot of indecent about him. And I somehow do not believe that his sexual need passed ... Then the popes did not pass ... but the prince passed.
And for some reason he was forgiven for persecuting Christians and glorifying paganism. He burned the first Varangian Christians martyrs. Well, still .. He baptized Russia and forgave him everything. This only happens with believers. And according to the law, a thousand good deeds does not cancel even one crime.
As a male, he did a good job with 13 sons and about ten daughters. This libertine is a very controversial person in history. Violent rapist and generous intelligent ruler.
Just if not considering its Orthodox halo.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Black Lotos

In the first, these are data from Orthodox sources. (There are obviously no non-Orthodox ones. Destroyed by time or Orthodox)

The ROC are still champions of "truth".
And that baptist was still a subchik.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

tales from fans of crunch and ardent admirers of the patriarch.

And what about the millionaire serfs of the 19th century, who could not only ransom all their relatives from their nobleman, but often his entire village, and nevertheless did not do it, remaining serfs. Study the history of, for example, the serf Sinebrychoff in Finland, or our other serf millionaires, whose owners were supported, because they themselves could not manage business.
So serfdom in Russia is not slavery, but a necessary condition for survival in SEPARATE regions of Russia, and this is a fact. Serfdom did not even exist in all territories of the Russian Empire - our genius Mikhail Lomonosov is the clearest example of this.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Explore the history of the serf Sinebrychoff in Finland, for example, or our other serf millionaires

What for? It is enough to remember Saltychikha or this:

Quote: ccsr

So serfdom in Russia is not slavery, but a necessary condition for survival in SEPARATE regions of Russia, and this is a fact.

What, and to this day? Or in 1800, for example, in Russia it was terrible for an ordinary person to live outside slavery, and in 1861 the climate improved dramatically?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It is enough to remember Saltychikha or this:

She was a crazy noblewoman, she was even condemned for excessive cruelty. So there is no need to trump this surname, if only because the current settlement of Saltykovka is one of the richest in the Moscow region, judging by the fact that even Bryntsalov built a house there. Better remember the nobleman A.V. Suvorov, who at his own expense supported the disabled in military service.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Or in 1800, for example, in Russia, was it terrible for an ordinary person to live outside slavery, and in 1861 the climate improved dramatically?

We need to study our history more deeply, and then you will understand that serfdom is only a form of economic survival in some of our regions, where one harvest year could have three bad harvests. And then, at the expense of the reserves of the nobleman, who was obliged to have them, and his serfs survived - alas, this was the reason for the preservation of serfdom until the 19th century, until the industrial revolution in Ingushetia demanded a new class - the proletarians.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

She was a crazy noblewoman, she was even condemned for excessive cruelty.

With you, everything is clear: "even condemned for excessive cruelty", but would you praise for not being excessive? Saltychikha is an extreme case with dozens of tortured people, but how many were not extreme? Just think the heels of another smerds screwed up, but he messed up fifty girls, this is not a saltychikha!

Quote: ccsr

if only because the current settlement of Saltykovka is one of the richest in the Moscow region, judging by the fact that even Bryntsalov built a house there

What kind of connection, let me ask you? Surely Bryntsalov felt a craving for a kindred spirit, so to speak. Or is it just the insanity of a comment?

Quote: ccsr

Better remember the nobleman A.V. Suvorov, who at his own expense supported the disabled in military service.

Wonderful, CHO, good gentleman, but how is the gentleman evil? You then who would you see yourself, a good master or an evil one, so defending the slavery of your own fellow believers and compatriots? It is clear that not serfs, it is not possible.

Quote: ccsr

We need to study our history more deeply, and then you will understand that serfdom is only a form of economic survival in some of our regions, where one harvest year could have three bad harvests. And then, at the expense of the reserves of the nobleman, who was obliged to have them, and his serfs survived - alas, this was the reason for the preservation of serfdom until the 19th century

You are here with teachings more carefully, marasmic tales then do not pass off as deep knowledge of history. Until the 17th century, the peasants did without the care of the noble peasants. Pomors, in principle, did without such care, but here it is a form of economic survival, yeah, of course.

Previously, free farmers, communal peasants, or even private landowners - "their own land" of ancient Russian legal acts - gradually became tenants of plots belonging to the clan aristocracy or the service nobility.

A service estate in the Russian state of the XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries was a land plot owned by the state, inhabited personally by free people, agricultural workers - "peasants" who were temporarily (as long as the land was registered with the landowner) to deduct a certain share of their agricultural profits, most often in kind, but sometimes in monetary terms, not to the state treasury, but in favor of the landowner.

Quote: ccsr

the reason for the preservation of serfdom until the 19th century, until the industrial revolution in Ingushetia demanded a new class - the proletarians.

Does the connoisseur of history know about the factory serfs?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Just think the heels of another smerds screwed up, but he messed up fifty girls, this is not a saltychikha!

Of course, this was not the case in enlightened Europe - do you believe in these tales? Or the fact that slavery in America at this time flourished in a way that we never dreamed of.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Surely Bryntsalov felt a craving for a kindred spirit, so to speak. Or is it just the insanity of a comment?

I don't know what moved him, but these lands are really expensive, including because of the infrastructure and proximity to Moscow. As for insanity, I think you did not understand that in Russia there were different settlements, there were such that they flourished, but there were such that they were begging for the whole village. And it depended in many respects on the master. And Saltykovka flourished, unlike Obiralovka, if you are aware of what is at stake. If you are really interested, then study the history of the descendants of Ivan Susanin - the most curious story of the life of free peasants in Russia during the time of serfdom.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Until the 17th century, the peasants did without the care of the noble peasants.

And at whose expense was a nobleman obliged to support service people?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The Pomors, in principle, did without such care, but here is a form of economic survival,

Not only the Pomors - in Ukraine, a huge number of peasants did not know serfdom at all, as well as on the southern borders of Rus. And in other areas there were no serfs, not to mention the Old Believers.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Does the connoisseur of history know about the factory serfs?

The theorist is aware that a huge number of people received their freedom at this time, at least after serving in the army? For example, after the campaigns to the south and during the development of Little Russia, many received freedom and settled there not as "factory serfs". Something about the concept of "Soldier's settlement" heard - such names are still preserved in the south. And for some serfs, grandchildren became generals and at the beginning of the twentieth century led the White Army - where else in the world did this happen?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Of course, this was not the case in enlightened Europe - do you believe in these tales? Or the fact that slavery in America at this time flourished in a way that we never dreamed of.

What an argument, "but in America they hang up". Hello speech about slavery in Russia!

Quote: ccsr

And Saltykovka flourished, unlike Obiralovka, if you know what it is about.

Undoubtedly, this is due to the atrocities of Saltychikha and slavery in Russia, it is logical.

Quote: ccsr

the story of the descendants of Ivan Susanin is the most curious story of the life of free peasants in Russia during the time of serfdom.

They were freed from slavery thanks to the painful death of an ancestor? How progressive, and of course this justifies slavery in Russia.

Quote: ccsr

And at whose expense was a nobleman obliged to support service people?

Ahh, so I misunderstood you, this is different!

Quote: ccsr

this is just a form of economic survival in some of our regions, where one harvest year could have three bad harvests

These priestly fairy tales did not work, and suddenly "service people" appeared. That's not it for you! Got it ..

Quote: ccsr

Not only the Pomors - in Ukraine, a huge number of peasants did not know serfdom at all, as well as on the southern borders of Rus.

Then where does this priestly insanity come from ?:

Quote: ccsr

this is just a form of economic survival in some of our regions, where one harvest year could have three bad harvests

Quote: ccsr

The theorist is aware that a huge number of people received their freedom at this time, at least after serving in the army?

Wow, a practicing historian comes in with his trump cards, apparently you imagine a soldier's service as a contract ?. And nothing that "a huge number" before had to serve 25 years under arms with an average life expectancy of 35 - 40 years? To fight through the bayonets of enemies and shpitsruteny, do not die from diarrhea in the southern campaigns and from pneumonia in the northern ones and do not remain crippled. And from the "huge amount" pitiful tears remained. You should be at least a little really interested in history before writing this nonsense.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Hello speech about slavery in Russia!

There was no slavery in Russia as it was in world history, and you know that very well.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

They were freed from slavery thanks to the painful death of an ancestor?

I understand that you are clearly not in the subject of this story, I regret that I asked you such a "difficult" historical question.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Then where does this priestly insanity come from ?:

From here:

The boundaries of serfdom in Russia have never been precisely defined by law. For example, not a single law allowed the landowner to sell his serfs separately from their families, and from time to time tsarist decrees were issued expressly forbidding this.

So what about "serf slavery" in Russia and its borders?
https://news.myseldon.com/ru/news/index/217151573

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And nothing that "a huge amount" before had to serve 25 years under arms with an average life expectancy of 35 - 40 years?

So you are being cunning here too, because after 25 years of service, the former owner of the serf was obliged to take him to the maintenance of the community, to provide housing if he returned to his native place as a free person.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

To fight through the bayonets of enemies and their own gauntlets, do not die from diarrhea in the southern campaigns and from pneumonia in the northern ones, and do not remain crippled.

So the nobles died with them and suffered the same diseases - or was it not so? So there is no need to speculate on fulfilling the duty to the Fatherland, but rather remember how many years A.V. Suvorov served in the army.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You should be at least a little really interested in history before writing this nonsense.

I had this real story before my eyes - there was a Soldier's settlement, and a fortress of the tsarist times, which housed a military unit of the Soviet Army, and in general, unlike you, I know what it means to serve 25 years in the army. And your fantasies on historical topics did not penetrate me - so, a set of clichés about "serf slavery" and no more ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

There was no slavery in Russia as it was in world history, and you know that very well.

A minimum of 200 years is slavery with all the attributes, except maybe mass executions.

Quote: ccsr

They were freed from slavery thanks to the painful death of an ancestor?
I understand that you are clearly not in the subject of this story, I regret that I asked you such a "difficult" historical question.

Sadness trouble have I missed something? Susanin had a long life and his descendants of the tsar-tsarina were not given any "special privileges", were they not extended? And how many such personal privileges were there in 200 years of undisguised slavery?

Quote: ccsr

For example, not a single law allowed the landowner to sell his serfs separately from their families, and from time to time tsarist decrees were issued expressly forbidding this.

Excuse me, but what does not make you understand that the "decrees from time to time" directly SPECIFY that families FORCEDLY divided, spitting on "decrees from time to time." Here is your link ..
"The landowner could have deceived the peasant - he could get a ransom, but not let him go. After all, the peasant could not complain about the landowner's failure to fulfill his oral obligation ...
Another legal feature of Russian serfdom affected here. Serf marriages were not entirely legal. The landowner, releasing the peasant, was not automatically obliged to grant freedom to his wife and children who were in the owner's property. Both during the sale and purchase, and during the release of freedom, serf families could also be torn apart and split up. "

Quote: ccsr

So what about "serf slavery" in Russia and its borders? Https: //news.myseldon.com/ru/news/index/217151573

Have you at least read the entire link further than the entry? Although I'm asking, I love it when people like you give links, almost always you can nose into stupidity, often frank.

Quote: ccsr

So you are being cunning here too, because after 25 years of service, the former owner of the serf was obliged to take him to the maintenance of the community, to provide housing if he returned to his native place as a free person.

How nice it is, the former owner is obliged to take FOR THE CONTENT OF THE COMMUNITY, do you even think a little bit that you are sprinkling, defending slavery in Russia ?!

Quote: ccsr

So the nobles died with them and suffered the same diseases - or was it not so? So there is no need to speculate on fulfilling the duty to the Fatherland, but rather remember how many years A.V. Suvorov served in the army.

You are speculating strictly, covering up slavery with your "duty to the Fatherland." The nobles "were sick together and died together", there is no need for tearful tales, the nobles, even in captivity, had much less chances of perishing or being killed by rotten meat at times less. And what are you speculating in the name of Suvorov? Were all the noblemen Suvorovs? Then all the noblewomen were saltychs, if you follow your logic.

Quote: ccsr

You should be at least a little really interested in history before writing this nonsense.

I had this real story before my eyes - there was a Soldier's settlement, and a fortress of the Tsarist times, which housed a military unit of the Soviet Army, and in general, unlike you, I know what it means to serve 25 years in the army

No need to pull phrases out of context, leave that to Olgovich. The claim was not to settlements and fortresses, but to "a huge number"

Quote: ccsr

The theorist is aware that a huge number of people received their freedom at this time, at least after serving in the army

Well, about the "real story before the eyes" is enchanting. Let's just assume that you justify slavery in Russia by the names of settlements and living in a fortress of tsarist times. Well, to know what it means to "serve 25 years in the army" does not mean exactly to serve, although as an excuse for slavery it is quite suitable, according to your logic .. And it certainly does not mean that the conscript will serve in the army for a quarter, at best as a sergeant, without the opportunity to family in the best years of life.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

At least 200 years of slavery with all the attributes,

I wonder what period you take as a basis to understand when the nobles massively sold peasants in order to cash in on it. And why then were "revision tales" introduced into circulation in the 18th century?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Susanin lived for a long time and his descendants of the tsar-tsarina were not given any "special privileges", were they not extended?

The whole trouble is that they, even with privileges, did not learn self-government - and this proves how justified the nobility was in tsarist times to somehow manage the mass of people.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"The landowner could have deceived the peasant - he could receive a ransom, but not let him go.

There were crooks among the nobles, but rarely, because the noble assembly could both expel such a person, and generally intercede with the tsar to deprive him of such a title. So it is not necessary to distribute individual examples of how you famously did it with Saltychikha throughout Russia - I hope you were taught "The Captain's Daughter" at school in order to understand what the nobles could be.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

How nice it is, the former owner is obliged to take FOR THE CONTENT OF THE COMMUNITY, do you even think a little bit that you are sprinkling, defending slavery in Russia ?!

I look at this objectively as a HISTORICAL period in the history of my country, which is completely different from what you attribute to it. Your hypocrisy is easy to expose, at least with a simple example - if you were born at that time in a nobleman's family, then you would have the same psychology, but if you were born in a peasant's family, you would assess the situation completely differently. So try to look at that world from at least different positions, perhaps then at least something will be enlightened in your head. By the way, it is known from history that they were afraid to give weapons to slaves, but from the peasants of Russia they were even registered as militias. Is there no contradiction here?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And what are you speculating in the name of Suvorov? Were all the noblemen Suvorovs?

I can't say about all of them, but FF Ushakov was even enlisted as a saint and the peasants venerated him. Why did it happen?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

No need to pull phrases out of context, leave that to Olgovich.

I do not share his views on history - your message is past the box office.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, about the "real story before the eyes" is enchanting.

Instead of verbiage, it's better to read this at least:

Throughout the 18th century, the conditions of service for both soldiers and officers gradually relaxed. Peter was faced with an extremely difficult task — literally from scratch to create a combat-ready regular army. It was a trial and error method. The tsar strove to personally control many things, in particular, almost until his death, he personally approved every officer appointment in the army and vigilantly watched that this did not use ties, both family and friends. The title could be obtained solely for their own merits.
In addition, the Petrine army became a real social lift. Approximately a third of the officers of the army of Peter the Great's times were made up of ordinary soldiers who had served. They all received hereditary nobility.

And what about this "lift" in your opinion?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

I wonder what period you take as a basis to understand when the nobles massively sold peasants in order to cash in on it. And why then were "revision tales" introduced into circulation in the 18th century?

from 1649 to 1861 what do these dates say? This is what you dragged the documents to collect the poll tax? Do you understand that it is insanity to mention tax documents to justify slavery? And if for you the criterion of slavery is only "massive sales of peasants for profit", then this is just bestiality.

Quote: ccsr

The whole trouble is that they, even with privileges, did not learn self-government - and this proves how justified the nobility was in tsarist times to somehow manage the mass of people.

Those. Using the example of several people, you deduce the inability of all Russian peasants to self-government ?! Yes, it's Nazism. Gosha.

Well, what a stupid nonsense, the hereditary nobility of serfs and they did not really think for people:

Quote: ccsr

"There were crooks among the nobles, but rarely, because the assembly of the nobility could both expel such a person and, in general, intercede with the king to deprive him of such a title

Only if other nobles became victims of deception, do not know this and consider yourself an expert on the history of Russia, this is a shame.

Quote: ccsr

So it is not necessary to distribute individual examples of how you famously did it with Saltychikha throughout Russia - I hope you were taught "The Captain's Daughter" at school in order to understand what the nobles could be.

Hello, for some reason you are spreading the qualities of Suvorov and Ushakov to all nobles, and the inability of Susanin's descendants to live independently on all Russian peasants, then why should I not use YOUR logic, which is flawed of course, but what can I do.

Quote: ccsr

How nice it is, the former owner is obliged to take FOR THE CONTENT OF THE COMMUNITY, do you even think a little bit that you are sprinkling, defending slavery in Russia ?!

Have you been poked with specific stupidity and what is the answer? Some kind of shameful abstract bleating:

Quote: ccsr

I look at this objectively as a HISTORICAL period in the history of my country, which is completely different from what you attribute to it.

Quote: ccsr

Your hypocrisy is easy to expose, at least with a simple example - if you were born at that time in a nobleman's family, then you would have the same psychology, but if you were born in a peasant's family, you would assess the situation completely differently.

Hypocrisy?! Are you really that? Those. Do you sincerely think that you would be strictly "blaharod" and that is why you defend slavery so fiercely, oh sorry "serfdom as an economic and social necessity"? And I refute the need for slavery and the benefits of slavery for Russia and therefore a hypocrite? They also dragged in psychology. The historian is also a psychologist! And I see a person who has specific problems with logic.
Although what to expect from a person who writes such idiocy:

Quote: ccsr

By the way, it is known from history that they were afraid to give weapons to slaves, but from the peasants of Russia they were even registered as militias. Is there no contradiction here?

Even without mentioning the brainwashing from childhood by priests, it's a shame, no, it's a shame not to know this:
"14 Abram, hearing that [Lot] his kinsman had been taken captive, armed his servants, who were born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued the enemies as far as Dan;
15 and divided, he attacked them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them as far as Hoba, which is on the left side of Damascus. "
“The Athenians thus established, simultaneously with their state, a police force, a real gendarmerie of foot and horse archers ... But this gendarmerie was formed from slaves. This police service seemed so humiliating to a free Athenian that he preferred to let himself be arrested by an armed slave, if only not to engage in such a shameful business. "

Quote: ccsr

No need to pull phrases out of context, leave that to Olgovich.
I do not share his views on history - your message is past the box office.

You mean pulling phrases out of context, you mean views on history. What's this with elementary logic and understanding of the letters you have?

Quote: ccsr

Well, about the "real story before the eyes" is enchanting.
Instead of verbiage, it's better to read this at least:

It is shameful to establish both with fortresses and settlements and with the "25th anniversary in the army" and with the conscripts whose half-life in the army has passed, and then bang and "verbiage", as there was no your wretched text, but I will remind:

Quote: ccsr

I had this real story before my eyes - there was a Soldier's settlement, and a fortress of the tsarist times, which housed a military unit of the Soviet Army, and in general, unlike you, I know what it means to serve 25 years in the army.

Enchanting squalor!

Quote: ccsr

Approximately a third of the officer corps of the army of Peter the Great was made up of ordinary soldiers

Yes, it is already clear that all the nobles are Suvorovs and Ushakovs for you, and all the tsars are Peter the Great. The level of your "objectivity" is comparable to the level of logic.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Do you understand that it is insanity to mention tax documents to justify slavery?

Insanity is your attempt to evaluate that life from the point of view of a modern person. And you have succeeded in this.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Those. Using the example of several people, you deduce the inability of all Russian peasants to self-government ?! Yes, it's Nazism. Gosha.

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed. Well, or give some other sentimental example.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And I refute the need for slavery and the benefits of slavery for Russia and therefore a hypocrite?

Of course he is a hypocrite, because you are perverting the essence of serfdom in Russia, if only because it was not everywhere, and moreover, you do not take into account the realities of that life, because a serf peasant, unlike a slave, was not obliged to work for a master all the time ...

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But this gendarmerie was formed from slaves. This police service seemed so humiliating to a free Athenian that he preferred to let himself be arrested by an armed slave, just not to engage in such a shameful business himself. "

Another speculation, because it is not indicated what they armed themselves with, and moreover, they were kept to catch fugitive slaves or suppress their performances, and not so that they dispersed the Athenians at meetings. And you forget about the metal collar - or haven't you heard of it either? In the Macedonian phalanxes, the slaves also stood with free citizens?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Enchanting squalor!

Yes, I realized that you do not know anything from that life, so rush with Saltychikha, not even knowing that she was convicted. Burn on, "historian".

[sniperino]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Vladimir_2U

the free Athenian thought the police service was so humiliating that he preferred to let himself be arrested by an armed slave, so long as he did not engage in such a shameful business himself.

Another speculation ... and moreover, they were kept to catch runaway slaves or suppress their performances, and not so that they

Vladimir_2U is right. He quoted either from a textbook for history faculties, or from a monograph about Ancient Greece. I remember this phrase exactly, because I made an impression, but I don’t remember where it came from. Definitely not Aishnaya, he was not impressed by the alternatives.

[ccsr]

Quote: sniperino

Vladimir_2U is right. He quoted either from a textbook for history faculties, or from a monograph about Ancient Greece.

Do you think all our history textbooks were so objective, even in Soviet times? The phrase itself

But this gendarmerie was formed from slaves.

makes me smile - whence the term "Gendarmerie" in the Ancient World, and at least the original names of such formations of armed slaves should have been preserved.
As far as I remember from the school course, the slave could not even touch the free Athenian, and for this he could already be killed. So we must first understand whose monograph was (Soros sponsored a lot of things from our textbooks), and whether those who were allowed to perform these functions were slaves at that time. Otherwise, it may turn out that the translation is not the same, and the fact itself had a completely different background.

[sniperino]

Quote: ccsr

where is the term "Gendarmerie"

But I did not remember this, so I did not include it in the quoted comment. But the word is clearly not of Greek origin))

Quote: ccsr

the slave could not even touch the free Athenian

Therefore, I was impressed, as it destroyed my ideas about the relationship between free and slaves in antiquity.

Quote: ccsr

you must first understand whose monograph was

This is before Soros's textbooks.

Police service was performed by the Scythians

http://sno.pro1.ru/lib/dovatur_rabstvo_v_attike/3.htm

[sniperino]

http://sno.pro1.ru/lib/dovatur_rabstvo_v_attike/3.htm
This is a link to the source of Vladimir_2U

[ccsr]

Quote: sniperino

http://sno.pro1.ru/lib/dovatur_rabstvo_v_attike/3.htm

This book is too serious to be mastered by an amateur. But what immediately caught my eye about the slaves in the army - they were simple porters and they did not trust weapons:

In some manuscripts, after σιτία it reads υπό τοις οπλοίς - "under arms." In this case, the following meaning is obtained: “The hoplites and horsemen, contrary to custom, carried their own provisions, being under arms: some due to the absence of accompanying slaves, others due to mistrust in them; after all, some have long been, while others, the majority, have recently deserted to the enemies "... From this it is clear that from the very beginning of the Sicilian expedition the slaves accompanied their masters - horsemen and hoplites.

As I understand it, this does not contradict my assertion that the slaves were afraid to trust weapons.
I did not quite understand about the police in the form of Scythians - the nomads were distinguished by their unbridled disposition, and I somehow hardly imagine them outside the steppes in the form of police officials.

[sniperino]

Quote: ccsr

nomads were distinguished by their unbridled disposition, and I somehow hardly imagine them outside the steppes in the form of police officials.

But what about the Scythians-ploughmen? But the work is really serious, and in order to question the author's statement, some more weighty arguments are needed. In addition, I do not think that the Scythians were the only ethnos that pulled this service in the policies, being captured into slavery. Rather, it is a matter of preference.

[ccsr]

Quote: sniperino

But what about the Scythian plowmen?

Some kind of assimilation processes took place in such large territories, and they learned a lot from the Cimmerians and Greeks. But if we approach it objectively, then even in Kazakhstan, which was plowed into virgin lands, I myself in the eighties saw many yurts and shepherds who never became settled citizens. What can we say about the Scythians then?

Quote: sniperino

I do not think that the Scythians were the only ethnos that pulled this service in the policies, being captured into slavery.

Yes, there were state slaves who were trusted to replace officials in some areas temporarily, but this is still a slightly different situation than that of an armed slave:

State slaves could also replace the overseer (epistat) at work or the architect. Aristotle in the "Athenian polity" (50, 2) reports on the functions of astynomes. Among other things, they made sure that no one dumped manure closer than 10 stades from the city wall, forbade building up streets, making balconies over the street, gutters with runoff to the street; their duty was also to clean up the corpses of the dead on the street.

As for the Scythian policemen, this is what they were charged with:

In the V century. BC e. they kept order in the city; made arrests under the command of "eleven" (οι ένδεκα). This was the case during the arrest of Theramenos, which is described by Xenophon in his "Greek History": ειλκον δια ύπηρέτας (II, 3, 54-55). At the beginning of the IV century. BC e. this police corps still existed. Its liquidation is associated with the financial depression that followed the Peloponnesian War. Aristophanes portrays Scythian policemen in a comic form in his comedy Women at the Festival of Thesmophoria (1001-1225). The police officers speak bad Greek, and their actions inspire neither fear nor respect.

In general, I do not see anything in common between this slave and a simple Russian peasant of the 18-19th century, who, while serving in the army, received not only freedom, but could become an officer and receive nobility, as it was, for example, with the father of A.I. Denikin.

Quote: sniperino

Rather, it is a matter of preference.

So I think that ideological blinkeredness prevents some from at least without bias to look at the history of our Fatherland. And it turns out that in our country the whole history of the Bolotnikov uprising is based on some figures.

[sniperino]

Quote: ccsr

I do not see anything in common between this slave and a simple Russian peasant of the 18-19 century, who, while serving in the army, received not only freedom, but could become an officer and receive the nobility

I didn't argue with that. Yesterday I came across this, but the source is not identified.

the chronicles clearly recorded that the Athenians liked to call their children by the name "Scythian", and the "Scythian slaves" themselves walked with weapons and performed police functions in Athens. So, the Scythians could arrest and send to the police station any aristocrat violating public order.

https://studopedia.ru/9_109368_o-rabstve-slavyan-i-skifov.html
And more

One conclusion suggests itself: in the Greek-Latin dictionaries a global substitution of definitions was made, and in all ideologically important cases (Jews, Scythians, Janissaries, Mamluks and Slavs) the meaning of “warrior” was replaced with the meaning of “slave”.

In the same place. Those. the hint that serve - to serve as a slave and a slave - to serve as a warrior was distorted by the Romans.

[ccsr]

Quote: sniperino

In the same place. Those. the hint that serve - to serve as a slave and a slave - to serve as a warrior was distorted by the Romans.

This is exactly what it seems to me that happened - only an inaccurate translation of some words or concepts could simply lead to historical mistakes. And as far as I know, this has happened more than once. But this is the lot of specialists, and most people just need to have a general picture of the past. And if they tell me that an armed slave could be a policeman in Athens, then something tells me, somewhere, someone is too unprofessional or deliberately distorted the primary sources.
Speaking of slavery in Russia, it really existed on the territory of the Russian Empire after the annexation of Crimea during the war with Turkey. By chance I learned that at the beginning of the 19th century in the region of Bakhchisarai, Crimean Tatars were selling people, despite the fact that it was prohibited by royal decrees. But then they simply could not suppress the local kings, that is why they temporarily turned a blind eye to the slave trade, which reflects the complexity of the situation of those years, and not the laws of the Russian Empire.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Insanity is your attempt to evaluate that life from the point of view of a modern person. And you have succeeded in this.

Bolotnikov (1565-1608) and his associates are undoubtedly modern people, possibly supporters of Navalny, as well as Stepan Razin and his associates. You don't know the most important things from the history of Russia. We can blame this on the ignorance of the latent slave owner. (Although by today's standards this is a militant insanity)
How simple you amaze with your poor knowledge of the history of Russia!

Quote: ccsr

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed

This is necessary, what school did you go to, French? Not to know about the resistance and self-organization of the Russian peasantry in 1812. this is the level of a rural French school.
“There were many times more partisan detachments from peasants than army ones: in the Smolensk region alone there were up to 40, with a total number of about 16 thousand people. But they operated throughout the theater of war, and some of them numbered thousands of fighters: the detachment of Gerasim Kurin, for example - almost 6 thousand, Ermolaya Chetvertakova - 4 thousand, Fyodor Potapov - 3 thousand. In fact, almost all peasants, and both sexes, capable of carrying weapons, then became partisans in the war zone. "
"There is information about other detachments, which were commanded by ordinary peasants Akim Fedorov, Philip Mikhailov, Kuzma Kuzmin, Gerasim Semenov from Volokolamsk district of Moscow province., Vasily Polovtsov and Fedor Anofriev from Massalsky district of Kaluga province. . "There were hundreds if not thousands of such non-nobles! Davydov himself (in the course who is this?) Wrote:

Actions behind enemy lines without the support of the local population were unthinkable. However, at first, Davydov found it difficult to find a common language with the peasants. They approached each village with caution, since the armed peasants who were guarding their villages, seeing army uniforms, attacked the partisans. Davydov's partisans had to first prove that they were Russian soldiers.
How many times have I asked the inhabitants after the conclusion of peace between us: "Why did you consider us French?" Each time they answered me: "Yes, you see, my dear (pointing to my hussar mentic), this, they say, is similar to their clothes." - "But don't I speak Russian?" - "Why, they have all kinds of people!" Then I learned from experience that in the People's War one should not only speak in the language of the rabble, but adapt to it both in customs and in clothing. I put on a man's caftan, began to let go of a beard, instead of the Order of St. Anna hung the image of St. Nicholas and spoke to them in the language of the people.
- D. Davydov. Guerrilla Action Diary

Quote: ccsr

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed

So this is insanity turning into idiocy, excuse me.
But here's how blaharoded people could behave:
Well, why now be surprised when many true nobles did this:

Oddly enough, the peasants showed more patriotism than the nobles. The "patriotism" of many noblemen consisted in the fact that they abandoned their estates and left for the Volga region and the Urals to wait out the turmoil there. And of those who remained "at the mercy of the victor," some even went to serve in the French administration, collecting requisitions in favor of the invaders. There were, of course, those who made up partisan detachments from their own household and went into the forests. But there weren't many of them. Most of the rest held a kind of neutrality: they did not cooperate with the occupiers, but they did not offer resistance either.

Quote: ccsr

Of course he is a hypocrite, because you are perverting the essence of serfdom in Russia, if only because it was not everywhere, and moreover, you do not take into account the realities of that life, because a serf peasant, unlike a slave, was not obliged to work for a master all the time ...

Oh, what an advanced nobility it was! Slaves were not kept everywhere! Yes, the peasants themselves fled there, to these places, because their hands were short, the nobility, at least there! The essence of serfdom was perverted in 1649, and the insanity of the words "because a serf, unlike a slave, was not obliged to work for a master all the time," even a person completely unfamiliar with the history of slavery catches the eye! The master of the slave had to feed, if only so that he would not die! And the master only took, took away, grabbed, and the concern about “not dying” himself and the family lay strictly on the peasant, although why would a latent slave owner and “nobleman in spirit” like you think about it, even a little!

Quote: ccsr

Another speculation, because it is not indicated what they armed themselves with, and moreover, they were kept to catch fugitive slaves or suppress their performances, and not so that they dispersed the Athenians at meetings. And you forget about the metal collar - or haven't you heard of it either? In the Macedonian phalanxes, the slaves also stood with free citizens?

What squalor! Yes, no matter how armed, in the Bronze Age, full armor did not exist, and even a sharpened stick could crush a single enemy, especially the majority! What then was it to say nonsense that the slaves were not given weapons at all? And that collar, you can remove it! The fact that Russian serfs did not hang a collar is an achievement?
Well, to emphasize your squalor as a defender of slavery in Russia, let me remind you this:

Quote: ccsr

I hope "The Captain's Daughter" was taught to you at school to understand what the nobles could be.

And apart from "The Captain's Daughter" have you read anything else from Pushkin? "Dubrovsky" for example? Surname Troyekurov says nothing? You are a really ignorant person, and your arguments are one to one as obscurantists who were against the abolition of slavery in Russia.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Bolotnikov (1565-1608) and his associates are undoubtedly modern people, possibly Navalny's supporters, as are Stepan Razin and his associates.

In our history, Vlasov was with his army - and what does this prove in the light of the successes of building socialism? Maybe you shouldn't present our whole history so one-sidedly, in the light of your personal ideas about it.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Not to know about the resistance and self-organization of the Russian peasantry in 1812. this is the level of a rural French school.

And you, without verbiage, just give examples - numbers, weapons, damage, etc.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

then became partisans in the war zone. "

Guerrilla units did not fight in battles with the regular army - you don't even know the tactics of guerrilla warfare, and you speculate on numbers for those who do not understand the differences. Why, then, Napoleon and his guards escaped from Russia - why did the partisans not capture him?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Nicholas and spoke to them in the language of the people.
- D. Davydov. Guerrilla Action Diary

Already from this one phrase it is clear that there was no organized partisan movement among the peasants, and it was a spontaneous protest of people who had no military training.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But here's how blaharoded people could behave:

Your squalor is strongly manifested in the antics - this already tells me everything.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yes, the peasants themselves fled there, to these places, because their hands were short, the nobility, at least there!

So in Soviet times, there were a fig of defectors, and not only during the war. And what does this somehow characterize socialism? There were definitely no slaves in the USSR, but the people somehow fled the country.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The fact that Russian serfs did not hang a collar is an achievement?

This is the fundamental difference between serfs and slaves.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And besides "The Captain's Daughter" have you read anything else from Pushkin? "Dubrovsky" for example?

I like Pushkin's Shot most of all - everything is described there exactly, including how many noblemen lived in Russia.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Bolotnikov (1565-1608) and his associates are undoubtedly modern people, possibly Navalny's supporters, as are Stepan Razin and his associates.
In our history, Vlasov and his army were

What a stupid comparison, the stupidest even! To compare the peasant uprisings against the final enslavement and the gathering of people who were captured and betrayed their Motherland there? Stupidity and downright meanness of some sort. Do you want to compare Spartak with Vlasov? Or the Bolsheviks with Vlasov? You're worse than Olgovich.

Quote: ccsr

Not to know about the resistance and self-organization of the Russian peasantry in 1812. This is the level of a rural French school. And you, without verbiage, just give examples - numbers, weapons, damage, etc.

Just arrogance bordering on idiot! In response to your dumbest request:

Quote: ccsr

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed. Well, or give some other sentimental example.

I literally poked you into your ignorance:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

“There were many times more partisan detachments from peasants than army ones: in the Smolensk region alone - up to 40, with a total number of about 16 thousand people. But they operated throughout the theater of war, and some of them numbered thousands of fighters: the detachment of Gerasim Kurin, for example , - almost 6 thousand, Ermolaya Chetvertakova - 4 thousand, Fyodor Potapov - 3 thousand ...
"There is information about other detachments, which were commanded by ordinary peasants Akim Fedorov, Philip Mikhailov, Kuzma Kuzmin, Gerasim Semenov from Volokolamsk district of Moscow province., Vasily Polovtsov and Fedor Anofriev from Massalsky district of Kaluga province. . "

And then the impudent departure from the topic, give him the number of weapons! Can you still have a list of names with a staffing table? Here you are either a brazen idiot, or the same troll.

Quote: ccsr

Guerrilla units did not fight in battles with the regular army - you don't even know the tactics of guerrilla warfare, and you speculate on numbers for those who do not understand the differences.

Excuse me, but you just make yourself an illiterate idiot with this pearl! Foragers and patrols and small detachments for him are no longer a regular army! Can you still bleed the same idiocy about Soviet partisan detachments? Do not hesitate, why already be ashamed!

Quote: ccsr

Nicholas and spoke to them in the language of the people.
- D. Davydov. Guerrilla Action Diary
Already from this one phrase it is clear that there was no organized partisan movement among the peasants, and it was a spontaneous protest of people who had no military training.

No comment. Although "spontaneous protest" is something! And this told me a lot about blaharodes:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

They drove up to each village with caution, as the armed peasants guarding their villages, seeing army uniforms, attacked the partisans ....... - Then I learned from experience that in the People's War one should not only speak in language mobile, but to adapt to her both in customs and in clothing -

Look, so that by mistake they wouldn't lift the pitchfork, Denis Vasilyevich had to remember the BLACK language!

Quote: ccsr

But here's how blaharoded people could behave:
Your squalor is strongly manifested in the antics - this already tells me everything.

Has your blacharode been offended in any way? The fact that I literally poke you into the stupidity of your comments is nothing, right?

Quote: ccsr

Yes, the peasants themselves fled there, to these places, because their hands were short, the nobility, at least there!
So in Soviet times, there were a fig of defectors, and not only during the war.

That is, you either don't know the proverb "There is no issue from the Don" or you don't understand? Cossacks were historical enemies of the Russian state? And this is what you broadcast to me about historical illiteracy?

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Vladimir_2U
The fact that Russian serfs did not hang a collar is an achievement?
This is the fundamental difference between serfs and slaves.

Oh, what, issuing weapons is no longer a hundred percent sign of a free person? Is it a collar? Astonishing ignorance and pathos!

and the lord pierced his ear with an awl; then he became his slave forever, i.e. for life (Ex 21.5 ff.); the same was done with the female slaves (Deut 15.17:39.7). Ear piercing among many Eastern peoples was a custom that outwardly expressed obedience and obedience (Compare Ps XNUMX). Plautus points out that wearing earrings in the ears was a sign of slavery.

You can distinguish a slave by one more feature - an earring in the right ear.
Source: https://nauka.club/istoriya/rabstvo-v-drevnem-rime.html

This is a scene from the famous Duris vase (XNUMXth century BC), depicting classes in a school of music. One of the grown men is a slave. The ancient Greeks recognized it by its characteristic detail.
4. Collar (on the man's right). Those who corrected that it was the collarbone were right. Here is a gymnast (obviously, not a slave) of the same vase painter, therefore, one style of image.
Thus, Duris allows viewers to immediately recognize a slave by one and only unconditional sign - the lack of good upbringing and secular manners inherent in a free citizen of Athens: in the "temple of education" he sits cross-legged.

The nonsense about the collar is by the way not accidental, because in addition to the earring and the chain could serve as a sign of a slave, and even a chain or knitting with a cross and even more so! But all the same it is stupidity, your next stupidity in defending slavery!

Quote: ccsr

I like Pushkin's Shot most of all - everything is described there exactly, including how many noblemen lived in Russia.

It is clear in "Dubrovsky" about Troekurov everything is not true! What were you bleating about

Quote: ccsr

I look at it objectively as a HISTORICAL period in the history of my country

On the five, objectivity, what we like about it we remember, and what we don't like, bang and silence, there was no such thing.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

What a stupid comparison, the stupidest even! To compare the peasant uprisings against the final enslavement and the gathering of people who were captured and betrayed their Motherland there?

I don't know what differences you found there, but it is possible that Bolotnikov was simply recruited abroad:

The Don Cossack Ivan Bolotnikov was the fighting servant of Prince Andrei Telyatevsky. Returning through Europe from Turkish captivity, he was in Sambor (in the castle of Yuri Mnishek) presented to a certain person who called himself "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich." Apparently, it was the adventurer Mikhail Molchanov, an associate of False Dmitry I who had fled from Moscow, who was now sending "royal letters" to the south of Russia, sealed by the golden royal seal he had stolen from Moscow. The letters announcing the imminent return of Tsar Dmitry were perceived by many as quite reliable. Experienced warrior Bolotnikov was appointed in Sambir as a "great commander" and sent to Putivl to Prince G. P. Shakhovsky, who began to raise the Seversk land against Tsar Vasily Shuisky.

Or do you have a rebuttal to this?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I literally poked you into your ignorance:

You are an ignoramus, because even Davydov pointed out that they sat in the villages and spoke out against those military who approached them, so even he had to prove that he was Russian. And what could this audience do if the regular French army went against them.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Has your blacharode been offended in any way? The fact that I literally poke you into the stupidity of your comments is nothing, right?

You are demonstrating your illiteracy, if you still did not understand that the peasants had no military training, and naturally could not offer any serious resistance to the French army. Of course, plundering the rear of the French army, they helped expel Napoleon, but I think they did it out of a desire to profit, and not out of a desire to defeat France.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Oh, what, issuing weapons is no longer a hundred percent sign of a free person?

Yes, only an unreasonable person can entrust a weapon to someone who can kill him with this weapon.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

That is, you either don't know the proverb "There is no issue from the Don" or you don't understand?

Well, yes, I know how - they still cannot reconcile with each other on the Don and Kuban, because each other was brutally destroyed during the Civil War. Yes, and Hitler was helped by some of the Cossacks - but you probably don't know that. By the way, were the Cossacks also slaves in the Russian Empire, or what?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

By the way, the nonsense about the collar is no coincidence,

You probably haven't seen this either, so educate yourself:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It is clear in "Dubrovsky" about Troekurov everything is not true!

You are simply juggling examples convenient for you, but why FF Ushakov was considered a saint, you will never understand.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

I don't know what differences you found there, but it is possible that Bolotnikov was simply recruited abroad:

"It is not excluded"? And tens of thousands of peasants were also recruited? Or maybe Razin with his hundreds of thousands?

Quote: ccsr

Or do you have a rebuttal to this?

Yes, even if this is your "not excluded", the same miserable argument as the "recruited" Razin, recruited by "Pugachev" about whom I forgot, but you do not seem to "know" and the Bolsheviks "recruited" by the Germans. The uprisings led by Bolotnikov and Razin were precisely against slavery, like many other lesser known, slavery that people like you call "serfdom", serfdom ended by the middle of the 17th century and began almost two hundred years of SLAVERY.

Quote: ccsr

I literally poked you into your ignorance:
You are an ignoramus, because even Davydov pointed out that they sat in the villages and spoke out against those military who approached them, so even he had to prove that he was Russian. And what could this audience do if the regular French army went against them.

Do you demand from untrained and inexperienced peasants raids on the rear of the enemy? Yes, this is indescribable impudence! Because even this is a feat, being inexperienced, untrained at least to some extent, mundane "masters of life" not to be afraid of armed regulars:

In every village the gates were locked; with them stood young and old with pitchforks, stakes, axes and some of them with firearms. One of us was forced to drive up to each village and tell the residents that we are Russians, that we came to their aid and to defend the Orthodox Church. Often the answer was a shot or an ax fired from a swing, from whose blows fate saved us

And your insolence and stupidity also lies in the fact that even during the Great Patriotic War, partisans very rarely dared to directly confront the invaders entering the villages and villages. Wrong forces. And this is not even remembering that one of the main types of combat activities of partisans is an ambush. You have to poke your nose into elementary things.

Quote: ccsr

You are demonstrating your illiteracy, if you still did not understand that the peasants had no military training, and naturally they could not offer any serious resistance to the French army

The squalor of this statement is obvious, see above.

Quote: ccsr

Yes, only an unreasonable person can entrust a weapon to someone who can kill him with this weapon.

It has already been disassembled that the slaves could be endowed with weapons, if you deny the obvious, then who are you? And yet, the slaves could be endowed with weapons, but not all, they were afraid to trust the majority, which is no less obvious, then why was the peasantry massively demanded to return the captured weapons after 1812? Yes, because they considered them slaves, but slaves are not particularly trustworthy!

Quote: ccsr

That is, you either don't know the proverb "There is no issue from the Don" or you don't understand?

Well, yes, I know how - they still cannot reconcile with each other on the Don and Kuban, because each other was brutally destroyed during the Civil War. Yes, and Hitler was helped by some of the Cossacks - but you probably don't know that. By the way, were the Cossacks also slaves in the Russian Empire, or what?

It's just a hand-face! This is already blatant idiocy! The essence of a proverb, not a proverb, here I was mistaken, in the fact that whoever came to the Cossacks himself will not be given out, and you are carrying some incredible nonsense! Who are you after that? History connoisseur? But you have such stupidity through one episode, through another just a drain.

Quote: ccsr

By the way, the nonsense about the collar is no coincidence,
You probably haven't seen this either, so educate yourself:

What did you send me this picture? Lord, your will! What did you write?

Quote: ccsr

The fact that Russian serfs did not hang a collar is an achievement?
This is the fundamental difference between serfs and slaves.

You actually wrote directly that only a collar distinguishes a slave from a non-slave! And I poked you with my nose into this your most pretentious stupidity!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and the lord pierced his ear with an awl; then he became his slave forever, i.e. for life (..... Plautus points out that wearing earrings in the ears was a sign of slavery.
... A slave could be distinguished by one more feature - an earring in the right ear.
... This is a scene from the famous Duris vase (XNUMXth century BC), depicting classes in a school of music. One of the grown men is a slave. The ancient Greeks recognized it by its characteristic detail.
.... Duris allows viewers to immediately recognize the slave by one single unconditional sign - .... he sits with his legs crossed.

And the absence of a collar is not at all proof of the subject's freedom! But understanding this is beyond your level, possibly many times over.

Quote: ccsr

It is clear in "Dubrovsky" about Troekurov everything is not true!
You are simply juggling examples convenient for you, but why FF Ushakov was considered a saint, you will never understand.

You don't even understand the meaning of the word rigging, it's just below the plinth! The fact that Pushkin wrote "Dubrovsky" is a fraud ?! Or is the bestiality of the landowner Troyekurov a fraud ?! This is not even a shame, this is already a diagnosis. And what to argue about with the patient?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Do you demand from untrained and inexperienced peasants raids on the rear of the enemy? Yes, this is indescribable impudence!

The impudence in this case is your desire to ascribe the organized armed resistance of the peasants during the war of 1812. They had neither the knowledge nor the leaders for this, and Dobrovsky was not found at all.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And your insolence and stupidity also lies in the fact that even during the Great Patriotic War, partisans very rarely dared to directly confront the invaders entering the villages and villages.

It sucks you know the history of the Second World War, because there were entire areas in the occupied territory where power belonged to partisan commanders, and regular Wehrmacht troops could not enter them.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It has already been disassembled that the slaves could be endowed with weapons, if you deny the obvious, then who are you?

The word "could" best says that you have no facts. But especially for those illiterate in military psychology, I just inform you that even NOW the French Foreign Legion does not have heavy weapons, but only light ones. And this is the best proof that military people know perfectly well who can be trusted with weapons. I am sure that they knew about this in ancient times.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Who are you after that? History connoisseur?

Yes, the same connoisseur of history as you, i.e. amateur. Only I am not talking nonsense when the question concerns military affairs, but you can propagandize any nonsense, like the "gendarmes" in Athens.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and the lord pierced his ear with an awl; then he became his slave forever, i.e. for life (..... Plautus points out that wearing earrings in the ears was a sign of slavery.

Not necessarily - they could be branded. By the way, in the USA, I somehow did not find a use for your method of piercing the ear for slaves - at least they do not mention it. And in Russia how they were branded - tell us in more detail.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

This is not even a shame, this is already a diagnosis. And what to argue about with the patient?

You are probably a home-grown Fomenkovets, who quickly concocted two centuries of slavery in Russia from mathematical calculations - burn further, your fantasies will amuse many ...

[Vladimir_2U]

This is where the impudence reaches, they got fucked up initially and started just lying, because what kind of question was it? Here it is!

Quote: ccsr

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed.

And here, in response to numerous examples of such self-organization, snot begins:

Quote: ccsr

And you, without verbiage, just give examples - numbers, weapons, damage, etc.

Quote: ccsr

Guerrilla units did not fight in battles with the regular army - you don't even know the tactics of guerrilla warfare, and you speculate on numbers for those who do not understand the differences.

Quote: ccsr

The audacity in this case is your desire to ascribe the organized armed resistance of the peasants during the war of 1812

What's this?! Poke you again? For the beginning you refute this, though not in the idiotic style of abstract bleating, but at least with quotations from sources.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

“There were many times more partisan detachments from peasants than army ones: in the Smolensk region alone - up to 40, with a total number of about 16 thousand people. But they operated throughout the theater of war, and some of them numbered thousands of fighters: the detachment of Gerasim Kurin, for example , - almost 6 thousand, Ermolaya Chetvertakova - 4 thousand, Fyodor Potapov - 3 thousand ...
"There is information about other detachments, which were commanded by ordinary peasants Akim Fedorov, Philip Mikhailov, Kuzma Kuzmin, Gerasim Semenov from Volokolamsk district of Moscow province., Vasily Polovtsov and Fedor Anofriev from Massalsky district of Kaluga province. . "

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Excuse me, but you just make yourself an illiterate idiot with this pearl! Foragers and patrols and small detachments for him are no longer a regular army! Can you still bleed the same idiocy about Soviet partisan detachments? Do not hesitate, why already be ashamed!

Refute it all! You have only shameful bleating in response to facts! And your wagging does not in any way abolish the 200-year-old slavery, much less refute it.

Quote: ccsr

It sucks you know the history of the Second World War, because there were entire areas in the occupied territory where power belonged to partisan commanders, and regular Wehrmacht troops could not enter them.

I normally know, and these facts are familiar to me, but this was far from all the occupied territories and far from the first year of the occupation, and there were hundreds if not thousands of such areas less destroyed and ruined villages and villages without any resistance! So this is a completely irrelevant example, although of course more dedicated to most of your other "arguments", And to consider the absence of such "areas" in 1812-13 as a sign of the absence of a peasant partisan movement is stupidity and certainly not "objectivity", although in your posts it is the word is just ridiculous! And only your "knowledge" in history is more ridiculous:

In the occupied territory, there were even areas where there was no French or Russian administration and which were controlled by partisan detachments: Borisov district in the Minsk province, Gzhatsky and Sychevsky districts in Smolensk, Vokhonskaya volost and the vicinity of Kolotsky monastery in Moscow. Usually, such detachments were headed by wounded or lagging behind due to illness, career soldiers or non-commissioned officers. One of such large partisan detachments was led in the Gzhatsk region [2] by a soldier Eremey Chetvertakov.

So the Russian peasants were completely self-organizing, and they did not need the "tremulous care" of the master, they quietly sank compatriots and co-religionists, enslaved for 200 years, hiding behind beautiful words

Quote: ccsr

It has already been disassembled that the slaves could be endowed with weapons, if you deny the obvious, then who are you?
The word "could" best says that you have no facts.

There is such an expression "pounding in the eyes" and so here it is about you:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"14 Abram, hearing that [Lot] his kinsman had been taken captive, armed his servants, who were born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued the enemies as far as Dan;
15 and divided, he attacked them by night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them as far as Hoba, which is on the left side of Damascus. "
"Thus, the Athenians established, simultaneously with their state, the police, a real gendarmerie of foot and horse archers ... But this gendarmerie was formed from slaves

Blatantly and stupidly to ignore evidence is this "historian" style?

Quote: ccsr

But especially for those illiterate in military psychology, I just inform you that even NOW the French Foreign Legion does not have heavy weapons, but only light ones.

Another proof of your ignorance, slightly different from idiocy, excuse me, it hurts, it is necessary to compare a military unit with strictly VOLUNTARY manning and armed slaves, how not to consider it stupidity? It would be a shame to write about the "absent" heavy weapons in the Legion, but not to you, for the reasons already mentioned.

Quote: ccsr

Only I am not talking nonsense when it comes to military affairs,

The most obvious lie is a delusion, apart from the fact that you directly signed that it is common for you to carry nonsense in other matters ...

Quote: ccsr

so you can propagandize all sorts of nonsense, like "gendarmes" in Athens.

The fact that you are not able to master the whole sentence is already clear. So apart from the fact that the Athenians created a police that looks like a REAL gendarmerie, modern to the one who wrote this phrase:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"The Athenians thus established, at the same time as their state, the police, a real gendarmerie of foot and horse archers

that in general it is obvious to any person who speaks literary Russian, but not to you, this phrase was written by none other than Karl, KARL, his mother, Marx! You are really insignificant as a lover of history and military affairs, although what to expect from a latent slave owner.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

and the lord pierced his ear with an awl; then he became his slave forever, i.e. for life (..... Plautus points out that wearing earrings in the ears was a sign of slavery.
Not necessarily - they could be branded. By the way, in the USA, I somehow did not find a use for your method of piercing the ear for slaves - at least they do not mention it. And in Russia how they were branded - tell us in more detail.

This is arrogance, and stupid, because the comments are very easy to check. Why would I also have to look for some kind of stigma, and even in the USA (what's right in the USA?))), I have already denied your stupidity. But I am not too lazy to poke you into your pretentious stupidity again!

Quote: ccsr

The fact that Russian serfs did not hang a collar is an achievement?
This is the fundamental difference between serfs and slaves.

These are your words and they do not allow any discrepancies, according to your ALL slaves wore collars, you even had the mind to bring a photo, and I will poke your nose again that the slave could not have been noted at all:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

This is a scene from the famous Duris vase (XNUMXth century BC), depicting classes in a school of music. One of the grown men is a slave. The ancient Greeks recognized it by its characteristic detail.
.... Duris allows viewers to immediately recognize the slave by one and only unconditional sign - .... he sits cross-legged

Objectivity, just laughter! And even funnier is that you consider all the nobles, if not the Suvorovs, then the Ushakovs, but all the kings and queens, it seems, Peter the Great. So Peter, although he was great, but he was not the last slave owner either:

obligatory tattoos in the Russian army and navy appeared in the XNUMXth century. They were introduced, like most of the novelties of that time, by Peter I. To identify his wounded and killed in battle, a cross was carved on the wrist of the recruits, and then they rubbed gunpowder into it. The procedure was quite painful, and the wound was often inflamed. But, as the soldiers themselves complained, "you cannot contradict the tsarist decree."

Quote: ccsr

You are probably a home-grown Fomenkovets, who quickly concocted two centuries of slavery in Russia from mathematical calculations - burn further, your fantasies will amuse many ...

You could not sanely refute any of my assertions, based on links not from Fomenko at all, you were fucked up literally on all positions, well, take comfort pacifier the fact that I am "Fomenkovets".

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

So Peter, although he was great, but he was not the last slave owner either:
obligatory tattoos in the Russian army and navy appeared in the XNUMXth century.

So with this he saved many Russians, because it was for this tattoo that our wounded were treated in the first place. You are just an amateur in this matter, and you do not know that even now many professional military personnel are knocking out tattoos with a blood type and the emblem of their unit. And this is not a fashion, but a necessity for those who participate in hostilities.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You could not sanely refute any of my statements,

"One fool can ask so many questions that even 100 wise men will not answer" (C)
By the way, from my point of view, Catherine the Great did even more for our state than Peter the Great - you can salivate here too ...

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And here, in response to numerous examples of such self-organization, snot begins:

These are not examples of self-organization to defend the Motherland, but simply fear that they will rob and take away food.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"There is information about other detachments, which were commanded by ordinary peasants Akim Fedorov, Philip Mikhailov, ...

You can scare yourself as you please, but I do not believe that these "commanders" could organize a chain of ordinary peasants to repel an attack by an ordinary infantry battalion of the French army. But to rob foragers - so no one denies, this was all the time. Great skill is not needed here, because then there were no automatic small arms, and edged weapons against a mass of people are not effective when there are several foragers.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Blatantly and stupidly to ignore evidence is this "historian" style?

Yes, calm down with Athens - so nowhere is it indicated that the police were armed, because they were only allocated to accompany the chief. Make up something about using slaves in the army, otherwise it didn't go further than the porters.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It would be a shame to write about the "absent" heavy weapons in the Legion, but not to you, for the reasons already mentioned.

You are not in the subject here either, but sprinkle like saliva, it just becomes scary for your peace of mind. Never mind - such questions are not for you.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

this phrase was written by none other than Karl, KARL, his mother, Marx!

And what, now to pray for him, especially when his thesis "The workers have no fatherland" turned out to be false. Yes, and he was mistaken about the hegemon - the century of the proletarian state was too short, although it left a significant mark in world history and will be studied in the same way as Athens is now.
But you burn further, since Marx took all your reason away from you. This happens with hardened agitators, I have come across similar types in my life, and I do not take them seriously.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

So with this he saved a lot of Russian people, because it was for this tattoo that our wounded were treated in the first place.

Forgivable nonsense to the "tattoo historian" is simply shameful for the "connoisseur of history and military affairs" in your face. Well, of course, in your opinion, it turns out that the prisoners of Nazi concentration camps were tattooed with numbers to "treat first." Amazing narrow-mindedness!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

a cross was carved on the wrist of the recruits, and then they rubbed gunpowder into it

ON THE WRIST OF RECRUITS! Anyone who knows a little about military affairs will understand the stupidity of your "treatment in the first place." I will not explain, "a clever one will understand ..." but for a fool he is tired of throwing beads.

Quote: ccsr

You are just an amateur in this matter, and you do not know that even now many professional military personnel are knocking out tattoos with a blood group and the emblem of their unit

What squalor and narrow-mindedness to write and not understand from your own words your own stupidity! MANY is not all, and strictly according to ITS DESIRE! And the recruits were branded like cattle, and how, though why how, slaves.

Quote: ccsr

You could not sanely refute any of my conviction,
"One fool can ask so many questions that even 100 wise men will not answer" (C)

Unbelievable, even a good proverb is so stupid to insert, this is a through penetration of the bottom of your logic and understanding of the text, and so rotten! Where is the STATEMENT and where is the QUESTIONS! Well

Quote: ccsr

And why then were "revision tales" introduced into circulation in the 18th century?

Quote: ccsr

They were afraid to give weapons to slaves, but they were even registered as militias from the peasants of Russia. Is there no contradiction here?

Quote: ccsr

And you forget about the metal collar - or haven't you heard of it either?

Quote: ccsr

In our history, Vlasov was with his army - and what does this prove in the light of the successes of building socialism?

Quote: ccsr

Why, then, Napoleon and his guards escaped from Russia - why did the partisans not capture him?

Quote: ccsr

So in Soviet times, there were a fig of defectors, and not only during the war. And what does this somehow characterize socialism?

Here I poke you into these "questions" of yours, miserable in general and but not left unanswered.

Quote: ccsr

By the way, from my point of view, Catherine the Great did even more for our state than Peter the Great - you can salivate here too ...

Yes, I do not care at all on your point that the one that this did not do anything against slavery. But weave Catherine after these words:

Quote: ccsr

Peter faced an extremely difficult task — literally from scratch to create a combat-ready regular army. It was a trial and error method. The king strove to personally control many things ..... The title could be obtained solely for their own merits.
In addition, the Petrine army became a real social lift ...

And what about this "lift" in your opinion?

Why did you drain Petya, and breathed like that, breathed like that? Plum master.

Quote: ccsr

And here, in response to numerous examples of such self-organization, snot begins:

These are not examples of self-organization to defend the Motherland, but simply fear that they will rob and take away food.

How absurd and wretched you are, twisting yourself, and braiding your homeland, after having done it !:

Quote: ccsr

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed

Quote: ccsr

Guerrilla units did not fight in battles with the regular army - you don't even know the tactics of guerrilla warfare, and you speculate on numbers for those who do not understand the differences.

These stupid questions and statements of yours were sorted out, refuted and smeared, and then Rodina went into action! Slave owners also remembered about the common "Motherland" when things were going tight.

Quote: ccsr

You can scare yourself as you please, but I do not believe that these "commanders" could organize a chain of simple peasants to repel the attack of an ordinary infantry battalion of the French army

You are so insignificant as a "history buff" that you are amazed! Chains (or rather loose formation) in the defense were formed only by the huntsmen, simple infantry acted in columns, line or square. It is a shame not to know this, but to demand from the peasants the qualities of the best shooters in the army, armed, moreover, with the best weapons, is simply bestiality.

Quote: ccsr

But to rob foragers - so no one denies, this was all the time. Great skill is not needed here, because then there were no automatic small arms, and edged weapons against a mass of people are not effective when there are several foragers.

The squalor of your military-historical knowledge is already clear. The basis of the actions of not only partisans, but even trained soldiers-saboteurs, is an attack on smaller enemy units or ambushes, and it doesn't matter if there is an automatic weapon or not. Just a matter of tactics. But you are not able to understand this, and the fact of attracting machine guns with machine guns in defense of 200 years of slavery in Russia also characterizes your mental abilities!

Quote: ccsr

It would be a shame to write about the "absent" heavy weapons in the Legion, but not to you, for the reasons already mentioned.

You are not in the subject here either, but sprinkle like saliva, it just becomes scary for your peace of mind. Never mind - such questions are not for you.

For the mournful mind "experts in military affairs" I will give the definition of light weapons:

The UN includes light machine guns, machine guns, light-barrel and machine-gun grenade launchers, MANPADS, ATGMs, mortars of a caliber of not more than 100 mm and other types of weapons.

Quote: ccsr

Yes, calm down with Athens - so nowhere is it indicated that the police were armed, because they were only allocated to accompany the chief.

In general, he poked your nose into the Bible, including! But your "objectivity" does not allow you to remember this, or the memory of the "goldfish".

Quote: ccsr

Make up something about using slaves in the army, otherwise it didn't go further than the porters.

You bleated about the fact that the slaves were not armed at all, and now you remembered about the army, it is good that not about the Strategic Missile Forces.

Quote: ccsr

But you burn further, since Marx took your whole mind away

"Better to lose with a clever than to find with a fool."

[Vladimir_2U]

Your squalor about:

Quote: ccsr

So serfdom in Russia is not slavery, but a necessary condition for survival in SEPARATE regions of Russia, and this is a fact

smeared.
This is a disgrace:

Quote: ccsr

And then, at the expense of the reserves of the nobleman, who was obliged to have them, and his serfs survived - alas, this was the reason for the preservation of serfdom until the 19th century

smeared like snot with a heel!

Quote: ccsr

For 25 years of service, the former owner of the serf was obliged to take him to the maintenance of the community, to provide housing,

smeared

Quote: ccsr

in general, unlike you, I know what it means to serve 25 years in the army

Hahaha!

Quote: ccsr

And why then were "revision tales" introduced into circulation in the 18th century?

Marazmishche about tax documents as an excuse for slavery, that's something!

Quote: ccsr

The whole trouble is that they, even with privileges, did not learn self-government - and this proves how justified the nobility was in tsarist times to somehow manage the mass of people.

This foulness about "the master's burden" as an excuse for slavery says a lot about you. Smeared!

Quote: ccsr

Give an example of how the peasants organized themselves at least to repel Napoleon's invasion in those places where his army passed.

You already call infantry battalions and automatic weapons to help your insanity of defending slavery, against dozens of examples of real people's organizers. What a shame.
Yes, I’m crucifying, you are fucked up in all positions, even where it is easy to check in the Internet, but the level of your development does not allow it.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, of course, in your opinion, it turns out that the prisoners of Nazi concentration camps were tattooed with numbers to "treat first." Amazing narrow-mindedness!

You have shown narrow-mindedness - I tell you again that many servicemen still put tattoos just in case of injury, as they did under Peter.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Here I poke you into these "questions" of yours, miserable in general and but not left unanswered.

So you cannot answer them sanely, they remain without your reasoned answer. Spitting on the monitor doesn't count.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

simple infantry operated in columns, line or square.

Well, where did your peasants fight against the French in this way?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

For the mournful mind "experts in military affairs" I will give the definition of light weapons:

Better study the staff of the Foreign Legion, if you have any idea about this.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In general, he poked your nose into the Bible, including!

I am not a believer, and the Bible is not a fact for me.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You bleated about the fact that you didn't arm slaves at all,

They really weren't armed - you just lied.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Better with a smart one to lose,

But this part is not about you - that's for sure.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

You have shown narrow-mindedness - I tell you again that many servicemen still put tattoos just in case of injury, as they did under Peter.

What a wretched person you are, now with a blood type and purely at will and not on the wrist, with Peter forcibly both recruits and on the wrist, your squalor does not make it clear that this is just a stigma and not a concern!
The recruit is absolutely not trained, no one even trusted him with guns, they put a stamp on the wrist so that they could catch someone who escaped from the place of gathering to the place of training. Your squalor and "knowledge" of military life does not let you understand that few people use the wrist in the army and similar structures for medical tattoos, because the limbs are vulnerable and can be lost.

The military most often tattooed on the chest, adhering to the principle that the arm can be lost in battle, and the main part of the body is more likely to remain intact.

Quote: ccsr

So you cannot answer them sanely, they remain without your reasoned answer. Spitting on the monitor doesn't count.

Quotes from various sources and clear reasoning against your inventions, unsupported, often illogical and out of place. You are not even able to comment on and apply proverbs and sayings. Your "attentiveness" and the ability to absorb the text is simply depressing, see below:

Quote: ccsr

simple infantry acted in columns, line or square.
Well, where did your peasants fight against the French in this way?

You didn't really see the words simple infantry just two sentences and one of them is yours? Do you understand what your mental incapacity shows? It was you who dragged the French battalion and chains. You demand from untrained peasants to master army linear tactics, what bestiality. The peasants could and did act only as partisans, without even having guns at all.

Quote: ccsr

but I don’t believe that these "commanders" could have organized chains of simple peasants to repel an attack by a regular infantry battalion of the French army. But to rob foragers - so no one denies, this was all the time.

Once again, for degenerates: guerrillas are obliged to avoid action against overwhelming forces.

Quote: ccsr

For the mournful mind "experts in military affairs" I will give the definition of light weapons:
Better study the staff of the Foreign Legion, if you have any idea about this.

How narrow-minded you are, you are not even able to look into the Internet to confirm your words.
"The UN includes light machine guns, hand-held and mounted grenade launchers, MANPADS, ATGMs, mortars of no more than 100 mm caliber and other types of weapons."

for artillery support - 120mm mortar MO-120-RT. ...
Of the samples of armored vehicles available for legionnaires, the following stand out:

BMP AMX-10P - French Infantry fighting vehicle 1970s. ...
The AMX-10RC wheeled tank is a wheeled armored vehicle armed with a 105 mm F2 rifled cannon. ...
Armored personnel carrier VAB - ...

You are so miserable that you have to poke your nose into the obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with military affairs! Any armor with something heavier than a machine gun is already a heavy weapon! Your words below turned out to be another bubble in a puddle!

Quote: ccsr

NOW the French Foreign Legion has no heavy weapons, only light

Quote: ccsr

You bleated about the fact that you didn't arm slaves at all,
They really weren't armed - you just lied.

You were given facts from two opposite sources, here's another:

The guards of private persons were equipped with armed slaves. In particular, the Romans made extensive use of slaves as guards. But that's not all. Slaves also served in the army! There is ample evidence of the widespread use of slaves as squires. For example, in the army of the Lydian king Croesus, slaves armed with spears accompanied every noble person on the campaign. ....
During the Second Punic War, the Romans drafted eight thousand slaves under the banner .... gladiators served as instructors in the Roman army. Sextus Pompey, entrenched in Sicily and for a long time opposed to Octavian and Antony, drew thirty thousand slaves into military service.

Ghouls - slave warriors - were needed as a counterbalance to tribal militias or feudal armies. Such troops had a number of serious advantages. They did not depend on local authorities. Through constant training, the soldiers acquired high fighting qualities. And the losses could be easily made up by purchasing new recruits in the slave market.

The governors turned a blind eye to everything, since the master's hand was hidden behind the actions of the slaves, and only the peasants suffered from them. But the slaves could not stop there. The owners armed the slaves and at the same time continued to shower them with beatings and bullying.

It is also fairly well known that the groups that fought in Rome made extensive use of detachments of armed slaves. Clodius had such detachments not only in the capital, but also armed rural slave-shepherds and, leading these detachments, according to Cicero, brought great harm to Etruria ... Constantly reproaching Clodius with his detachments of slaves, Cicero extolled Milo and Sextius for the fact that they purchased slaves and gladiators to defend the republic (Pro Sestio, 39, 44)

A special law directed against those who, with the help of armed slaves, expelled someone from the estate, shows that such cases were not rare (Pro Caecina, 20; Pro M. Tullio, 2-5)

Thus, your misery as a "historian" is proven!

Well, another proof of your victory over intelligence:

Quote: ccsr

Better with a smart one to lose,
But this part is not about you - that's for sure.

Certainly not about me, you titan "thoughts" kind!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But you burn further, since Marx took your whole mind away
"Better to lose with a clever than to find with a fool."

Obviously, I lost with Marx, but I don’t want to find anything with you.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

now with a blood group and purely at will and not on the wrist, with Peter forcibly and recruits and on the wrist, your squalor does not make it clear that this is just a stigma and not a concern!

You have wild ideas about that time, and you do not know that then the soldiers did not have any documents. Well, how to catch deserters or defectors?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

that few people use the wrist in the army and similar structures for medical tattoos,

You are now so smart, but then it was easier to do it on the wrist, so as not to undress in the cold to check whether it is a deserter or not.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You were given facts from two opposite sources, here's another:

Well, yes, after the uprising of Spartacus, the Romans only dreamed of arming the slaves - tell this to someone else.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Thus, your misery as a "historian" is proven!

I do not know where you get all this from and who the author is, and I doubt that he himself did the translation of Roman documents. So to build a theory on only one monograph, and even it is not clear who its author is, of course you can, only slave uprisings showed how dangerous it is to arm and train them in military affairs. The Romans did not want to understand this, so they were destroyed by the barbarians.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Of course not about me

Well at least you don't dispute that. I wish you success in your lies - more often use Saltychikha to screw up the history of our people.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

your squalor does not make it clear that this is just a stigma and not a concern!

You have wild ideas about that time, and you do not know that then the soldiers did not have any documents. Well, how to catch deserters or defectors?

Well, indeed, for you the branding of recruits is the norm, it is not a sign of a slave, everything is all right gentlemen. And you still bleat something about the absence of slavery. Do you think branding RECRUITS is the norm! You are fucked up once again! Congratulations.

Quote: ccsr

you do not know that the soldiers did not have any documents then

The slaves both in Rome and in Greece did not have documents either, but even there they were not stigmatized without exception! Do the remnants of the mind allow you to understand this? Your wretched idea of ​​that time does not let you understand that very few people had documents, in principle, slaves need documents only in case of independent movement, so that they, slaves, would not be appropriated! Any non-local passportless outlaw! And the stamp on the hand of the escaped RECRUIT did not allow the cunning master to assign it.

Quote: ccsr

You are now so smart, but then it was easier to do it on the wrist, so as not to undress in the cold to check whether it is a deserter or not.

Cattle and slaves were branded precisely for such purposes, to find a runaway! You directly defend the most shameful phenomenon, a direct sign of slavery! You are fucked up once again!

Quote: ccsr

I do not know where you get all this from and who the author is, and I doubt that he himself did the translation of Roman documents. So to build a theory on only one monograph, and even it is not clear who its author is, of course you can, only slave uprisings showed how dangerous it is to arm and train them in military affairs. The Romans did not want to understand this, so they were destroyed by the barbarians.

What prevents you from refuting, bringing a couple of quotes? Is your modesty innate? What a disgrace, Latin is taught even now, and you are trying to rub in something about "translation difficulties"! You obviously do not have enough mind to understand that there were people more educated than you, like Shtaerman EM with his "From the history of the ideology of the Roman slave owners", for example. Refute it, just not by your bleating and jumping from uncomfortable questions. And this "I do not know where you get it", but from the Internet, we are sitting in the Internet, if you have not noticed yet.

Quote: ccsr

Well at least you don't dispute that. I wish you success in your lies - more often use Saltychikha to screw up the history of our people.

Yes, of course, you are so passionately shielding the slave owners, fortunately so miserable that the only thing left is to lie, because the saltychikh poked you, in response to the "millionaires", to the entanglement of Suvorov and Ushakov, to your cheap demagoguery.
You got fucked up with the dumbest economic justification of serfdom in Russia, I personally know a completely different version, much more logical, but by the 17th century it had already become obsolete. Well, insanity - "The master is obliged to take care of the serfs"!
You got fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves", both on the farm and on the partisan issue.
You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine!
Squalor in the defense of slavery!

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Do you think branding RECRUITS is the norm!

Of course - so that before the battle he would not run to the side of the enemy or defect. Quite a reasonable measure in the absence of documents.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And the stamp on the hand of the escaped RECRUIT did not allow the cunning master to assign it.

Well, you yourself explained one of the reasons, otherwise you pretended to be a lover of truth, but it turns out there was another good reason.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

What prevents you from refuting, bringing a couple of quotes?

I see no reason to explain something to the Russophobe.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You fucked up with the dumbest economic justification of serfdom in Russia,

I didn’t do it, but it’s just beyond the understanding of such illiterate people like you. It sucks you studied Marx ...

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves",

For military affairs, yes. And you will not refute this in any way, because you do not understand what Napoleon's regular army is.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine!
Squalor in the defense of slavery!

You just have to beat your head against the monitor - hysteria is obvious ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

You just have to beat your head against the monitor - hysteria is obvious ..

And why fight, just once again I will remind you of your nonsense, otherwise you "forget" them over and over again:
You got fucked up with the dumbest economic justification of serfdom in Russia, I personally know a completely different version, much more logical, but by the 17th century it had already become obsolete. Well, insanity - "The master is obliged to take care of the serfs"!
You got fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves", both on the farm and on the partisan issue.
You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine!
Squalor in the defense of slavery!

Quote: ccsr

Do you think branding RECRUITS is the norm!

Of course - so that before the battle he would not run to the side of the enemy or defect. Quite a reasonable measure in the absence of documents.

You are enchantingly wretched! "I didn't run away towards the enemy", And this miracle gurgled something about military psychology ?! Yes, pile on the enemy, whether the deserter has documents or not, whether he has a stigma or not. Do you really consider stigmatizing a person against his will as the absence of slavery. This is the diagnosis.
And this is not counting the fact that a village guy is more complicated than a plow, he could not see anything, let alone a gun, who would let him approach the enemy without a cruel drill and oath? Only the degenerate cannot fail to understand this.

Quote: ccsr

And the stamp on the hand of the escaped RECRUIT did not allow the cunning master to assign it.
Well, you yourself explained one of the reasons, otherwise you pretended to be a lover of truth, but it turns out there was another good reason.

Go crazy, this is a figure of speech, in fact, I don't care, but it didn't fit into your mind that this is your confirmation of slavery in Russia in those years. They brand a thing or cattle or a slave so that they cannot be appropriated.

Quote: ccsr

What prevents you from refuting, bringing a couple of quotes?
I see no reason to explain something to the Russophobe.

You simply cannot do it, you know the name of the one who wants to do it, but cannot: impotent.

Quote: ccsr

I didn’t do it, but it’s just beyond the understanding of such illiterate people like you. It sucks you studied Marx ...

Provide a quote confirming your words!

Quote: ccsr

And then, due to the reserves of the nobleman, who was obliged to have them, his serfs survived

Quote: ccsr

So serfdom in Russia is not slavery, but a necessary condition for survival in SEPARATE regions of Russia, and this is a fact.

Confirm this insanity with something, well, at least from Marx, you have studied it perfectly, since you reproach me.

Quote: ccsr

You fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves",

For military affairs, yes. And you will not refute this in any way, because you do not understand what Napoleon's regular army is.

The Russian peasants did what they could, created partisan detachments and acted on the basis of available forces, training and weapons.

The partisans are destroying the lines of communication of the occupying power. They make expropriations at the supply bases of the occupation authorities, they ambush the occupation authorities when they try to pursue them.
Irish Republican Army Volunteer Textbook.

D. V. Davydov: “Guerrilla warfare consists of neither very fractional nor primary enterprises, for it is not engaged in the burning of one or two barns, not in tearing down pickets and not in inflicting direct blows on the main forces of the enemy.
It embraces and crosses the entire length of the path, from the rear of the opposing army to that space of the earth, which is determined to supply it with troops, food and charges, through which, blocking the flow of the source of her strength and existence, she subjects her to the blows of her army exhausted, hungry, disarmed and devoid of the saving bonds of subordination. Here is a guerrilla war in the full sense of the word! "

M. A. Drobov: “... A small war can ... be defined as impromptu active actions of small (in comparison with the regular army) detachments organized by the population, army, government or party according to a special type for each case (region) to apply to the enemy of direct material or other damage wherever possible, and by all means available to them". "Small war, partisanship and sabotage",

You, denying the Russian peasantry in the mind and ability to organize themselves, are no better than the real Russophobes, and the noblemen of that time, many of whom even spoke poorly in Russian, may simply not understand this.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Provide a quote confirming your words!

All your stupidity has long been refuted by the outstanding historian E. Spitsyn:

The question of the primordial slavery of the Russian people is a real slander against our distant ancestors. In the West, they like to say that Russia is a slave country that has never known democracy.
By endlessly repeating this lie: passing it from mouth to mouth, relentlessly replicating it in its media, the West has actually turned it into the truth. Moreover, not only for our own people, but also for many others in the post-Soviet space.

I see no point in refuting your home-grown theories - you are just a demagogue and nothing more. Try to refute the historian E. Spitsyn.

[Vladimir_2U]

Have you read anything from Spitsyn besides this paragraph - listened?

Quote: ccsr

All your stupidity has long been refuted by the outstanding historian E. Spitsyn:

The historian Spitsyn has confirmed your complete intellectual impotence. It’s not even funny to me, I’m already ashamed to argue with such an intellectual nonentity as you.
Okay, you are not able to understand that Spitsyn does not deny serfdom as a form of slavery, but primordial slavery of the Russian people

Quote: ccsr

Question about the primordial slavery of the Russian people - a real slander on our distant ancestors. In the West, they like to assert that Russia is a slave country that has never known democracy.

Not a word about serfdom.

But how to explain this, except for your impenetrable stupidity?

Below, Spitsyn says that: "The serfdom regime has in many ways acquired slavish features."

https://oblako-media.ru/behold/YybTDgK9ICU/e-yu-spitsin-i-n-p-tanyshina-o-krepostnom-prave-agressivnoy-rossii-i-evropeyskih-fobiyah/

E.Yu. Spitsyn and N.P. Tanshin "On serfdom," aggressive Russia "and European phobias". Channel MPGU. Abonnieren159 Tsd. ... Serfdom as the dependence of the peasant on the landowner is the 11th century. Widely spread as a form of slavery in densely populated areas by the 16th century and legally enshrined in the cathedral code of 1649. In historiography, there are two opposite views on the circumstances and time of the emergence of serfdom - the so-called “specified” and “non-specified” versions.

And here Spitsyn just says

The level of the landowner's rights over his peasants turned them in the full sense into slaves.

41:25
https://labuda.blog/667387.html

The historian Yevgeny Spitsyn continues the description of the time of Ivan the Terrible within the framework of the Pages of History program. This time the subject of enslavement of the peasants was touched upon.
No matter how many opinions and points of view there are on this topic, no matter what colors historians of different kinds paint the time of serfdom, only one thing is absolutely clear - the enslavement of the peasants was no different from slavery.

You see, I don’t want to offend anyone, but in your case these are not insults, but a statement of fact.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Okay, you are not able to understand that Spitsyn does not deny serfdom as a form of slavery, but the primordial slavery of the Russian people

So this then confirms my thesis that he could not self-organize even in order to throw off slavery, and even more so was not able to organize an armed resistance of the regular army of Napoleon.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Not a word about serfdom.
But how to explain this, except for your impenetrable stupidity?

Only by the fact that you distort the meaning of Spitsyn's text - if there was no slavery, then no rights of landowners could introduce it into the Russian Empire, even at the level of mentality.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The level of the landowner's rights over his peasants turned them in the full sense into slaves.

The level of rights does not mean that they were used as slaves - the state, represented by the prosecutor, may now require you to be sentenced to life imprisonment (and recently to take your life), but this does not mean that you will necessarily be convicted, especially if you do not break the law.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

No matter how many opinions and points of view there are on this topic, no matter what colors historians of different kinds paint the time of serfdom,

But the opinion of those who believe that in this case people like you, for the sake of their blinkeredness, smear everything with black paint:

can't help but say about the tendentiousness of Soviet historiography, which, talking about the "accursed tsarism" in every possible way, exaggerated the colors. In addition, the percentage of serfs in the 19th century was constantly declining (a particularly strong decline occurred under Emperor Nicholas). So, by the 10th revision of 1858, the share of serfs in the entire population of the Russian Empire fell to 37%. In a number of lands there were no serfs at all - in Estland, Courland, Livonia (Ostsee provinces), in the Land of the Black Sea army, in the Primorsky region, the Semipalatinsk region and the Siberian Kirghiz region, in the Derbent province (with the Caspian region), in the Erivan, Arkhangelsk and Shemakhi provinces, Trans-Baikal and Yakutsk regions. In many provinces, the percentage of serfs was very small.

https://topwar.ru/11031-chernyy-mif-o-russkom-rabstve.html
Even if we assume that serfdom was slavery, then in any case it was a private phenomenon in some areas, and not the basis of the Russian Empire.

[Vladimir_2U]

What a shame, to cite as the last argument of the historian Spitsyn, and he smeared your obscurantism.

Quote: ccsr

So this then confirms my thesis that he could not self-organize even in order to throw off slavery

Your wretched "thesis" is just one of many equally wretched attempts to shield 200 years of slavery in Russia, calling it serfdom, let me remind you:

Quote: ccsr

So serfdom in Russia is not slavery, but a necessary condition for survival in SEPARATE regions of Russia, and this is a fact.

Quote: ccsr

Okay, you are not able to understand that Spitsyn does not deny serfdom as a form of slavery, but the primordial slavery of the Russian people

So this then confirms my thesis that he could not self-organize even in order to throw off slavery You are poor as a historian and pathetic as a person. How, well, how can your degenerative thesis be confirmed? NOBODY was able to self-organize and throw off slavery from below, but the king still had enough sense to remove slavery from above in time.

You are completely fucked up with this stupidity, but you continue to cling to it.

Quote: ccsr

even more so he was not able to organize armed resistance of Napoleon's regular army

Once again I poke you into the partisan movement of the Russian peasantry:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The Russian peasants did what they could, created partisan detachments and acted on the basis of available forces, training and weapons.

You this thesis, confirmed from many sources, could not refute in any way, except as verbal diarrhea.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The level of the landowner's rights over his peasants turned them in the full sense into slaves.

Quote: ccsr

Only by the fact that you distort the meaning of Spitsyn's text - if there was no slavery, then no rights of landowners could introduce it into the Russian Empire, even at the level of mentality.

With this verbal diarrhea, you demonstrate the intellectual level of the toilet bowl. The outstanding (this is your definition!) Historian E. Spitsyn, after clarification, directly says on the radio "Aurora": "The level of the landowner's rights over his peasants turned them into slaves in the full sense" 41:25 minutes https://labuda.blog/667387.html This is the direct speech of the historian whom you called outstanding! And he leaves no stone unturned from your position as obscurantist. But it was you who brought Spitsyn as the defender of your position, who are you after that?

The level of rights does not mean that they were used as slaves - the state, represented by the prosecutor, may now require you to be sentenced to life imprisonment (and recently to take your life), but this does not mean that you will necessarily be convicted, especially if you do not break the law.

This is a debilitating verbal diarrhea and an openly stupid example, what is its stupidity? And the fact that the landowner could do anything with his slave, and for this he did not need a prosecutor or a court, the landowner himself was both a prosecutor and a court. And yet, in the Roman slave state there were both prosecutors and courts, but it was still classic slavery.

Quote: ccsr

So, by the 10th revision of 1858, the share of serfs in the whole population Russian Empire fell to 37%

Quote: ccsr

Even if we assume that serfdom was slavery, then in any case it was a private phenomenon in some areas, and not the basis of the Russian Empire.

The wretchedness of your intellect does not let you understand that 37% of the slaves of the entire population, with almost complete approval of the "elite", in just three years from the abolition of slavery, this is slavery, aggravated by the fact that slaves were compatriots and fellow believers. More than a third of the slaves of the population! Figures as in ancient Greece and comparable to the Italic region of other Rome!

Quote: ccsr

Even if we assume that serfdom was slavery

Serfdom was somehow justified until the middle of the 16th century, and from the middle of the 17th century was slavery. And the Russian peasantry was enslaved with a sly glanders, and they crushed the resistance at best with whips and red-hot iron, but mainly with fire and a bayonet.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You this thesis, confirmed from many sources, could not refute in any way, except as verbal diarrhea.

Bring at least one battle between peasants and a battalion (I’m not even talking about a regiment) of the French army to understand that your propaganda campaigns have nothing to do with real military operations.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

This is the direct speech of the historian whom you named outstanding!

He's outstanding - I have no doubt about that. And he correctly noted that the topic of slavery was imposed on us by Western propagandists. And given the fact that serfdom did not exist throughout the country, this is naturally a consequence of the economic relations of that period in certain regions - Spitsyn simply did not begin to investigate the roots of this phenomenon.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Serfdom was somehow justified until the middle of the 16th century, and from the middle of the 17th century it became slavery.

Yes, you are just a swindler - it means that until the middle of the 16th century the country needed it, and from the middle of the 17th century, according to your wishes, this was no longer necessary. You lived then and you know what Russia needed and how to organize society in order to reflect external threats. Are you out of your mind at all?
Your lies do not stand up to criticism, if only because there were millionaire serfs, many of them received their freedom after the death of the landowner, many serfs were sent to study, some were taken as spouses, men serfs in the army not only became free, but also received nobility. And there were many other things in the Russian Empire that were different from slavery and which you do not want to see due to your limitations, since you are a typical Russophobe and a cheap propagandist.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Bring at least one battle between peasants and a battalion (I’m not even talking about a regiment) of the French army to understand that your propaganda campaigns have nothing to do with real military operations.

The idiocy and arrogance of your demand for the peasant partisans, who, in general, no one ordered to create partisan detachments, is shown in general by a professional military man:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

D. V. Davydov: “Guerrilla warfare consists neither in very fractional, nor in primary enterprises, for it is not engaged in burning one or two barns, not tearing up pickets and not by direct strikes against the main forces of the enemy.
She embraces and crosses the entire length of the routes, from the rear of the opposing army to that space of the earth, which is determined to supply it with troops, food and charges, through which blocking the flow of the source of its strength and existence, it subjects it to the blows of its army exhausted, hungry, disarmed and deprived of the saving bonds of subordination... Here is a partisan war in the full sense of the word! "

It was written by a professional military man, the most famous and successful military partisan who understood and knew the essence of that time and the war, unlike such a wretched "expert" like you.

Quote: ccsr

He's outstanding - I have no doubt about that. And he correctly noted that the topic of slavery was imposed on us by Western propagandists.

You brazenly, and as usual stupidly, threw out one of the key words in the historian's thesis "primordial"

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The question of the primordial slavery of the Russian people is a real slander against our distant ancestors.

If you do not have enough intelligence, I will explain, they become slaves and MAKE slaves by deception or by force, the Russian serfs MADE slaves by deception and kept in this state by force! And Spitsyn is talking about this!
And I repeat again, for the arrogant and stupid:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The outstanding (this is your definition!) Historian E. Spitsyn, after clarification, directly says on the radio "Aurora": "The level of the landowner's rights over his peasants turned them in the full sense into slaves" 41:25 min. https://labuda.blog/667387.html

The entire program is about serfdom, its forms and its transformation into slavery, but your arrogance and stupidity does not allow you to just watch this program, but allows this idiot to broadcast: "Spitsyn simply did not begin to investigate the roots of this phenomenon."

Quote: ccsr

And given the fact that serfdom did not exist throughout the country, this is naturally a consequence of the economic relations of that period in certain regions - Spitsyn simply did not begin to investigate the roots of this phenomenon

What kind of idiot you have to be to write such a thing? Spitsyn studied serfdom from beginning to end, you just had the impudence and amazing stupidity, not knowing a damn thing about this historian to see one phrase of him, not understand it at all (why am I not surprised?) And imagine that Spitsyn defends serfdom.

Quote: ccsr

Serfdom was somehow justified until the middle of the 16th century, and from the middle of the 17th century it became slavery.

Yes, you are just a swindler - it means that until the middle of the 16th century the country needed it, and from the middle of the 17th century, according to your wishes, this was no longer necessary. You lived then and you know what Russia needed and how to organize society in order to reflect external threats. Are you out of your mind at all?

Only idiocy does not let you understand that serfdom did not stand still once and for all having appeared, but changed according to the conditions, but in the 17th century it was replaced by a number of acts with slavery, and in the 18th century it was also made just the basis for the parasitism of the nobility on the peasants. But at the same time, economic development by the beginning of the 18th century at the latest made serfdom unnecessary! And this is exactly what Spitsyn says in a number of his lectures and broadcasts. But amazing arrogance and stupidity did not give you even one eye or ear to check his video!

Quote: ccsr

Your lies do not stand up to criticism, if only because there were millionaire serfs, many of them received their freedom after the death of the landowner, many serfs were sent to study, some were taken as spouses, men serfs in the army not only became free, but also received nobility.

I have smeared your words in defense of the enslavement of a huge part of the peasantry repeatedly and will not be too lazy to repeat:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"The landowner could have deceived the peasant - he could get a ransom, but not let him go. After all, the peasant could not complain about the landowner's failure to fulfill his oral obligation ...
Another legal feature of Russian serfdom affected here. Serf marriages were not entirely legal. The landowner, releasing the peasant, was not automatically obliged to grant freedom to his wife and children who were in the owner's property. Both during the sale and purchase, and during the release of freedom, the families of serfs could also be separated and split up ...
... Count Irakli Morkov allowed his serf, the famous artist Vasily Tropinin, to marry a free woman, but instead of a free leave, he wrote both of them into serfs (to which he was entitled by law). "

Quote: ccsr

men serfs in the army not only became free, but also received the nobility

This is already outright debbilism, simply amazing. "Could get" and "got" only for a complete degenerate are equivalent, or for an advertiser.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"a huge number" before had to serve 25 years under arms with an average life expectancy of 35 - 40 years.

And I didn’t know it yet, that under Peter the Great they were conscripted for life!

Quote: ccsr

And there were many other things in the Russian Empire that were different from slavery and which you do not want to see due to your limitations, since you are a typical Russophobe and a cheap propagandist.

Fuck, and in the Roman Empire there were a lot of things different from slavery, and in Ancient Greece there are a lot of things, it’s how narrow-minded you need to be to give such an example to defend slavery! And it's you a Russophobe, whatever you imagine about yourself, because you consider slavery to be a blessing for the Russian people and Russia, and deny the Russian people the ability to organize themselves.
Well, as a "connoisseur" of history, you are insignificant.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I have smeared your words in defense of the enslavement of a huge part of the peasantry repeatedly and will not be too lazy to repeat:

Yes, it was you who smeared snot here, completely not understanding how serfdom in Russia differed from the American slave trade in the 19th century. By the way, Russian ships at that time participated in the capture of slave traders - you will never be able to explain this, if we proceed from the fact that the peasants in Russia were slaves.

the ships of the Russian fleet really carried a combat watch in the Atlantic, intercepting the ships of slave traders. And the slave traders threw their "goods" overboard in order not to pay large fines. It is pleasant to think that some Russian captains, according to the code of noble honor, considered slave traders pirates, and if they caught them, they immediately hung them on yards.

What was the point for Russia to initiate the prohibition of the slave trade in the 19th century, if, according to your version, slavery flourished in our country - can you come up with an excuse, or will you start lying again?

The slave trade began to be banned only in the XNUMXth century, and Russia became the initiator of this ban. Arguing about the "slavish" character of the Russians, about the Russian habit of cruelty and the most terrible forms of suppression of human dignity, the Europeans somehow do not remember this well. It's a pity ... It will not hurt them to remind them.
After all, it was the Russians who raised the issue of the slave trade at the Vienna Congress. They saw and knew not so much about it, except that during international expeditions they could observe the slave trade and slave labor on plantations. But, apparently, these scenes made a strong enough impression on them. And eyewitness accounts made a sufficient impression on the highest nobility, the participants in the Vienna Congress. And it's true that there were no racist "theories" in Russia.
In 1814, the Paris Peace Treaty restricts the slave trade. Note - not slavery, only the hunt for slaves. The Declaration on the Prohibition of the Slave Trade is annexed to the General Act of the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

that serfdom did not freeze once and for all having appeared, but changed according to the conditions, but in the 17th century it was replaced by slavery with a number of acts, and in the 18th century it was also made simply the basis for the parasitism of the nobility on the peasants. But at the same time, economic development by the beginning of the 18th century at the latest made serfdom unnecessary!

You cannot oppose anything to this!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

men serfs in the army not only became free, but also received the nobility
This is already outright debbilism, simply amazing. "Could get" and "got" only for a complete degenerate are equivalent, or for an advertiser.

This too!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

"a huge number" before had to serve 25 years under arms with an average life expectancy of 35 - 40 years.
And I didn’t know it yet, that under Peter the Great they were conscripted for life!

What about the social elevator?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Spitsyn simply did not begin to investigate the roots of this phenomenon.
What kind of idiot you have to be to write such a thing? Spitsyn studied serfdom from the beginning

No comment.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It was written by a professional military man, the most famous and successful military partisan who understood and knew the essence of that time and the war, unlike such a wretched "expert" like you.

Your stupidity about the inability of the Russian peasantry to engage in guerrilla warfare has been refuted, even though you even called the Foreign Legion for help with automatic weapons.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Count Irakli Morkov allowed his serf, the famous artist Vasily Tropinin, to marry a free woman, but instead of being freed, he registered both as serfs (which he had the right to do by law). "

Once again I poke your nose at your "millionaires", they were fractions of a percent to the tens of millions remaining in slavery.
Well, and quite an idiotic appeal for help from Spitsyn, who promotes directly opposite views.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And it's you a Russophobe, no matter what you imagine about yourself, because you consider slavery to be a blessing for the Russian people and Russia, and deny the Russian people the ability to organize themselves.
Well, as a "connoisseur" of history, you are insignificant.

To this you did not answer, you lost all your excuses and previous arguments, every single one and then another "outstanding historian" with a completely drawn argument went into action.

Quote: ccsr

Yes it is you here smeared snot, completely not understanding how serfdom in Russia differed from the American slave trade in the 19th century.

As usual for the narrow-minded defender of the slavery of the Russian peasantry, you brought a quote in defense of your obscurantism, without bothering at all where it came from. And you need to be a complete idiot to deny human trafficking in Russia.

Quote: ccsr

the ships of the Russian fleet really carried a combat watch in the Atlantic, intercepting the ships of slave traders. And slavers threw their "goods" overboard so as not to pay large fines

And this is the famous tsarist and propagandon of the Medina book! Well, as usual, the argument for the latent slave owner, "And in America, blacks are hanged." And the only difference is that slaves were brought to both America from Africa and a little from Ireland, and in Russia Russian peasants were enslaved from birth, by "inheritance". And you, a narrow-minded creature, do not even understand that Medinsky himself, although a propagonton, is not an idiot, unlike you, and does not directly praise serfdom, and tries not to mention it at all.

By the way, one of your "arguments" in defense of slavery in Russia, the most gnid, as for me:

Quote: ccsr

The whole trouble is that they, even with privileges, did not learn self-government - and this proves how justified the nobility was in tsarist times to somehow manage the mass of people.

But only he is not new, like you, justifiers of slavery poured into his ears for a long time:

the same Gribovsky offered another explanation for justifying serfdom. He likened the peasants to small children, whom a wise parent, before reaching the prime of his life and mind, does not give the will to do things according to his own understanding. So there was absolutely no point in freeing the peasants from their natural serfdom.

https://www.prlib.ru/item/432883

Quote: ccsr

What was the point for Russia to initiate the prohibition of the slave trade in the 19th century, if, according to your version, slavery flourished in our country - can you come up with an excuse, or will you start lying again?

Yes, it makes the same sense as for the United States now to accuse Russia of being anti-democratic and to impose sanctions against Nord Stream under this case, only for a narrow-minded latent slave owner this is incomprehensible. Cover your own tattered pants with screams about the nakedness of another, that's all. And about my lies, you only have the possibility of all sorts of ridiculous, sidetracking and often insulting the Russian people in the face of the peasantry, nagging and "" arguments "to mold, in response to my" lies ".

You got fucked up with the dumbest economic justification of serfdom in Russia, I personally know a completely different version, much more logical, but by the 17th century it had already become obsolete. Well, insanity - "The master is obliged to take care of the serfs"!
You got fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves", both on the farm and on the partisan issue.
You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine!
Squalor in the defense of slavery!

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You got fucked up with the dumbest economic justification of serfdom in Russia, I personally know a completely different version, much more logical, but by the 17th century it had already become obsolete. Well, insanity - "The master is obliged to take care of the serfs"!
You got fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves", both on the farm and on the partisan issue.
You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine!
Squalor in the defense of slavery!

Better tell the verbiage, how several tens of thousands of slaves with weapons went to the Borodino field and, under the leadership of the slave owners, repulsed Napoleon's troops, and did not scatter even before the start of the battle or after its end. Well, what's the point for slaves to fight for their noble master, since his position did not change from the result of the battle.
By the way, the master was obliged to maintain the stocks of the seed fund at least until the next harvest - such were the orders for the nobles under serfdom.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Better tell the verbiage

Of course, there is nothing to cover, but I will remind and add;
"You are fucked up with the dumbest economic justification of serfdom in Russia, I personally know a completely different version, much more logical, but by the 17th century it had already outlived its own. Well, insanity is - "The master is obliged to take care of the serfs"!
You fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves"that in the economy, that in the partisan issue.
You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine! "
Yes, full of all the dumbest diarrhea from you in defense of slavery in Russia in addition to the above, but especially ridiculous is Spitsyn's call as an outstanding scientist (your definition) in defense of serfdom, and he directly calls serfdom slavery
41:25 minutes https://labuda.blog/667387.html. You got fucked up in this episode, even more shameful than with the call for help of the MODERN French Foreign Legion!
So the quotes from Medinsky are so easy.

Quote: ccsr

Better tell the verbiage, how several tens of thousands of slaves with weapons went to the Borodino field and, under the leadership of the slave owners, repulsed Napoleon's troops, and did not scatter even before the start of the battle or after its end. Well, what's the point for slaves to fight for their noble master, since his position did not change from the result of the battle.

That is, all your other arguments are miserable for you already and you yourself understand, now you are asking me to analyze your own verbal diarrhea? A cheap demagogic trick. Yes, please, at the same time it is possible, due to your wretchedness as a "historian" and "expert in military affairs and psychology," to trample on, without pleasure, but still.
Firstly, to fight for the king, and when becoming soldiers the recruits took the oath to him, precisely so that the position of the soldier does not change, namely, so that he does not become a deserter and not be hanged, it is a pity that your intellectual inconsistency does not make it clear.
Secondly, after the oath, the soldiers from a complete insignificance of a serf slave became slaves of the king, and the most powerful brainwashing from early childhood consolidated the ideology "For Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland" ignorance, and the knowledge but forgetfulness of this is an indicator of hypocrisy. Your mental failure is already obvious, it remains to find out your sincere ignorance or hypocrisy.
And thirdly, I’m really afraid you don’t understand this, the artel of a soldier’s life and the upbringing of older comrades, in fact, the nepotism of a soldier’s artel, and even slaves fight for the family.

Quote: ccsr

By the way, the master was obliged to maintain the stocks of the seed fund at least until the next harvest - such were the orders for the nobles under serfdom.

The idiocy of this remark as a defense of slavery is understandable, you do not know the simplest things about military affairs, but here is the agrarian-historical question, what can you understand in it? Firstly, the stock was formed at the expense of the labor of serfs, and secondly, it was used for sowing BAR's plowing, and for sowing the peasant allotment, PEASANT grain was used! And thirdly, where is the confirmation of "duty", where is the confirmation that the seed grain was given to the serfs for sowing their allotment? Where is the quote? Are you already afraid to give links? It's clear when they poke their nose into the stupidest quotation, who is pleased.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Of course, there is nothing to cover, but I will remind and add;

You don't have to add anything, I already understood that you are one of those who foaming at the mouth will prove that Stalin created collective farms in order to make free peasants slaves. And those who did not want to go to collective farms, he dispossessed and sent to the GULAG. That is why you have such a nervous reaction to serfdom, although it, like collective farms, was only a system of economic activity at certain stages in the history of our country. By the way, you never explained why tens of thousands of "slaves" in 1812-1813 did not defect to the Napoleonic army, or did not stay in Europe when they captured Paris. You will never refute and explain this.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

You don't have to add anything, I already understood that you are one of those who foaming at the mouth will prove that Stalin created collective farms in order to make free peasants slaves. And those who did not want to go to collective farms, he dispossessed and sent to the GULAG.

Yes, it is already clear that you are a stupid and latent slave owner, from the "blaharoded"

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Yes, it is already clear that you are a stupid and latent slave owner, from the "blaharoded"

In fact, all my ancestors are peasants, but unlike you, I am not blinded by illiterate propaganda, and your pearls, just say who is a fool here, who does not know how to distinguish works of art from historical processes. Burn about Saltychikha - you do it better than analyzing historical facts.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

You don't have to add anything, I already understood that you are one of those who foaming at the mouth will prove that Stalin created collective farms in order to make free peasants slaves. And those who did not want to go to collective farms, he dispossessed and sent to the GULAG. That is why you have such a nervous reaction to serfdom, although it, like collective farms, was only a system of economic activity at certain stages in the history of our country.

As a lover of history, you are a frank zero, and as a person, too: you attributed to me something that I did not write and did not say, and did not think at all, and immediately "exposed", the cheapest trick, dear. And as a "historian", in your squalor, you dragged even the modern Foreign Legion into the defense of slavery, and having shown shameful incompetence in elementary military matters, now you also dragged collective farms, what's next, "Star Wars" remember?
Your hardened mind knocks into a heap and serfdom and enslavement and collective farms in the same place. Actually, the outstanding historian (your definition) Spitsyn clearly and unequivocally called the later serfdom slavery! You shamefully do not want to see this.

Quote: ccsr

but unlike you, I am not blinded by illiterate propaganda,

Your squalor does not let you understand that I may be blinded by illiterate propaganda, but only this propaganda is not more than a hundred years old, and in your feeble mind you are generally operating with almost three hundred years of "arguments" about the inferiority of the Russian peasantry!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

the same Gribovskiy offered one more explanation for justifying serfdom. He likened the peasants to small children, whom a wise parent, before reaching the prime of his life and mind, does not give the will to do things according to his own understanding.

You and Gribovsky, two titans of thought, 300 years apart, they found each other!

Quote: ccsr

and your pearls, just say who is a fool here, who does not know how to distinguish works of art from historical processes. Burn about Saltychikha - you do it better than analyzing historical facts.

Help, your memory is just gold, like that of the fish of the same name, but I poke you nothing:
"You got fucked up with the stupidest economic justification of serfdom in Russia, I personally know a completely different version, much more logical, but it has already outlived its own by the 17th century. Well, marasmus -" The master must take care of the serfs! "
You got fucked up with literally Nazi "Russian peasants could not organize themselves", both on the farm and on the partisan issue.
You are fucked up, and shamefully with collars.
They just disgusted themselves with the excuse to brand the recruits.
Poorly, just poorly handled the weapons of the Foreign Legion! Here you don't even need to shovel the sources, just fill in the search engine! "
Yes, full of all the dumbest diarrhea from you in defense of slavery in Russia in addition to the above, but Spitsyn's call as an outstanding scientist (your definition) in defense of serfdom is especially ridiculous, and he directly calls serfdom slavery
41:25 minutes https://labuda.blog/667387.html. You got fucked up in this episode, even more shameful than with the call for help of the MODERN French Foreign Legion!

Quote: ccsr

you do it better than analyzing historical facts.

What kind of analyst you are, it's just something!

[Black lotos]

Quote: ccsr

Serfdom did not even exist in all territories of the Russian Empire - our genius Mikhail Lomonosov is the clearest example of this.

Classical Russian serfdom could not exist where it was economically inexpedient. What kind of serfdom is there in the North?
Agriculture in the North is difficult to deal with, so serfdom was irrelevant. But laborers were assigned to the monasteries, they worked almost the same as serfs, and made up a third or a quarter of the population
Pomors were not tied to the land and were not obliged to cultivate it, instead they were free to engage in trades and crafts

[ccsr]

Quote: Black Lotos

Classical Russian serfdom could not exist where it was economically inexpedient. What kind of serfdom is there in the North?

So I'm saying that serfdom was not the basis of the political structure of our country at that time, but purely economic relations within certain groups of the population in different regions of our state.
By the way, a large number of freemen became after the campaigns to the south, when they conquered lands from the Ottoman Empire, and people were needed to create cities and settlements of Novorossiya. In Shevchenko's works about the love of a peasant woman for a serf, and her tragedies, if my memory serves me right, that is, in the Ukraine there were villages with free peasants and villages where serfs lived.
A similar situation was in the Urals and Siberia, where a huge number of non-serfs also lived. And they rub in on us that supposedly the then serfdom was slavery, although it was even in essence completely different phenomena.

[Blacksmith 55]

Slavery has not been abolished, it has been modified.

[Vend]

Quote: Aaron Zawi

Of course it existed, as in any early middle age state. Moreover, in a state that occupies a border position between the Great Steppe and settled Europe.

Classical slavery did not exist in Ancient Rus.

[Finches]

We are all, to one degree or another, someone's slaves! Even a seemingly almighty genie, but "I am your friend, but I am a slave to the lamp!" So the question is essentially philosophical - resting against the correct definition of slavery!

[rocket757]

Quote: Finches

correct definition of slavery!

So FOR FOOD, they work in all countries ... in general, this is a very conditional indicator, requiring specific criteria for comparison.

[lucul]

So FOR FOOD, they work in all countries ... in general, this is a very conditional indicator, requiring specific criteria for comparison.

Not a slave is a person who works for himself. But not everyone can do that, many simply sell their services.

[rocket757]

Quote: lucul

many are simply selling their services.

And what, try to tell those who "sell their services" that he is, in fact, a slave ... you can even part with your teeth ... especially since industry, production, cannot do without hired labor, " sold "ts.
A criterion with a flaw, let's say.

[lucul]

And what, try to tell those who "sell their services" that he is, in fact, a slave ... you can even part with your teeth ...

In fact, there is only one criterion - if others work for you, that is, bring you profit, then you are not a slave guaranteed)))

[rocket757]

But this is understandable, there are no other interpretations.

[Ingvar 72]

Great Valentin Ivanov! His most deeply thought book is "Great Russia", although the other two are super.

[paul3390]

"Shake off the dust of cities, shake off the dust of an unfamiliar speech, the dust of friendship and enmity, the dust of grief, love and death. Oh, free man who has chosen freedom! You only have the wind in the desert!"
(Ibn Said. "Tablets of Demons").

[depressant]

How beautiful! ))))

[Black lotos]

Quote: Finches

We are all, to one degree or another, someone's slaves! Even a seemingly almighty genie, but "I am your friend, but I am a slave to the lamp!" So the question is essentially philosophical - resting against the correct definition of slavery

absolutely agree.
Trite we are all slaves of the biological shell / lamp.
Slaves to the body. Slaves of instincts, slaves of a primitive brain, in a biological construct. Slaves to evolution. Etc..
And already in society, we tried to express all this.
Our society is a reflection of our biological slavery.
There are both joys and sorrows. In slavery, this is all there too, and in freedom.
Oh, you can dilute the philosophy ... perhaps I'll stop.

[prior]

The transformation of the socio-political system leads to the transformation of the concept of slavery.
What was slavery in the Middle Ages is now democracy.

[lucul]

others are inclined to believe that no slavery existed in Russia, and the subsequent enslavement of the peasants cannot be called slavery.

I support this point of view.

[U-58]

It depends on what antiquity is considered.
If you climb 30-40 thousand years ago, then there was no slavery and could not be.
There were three sacred concepts - Motherland, Race, Rod. We lived according to the precepts of the Ancestors, who are our Gods.
Well, if you take a smaller depth - 1,5 thousand years, then of course there were slaves.
The clans disappeared, the precepts of the Ancestors were forgotten, they lived in communities.
The stratification of society (the beginning of the class division) inevitably led to the enslavement of the poor by more successful tribesmen

[Arpad]

Quote: U-58

If you climb years 30-40 thousand ago, then slavery was not and could not be.
There were three sacred concepts - Motherland, Race, Rod. ...

Did they tell / write this to you?

Quote: U-58

Well, if you take less depth - 1,5 thousand yearsthen of course there were slaves

And these misadventures were thrown off to you by e-mail?

[U-58]

Are you a victim of the electronic era.
E-grinding FSE for you?
Progressive)))))
And how did our ancestors manage without Instagram and root rights ???)))
Darkness and hoary antiquity ..
St.Basil's Cathedral to build without 3D modeling is wretchedness ...

[Jaromir]

Igor Froyanov

He was a great historian. There are few such historians left. Froyanov died a month and a half ago. I read his monograph "Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history".
The concept of the communal system of Kievan Rus, developed by Froyanov, shows how strong the communal, collectivist, mutual assistance, the desire for equality and justice, a negative attitude towards money-grubbing and self-interest, laid in it in ancient times, turned out to be in our people. In his work "The Beginning of Christianity in Russia", relying on the hypotheses of academician Rybakov, as well as on some signs, such as rituals, he argued that up to the 15th century in Russia, especially in the peasant population, society was predominantly pagans.

[Flooding]

Quote: Jaromir

he argued that up to the 15th century in Russia, especially in the peasant part of the population, society was predominantly pagans.

I don't understand why you turned to this topic.
But let me be curious about "up to the 15th century ... mostly" - is this a loose interpretation, or can you confirm by referring to the chapter?

[Jaromir]

Quote: Flood

I don't understand why you turned to this topic

I just remembered Froyanov's work, he passed away in December 2020.

Quote: Flood

is this a free interpretation or can you confirm by referring to the chapter?

Partly. Here is what Froyanov's work "The Beginning of Christianity in Russia" says:
the population of Ancient Russia was not completely covered by baptism and some part of it remained in paganism, which, however, lost its former official character, as a result of which mass public prayers to the supreme gods Rod, Perun, Dazhbog, Veles and others turned into private, limited a separate house and family, performed secretly “under the barn”. Nevertheless, these prayers continued. And only later, during the second half of the XIII, XIV and XV centurieswhen Christianity was finally established in Russia and all Russian people became (at least formally) Christians, paganism as an independent confession faded into the past
https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=9203&p=37

[Flooding]

I assumed that "predominantly" was written without any reason.

[place]

We have a national tradition - "a fig in your pocket"... So it was with the Christian and communist ideology, and with the attitude towards any state power.

The Russian people are a people of hunters and gatherers, who came from the Danube in the 8th-9th centuries to the lands now called Russia, in order not to work in the field and not to live in cities. We still have fishing, hunting, hiking in the forest and a bathhouse - the main motives in life. How will the money start - let's go to the baths and fishing - features of national recreation.
Unfortunately, the "peasant paradise" of hunting, gathering and fishing did not exist for long. I had to, against my will, even acquire their own principalities, and then even a Kingdom and even an Empire.

But the attitude towards the State remained the same as it was originally. K. Aksakov wrote about this to Alexander II in his note "On the internal state of Russia": "The Russian people are not state". Not only not a "state-forming", but generally not a state one. And not a believer either, because he does not perceive religion as the fulfillment of the Commandments. This does not even occur to anyone! Faith for him is only a way to replace the fulfillment of a specific Law with some notions of "grace". That is, a way to justify how to "put" everything on everything.

[nikvic46]

Oh, these current hypocrites. "The sovereign served the state, God and the people." Many readers are looking for the "Russian soul" in the literature of the classics. But after all, she is shown only in the faces of the nobility. At best, they talked with ordinary people as with a beloved dog. democracy, it was at that time much higher than in later periods.

[Fat]

Oh. Bro! the wrong temple is chosen for illustration. I'll start with this.

[Plastmaster]

Quote: rocket757

There is no need to idealize life in the USSR ... this is not useful, not at all!

I would like to put a minus for the comment. Since the growth of the USSR as a power was precisely due to education and ideology. And then and why they lived like that ... All the same answers. Who interfered with us, how many interfered and pacastily. Sorosets have been nervously dividing our country since those times, they cannot divide everything.