The "floating" border between Europe and Asia
Sverdlovsk region, obelisk on the conditional border of Europe and Asia at the Khrebet-Uralsky station
People have been trying to divide the earth into Europe and Asia for a very long time, the only problem is that there are simply no natural borders between these parts of the world. But it was the Europeans who, since ancient times, persistently tried to draw this border anyway - first of all, because it was supposed to separate them from people of another, incomprehensible culture, to become a clear reference point for the distribution of neighbors according to the principle of "friend or foe". At all times, this was considered very important - after all, in order not to be known as savages and barbarians, it was necessary to at least a little, but take into account "friends" and try to observe some decency. But with strangers it was possible not to stand on ceremony. Aristotle, for example, instructed his student Alexander the Great:
"One should be a leader to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians; one should treat the former as one's relatives or friends, and the latter as one treats animals or plants."
Later, Aristotle's nephew Callisthenes dared to reproach Alexander for the fact that he, being a Macedonian on his father's side, that is, half a barbarian, dared to destroy the city of the true Hellenes - Thebes. By doing so, he insulted the conqueror so much that he ended his life in an iron cage.
The Venetians traditionally competed with the Genoese, and the Florentine Dante in his famous poem claimed that the right to first place on the road to hell belonged to the inhabitants of Genoa. However, this was a feud at the state level. In everyday life, the citizens of these republics did not shy away from each other, they could have common interests and even be friends. The Turks or Moors of North Africa were another matter. The Orthodox Romans of Constantinople occupied a border position. The Catholic Europeans did business with the Byzantines, but at the same time considered them "such heretics that it makes the Lord God himself sick." That is, the Orthodox Greeks of Byzantium, whose ancestors so carefully defined the borders of Europe, themselves turned out to be "second-class" Europeans - and in the eyes of the descendants of the barbarians despised by the Hellenes.
Later, the place of the Byzantine "heretics" was taken by the Russians, and in 1704, the Swedish pastor (and superintendent of Ingria) Nikolai Bergius, in a dissertation published in Stockholm, quite seriously considered the question of whether Russians could be considered Christians at all. You probably guessed that the answer was negative.
The borders of Europe in antiquity
Over the centuries, the eastern border of Europe changed its position so often that the English historian William Parker called this part of the world "tidal". As for its name, it seems to have come from the Phoenicians, whose native territory was the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea (that is, modern Asia). The Phoenicians considered their lands to be the center of the world known to them, to the west of them was "Ereb" (sunset, darkness, darkness), to the east - Asu (sunrise, the place where the day is born). It was from the Phoenicians that these terms passed to the Greeks, and at the turn of the 6th-5th centuries BC, the word "Europe" was used in his work "Tour of the Earth" by Hecataeus of Miletus. By Europe he meant the Balkan Peninsula and the surrounding lands, and he called the Phasis (Rioni) River in the territory of modern Georgia its eastern border.
Europe, Asia and Libya (North Africa) according to Hecataeus
The colonization of the eastern coast of the Black Sea by the Greeks led to the fact that the Kerch Strait and the Don River, on which the northernmost Greek settlement, Tanais, was located, were considered the border of Europe. This point of view was held by Polybius, Strabo, Pomponius Mela and Claudius Ptolemy.
Ptolemy's Map
Ptolemy's authority was so great that the Don was considered the eastern border of Europe until the 1627th century. The border between Europe and Asia along the Don is also mentioned in the "Book of the Great Drawing" compiled in XNUMX, which is an accompanying text to the lost map of the Muscovite kingdom. And Peter I still separated Russia from other European countries, saying:
"We need Europe for a hundred years."
And even in 1765, in the French textbook “Road Geography, Containing a Description of All States in the World” printed in Russia, one could read that Europe ends beyond the Don and Poland. But already in 1767, Catherine II clearly and unambiguously wrote in the first chapter of the notorious “Instructions to the Commission on the Composition of a Project for a New Code”:
"Russia is a European power."
Agree, if Russia had already been officially considered as such by that time, there would have been no need to declare this in official documents.
On the other hand, the empress was not at all offended by Derzhavin, who 15 years later in an ode written in 1782 called her "the princess of the Kirghiz-Kaisak Horde." And he himself was so frightened that, on the advice of friends, he hid the ode and did not publish it for a whole year. But Catherine sent the author 500 chervonets in a gold snuffbox strewn with diamonds with a note: "From the Kirghiz princess to Murza Derzhavin."
By this time, the borders of Europe had long been fluctuating, and this part of the world was ready to move east. The only question was how far it would go in this direction. And along what line the new border between Europe and Asia would be officially fixed.
Europe and Russia
In his work "History In his book "Europe", British historian Norman Davies wrote:
“Throughout modern history… the cardinal problem in defining the boundaries of Europe has been whether or not to include Russia.”
By the way, look at how Russia is represented on this figurative map of Europe from 1877:
Its author would clearly like to fence himself off from our country, if not with an iron, then at least with a bronze or stone “curtain”.
It should be noted that up until the time of Peter I, Russians did not consider themselves either Europeans or Asians and showed no desire to become either. And they were absolutely right, because Russia is not only a state, but also a completely independent and self-sufficient part of the world. And the young Russian super-ethnos, which formed much later than the European one, is fundamentally different from all its neighbors. We can even determine the time when Russians clearly felt themselves to be representatives of a new - special and unique - civilization. The spokesman for this idea was the elder of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus, who in 1523-1524 in his messages to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III declared the moral decline of the Christian world and the transformation of Moscow into the Third Rome, issuing a minted formula:
"Two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth."
M. Yu. Tikhonova. "The Third Rome" (Prayer of the monk Philotheus for the Third Rome)
At the same time, Russian rulers, contrary to popular belief, did not avoid mutually beneficial relations with foreigners and foreign sovereigns. Ivan the Terrible was an ally of the Danish King Frederick II and maintained such close ties with the English that his confidants called him the "English" Tsar (it would be more accurate to say "pro-English"). This line was continued by Boris Godunov, who pursued an active and very successful foreign policy, was going to marry his daughter to Prince John of Schleswig-Holstein (brother of the Danish King Christian IV) and sent young noblemen to study at European universities. But, as A.K. Tolstoy wrote, "unfortunately, the Pretender, out of nowhere...".
And under Alexei Mikhailovich, his son Fyodor and daughter Sophia, reforms developed so rapidly and actively that many of their initiatives were later attributed to Peter I.
Since the founding of the empire by Peter I, representatives of the Russian nobility began to study in Europe or at home, but in the European spirit. This contributed to the development of an inferiority complex among the Russian nobles, expressed in admiration for everything Western and contempt for their own people, who were no worse, but simply younger than the French, Germans or English. This age difference has become especially evident in our days, when it suddenly became clear that representatives of the old European ethnic groups are now unable to distinguish a man from a woman. And they do not even try to protect the borders of their states from more and more new streams of migrants, so that we are already talking about the beginning of a new era of the Great Migration of Peoples.
One of the undesirable consequences of Peter I's reforms was a deep split in Russian society: nobles and representatives of other classes (not only poor peasants, but also fabulously rich merchants) wore different clothes, ate different foods, and even spoke different languages. Here, for example, is an excerpt from Fonvizin's play "The Brigadier", written during the reign of Catherine II (staged in 1770):
“My body was born in Russia, it is true, but my spirit belonged to the French crown.”
It is clear that this is a replica of a negative character, but no one in Russia, either then or later, doubted the reality of the existence of such Russian nobles. No one said to the author, "Denis Ivanovich, you might lie, but you wouldn't lie to such an extent."
If you think that I am exaggerating and thickening the colors, remember the daughter of a high-ranking Russian official: her body was also born in Russia, but in 2022 she directly stated that she considers herself a "citizen of the world" and was extremely upset and outraged to learn that sanctions had been imposed against her. This young lady is not an exception to the rule, and she is in complete solidarity with the "businessmen" who robbed our country, and the liberals of the Russian "bohemia", and, as Mr. Chubais has shown us all, some representatives of the high-level "nomenklatura". And also their offspring - self-proclaimed "socialites" and rich kids who call themselves "golden youth".
I think you understand that the "world" in their minds is not Bolivia or Venezuela, not Kenya or Rwanda, not Lebanon or Pakistan. Their "world", to which they are infinitely devoted, is the "blessed" United States of America and the most prosperous countries of Western Europe. In extreme cases, the United Arab Emirates, where for most of the year the only place you can be outside during the day is on the seashore in swimming trunks under an umbrella on a sun lounger, and indoors - only if the air conditioner is constantly running. But our liberals are happier there than in Russia, which they deeply despise.
Let's go back a little and remember what Leo Tolstoy wrote in his novel War and Peace:
"The prince spoke that exquisite French language, which not only spoke, but also thought our grandfathers."
And again, no one even tried to object to Lev Nikolayevich on this matter. Here is his description of the Battle of Borodino, and in general the entire course of the campaign of 1812, only the lazy did not criticize. And no one argued with the fact that the Russian nobles of those years did not know their native language: it would be stupid to deny the well-known facts. Many still remembered how during the Patriotic War of 1812, Russian partisans from among the peasants could not distinguish Russian officers from foreign ones - they killed them equally with French, German, Italian or Polish. And even in 1825, many Decembrists did not know Russian or knew it so poorly that they were forced to use a dictionary when filling out investigators' questionnaires (among them were, for example, M. S. Lunin and M. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin).
And already on July 15, 1833, Chaadaev addressed Benckendorff:
"I ask you to tell the Emperor that, having written to the Russian Tsar in a language other than Russian, I myself was ashamed of it. But I wanted to express to the Emperor a feeling full of conviction, and I would not have been able to express it in a language in which I had not written before."
The modern literary Russian language was created by Pushkin – his works became the first works of Russian literature that we can now read without effort and internal resistance. But in the first years of his life, our great poet spoke French better than Russian, and it was in French that he wrote his first poems.
The thoughtlessly Europeanized representatives of the upper classes of Russian society did not know their people and did not understand them, which ultimately led to the fall of the empire. Tsarist Russia can be compared to an oak tree on which a beautiful mistletoe plant was parasitizing. It all ended with the mistletoe being destroyed, and it turned out that the oak could do without it just fine. Having practically lost its already small layer of educated people after the revolution and the civil war, the new Soviet Russia did not collapse into the Middle Ages, but made an incredible leap in its development. In just 10 years, brilliant designers, engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists appeared in the Soviet Union, a new intellectual elite was formed, whose representatives were people who had no opportunity for self-realization under the tsarist regime.
But let's return to the main topic of the article and talk about the new borders of Europe and Asia.
Europe is going east
So, with the growth of geographical knowledge, it was not Russians, but European scientists who began to propose new borders for Europe. Already the German philosopher and scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) called Russia the main outpost of Europe in the East. The French scientist Guillaume Delisle and his German colleague Johann Giebner (contemporaries of Peter I) proposed to consider the Ob River as the border of Europe! The naturalist Johann Georg Gmelin, a participant in Vitus Bering’s expedition, went even further, giving Europe the territory up to the Yenisei, which divides Siberia into Western and Eastern.
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev and Lieutenant Colonel of the Swedish army Philipp Johann Strahlenberg (taken prisoner at Poltava and exiled to Siberia) were more modest - they decided that Asia begins beyond the Ural Mountains. Tatishchev proposed to draw the border between Europe and Asia from the Yugorsky Shar Strait along the Ural Mountains and the Ural River, then through the Caspian Sea to the Kuma River, and then through the Caucasus to the Azov and Black Seas and, finally, to the Bosphorus.
V. N. Tatishchev in a portrait by an unknown artist
Philip Johanvon Strahlenberg, self-portrait
In 1759, M. V. Lomonosov, in his treatise “On the Layers of the Earth,” advanced another version of this boundary:
"Along the low valley that extends from the mouth of the Don to the Northern Dvina."
And in the “Brief Guide to Geography for the Benefit of Students at the Youth Gymnasium,” published in St. Petersburg in 1742, one can read the following figurative description of Europe:
"How is Europe divided?
- Like a seated girl, whose fontange (hairdo) is Portugal, her face is Spain, her chest is France, her left hand is England, her right is Italy, under her left hand lie the Netherlands, under her right hand is Switzerland; before the body are Germany, Poland and Hungary, the knees are Denmark, Norway and Sweden; the skirt is Russia, the back is the Turkish provinces of Europe and Greece."
- Like a seated girl, whose fontange (hairdo) is Portugal, her face is Spain, her chest is France, her left hand is England, her right is Italy, under her left hand lie the Netherlands, under her right hand is Switzerland; before the body are Germany, Poland and Hungary, the knees are Denmark, Norway and Sweden; the skirt is Russia, the back is the Turkish provinces of Europe and Greece."
The question of where the "skirt of Europe" ends was left unanswered. But the "Brief" and "Extensive Land Description of the Russian State" published in 1787 named the Ural Mountains as the border between Europe and Asia. And in the Handbuch der Geographie published in 1833 by Wilhelm Folger, the border between Europe and Asia was also drawn along the Ural Mountains.
Yes, many liked the idea of Tatishchev and Strahlenberg, especially the armchair scientists who had never seen the Ural Mountains. But already in the 19th century N. Ya. Danilevsky wrote in his work “Russia and Europe”:
"The Ural Range occupies about half of this border (between Europe and Asia). But what special qualities does it have that, of all the ranges of the globe, it alone can be given the honor of serving as a border between two parts of the world, an honor that in all other cases is recognized only beyond the oceans and rarely beyond the seas? This range is one of the most insignificant in its height, and one of the most convenient in terms of its passage; in its middle part, near Yekaterinburg, they cross it, as through the famous Alaunskaya Upland and the Valdai Mountains, asking the coachman: where, brother, are the mountains?"
And further:
"If the Urals separate two parts of the world, then what should be separated after that by the Alps, the Caucasus or the Himalayas? If the Urals turn Europe into a part of the world, then why not consider India a part of the world? After all, it is surrounded on two sides by the sea, and on the third by mountains - not a match for the Urals; and there are many more physical differences (from the adjacent part of Asia) in India than in Europe."
And then:
"But the Ural Mountains, at least, are something; further on, the honor of serving as the border between two worlds falls to the Ural River, which is already a complete nothing. A narrow river, at its mouth a quarter of the width of the Neva, with banks that are absolutely identical on both sides... Where there are no real borders, you can choose them for a thousand years."
That's right, there are no "real borders" between Europe and Asia. At a meeting of the Moscow branch of the Geographical Society of the USSR in 1958, the border between Europe and Asia was recognized as a cultural-historical, rather than a physical-geographical concept. Some even suggested recognizing the state border of the USSR as the border of Europe. This certainly made sense, since it is impossible to answer the question: what exactly, what mysterious signs and features allow us to consider Ufa a European city, while Chelyabinsk is forced to be unconditionally classified as an Asian city?
But the Ural Mountains nevertheless became the cornerstone of this conventional border. And now in the Urals you can see a huge number of obelisks symbolizing this conventional border - in Bashkiria, Perm Krai, Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk and Orenburg regions, as well as in Kazakhstan.
Obelisk Europe-Asia in the Orenburg region
And where the Ural Mountains end, the options begin. Most often, the border is drawn along the Ural River, but sometimes along another river, the Emba, which flows about 200 km to the east. And sometimes along the border between Russia and Kazakhstan. Fierce political disputes rage over whether Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan belong to Europe or Asia. If the border between these parts of the world is drawn along the Kuma-Manych Depression, then not only these post-Soviet states, but also Stavropol Krai, Krasnodar Krai, and the North Caucasian republics of the Russian Federation end up in Asia. And if the border is drawn along the Araks River, Transcaucasia becomes Europe.
Thus, we can safely conclude that there is no natural border between Europe and Asia, and the very concept of “Europe” is not geographical.
In the next article we will try to look at the problem from the other side and try to understand whether it is possible to find the invisible border between Europe and Asia using climate maps and isotherms.
Information