Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The most "humane" colonial empire?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 10111213>
Poll Question: Which of the following empires had the most "humane" colonial policy?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
14 [23.33%]
6 [10.00%]
4 [6.67%]
13 [21.67%]
2 [3.33%]
17 [28.33%]
3 [5.00%]
1 [1.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The most "humane" colonial empire?
    Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 19:14
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

No they didn't. They formulated government policy to 'unintentionally' starve to death 40,000,000 Indians, because it was a convenient approach to making more money for the rich Englishmen.


Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irish and Welsh thankyouverymuch.  
 
'Worker's paradise' is taken from nazi propaganda, was not a claim of the USSR. You should stop reading Goebbels, it is not good for you.
 
In any case, these achievements are dwarfed by the outstanding achievements of the liberal capitalist free marketeer rich man's paradises' achievements in India, Africa, ad Russia. Congo Free State anyone?


Communism does rather promise an eventual paradise of the classless society no? And Stalin did declare they had reached that sometime in the '30's didn't he? 
 
Sure. Millions of muslims they killed don't count, because they were sub-human anyway. Only rich white kulaks count.


Kulaks was a made up term. All it means is upper working class to lower middle class. And I'm pretty sure all those blokes who went into the gulags didn't fit that description anyway- even if Pikeshot did use the term Kulak. (IMHO many in the gulags were muslims anyway, usually from troops who'd spent time in Germany with the Red Army). As for the idea only white (kulaks) count, thats just reading things into someone elses words that was never there.

Originally posted by think

Either way English, Scots, Welsh an Irish are technically the same people anyway.


Not quite seeing as the Scots, Welsh, English and Irish aren't humogenous anyway. Either racially, culturally, lingusticly etc. etc. (But thats a huge and very boring can of beans) Wink
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 08:49

Hello To You All

 

Well since the list is short I will only discuss what is on it.

 

First, Roman colonization if there was such a thing was mixed. If you were to be one of the few from the colonized nations that receive the Roman Citizenship there is no limit to where you can get to, life is going to be easy and you will be supreme. On the other hand those poor devils who did not have that privilege were simply nobodies, anything could happen to them and no one will object and judging from the very long history of persecution and enslavement of entire cities calling Rome humane is hardly logical, however we seem to forget that we are judging 1st century acts with a 21st century ruler and this can hardly be called fair since what was demanded then is horrible today, but compared to their contemporaries there is hardly any difference though at many instanced Rome deserves to be called the most humane.

 

The same argument above applies to the Arab dynasties (Rashidun, Ummayads and early Abbasids). They might be the best place to live if you were a minority religion or a member of the majority religion but of different ethnicity during the middle ages, but you can hardly call it humane compared with current standards. The Romans have an edge on the Arabs in that anyone can be an emperor and that citizenship was regardless of religion or race while only Arabs from a certain tribe were allowed that honor and only muslims have full rights while Arabs have an upper hand because they rarely used mass enslavement and collective punishment as a method to subdue rebels and approached the management of state affaires in a libertarian way rather than the constant interference Rome used to have on the affaires of its citizens (for example faith tests and compulsory duties to Roman gods even from nonbelievers) as well as its allies.

 

Spanish colonization was not a very good one compared to the earlier two. They accepted no challenge to their authority and did everything they can to suppress the culture of the people they colonized; no wonder that the only religion in former Spanish colonies is Catholicism and except in the Philippines the only language is Spanish, those who opposed were sent to their deaths and any weapon will be used (they used chemical weapons against Berbers during the Abdel-karim rebellion).

 

Ottoman Colonization is similar to the Arab but a bit more brutal in the beginning although it was (at least in my opinion) the least worst colonial empire in the 19th and early 20th century.

 

The Tsarist colonialism was amongst the most brutal in recent centuries. They suppressed every culture and religion other than Russian and Orthodox ones. The kept the serfdom institution and brutally suppressed any threat or challenge weather it be imaginary (the Jewish problem in the late 19th century) or real (the Muslim peoples of the Caucasus and central Asia) as well as political movements.

 

The English colonization was mixed indeed, if the population subdued they did everything to advance life there including building a complete network of basic infrastructure and encouraged the westernization of the elite of the society so as make things easier for them. But when they rebel, the suppression is brutal and I advise any Bulgarian colleague to read what the British did during and after the sepoy rebellion and compare it with what the Turks did in 1876 (as brutal as it was) before protesting about me choosing the Ottoman colonization.

 

As for the French colonization, I will leave you with a quote from de Tocqueville about French colonization in Algeria:

 

As far as I am concerned, I came back from Africa with the pathetic notion that at present in our way of waging war we are far more barbaric than the Arabs themselves. These days, they represent civilization, we do not. This way of waging war seems to me as stupid as it is cruel. It can only be found in the head of a coarse and brutal soldier. Indeed, it was pointless to replace the Turks only to reproduce what the world rightly found so hateful in them. This, even for the sake of interest is more noxious than useful; for, as another officer was telling me, if our sole aim is to equal the Turks, in fact we shall be in a far lower position than theirs: barbarians for barbarians, the Turks will always outdo us because they are Muslim barbarians. In France, I have often heard men I respect but do not approve of, deplore that crops should be burnt and granaries emptied and finally that unarmed men, women and children should be seized. In my view these are unfortunate circumstances that any people wishing to wage war against the Arabs must accept. I think that all the means available to wreck tribes must be used, barring those that the human kind and the right of nations condemn.I personally believe that the laws of war enable us to ravage the country and that we must do so either by destroying the crops at harvest time or any time by making fast forays also known as raids the aim of which it to get hold of men or flocks.

 

Finally, the best thing about the USSR is that being a communist was the most important thing regardless of religion and color. The rest, well I think the Stalin Purges and deportations are more than enough.

 

Thank You

 

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah

 

 

 

 

Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 10:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello To You All

 

Well since the list is short I will only discuss what is on it.

 

First, Roman colonization if there was such a thing was mixed. If you were to be one of the few from the colonized nations that receive the Roman Citizenship there is no limit to where you can get to, life is going to be easy and you will be supreme. On the other hand those poor devils who did not have that privilege were simply nobodies, anything could happen to them and no one will object and judging from the very long history of persecution and enslavement of entire cities calling Rome humane is hardly logical, however we seem to forget that we are judging 1st century acts with a 21st century ruler and this can hardly be called fair since what was demanded then is horrible today, but compared to their contemporaries there is hardly any difference though at many instanced Rome deserves to be called the most humane.

 

The same argument above applies to the Arab dynasties (Rashidun, Ummayads and early Abbasids). They might be the best place to live if you were a minority religion or a member of the majority religion but of different ethnicity during the middle ages, but you can hardly call it humane compared with current standards. The Romans have an edge on the Arabs in that anyone can be an emperor and that citizenship was regardless of religion or race while only Arabs from a certain tribe were allowed that honor and only muslims have full rights while Arabs have an upper hand because they rarely used mass enslavement and collective punishment as a method to subdue rebels and approached the management of state affaires in a libertarian way rather than the constant interference Rome used to have on the affaires of its citizens (for example faith tests and compulsory duties to Roman gods even from nonbelievers) as well as its allies.

 

Spanish colonization was not a very good one compared to the earlier two. They accepted no challenge to their authority and did everything they can to suppress the culture of the people they colonized; no wonder that the only religion in former Spanish colonies is Catholicism and except in the Philippines the only language is Spanish, those who opposed were sent to their deaths and any weapon will be used (they used chemical weapons against Berbers during the Abdel-karim rebellion).

 

Ottoman Colonization is similar to the Arab but a bit more brutal in the beginning although it was (at least in my opinion) the least worst colonial empire in the 19th and early 20th century.

 

The Tsarist colonialism was amongst the most brutal in recent centuries. They suppressed every culture and religion other than Russian and Orthodox ones. The kept the serfdom institution and brutally suppressed any threat or challenge weather it be imaginary (the Jewish problem in the late 19th century) or real (the Muslim peoples of the Caucasus and central Asia) as well as political movements.

 

The English colonization was mixed indeed, if the population subdued they did everything to advance life there including building a complete network of basic infrastructure and encouraged the westernization of the elite of the society so as make things easier for them. But when they rebel, the suppression is brutal and I advise any Bulgarian colleague to read what the British did during and after the sepoy rebellion and compare it with what the Turks did in 1876 (as brutal as it was) before protesting about me choosing the Ottoman colonization.

 

As for the French colonization, I will leave you with a quote from de Tocqueville about French colonization in Algeria:

 

As far as I am concerned, I came back from Africa with the pathetic notion that at present in our way of waging war we are far more barbaric than the Arabs themselves. These days, they represent civilization, we do not. This way of waging war seems to me as stupid as it is cruel. It can only be found in the head of a coarse and brutal soldier. Indeed, it was pointless to replace the Turks only to reproduce what the world rightly found so hateful in them. This, even for the sake of interest is more noxious than useful; for, as another officer was telling me, if our sole aim is to equal the Turks, in fact we shall be in a far lower position than theirs: barbarians for barbarians, the Turks will always outdo us because they are Muslim barbarians. In France, I have often heard men I respect but do not approve of, deplore that crops should be burnt and granaries emptied and finally that unarmed men, women and children should be seized. In my view these are unfortunate circumstances that any people wishing to wage war against the Arabs must accept. I think that all the means available to wreck tribes must be used, barring those that the human kind and the right of nations condemn.I personally believe that the laws of war enable us to ravage the country and that we must do so either by destroying the crops at harvest time or any time by making fast forays also known as raids the aim of which it to get hold of men or flocks.

 

Finally, the best thing about the USSR is that being a communist was the most important thing regardless of religion and color. The rest, well I think the Stalin Purges and deportations are more than enough.

 

Thank You

 

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah

 

 

 

 

 
a very genuine summary, especially concerning the Romans, Arabs, and Ottomans.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 08:56
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Bey,
 
I wanted to get a new edition of Goebbels's Mein Krapf but its out of print.
 
Pike
 
 

If you speak Spanish you could go to Mexico City. The first street book seller you encounter most likely has a copy.
Back to Top
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 16:18
Excellent Al-Jassas. 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 17:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas

The Tsarist colonialism was amongst the most brutal in recent centuries. They suppressed every culture and religion other than Russian and Orthodox ones. The kept the serfdom institution and brutally suppressed any threat or challenge weather it be imaginary (the Jewish problem in the late 19th century) or real (the Muslim peoples of the Caucasus and central Asia) as well as political movements.

 

 
This is a very blatant and groundless view. While Tsarist empire definetely wasn't perfect, the things you wrote are very far from the real history.
 
It's true that in the earlier imperial period Russian tsars tried to suppress "every culture and religion" except orthodox christianity, but the things changed quite quickly.
 
Perahps, you didn't know that the first Koran printed in Europe was printed in Kazan under the order of the Russian empress Cathrene the Great for the needs of the muslims of Russian empire. That muslim and buddhist subjects of empire had totally the same status with other Christian subjects.
 
That Russian emprerors sponsored Muslim medrese and Islamization of Caucasus and Kazakh steppe was completed mainly due to the efforts of the Tsarist government which financed the travel and scholarship of Muslim scholars from Tatarstan to those region.
 
Perhaps you didn't know that Russian empire created special schools for the subject of the empire who belonged to other religion and tradition. Where they could obtain the education in their own language and obtain religious education as well those were so called "indegenous schools".
 
Russian colonialism in Central Asia was much less brutal than the British colonialism in India. And in most of the places local people enjoyed a very high degree of autonomy and self governance
 
Russians created educational system, infrustructure, developed the economy etc. etc. A lot people from Iran and Afghanistan were sending their children to the Russian central Asian to educate them in those "indegenous schools." After the Russian conquest the economy of the Central Asia thrieved forward, while a lot of disadnvateged like, brutal wars, slave trade, lack of education, poverty had faded. But again those territoriew were conquered by force, so Russian conquest in the begining was associated with a negative attitude, but this attitude changed later.
 
The latter is recognized even by British scholars.
 
Another fact is also, that a lot territories under Russian control were incorporated into the empire after the requests of the local people who were asking Russian emperors for protection. This happened with Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Kazakkhs, Georgia, Armenia, etc. All these territories joined the Russian empire VOLUNTARY. Of course later not all their expectations materilized but this is an interesting fact.
 
This is not to say that Russian imperialism was "so good". Imperialism can't be good apriory because people can't be happy when they are deprived of their soveiregnitiy and made the subject of the foreign ruler.
 
But one should remember that Russia has been staying at the intersection of different civilizations for many centuries and the rulers of Russia had very rich experience of dealing with the subject of different cultures and religions.
 
Of course, sometimes rebellions and national movements were supressed, but more often imperial administration was able to find the compromise between the interests of empire and the interests of local people and their rulers. Islam, Buddhism and other religions and traditions were totally respected, of course Orthodox faith was the official one, but nobody "supressed" other religions.
 
A good example was from the WWI when the germans tried to create a kind of "army of liberation" from the Muslim POW of Russian army. They allowed them to have Islamic services and prayers, however Mullahs started agitate against any kind of treason agains the Russian emperor, which forced Germans to abandon this idea.
 
Ther were priests for every major religion in the Russian army BTW.
 
In fact, lot of Russian nobles were of Muslim and Tukic origin, the most famous of whom were Boris Godunov who was a tsar for some time and Kutuzov who defeated Napoleon.
 
Russian colonialism was very different from a classical european colonialism. Simply because that for the most of other europeans nations believing in other Gods were a kind of exotic barbarians living overseas, while Russian were living right next to these "barbarians" from the very start of the Russian history. That's why Russian rulers knew very well how to deal with this people and they knew very well that the policy of compromise and respect very often would be much more beneficial for the needs of the empire than just the simple demonstration of the brutal force.
 
You may ask yourself how many mosques were in European cities in the 18th and 19th centuries?
 
But all the Russian major cities had mosques including Moscow and Sankt Petersburg. And there was also a Buddhist temple built in Sankt-Petersburf in the 19th century, first on the European soil EVER. 
 
I have to admit the fact, however, that Jews perhaps was the only ethnic group that was discirminated in Russian empire and there were many limitations imposed on Jewish people. However, the latter was more like an exception than the rule.
 
Summarizing, I want to say again, that, of course, Russian colonialism was brutal in many instances and a lot people suffered, but, for sure, it was much less brutal than British, French and German colonialism in Africa and Asia.
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 02-Sep-2007 at 17:28
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
think View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
  Quote think Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 22:10
It amazes me how large Russia is, yet surrounded by so many countries an so many potential enemies.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 22:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello To You All

.... 

Spanish colonization was not a very good one compared to the earlier two. They accepted no challenge to their authority and did everything they can to suppress the culture of the people they colonized; no wonder that the only religion in former Spanish colonies is Catholicism and except in the Philippines the only language is Spanish, those who opposed were sent to their deaths and any weapon will be used (they used chemical weapons against Berbers during the Abdel-karim rebellion).

 

 
I don't agree at all. It is very well known that Spanish languages like Quechua and Guarani fluorished AFTER the Spanish colonization, because the colones standarized the indigenous languages. Jesuits were compossing tunes in Native languages up to 18th century.
 
Spaniards didn't destroy the native culture, but they impossed their own. All things Europeans brough had an amazing impact. Spanish was a writen language, for example, and that was an advantadge. Cows, mules, horses and other animals changed the lifestyles. Spaniards brough string instruments, chorus and organs, which changed music. They brough a religion open to everybody, and that gave political advantadges, so Natives got interested in them. Spaniards developed new cities with lot of new goods and things people desired. What I mean, is simple: there was no necesity of impossition when some cultural thing impossed by themselves.
 
In religious terms that was done mainly by syncretism. You can still see quite a lot of Native traditions that were just masked as Catholic believes, with the blessing of the church.
 
In Phillipines Spanish failed simply because the Spanish speaking people in there was a tiny minority. In the Americas was not the case, and the language was impossed because the number of European and mixed European descendents become majoritary.
 
Yes, a shaman was persecuted in the Spanish Empire, but you should remember that practises like human sacrifices were real and widespread.
 
In any case, the impossition of Christianism was voluntary. Most indigenous people accept it because that gave them a status of "civilized" people.
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 02-Sep-2007 at 22:26
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 17:01
Hello to you All
 
Sorry for not responding earlier despite the fact that I was logged in for two days but couldn't post because problems in the connection of the Saudi broadband network which some times makes one yearns to the old days of dial-upLOL.
 
Any way, about my earlier post which drew some criticism which was correct in many cases but first, I will make a statement.
 
When one talks about colonization, he talks about centuries of rule that could not have been all bad nor all good. What makes things even worse is that some administrations in colonizing powers really work to promote the poeples of colonized countries while others do the opposite and this is in the same country. Even in the same administration, some local governments are good and others are terrible. The worst effect of colonization however is discrimination. Certain religious, ethnic or national groups are favored (usually minorities) to the effect of turning the whole population against them. What even makes everything worse is the so called "infrastructure projects" and other "services" for the colonized countries which overwhelmingly made because it was convinient for the colonizers not from the kindness of their heart or responsibility towards the colonized peoples (by the way, the money financing these projects came exclusivly from the colonies and more specifically from the poor crushed colonized in favor of the colonists). To judge colonialism in such a manner is irresponsible without careful study and some of my comments above are irresponsible (specifically towards Russia and Spain).
 
For Russia, I was overtaken by my position towards the policies of that country (not its people) and I should have known better. The great mosque of St. Petersburg (built by imperial money in 1905 I think) is but one of the many proofs that the situation of muslims in Russia was quite good especially during the reign of the last Tsar, Nicholas II. Muslims were generals, captains, engineers and great business men, buddhists also were living in considerable freedom despite their religion. Russia was, along with the Ottoman empire, the only true multicultural empires in the world during the late 19th century. Countries were minorities, except the jews in Russia, enjoyed, on average,  better living standards than the indigenious population. Yes, there were exception and the colonization was brutal at many instance, especially in Central Asia, but the Russian state kept the peoples lives intact and generally did not put much hurdles if the population showed its full support of Russia.
 
For Spain on the other hand, my knowledge is basic at best but I still think that the initial phases were not good though like Russia, it showed toleration to indigenious groups only if they fully were loyal to them and that meant in many instances, adopting many of the customs and traditions and most importantly religion of the new colonizers. Other than that, different adminstrations and provincial governments followed different policies, some like Peru and Bolivia were very tolerant to local cultures if I am mistaken. I hope our friend Pinguin enlighten all of us in his opinion and if my conclusions were true.
 
Thank You
 
Al-Jassas ibn Murrah
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 18:10
Originally posted by Al Jassas

..... 
For Spain on the other hand, my knowledge is basic at best but I still think that the initial phases were not good though like Russia, it showed toleration to indigenious groups only if they fully were loyal to them and that meant in many instances, adopting many of the customs and traditions and most importantly religion of the new colonizers. Other than that, different adminstrations and provincial governments followed different policies, some like Peru and Bolivia were very tolerant to local cultures if I am mistaken. I hope our friend Pinguin enlighten all of us in his opinion and if my conclusions were true.
 
Thank You
 
Al-Jassas ibn Murrah
 
 
I agree in the case of Spain. Spaniards fought the natives that opossed and integrated the natives that were loyal to them. What one should not forget, though, is that unlike other colonies, in the Americas the Natives were overcrowded by Europeans. Only one century after the invasion there was more mixed descendents of Amerindian and Spaniards than both Europeans and Indians. In those case, the people become culturally European.
 
People should distinguish the initial invasion of the soldiers of fortune called Conquestadors from the administration of the Spanish Empire. They are two different things that has no much in common at all. In fact, I have read chronicles of the 17th century Spanish Empire in the Americas, in which the critics to the conquistadors are very hard, indeed.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 01:23
In fact, lot of Russian nobles were of Muslim and Tukic origin, the most famous of whom were Boris Godunov who was a tsar for some time and Kutuzov who defeated Napoleon.

Say what? Do you have a source/more information on that?
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 02:02

I believe what he is referring to is Kutuzov being called to take command of the imperial russian armies to combat Napoleon.  I think his main field of operations was the centre and south.  Though he didn't defeat Napoleon, some people might interpret it that way because Napoleon failed in russia and his army (or the remains of it) was harassed by Kutuzov's cossacks all the way back to France.  Kutuzov was defeated in every regular engagement he had with french troops, he was much more successful using the guerilla tactics of avoidance and harassment like the spanish.

One of the ways I remember him is that he was the general legendary for his obeseity.


Edited by Justinian - 05-Sep-2007 at 02:06
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 02:22
I think the question was not about the nature of Kutuzov's achievements but more about his Turkic roots. I can give you the link in Russian, unfortunately there are no much sources on that in English. Would it be helpful? Kutuz BTW means brave, hard-tempered in Turkic.
 
Here are the description of some Russian noble families who had or might had Turkic, more precise Tatar, roots:
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 05-Sep-2007 at 02:33
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 02:09
Yeah the question was about his roots.

Thanks Sarmat. Unfortunately I can't find anything in English about it either, and Russian isn't particularly useful for me.
'Kutuz' would be the same as 'Qutuz' the man's first name usually used by muslims?

Kutuzov definitely seems to have a connection with Kazan, so Tatar roots appears more likely. Do you know if he was he muslim or christian? I can find plenty of information about his career, but almost none on his personal life.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 20:30
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Yeah the question was about his roots.

Thanks Sarmat. Unfortunately I can't find anything in English about it either, and Russian isn't particularly useful for me.
'Kutuz' would be the same as 'Qutuz' the man's first name usually used by muslims?

Kutuzov definitely seems to have a connection with Kazan, so Tatar roots appears more likely. Do you know if he was he muslim or christian? I can find plenty of information about his career, but almost none on his personal life.
 
Kutuzov himself was orhtodox christian, since his ancestor moved long ago to serve the Russian emperor. It's also known that one noblewomen from his family was a wife of Kazan khan in XV century.
 
I don't know about the origins of the name Kutuz. Is it Arabic? If yes, probably not, since "Qutuz" in Kutuzov's last name is of Turkic origin.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 07-Sep-2007 at 20:35
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:40

One question for Samart and other people from the former USSR:

Between the Tsarist regime and the USSR, which one had a more "humane" colonial regime, or better to say, the "less inhumane"?
 
 
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 12:34
Originally posted by kurt

Temujin, you stated that to label the Ottomans as humane is "ridiculous". Please elaborate as to why you feel this way


Yeah Temujin, the Ottomans were very humane....in fact, in its last days the Ottoman Empire was as humane as the German empire (which is conspicuously absent from the aforementioned list, it would have been my choice...after the English and Ottoman Empires of course Dead)
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 12:45
Yeah, German empire was very "humane"LOL. Have you heard about Herero genocide?
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 15:36
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Yeah, German empire was very "humane"LOL. Have you heard about Herero genocide?
 
British Empire was even more human.... hundred of million of people dead in slavery and colonization is not enough to change the image, english speaking teachers created in the mind of the young...LOL
 
And also Romans. It doesn't matter they killed ten of thousand of people for fun on the circus in just one series of games. No, they had to be described as humans LOL
 
I bet this thread is not really very objective at all.
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 17:12
Man, I need to get contacts or something.  Sorry about that Omar, misread your question completely.
 
Looking at the options available, one has to base one's decision on which of these empires did the most for their subject peoples.  In that sense its easy, the romans did more for their subjects than any of the other empires in my opinion.  More for western europe than what was to become the eastern empire though.  A simple example; How many indian kings/queens of England were there?  Same applies to France, Spain etc.  That was the reason the roman empire lasted so long, the subject peoples became romans and fought for the empire like any native of italy, eventually more than italian natives.  Eventually the former subject peoples were at times the rulers of the entire empire; Trajan and Hadrian from spain, many emperors of the third century weren't native romans.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 10111213>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.049 seconds.