The Kenesary Kasymov’s rebellion was critically scrutinized by Yuriy Malikov, who describes the nature of this rebellion. One of the great events occurred in Kazakh lands in 19th century is the rebellion, which was driven by Kenesary Kasymov and his people against Russian colonization. The period of ten-year struggle, between 1837 and 1847, coincides with many possible factors that is argued by Western and Kazakhstani historians. Some contend that the aims of the rebellion was national-liberation movement that Kenesary wanted to embody symbolizing whole nations’ wish. Another interpretation of revolt was “a protest of restoration” – Kenesary’s effort to retrieve Kazakhs’ traditions and past sociopolitical position. In Yuriy Malikov’s words, the primary aim of Kenesary’s uprisings was neither national-liberation movement nor “a protest of restoration.” In his view, fundamentals of the revolt’s composition in both national-liberation movement and anti-modernizing protest were not satisfied. Lack of massive support did not make the Kenesary’s rebellion widespread and national movement and was the reason of the revolt’s failure. However, Malikov gives quite implicit arguments, which are not clearly supported by other authors. Even though, he surpassed the Kenesary’s letters to the Russian government and has many restrictions tangent to Russian colonization, which was the main point of Kenesary’s revolt. I disagree with the Malikov’s hypothesis because lack of comprehensive information about Russian colonization, not including the Kenesary’s letters and biased arguments which was not actually supported or supported only by one group of people in society. Kenesary Khan’s insurgency has attributes of national solidarity, which fostered ... ... middle of paper ... ...t, was not “a protest of restoration” as many believe. Malikov’s argument that Kenesary Khan’s rebellion was neither a national liberation movement nor an anti-modernizing protest of restoration and preservation is not persuasive. Moreover, some points related to the Russian colonization are quite arguable. The author did not include the actual point of rebel and showed that Kazakh people themselves asked the Russians for protection and to create okrugs on their territory. There is no strong evidence that the steppe people themselves wanted to be under the Russian control. The author highlighted key features of Kenesary’s rebellion; however, the arguments are vague and have weak support. The main source that is relevant to this issue was not used, the Kenesary’s letter to Nikolai I and other Russian governors, where it can be seen the true aim of Kenesary’s revolt.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and Rethinking the Russian Revolution. Writing of an annotated bibliography of the topic. 2. Selection and reading of the sources to determine which ones are the most relevant and comprehensive 3. Finding opposing arguments to give and analytical view with multiple perspectives 4.
In order to be able to assess the reasons as to why it was that the
Most popular uprisings in recent history have been characterized by a brief period of incredible potential and hope, only to collapse in failure and despair. Even the supposedly 'successful' Russian Revolution of 1917 followed this pattern. Revolutionaries threw off centuries of imperial rule and oppression in order to create a new world of freedom, peace and equality... only to end up with Stalin, purges, gulags, dekulakization - and ultimately decades of Bolshevik1 rule and oppression. Although it can sometimes be disheartening to review this long history of failure and oppression, valuable insights can be gained by investigating these past revolutions. The achievements and promise of the revolutionaries can be studied and their strengths marked. The weaknesses that led to their eventual defeat and decay must also be understood, so that the same mistakes are not made again. This article will address these themes in the context of the Russian Revolution at the Kronstadt navel base.2
After the crippling defeat in the Crimean War, Alexander II knew that Russia could not be allowed to lag behind the Western world any longer if it was to maintain its independence. The reform of the state had been advisable for a long time, but for Alexander III it was necessary. He knew that before any real changes could be achieved, the main problem had to be solved: the problem of serfdom. However many limits and imperfections his edict of Emancipation carried with it, most importantly it allowed for further modernizing reforms in the legal, government, education and military spheres.
"History & Culture of Russia / The Mongols and the Emergence of Moscow." History & Culture of
The Slavophile and westernizer conflict is an inherent cultural question that Russians must answer about their country. Russian thinkers have long been fragmented between the Westernizer and the Slavophile viewpoint. Both disagreed about the true nature of the country as well as its relation with the West. It is a problem that has plagued Russia for centuries, and continues to do so to this day. Adopting the mindset of recognizing this conflict is essential to better understanding Russian history as well as the motives and thought processes of Russian leaders today.
When Russians talk about the war of 1812 they do not mean the war in which Washington was burned by the British, but the war in which, apparently, the Russians burned Moscow. This war between the French republican empire and the Russian Tsarist Empire was as remarkable a high - spot in the history of the latter as it was a low - spot in the history of Napoleon. For Russia, it was one of those rare moments in history when almost all people, serfs and lords, merchants and bureaucrats, put aside their enmities and realized that they were all Russians. Russia, sometimes called ‘a state without a people’, seemed to become, for a few precious months, one people, and never quite forgot the experience.
The famine in Russia alone led the peasants to become angry and fed up with the Russian government, suggesting a future revolution. Because of the peasants’ unrest, they began to break the law by as stealing food for their families and shouting in the streets. Russia had attempted revolution before, and a fear of an uprising was feared again. Their everyday routi...
I think that the only reason the Russian revolution was carried out and eventually became successful was that Marxism was appealing to the Russian people. Led by the Bolshevik party leader Lenin, Marxism was spread through Russia, causing an uprising against the government and the czar, Nicholas II. The uproar led to a storming of the capital, and the easy way of seizing power for Lenin and the protesters. Lenin then began to form a new, Marxism way of running the country. The Bolsheviks managed to gain even more power by seizing more of Russia after signing a harsh “treaty”, giving Lenin and the protesters more land and supporters.
Koenker, Diane. “The Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes”. The Journal of Modern History 65, no. 2 (1993): 432.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
Historically, Russia has repeatedly relied on rapid and drastic reforms to catch up to the modern Western world. Sometimes these reforms were successful, and sometimes they failed. Peter the Great’s reign is an example of successful reform, while Alexander II’s is an example of failed reform. The success of Peter’s reforms led to Russia’s rise as an imperial power, and player on the international stage, especially in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the failure of Alexander II’s reforms eventually led to Tsarist Russia’s collapse, and the rise of the Soviet Union. Clearly, Russian reforms had an impact on world history, and must be studied as a result. This paper will seek to explain why Alexander II’s reforms failed. This will be done
107-112. World History in Context. Accessed 15 Feb. 2018. Quenoy, Paul Du, and David L. Ruffley. “Tsar Nicholas II: Did the Decision of Tsar Nicholas II to Take Personal Command at the Front Accelerate the Fall of the Russian Empire?”
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2005. Print.