Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2117472
I. Toropitsyn
ABSTRACT The article explores the problem of the influence of epidemics on the state of trade between Russia and the East and of navigation in the Caspian Sea basin in the second quarter of the eighteenth century, as well as the views of Astrakhan Gubernia authorities and practical steps that were taken in Astrakhan to ease the quarantine regime for merchants and shipowners in order to develop Russia’s foreign trade.
{"title":"The Influence of Quarantine Measures on the State of Trade Between Russia and the East and of Commercial Navigation in the Caspian Basin in the Second Quarter of the Eighteenth Century","authors":"I. Toropitsyn","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2117472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117472","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article explores the problem of the influence of epidemics on the state of trade between Russia and the East and of navigation in the Caspian Sea basin in the second quarter of the eighteenth century, as well as the views of Astrakhan Gubernia authorities and practical steps that were taken in Astrakhan to ease the quarantine regime for merchants and shipowners in order to develop Russia’s foreign trade.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"43 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47915647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2117469
Vladimir Olegovich Kulakov
{"title":"Special Features and Mechanisms of Russia’s Trade and Economic Activities in Persia through Astrakhan in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century","authors":"Vladimir Olegovich Kulakov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2117469","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117469","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"20 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43461557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2117467
Erika Monahan, M. Romaniello
The Caspian Sea is the world’s largest inland sea. The enclosed body of water was mentioned by ancient geographers as early as the sixth century BCE. Like many ancient nodes of Eurasian trade, in contrast to the European histories of the New World, there is no single discovery Europeans celebrate. The Caspian Sea appeared on maps of Renaissance cartographers, even if with less accuracy than Arabic geographers of the tenth century depicted it. Today, Russia flanks its shores on the west, Iran to the south. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan are the lesser sovereign powers who abut its shore. Turkey, the other regional power, looms large on the other side of the Caucasus. The Caspian Sea is place of ancient and contemporary importance. This inland sea has been a site of shifting geopolitical dynamics for centuries. It has been a site for political rivalries and negotiation just as it has been a site for trade and transit since before East and West became such operative conceptual categories. Merchants from Russian principalities in forested lands far up the Volga ventured south and across the Caspian by the fifteenth century, at least, as the account of the Tver’ merchant Afanasii Nikitin attests. The Muscovite state extended its sovereignty eastward across Eurasia in the mid-sixteenth century, conquering Kazan’ in 1552, followed by the demise of the Khanate of Astrakhan in 1556. Russia’s sovereignty may have been more aspirational than real, not only in the Caspian but along the Volga as well. Nonetheless, its influence was rising in the region. By the seventeenth century, Russia’s merchants were regularly engaged with commerce in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fedot Afanasev syn Kotov, a merchant from Moscow, recorded his impressions of Isfahan, the capital of Iran in 1634. Kotov observed a bustling: “round about the maidan [market] are bazaar streets and coffeehouses and hostelries and mosques, all built of stone, and in front of the storehouses they have all kinds of flowers painted in many colors and in gold and all kinds of people trade in them, Tadjiks, Indians, Turks, Arabs from Armenia, Afghans, Jews, and all manner of people.” Nearby were “about two hundred shops; and alongside that another street and in that RUSSIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY 2022, VOL. 60, NOS. 1–4, 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117467
里海是世界上最大的内海。早在公元前六世纪，古代地理学家就提到了封闭的水体。就像欧亚贸易的许多古老节点一样，与新大陆的欧洲历史形成鲜明对比的是，没有一个欧洲人庆祝的发现。里海出现在文艺复兴时期的地图绘制者的地图上，尽管其准确性不如十世纪的阿拉伯地理学家所描绘的那样。如今，俄罗斯西临其海岸，南临伊朗。阿塞拜疆、土库曼斯坦和哈萨克斯坦是毗邻其海岸的主权较小的国家。另一个地区大国土耳其在高加索的另一边显得举足轻重。里海是一个具有古代和现代重要性的地方。几个世纪以来，这片内海一直是地缘政治动态变化的场所。它一直是政治对抗和谈判的场所，就像在东西方成为如此有效的概念类别之前，它一直是贸易和过境的场所一样。至少在15世纪，来自伏尔加河上游森林地带的俄罗斯公国的商人冒险向南穿越里海，正如特维尔商人Afanasii Nikitin的描述所证明的那样。16世纪中期，莫斯科国家将其主权向东延伸至欧亚大陆，1552年征服喀山，随后阿斯特拉罕汗国于1556年灭亡。俄罗斯的主权可能更具野心而非实际意义，不仅在里海，而且在伏尔加河沿岸。尽管如此，它在该地区的影响力正在上升。到17世纪，俄罗斯商人经常在中东和中亚从事商业活动。来自莫斯科的商人Fedot Afanasev syn Kotov在1634年记录了他对伊朗首都伊斯法罕的印象。科托夫观察到熙熙攘攘：“麦丹（市场）周围是集市街道、咖啡馆、旅馆和清真寺，都是用石头建造的，仓库前有各种各样的花，颜色各异，颜色金黄，各种各样的人在里面交易，塔吉克人、印度人、土耳其人、来自亚美尼亚的阿拉伯人、阿富汗人、犹太人和各种各样的人们。“附近是”大约200家商店；旁边是另一条街，在《俄罗斯历史研究2022》第60卷第1-4、1-7号中https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117467
{"title":"Early Modern Trade in the Caspian Region","authors":"Erika Monahan, M. Romaniello","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2117467","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117467","url":null,"abstract":"The Caspian Sea is the world’s largest inland sea. The enclosed body of water was mentioned by ancient geographers as early as the sixth century BCE. Like many ancient nodes of Eurasian trade, in contrast to the European histories of the New World, there is no single discovery Europeans celebrate. The Caspian Sea appeared on maps of Renaissance cartographers, even if with less accuracy than Arabic geographers of the tenth century depicted it. Today, Russia flanks its shores on the west, Iran to the south. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan are the lesser sovereign powers who abut its shore. Turkey, the other regional power, looms large on the other side of the Caucasus. The Caspian Sea is place of ancient and contemporary importance. This inland sea has been a site of shifting geopolitical dynamics for centuries. It has been a site for political rivalries and negotiation just as it has been a site for trade and transit since before East and West became such operative conceptual categories. Merchants from Russian principalities in forested lands far up the Volga ventured south and across the Caspian by the fifteenth century, at least, as the account of the Tver’ merchant Afanasii Nikitin attests. The Muscovite state extended its sovereignty eastward across Eurasia in the mid-sixteenth century, conquering Kazan’ in 1552, followed by the demise of the Khanate of Astrakhan in 1556. Russia’s sovereignty may have been more aspirational than real, not only in the Caspian but along the Volga as well. Nonetheless, its influence was rising in the region. By the seventeenth century, Russia’s merchants were regularly engaged with commerce in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fedot Afanasev syn Kotov, a merchant from Moscow, recorded his impressions of Isfahan, the capital of Iran in 1634. Kotov observed a bustling: “round about the maidan [market] are bazaar streets and coffeehouses and hostelries and mosques, all built of stone, and in front of the storehouses they have all kinds of flowers painted in many colors and in gold and all kinds of people trade in them, Tadjiks, Indians, Turks, Arabs from Armenia, Afghans, Jews, and all manner of people.” Nearby were “about two hundred shops; and alongside that another street and in that RUSSIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY 2022, VOL. 60, NOS. 1–4, 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117467","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"1 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46455140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2023.2168107
V. Lapin
The surrounding natural environment, the nature of service, and the way that war was conducted in the Caucasus—everything helped inculcate a spirit of independence and personal courage in the soldier along with those fighting traits that set him apart. . . . He had to know in advance what to do if the enemy suddenly appeared nearby with sword drawn, or how to take cover from a shot if he saw a rifle sticking out into a forest clearing. . . . He knew how to fend for himself if he was left a day or two without provisions. In general, whether with a full belly or an empty one, dodging a bullet or taking one, resting by the fireside on straw on a cold winter night or tossing and turning on the bare snow, his fate depended solely on him, and in his case necessity was the mother of invention. And he would never stop adapting to his circumstances throughout the entire year. 1
{"title":"The Russian Army in the Caucasus: A War of Private Actors","authors":"V. Lapin","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2023.2168107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2023.2168107","url":null,"abstract":"The surrounding natural environment, the nature of service, and the way that war was conducted in the Caucasus—everything helped inculcate a spirit of independence and personal courage in the soldier along with those fighting traits that set him apart. . . . He had to know in advance what to do if the enemy suddenly appeared nearby with sword drawn, or how to take cover from a shot if he saw a rifle sticking out into a forest clearing. . . . He knew how to fend for himself if he was left a day or two without provisions. In general, whether with a full belly or an empty one, dodging a bullet or taking one, resting by the fireside on straw on a cold winter night or tossing and turning on the bare snow, his fate depended solely on him, and in his case necessity was the mother of invention. And he would never stop adapting to his circumstances throughout the entire year. 1","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"114 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43453382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2117470
I. Toropitsyn
{"title":"“So That… In the Meantime the Duty From Turkish and Crimean Merchants is Not Lost”: Foreign Trade in Southern Russia in the Middle of the Eighteenth Century","authors":"I. Toropitsyn","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2117470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117470","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"30 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47333559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2023.2175567
Ian W. Campbell
This special section introduces the reader to some exciting new directions in the study of conquest and counterinsurgency on the borderlands of the Russian Empire during the long nineteenth century. The three articles presented here represent move away from what Dennis Showalter famously referred to as “drum and trumpet” military history focused on tactics and operations, on battles and great men. If the reputation of military history in the Anglophone world for methodological conservatism is now somewhat dated and undeserved, Russophone scholars have by and large been slower to embrace the approaches of the “new military history.” Particularly in studies of the Caucasus and Central Asia, the mainstream of Russian military historiography continues to marry a traditional focus on battle with a strongly nationalist view of the historical and present relationship between Russia and its borderlands. The articles collected here, though, show how much can be gained by breaking both disciplinary and sub-disciplinary lines. Whether by incorporating ideas from social, cultural, and political history; by borrowing approaches from other disciplines (anthropology being especially suggestive); or simply by introducing new sources and new perspectives to the discussion, they show the complexity of violence on the imperial Russian borderlands and shed new light on the ways in which the Russian Empire was made and maintained. To focus on the role of conquest and counterinsurgency in the creation of the Russian Empire is not to argue, even implicitly, that Russian imperialism was uniquely oppressive or violent. Still less is it to argue for the existence of deep connections between the imperial warfare of the long nineteenth century and Vladimir Putin’s imperial adventurism in the twenty-first; such parallels must be made with extreme caution. Rather, such a focus emphasizes only that the Russian Empire was part of the family of European colonial empires, and shared with them certain basic strategies and ways of viewing the world. Tsarist statesmen were as willing to secure their interests by right of conquest when other approaches failed as their British or French counterparts. After conquest and annexation, officials sought to create incentives for cooperation, both to secure the RUSSIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY 2022, VOL. 60, NOS. 1–4, 49–53 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2023.2175567
{"title":"War and Peace in “Asiatic Russia”","authors":"Ian W. Campbell","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2023.2175567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2023.2175567","url":null,"abstract":"This special section introduces the reader to some exciting new directions in the study of conquest and counterinsurgency on the borderlands of the Russian Empire during the long nineteenth century. The three articles presented here represent move away from what Dennis Showalter famously referred to as “drum and trumpet” military history focused on tactics and operations, on battles and great men. If the reputation of military history in the Anglophone world for methodological conservatism is now somewhat dated and undeserved, Russophone scholars have by and large been slower to embrace the approaches of the “new military history.” Particularly in studies of the Caucasus and Central Asia, the mainstream of Russian military historiography continues to marry a traditional focus on battle with a strongly nationalist view of the historical and present relationship between Russia and its borderlands. The articles collected here, though, show how much can be gained by breaking both disciplinary and sub-disciplinary lines. Whether by incorporating ideas from social, cultural, and political history; by borrowing approaches from other disciplines (anthropology being especially suggestive); or simply by introducing new sources and new perspectives to the discussion, they show the complexity of violence on the imperial Russian borderlands and shed new light on the ways in which the Russian Empire was made and maintained. To focus on the role of conquest and counterinsurgency in the creation of the Russian Empire is not to argue, even implicitly, that Russian imperialism was uniquely oppressive or violent. Still less is it to argue for the existence of deep connections between the imperial warfare of the long nineteenth century and Vladimir Putin’s imperial adventurism in the twenty-first; such parallels must be made with extreme caution. Rather, such a focus emphasizes only that the Russian Empire was part of the family of European colonial empires, and shared with them certain basic strategies and ways of viewing the world. Tsarist statesmen were as willing to secure their interests by right of conquest when other approaches failed as their British or French counterparts. After conquest and annexation, officials sought to create incentives for cooperation, both to secure the RUSSIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY 2022, VOL. 60, NOS. 1–4, 49–53 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2023.2175567","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"49 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42970084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2157179
Ulfatbek Abdurasulov
During the spring of 1915, at the height of Russia’s grueling battles on the fields of World War I, there was another event unfolding in the remote southern borderlands of the Romanov Empire that at first glance might seem insignificant. On Easter night, March 22, 1915, Turkmen armed militias besieged the capital of the Khanate of Khiva, which had been a de facto protectorate of the Russian Empire since 1873. At the head of the Turkmen detachments was a certain Muhammet-Kurban Serdar, who later became widely known as Junaid Khan. For the first time since the Russian conquest, the Turkmen groups of Khorezm dared to attack the capital of the khanate, threatening Isfandiiar Khan, who ruled “at the gracious pleasure of the Great White Tsar” (1910–1918). Previously, the presence of the Russian garrison at the fort of Petro-Aleksandrovsk, the administrative center of the Amu Darya Department (ADO), was enough to protect the power of the Khivan ruler from challenges by his subjects. The memory of the cruel “lessons” that were taught to the wayward Turkmen tribes during the conquest of the khanate in 1873 and 1876 helped the representatives of the colonial administration to keep the Turkmen leaders subservient simply through “indoctrination.” This time, too, the intervention of the new head of the ADO, Colonel V. P. Kolosovskii, who sent a Cossack sotnia to Khiva, was sufficient to restore order. According to a participant in this small expedition, “the authority of the Russians in Khiva was so great that the arrival of a detachment to Khiva was sufficient to restore the peace.” The siege was lifted, and the Turkmen militias returned to their nomad camps. Despite the bloodless resolution of the crisis, this episode marked the beginning of much more dramatic events. Less than a year later, the
{"title":"Conflict as a Resource: An Anatomy of the “Turkmen Unrest” in Khorezm, 1914–1916","authors":"Ulfatbek Abdurasulov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2157179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2157179","url":null,"abstract":"During the spring of 1915, at the height of Russia’s grueling battles on the fields of World War I, there was another event unfolding in the remote southern borderlands of the Romanov Empire that at first glance might seem insignificant. On Easter night, March 22, 1915, Turkmen armed militias besieged the capital of the Khanate of Khiva, which had been a de facto protectorate of the Russian Empire since 1873. At the head of the Turkmen detachments was a certain Muhammet-Kurban Serdar, who later became widely known as Junaid Khan. For the first time since the Russian conquest, the Turkmen groups of Khorezm dared to attack the capital of the khanate, threatening Isfandiiar Khan, who ruled “at the gracious pleasure of the Great White Tsar” (1910–1918). Previously, the presence of the Russian garrison at the fort of Petro-Aleksandrovsk, the administrative center of the Amu Darya Department (ADO), was enough to protect the power of the Khivan ruler from challenges by his subjects. The memory of the cruel “lessons” that were taught to the wayward Turkmen tribes during the conquest of the khanate in 1873 and 1876 helped the representatives of the colonial administration to keep the Turkmen leaders subservient simply through “indoctrination.” This time, too, the intervention of the new head of the ADO, Colonel V. P. Kolosovskii, who sent a Cossack sotnia to Khiva, was sufficient to restore order. According to a participant in this small expedition, “the authority of the Russians in Khiva was so great that the arrival of a detachment to Khiva was sufficient to restore the peace.” The siege was lifted, and the Turkmen militias returned to their nomad camps. Despite the bloodless resolution of the crisis, this episode marked the beginning of much more dramatic events. Less than a year later, the","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"54 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43852106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2157180
P. Takhnaeva
ABSTRACT The Siege of Akhulgo was one of the major military operations of the Caucasian War, which was conducted in Dagestan by the Chechen Detachment of the Caucasian Army under the command of Lieutenant General P. Kh. Grabbe from June 12 to August 29, 1839. According to Russian and local sources, we know that the parties had made repeated attempts to end the bloody confrontation through negotiations. According to Russian sources, the negotiations sought a surrender, while according to local sources, the participants discussed a peace agreement.
{"title":"Akhulgo: On the Failed Peace Negotiations Based on the Local Chronicles and Official Russian Sources (June–August 1839)","authors":"P. Takhnaeva","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2157180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2157180","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Siege of Akhulgo was one of the major military operations of the Caucasian War, which was conducted in Dagestan by the Chechen Detachment of the Caucasian Army under the command of Lieutenant General P. Kh. Grabbe from June 12 to August 29, 1839. According to Russian and local sources, we know that the parties had made repeated attempts to end the bloody confrontation through negotiations. According to Russian sources, the negotiations sought a surrender, while according to local sources, the participants discussed a peace agreement.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"94 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48112898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2022.2117468
E. V. Alekseeva
Russia’s entrance into its modern period, at the turn of the seventeenth century, sped up the country’s inclusion into the European economic space. At that point, Russian economic policy began a significant reorientation toward the economy of Western Europe that would align it with the latter’s leading developmental tendencies. Scholars have identified mercantilism, liberalism, and neo-protectionism as the directions taken by European economies in modern times. European mercantilism, which dates to the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries, was a time of original capital accumulation. The essence of mercantilism as an economic policy lies in the state’s operative interference in the country’s economic life, and a focus on a positive foreign trade balance and the promotion of domestically produced goods. Late-mercantilist policy is associated with active protectionism, support for the expansion of commercial capital, and the comprehensive encouragement of domestic industrial development, especially in manufacturing. In the latter third of the eighteenth century, the Industrial Revolution, which was just then beginning in Great Britain, ousted mercantilism in favor of liberalism (laissezfaire, governmental noninterference in private entrepreneurial activities, freedom of trade). After the [financial] crisis of 1873, the ideas of free trade definitively lost the popularity they had once had, and the leading Western countries embarked instead on the protectionist path. This third stage saw a resurgence of protectionist tariffs and state interference in the economy, but under a different understanding than before. Neoprotectionism entailed state-imposed restrictions on international trade to supplement the traditional limitations on undesirable imports. The task of
{"title":"The Russian Empire’s Economic Policy in the Context of the Principal Developmental Tendencies of the Global Economy in the Modern Era","authors":"E. V. Alekseeva","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2022.2117468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2022.2117468","url":null,"abstract":"Russia’s entrance into its modern period, at the turn of the seventeenth century, sped up the country’s inclusion into the European economic space. At that point, Russian economic policy began a significant reorientation toward the economy of Western Europe that would align it with the latter’s leading developmental tendencies. Scholars have identified mercantilism, liberalism, and neo-protectionism as the directions taken by European economies in modern times. European mercantilism, which dates to the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries, was a time of original capital accumulation. The essence of mercantilism as an economic policy lies in the state’s operative interference in the country’s economic life, and a focus on a positive foreign trade balance and the promotion of domestically produced goods. Late-mercantilist policy is associated with active protectionism, support for the expansion of commercial capital, and the comprehensive encouragement of domestic industrial development, especially in manufacturing. In the latter third of the eighteenth century, the Industrial Revolution, which was just then beginning in Great Britain, ousted mercantilism in favor of liberalism (laissezfaire, governmental noninterference in private entrepreneurial activities, freedom of trade). After the [financial] crisis of 1873, the ideas of free trade definitively lost the popularity they had once had, and the leading Western countries embarked instead on the protectionist path. This third stage saw a resurgence of protectionist tariffs and state interference in the economy, but under a different understanding than before. Neoprotectionism entailed state-imposed restrictions on international trade to supplement the traditional limitations on undesirable imports. The task of","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"60 1","pages":"8 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47300900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.2014759
P. Shabley
Abstract The article examines how the issue of a muftiate on the Kazakh Steppe was connected to imperial transformations and the Kazakhs’ ability to adapt to these changes. It discusses why local communities did not develop a uniform or consolidated position on their religious administration.
{"title":"A Kazakh Muftiate or the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly: The Shape of Public Opinion in the Expanses of the Empire (Second Half of the Nineteenth–Beginning of the Twentieth Century)","authors":"P. Shabley","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.2014759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.2014759","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article examines how the issue of a muftiate on the Kazakh Steppe was connected to imperial transformations and the Kazakhs’ ability to adapt to these changes. It discusses why local communities did not develop a uniform or consolidated position on their religious administration.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"292 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47406756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：