The Origins of Russian Authoritarianism

Why has there never been a consistently functioning Russian democracy? No functioning system of public accountability? Why is Russia so incredibly corrupt? Why is it that Russia seems to have spent almost the entirety of its history as an authoritarian state? In this video, I will explain to you the political developments that over the course of centuries came to shape the authoritarian Russian state.

Here is a link to my Odysee, many thanks to them for this opportunity:

Sources:

The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama
Why Nations Fail by Daren Acemoglu and James Robinson
Lord and Peasant in Russia by Jerome Blum
A History of Russia by Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark Steinberg
Feudal Society by Marc Bloch

Thank you again, and don't forget to subscribe to watch more.

Music Royalties:

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

"Baroque Harpsichord Music" is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Ride of the Valkyries (by Wagner) by Wagner
Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0

Dance Of The Sugar Plum Fairies (by Tchaikovsky) by Tchaikovsky
Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0

1812 Overture (by Tchaikosvky) by Tchaikovsky
Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported— CC BY 3.0

[DerPoto]

Kraut said that he wouldn't promote products he wouldn't use himself, from which we can conclude that he's suffering from hair loss

[AlternateHistoryHub]

This combined with the crippling alcoholism doesn't really create the brightest future for Russia

[Kraut_the_Parrot]

I wish I could have made a 4 hour series about this topic instead. It's such a deeply fascinating and important story.

[Silverwind]

I always found it silly when some people said the Soviet Union was coming back. Clearly it's the Russian Empire that's returning.

[asghyoutube]

I can only think about the fact that Kraut had to search "copyright free throat singing"

[bradleytan]

rip novgorod, your land force limit was too low for this world.

[scanida]

Russian politicians: Keep their power.
Kraut‘s video: Sponsored by Keeps.

Coincidence? *I. THINK. NOT! :D*

[basileus]

5:23 - 5:30
"the Russian princes recruited army of cavalryman who paid not in money but in land"
well that basically the definition of west europe feudalism but then you said this feudalisn didn't exist in medieval russia

[Shenaldrac]

I appreciate you resisting the current trend of painting the Mongols as some kind of positive, enlightened force. It's always struck me as strange and a little gross when I see them presented as this amazing economic power that was so beneficial to the people they conquered. As though brutally destroying dozens if not hundreds of towns and cities if they didn't fully capitulate to them was a perfectly reasonable, unobjectionable thing.

[youtubecensorshipisadownwa]

Oh snap he did it, posted another masterpiece

[CivilWarWeekByWeek]

Who would sponsor authoritarianism this question brought to you by raid shadow legends

[SergeyBerezovikov]

Russian here. Pretty accurate. The only thing you forgot to mention was the quality and quantity of arable lands in Russia in the Middle Ages compared to Europe. Europe had much more and much better arable lands with a much better climate, which made it possible to save up surplus food for getting the economy moving. Meanwhile, the Russians were busy not with economic development, but with survival. That applied also to the ruling class, with princes often going hungry themselves more than once in a season.

[meric]

When talking about Mongols being responsible for increased isolation and autocracy in Russia, while mentioning the decline of feudalism in Europe due in part to the black plague, it's fun to consider that the Mongols were also a major contributor to the plague spreading throughout half the globe.

[Gus-twzw]

These thumbnail images are getting more and more elaborate and eye-catching. Their quality does more justice to the longstanding quality of your videos. Regards to the artist.

[aaronmorton]

I love how this channel has essentially become the "Why Nations Fail" channel.

Also, read Why Nations Fail

[dredhead]

I was today years old when I found out that some historians portray the Mongols in a favorable

They may have conquered the largest area of any army ever, but they did so at a tremendous human cost. Tens and dozens of millions of people from China to Persia to Russia to the Levant to Hungary were slaughtered in their insatiable thirst for plunder and tribute. They burned, destroyed and sacked possibly thousands of towns and cities, and enslaved and subjugated the people they conquered. Some places that they attacked took hundreds of years to recover, demographically and economically.

Kind of a no-brainer that they were a negative force in human history.

[andreiporojanu]

Under any circumstance, this man, this dude, this austrian gentleman manages to make such quality videos of the most interesting currents of history and often ignored dictacting parameters, it is absolutely fascinating.

[danielb]

As a Russian, I was around 18 years old when I fully internalized that Absolutism is not the norm: I would read about the nobles opposing king and go “wtf, he is king, he can just kill them for that, but why is he not doing it, wired Europeans”

[Tirrath]

I would say this video is overall accurate, but there were a few glaring points that stood out to me as either inaccurate or exaggerated:

1) The real origin of Russian absolutism is not the Mongols but the Byzantine empire, where you had an autocratic emperor answering only to God who had no checks and balances on his authority. There is a reason why Russian rulers called themselves "tsar" (caesar) and not "khans". Indeed, the fact is that the Orthodox Church (brought over from Byzantium) was actually one of the strongest forces pushing for a more powerful central state - the reason why Ivan the Terrible became the first divinely-appointed "tsar" at just the age of 14, which laid the foundation for his tyranny later on, is because the Church hierarchy pushed for it.
For this reason, I think it is a much more convincing argument that the Orthodox Church is to blame for Russian absolutism, and not the Mongols who left very little real impact on the laws and institutions of Russia.

2) The solidification of serfdom in Russia took place not under the Mongols, but more than 2 centuries after their arrival at the end of the 16th century, when Russian peasants gradually lost their right to leave their landlords. While slavery is one of the oldest institutions in Russian history, going back to the first legal codes of Kievan Rus, it is not accurate to say that serfdom was the result of Mongol influence - in fact, Russia ended up embracing serfdom just like countries like Poland-Lithuania which were much more "free"/decentralized at a state level.

3) Saying that Russia had no real "classes" is extremely inaccurate. In the 17th century, in fact, you had the start of a very rigid caste system that separated serfs from free peasants and townsmen/merchants, which was codified into law in the 1649 Ulozhenie. This system did not last forever, of course, and by 1917 both Moscow and St. Petersburg (and many other cities in Russia) had as big and respectable of a bourgeoisie as any comparable European city - and it is that same bourgeoisie which ended up spearheading the November and October revolutions.

After looking at the sources for this video, I think it is clear that it is not based on a strong academic foundation, but is more rooted in shallow/mistaken claims made in popular history books, and particularly in the discredited "Mongol yoke" theory. For that reason, I would recommend anyone interested in an actual look at Russian history to read the "Cambridge History of Russia" series of volumes, which is about as accurate and detailed as you can get.

[Wijshssjej]

Age like fine wine made of grapes from northern Italy on the eastern side of the mountain.