From 1396 until 1878 the Ottoman Empire ruled over Bulgaria (Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria to the United States, year unknown, herein referred to as “Embassy”). For nearly 500 years the Bulgarian people were oppressed and mistreated by the Ottoman rulers. Very little was done by the Bulgarians to stop this. Until 1762, when a Bulgarian monk studying in Greece wrote a book, and this book inspired the Bulgarian people to fight for their freedom (Georgiev E, 1972). Paisiy Hilendarski, otherwise known as Saint Paisius of Hilendar or Father Paisiy, was a monk from Bansko in Bulgaria; his book “Istoriya Slavanobulgarska” changed the course of Bulgarian history, and is believed to have been the beginning of the Bulgarian National Revival (Georgiev). …show more content…
After the release of the book in Bulgaria, the Bulgarian people began to rise up against the Ottoman oppressors. This led to the beginning of a search for better education, and growing pride in their home country. These events ushered the eventual liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, after the Russo-Turkish War (Embassy). Without the writing of his book, who is to say what would have happened. On the assumption that Vasil Levski (who is considered the greatest hero in Bulgarian history for his part in the National Revival) was never inspired to try and liberate Bulgaria, what we now know as Bulgaria may have just been another part of Turkey. The life of Paisiy, his book, and its impact on Bulgaria was extremely influential in the creation of events leading up to the Bulgarian National Revival and the declaration of Bulgaria as a …show more content…
The first, and most important step, was to shape Bulgarians to make them nationally conscious “as an ethnic unit within the Ottoman Empire” and to “establish the existence of a Bulgarian nation as such” (Georgiev). Paisiy accomplishes this by explaining how the Turks arrived to annex Bulgaria, and how they have tried to eradicate the Bulgarian history and culture “when the Turks suddenly invaded the Bulgarian lands they showed no tolerance and burned churches, monasteries, and the tsar and bishop palaces” (Hilendarski). He goes on to explain that “in this time people scared of the Turkish terror ran for their own lives, and in this tough time the royal histories and the chronicles of Bulgarian patriarchs and bishops and the stories of many saints were destroyed” (Hilendarski). Paisiy was attempting to generate resentment among the Bulgarians towards the Ottomans, by informing the Bulgarians that the Ottomans were the reason why they did not know much about their history, and culture; and that the Ottomans were “terrors” to their ancestors. His goal with this was to get Bulgarians to reject the idea of an Ottoman Bulgaria, and to inspire them to think of Bulgaria as a separate nation. The second step in the program was to “create a Bulgarian national life” (Georgiev). This goes conjointly with the first step. Paisiy wanted to create national life for Bulgaria by
Review Guide- Chapter 18: Timeline- 1533-1584: Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) 1604-1613: Time of Troubles 1613-1917: Romanov dynasty 1689-1725: Peter the Great 1703: Founding of St. Petersburg 1762-1796:
Aleksander Nikitenko is notable for an extraordinarily detailed dairy kept from a very early age that provides an intimate view of Russian culture during the early 1800s. Aleksander’s written account, Up from Serfdom, offers a first-hand account of Russian history, making a rather insightful contribution to slave literature. This book is among one of the very few autobiographies ever written by a pre-existing serf. Despite being a bright child, Nikitenko was nevertheless one of the three hundred thousand serfs that were the personal property of the Sheremetiv family in Voronezh Province, whom possessed legal authority to dispose of the serfs as they wished. Nonetheless, through a remarkable turn of events, Aleksander, unlike other serfs
In The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth Century Russia, Cynthia Whittaker argues that depending on the historical, cultural and contextual period, there can be demarcated two types, both distinctive and contrasting, of Russian sovereigns, namely the “good tsar” and the “reforming tsar”. The scholar juxtaposes the two models of monarchs against the backdrop of “medieval” versus “modern” type of governance. According to it the “good tsar” typology, which is typical for the earlier Muscovy realm, defines the ruler as pious and inert, characterized by its liturgical form and static nature of the rule. The “good tsar” is bound to uphold Orthodoxy, preserve and control public order, help the poor and the underdogs
Peter’s respect did not translate into friendship with Western Europe. These countries were his competitors, his rivals, and one could say that by modernizing Peter was really trying to beat them at their own game. He fought a long war against Sweden and with victory finally gained possession of ports on the Baltic that opened the way for greater trade with Western Europe. Meanwhile, Peter continued Russia’s attempts to expand at the Ottoman Empire’s expense. His short war in 1710-11 was a failure, though, and nearly resulted in his own capture. In spite of this loss, it was obvious to Peter and the rest of Europe that the Ottoman Empire was in an irreversible decline. The Ottomans were quite a contrast to Europe: outdated in technology and military methods, politically unstable, and scarcely able to control their far-flung empire.
The book also shows how well was Holland and the rest of western Europe were more civilized and more modernized than it was in Russia, and also n this book it explains that if it wasn’t for Peter the great, Russia wouldn’t be modernized by it self as some of the Russian civilians would say.
Within a few days in February 1917, Tsarist Russia came to an end. The Romanov family, who had ruled Russia since the 17th century, were overthrown and the monarchy crumbled. Traditional historian Bernard Pares argues that incompetent ministers and weaknesses of Nicholas II is to blame. While traditionalist historian Edmund Walsh blames the incompetence of the Tsarina and her mysticism beliefs. There are however many factors contributing to the Russian revolution of February 1917, such as: World War 1, political and economic failures. Therefore this essay will consider the impact of each factor in order to assess whether the winter of 1916-17 was the final straw for the people of Russia.
We are shown how saints and pilgrimages intersected with national, religious, and regional identities with the peasants. Even though Chulos states that Russia didn't develop a sense of nation (78) a strong sense of cultural identity develop that was inseparable from Orthodoxy. I found this chapter to have greatly showed how religion was important to the peasants by showing just how intertwined it had become throughout the years, that without it the peasants would not have a major part of themselves that helped them live through their troubled
In this essay I will break down and give background on the conflicts between the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires. I will compare and contrast a few of the economical differences between these empires.
The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s
Though a majority of the Armenian population in Turkey lived in poverty and despair, a small minority had excelled as best they could within their second class status, with many serving as professionals, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, artists, architects and skilled craftsmen. When World War I broke out in 1914, leaders of the Young Turk regime sided with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). The outbreak of war would provide the perfect opportunity to solve the ‘Armenian question’ once and for all for the Young Turks. The world’s attention became fixed upon the battlegrounds of France and Belgium where the young men of Europe were soon falling dead by the hundreds of thousands. The Eastern Front eventually included the border between Turkey and Russia. With war at hand, unusual measures involving the civilian population would not seem too out of the ordinary. At this time, about forty thousand Armenian men were serving in the Turkish Army. In the fall and winter of 1914, all of their weapons were confiscated and they were put into slave labor battalions building roads or were used as human pack animals. Under the brutal work conditions they suffered a very high death rate. Those who survived would soon be shot outright. For the time had come to move against the Armenians. The decision to annihilate the entire population came directly from the
Starting a Revolution can be fun like a carnival. In “Outbreak of the Russian Revolution” it is shown how much joy Eduard Dune has in the revolution coming to his city. In this writing it give the world an account what Dune sees in the opening days of the revolution. This Revolution would touch every coner of the Russia Empire and would bring it to its knee. After reading this passage it is seen that Dune saw it was time for the Revolution to happen, the joy he had in the march, and how he saw people change during the course of the march.
The Byzantium Empire had lost considerable territory to the Seljuk Turks. In 1095, Alexius 1 of the Byzantine empire sent envoys to Pope Urban II asking for mercenary troops from the West to help confront the Turkish threat. The relations between Christians in the East and West had long been fractured, but Alexius’s request came at a time when the situation was improving and Pope urban the second agreed to send help. (History.com)
After the interview the Turkish military officials, soldiers and ordinary men sacked Armenian villages and cities and massacred their citizens, many Armenian’s where murdered. As years passed in 1908 a new government came to place overthrowing Sultan Abdul Hamid which was called “young Turks” at first the Armenian’s had hope that things could probably change for them now that they had a different government. But they soon realized that the way these “young Turks” thought was “non- Turks and especially Christian non- Turks were a grave threat to the new state” ( History.com 2010).
Despite all the work Alexander II did toward reforming Russia, the “Era of Great Reforms” left one crucial aspect unaltered: the power of the emperor. The intentional neglect of this was what kept the reforms from realizing their true potential. This led to dissatisfaction, which encouraged repression, terror, and most importantly: revolution. The first was the Polish Rebellion, caused by the failure of Russian authorities to suppress Polish nationalism. Although the Poles failed, other minorities sprung up for their voice
The catastrophes of the past are the foundation of the future, events that occurred in the past cause people to envision a “better life” of not only for themselves but a society as a whole. By envisioning a better future individual rose up, advocated ideas, and policies that they believed would help in advancing their countries. For the purpose of this course, let us discuss the uprising of the Russian government and the European Council; both as single entities have their own goals, but collectively they seek to benefit their country(‘s) and promote prosperity, but through history and the changes of power has that aim been reached? Or if it is already has reached it, will these forms of government fail?