Talk:Tsarist autocracy

Name

I couldn't find the proper transliteration of Самодержавие; we certainly need it in the article. Should the article be moved to that name? Once the transliteration (and variants) are presented, we should see how popular they are. Other popular variants include replacing tsarist with Russian, and absolutism, with despotism and autocracy (although I think despotism is technically incorrect, as the tsar was not identified with a god). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I added 'Samoderzhaviye'. I think the main contender would use '-vie' ending. We could ask Ezhiki for his opinion, though.

Furthermore, I suspect that the naming policy requires us to use an English name unless the concept is primarily known in English by a foreign name, which does not appear to be the case here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the literal meaning of Russian 'самодержавие' is pretty much the same as the literal meaning of French 'sovereign'. However, through a lot of history, it has by now come to be that the English idea of 'sovereignty' refers to a considerably more general and somewhat different concept. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

самодержавие is an equivalent for autocracy. само + державие -- αὐτός + κράτος (autocrat/autocracy), both consisting of single/self/same + power. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that ru:самодержавие interwikis to autocracy, but pl and cs wikis have separate articles under those languages rendering of samoderzhaviye. I am glad we all agree it is a notable, separate phenomenon, even if it directly translates as autocracy. Question: in Russian language, is самодержавие specific to Russian system, or is it a general world for autocracy - and if so, how would Russians refer to Russian-only самодержавие? I have noticed on pl Wikipedia that many articles on general subjects discuss primarily Polish specifics, which would be better split off into xxx in Poland type of articles (as it is done on en wiki). Digressing a bit, I guess... PS. Ru article has see also to ru:Единодержавие - I cannot translate this term, perhaps someone could consider stubbing it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Единодержавие" is described as an obsolete term in modern wordbooks. This russian wikipedia page is just a copy of the article from old Russian Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in public domain now). Efron seems to use the therms Единодержавие & самодержавие both interchangeably and differently, without clean-cut definitions. From the texts it seems taht the major distinction is that "Единодержавие" is the power of a single person, while "самодержавие" means the absolute power of a single person. Both Efron articles have interesting remarks about historical evolution of the notions in Russia to be re-usewd in wikipedia, but I am not interseted in writing in this topic, so I am leaving it to someone else `'Míkka>t 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And there is plenty of usage of "tsarist autocracy" in wikipedia. I am adding wikilinks right now. `'Míkka>t 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, popularity of names on Google Print:

• "Tsarist autocracy": 813
• "Tsarist absolutism" 624
• "Tsarist despotism" 623
• "Russian autocracy" 1,094
• "Russian absolutism" 689
• "Russian despotism" 758
• "samoderzhaviye" 92
• "samoderžavie" 600 - but are they in English?

Should we move the article to Russian autocracy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO insignificant (10:8) advantage; IMO "tsarist" is more specific. `'Míkka>t 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with 'tsarist' being more preferable due to specificity. The rest should be redirects. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I added on Mongol Empire's

Influence on the tradition of absolutism in Tsarist system.--Molobo (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rurikids?

According to old legends, the Rurikid dynasty began when the Kievan Rus' invited some Vikings to rule over them, because they couldn't rule themselves. My pattern-seeking primate brain finds a certain similarity between that idea, and the latter-day Tsarist idea of Tsar performing a service of micromanaging everybody for the benefit of the country. Is such a connection real -- and is it discussed in the relevant literature? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

micromanaging? you are misapplying the term. Yes, a despot may interfere into minute detail, but it is not traditionally called micromanaging. And by the way, God does not micromanage either. `'Míkka>t 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like in art sketching: I want to keep the reader focused over the pattern rather than bordering concepts, so I deliberately leave the borders fuzzy. Of course I know that the point of feudalism is delegation so the sovereign does not need to manage minute details, but that's not the point here, and the word is also useful here to convey the basic concept of absolutism.

As for God's micromanaging habits, it's hard to decide considering we are yet to receive evidence of His holy existence. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Putinism

How controversial (and reliable) are connections between tsarist autocracy and modern Putinism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO all these "connections" are speculations by historians and politologists. But indeed there are plenty of them. And with adding them here, please write clearly who says so. YOu can draw any kind of parallels between any two political systems. It is not math. It is political game. American President has much more real power than Putin had (or has). `'Míkka>t 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Any of them notable enough for encyclopædic treatise? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration v. transcription

I believe Miacek has a point. Many Russian letters -- including several we need here -- can't be precisely presented as a single Latin letter, so the more conventional thing to do is transcription rather than transliteration. 82.131.110.99 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep both versions. Why not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked Ezhiki, and he said both are correct under different transliteration rulesets. Thus, it makes sense to retain both ones. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tragignomedy

I'm a bit troubled by some of the recent wikignoming edits on this article. In order:

• in [1], User:DonaldDuck removes a 'See also' reference to Oriental despotism -- a concept that is centrally quite relevant to this topic;
  • Totally irelevant concept.
• in [2], User:DonaldDuck removes a sentence comparing Tsarist autocracy with Enlightened absolutism and replaces it with a content-free statement about delegation;
• in [3], User:DonaldDuck removes a relevant 'See also' reference to Byzantism;
• in [4], User:DonaldDuck needlessly removes Russian despotism from the long list of alternative translations of this concept;
  • "Russian despotisn" is not alternative translation of "tsarist autocracy".
• in [5], User:DonaldDuck counterfactually replaces "... establishing a ... police state" with "... establishing a ... police force, perhaps under the misconception of the meanings of these words;
  • Probably, you are under misconception of what is a police state. Peter I did not establishe police throughout Russia. He established police forces only in two cities - St. Petersburg (with total number of policemen under 100) and Moscow.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• In [6] and [7], User:DonaldDuck adds interesting data about the transformation of Tsarist autocracy over time, but damaging the narrative structure a bit.

Unless somebody explains in detail why those edits should stay, I'm inclined to revert them. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Few comments. No explanation was given for changes in see also, and from removal of Russian despotism (demonstrated above to be a popular alt. name). I have removed the unreferenced (in any case) ref. to police. I have now provided a ref for the "subjects as children of the tsar, the father" concept, which is certainly notable. The reference does not speak of a civil service, but I am inklined to let the link remain; however the reference speaks of bureaucracy, and I don't understand why thsi word is removed. Finally, I don't understand why a relevant sentence about Catherine's reforms designed to placate nobility by giving them fictional powers (when in fact state's bureaucracy (civil service...) was strengthen much more) is being removed. PS. And I agree with Digwuren that we should be careful to avoid transforming this article into a "history of Russian civil service". It's certainly not the same concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposing civil service and nobility is quite strange, because civil servants (at least an Catherine's time) were mostly recruited from nobility and civil service was maybe most common way of getting nobility (any civil servant, reaching some specific rank was automatically ennobled).DonaldDuck (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll remove the unreferenced civil service.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mestnichestvo

It's not correct to say that Peter I abolished mestnichestvo, it was abolished by Zemsky Sobor in 1682.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Says Donald Duck. Not very reliable, I am afraid: a reliable source sais otherwise: "Peter took an important step in breaking with traditional constraints in 1722, when he abolished the feudal system that obligated the tsar to respect hereditary ranks when rewarding service to the state (mestnichestvo). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

..was marked by abolition of mestnichestvo in 1682. The weak and sickly Tsar, Feodor III thus succeded in... DonaldDuck (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Or just look at ru:Местничество.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a source more modern then from 1936? And Wikipedia articles are not a reliable reference. In any case, some reading suggests that we are both correct: Feodor abolished mestnichestvo, but it was Peter who created its successor, the Table of Ranks (ref). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Should the concept of autocracy (самодержавие) - as it existed in the 19th century - be part of this article or not? It might be rightfully called a fallacy or a propaganda trick, but it runs contrary to the POV presented here. NVO (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think yes, see comments by Mikka above on this subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Those comments were "something completely different". I meant the idea of samoderzhavie of per Katkov and Pobedonostsev as being the opposite of 18th century absolutism. NVO (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oriental despotism

For reasons unexplained, a link to oriental despotism is being constantly removed. This is not an irrelevant see also; this term is used in this context: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and others. PS. I hope that now that a reference for popularity and relevance of "Russian despotism" has been added, we won't see further unexplained reverts of this term.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it's controversial if some editors don't like it. In the see also section it is unannotated innuendo and potentially insulting. Anything that styles a Christian European country as "oriental" borders on being a slur. This is one of the normal allegations in anti-Russian propganda, including British Crimean war speeches and anti-Slavic and anti-Russian Nazi propaganda films. If you weren't aware of such connotations, you would learn from the links you're posting. All of this outweighs the marginal relevance the terms has to the topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oriental is not a slur. Or if it is, perhaps you should create/expand an article on that use. Poland had some oriental customs, and I have yet to see any Pole be offended with that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume it's, again, incompatibility of concepts - same name means opposite things to different sides. The concept of "autocracy" as it existed under Alexander II and Alexander III, indeed, denounced traces of "oriental despotism" just as it denounced traces of Petrine "absolutism". Quotation marks are there because the words in that particular historical context meant something quite different from today's U. S. college definitions. A person familiar (indoctrinated?) with the concept as it emerged at home, should, indeed, be concerned about linking "autocracy" with either of the two "alien regimes" that "autocracy" was deemed to get rid of. NVO (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian despotism

"Despotism" is a non-neutral term and you have to provide a solid evidence that it was used in scholarly meaning, rather than a slander. I would agree that the usage of the term must be explained in the article, but with a reference more solid than a google search result. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Google search shows that "Russian despotism" is used by some authors, but no sources support that Tsarist autocracy was also known as Russian despotism as in the text of the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To make an example, first paragraph of the article resembles "dog [reference to the google books search for "dog"] also known as cat [reference to the google books search for "cat"]". Apparently some editors keep asserting that statement "dog also known is cat" is supported by numerous scholarly sources, and oppose it's deletion :).DonaldDuck (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The analogy is incorrect because autocracy and despotism share many of the same features, unlike a dog and a cat. Still, if you do a googles BOOKS search for both you get this: [17]. For example "specificity of Russian despotism, that is, Tsarist autocracy" (not judging the quality of the source here, just noting that it's an academic scholarly one). Or "the Russian autocracy was to be in the West a byword for despotism". A bit of searching turns up more. For better or worse, many scholars have made this link. radeksz