1.1.3. Russia and Europe, collision civilisations
Ages for you, for us the briefest space,
We raised the shield up as your humble lieges
To shelter you, the European race
From the Mongolians’ savage raid and sieges.24
The meeting of the East and the West on the vast Russian territory sparked a tendency for mutual complement of the opposites reflected in their cultures. As the result, Russia emerged as a natural link between the western and the eastern civilisations, as it could become a successor for neither of them. “Russia is a bridge between the godless man of the West and the inhuman God of the East’ (Vladimir Solovyov). “It is in Russia that the West and the East collide and interact, not only as geographic entities but also as to two historic and cultural sources, as two flows of the world history – the western and the eastern’ (Nikolay Berdyaev). This encounter also brought about the unprecedented centuries-long confrontation between Europe and Russia. So, what are the main differences of these civilisations?
The western world came into existence on rather homogeneous territories – mostly rich and fertile, blessed with a favourable climate, connected to a number of seas and rivers that encouraged transportation of people and goods, as well as information exchange. Thanks to constant populations migration and wars the lifestyles of the European peoples could not diverge much. Instead, they mixed with each other to form similar tastes and culture, ideologic and religious dogmas, behavioural principles, and material and spiritual values.
However Russian mentality has been forged in quite different conditions: large swathes of land, flat country, and harsh climate. The severe environment acted as natural selection on human characters. As a consequence, the vast territories of Eastern Europe saw the formation of a peculiar world that grew to prosperity through labour and sweat, and sometimes – through blood. This skill of surviving the hardships and being content with little when the surrounding nature offered a lot, was at the origin of the generous and open Russian soul.
The strength of the Slavs resided in their tribal system that assured the unity of people and encourage kind attitude to each other. It was this system that forged the moral and combat qualities of the warriors, giving them solidarity and mutual assistance in fighting. The Slavic combat tactic did not reside in the invention of the combat order formations, as it was in the Roman Empire and other similar states, but in the variety of enemy attacking strategies during assault and defence. Hence, as the Arab writer Al-Bakri said, if the Slavs, “this powerful and fearsome people’, were not split into many groups and tribes, no one could have stood against them.
Many Byzantine writers remarked the bellicosity of the Slavic tribes. The politicians of the Eastern Roman Empire feared Slavic political entities. That is why Maurice, a sixth century strategist and writer from Constantinople, recommended to take advantage of the feud to fight the Slavic tribes by setting them against each other in order to weaken them. It should be noted that this strategy is still in use today, and it marks the specific attitude of Europe towards Russia.
When defending their habitat, the Russian could not count upon the poorly accessible natural barriers, so they had chosen between perishing under the onslaught of the neighbouring savage hordes and learning to fight them back. It is evident that military methods alone would not suffice here. That is why from the very beginning the Russians tried to come on terms with their neighbours, to reconcile with them in order to increase the area of their own influence. It was essential for the Russian people to avoid imposing their way of life, as well as infringing on that of the other peoples; instead they would seek to pacify the intertribal relationship. Thus, they have synthesized a new entity impregnated with the best customs and labour skills of their neighbours. As the result, a unique community of various peoples emerged; a community that always welcomed new knowledge, new cultural trends and economic tools; a community based on the principles of equality and democracy. As Procopius of Caesarea, a sixth-century Greek scientist, informed, “…the Sclaveni and the Antae, are not ruled by one man, but they have lived from of old under a democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people’ [20].
All of the above contributed to the formation of an original and kind nation, bound, despite the large variety of the peoples that made it, by means of a common and synthetic culture. This culture is at the source of unprecedented adaptability, racial, religious and human tolerance, as well as an inherent strive for unification that allowed to stretch the borders of the country to encompass one sixth of the planet. That is why “Russia does not result from an accidental accumulation of territories and tribes, as it is not an artificially built ‘region’-based mechanism, but a living organism that has evolved historically and has been culturally justified and that cannot be split arbitrarily’ (Philosopher I. Iliyn).
The union thus created proved solid in the complicated history of the Russian state. The annals of the year 859 depict the Russians, allied with the Merya and the Kriviches tribes, driving away the Varangians, refusing to pay the tribute, and starting to “govern themselves and build towns’. The union of Russian tribes who in the tenth-eleventh centuries united to fight the foreigners included, beside the Novgorodians, the Aesti and eastern Finno-Ugric tribes: the Merya, the Izhorians, the Votes, etc. And all tribes enjoyed equal rights.
Consequently, Russia was not familiar with national swagger, prohibition of cultural marriages, or cultural shaming. All peoples were entitled to speak their language, to live in accordance with their culture, faith and traditions. Any person, whatever his ethnicity, could live in Russia and enjoy due respect notwithstanding his national or cultural origin. Besides, ethnic differences did not prevent people from taking high posts. For instance, Semen Emin, who was elected the tysyatsky (chiliarch in Ancient Rus) of the Veliky Novgorod in 1218, came from the Emi tribe. Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible did not conceal his relation with the direct descendants of Genghis Khan and even used it for political purposes. Among Tsar Boris Godunov’s ancestors was the Tatar mirza Cheta, known under the Christian name of Khazariya, who served the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita (Ivan I of Moscow), etc.
Thus, the attitude to people was determined in Russia not by their ethnicity, but by their personal qualities. For example, the author of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign describes with great respect the life and the character of the noble Polovtsians, sworn enemies of the Russians. The Russian chronicler who draw the Story of the Tsardom of Kazan admires the bravery of the Tatars who defended Kazan from the Russians and provides a lyrical description of the worries of Princess Sцyembikд. This attitude also explains why in 1612 Russia was liberated from the Polish intervention not only by Russians, but also with the help of the Tatars (in particular, one of the leaders of the Russian militia, Kuzma Minin, was a Tatar by origin), the Bashkirs, the Mordvins, the Chuvashs, the Ukrainians, the Cossacks, etc. And Russian history has numerous other examples of such attitude. For this reason, “Russian unity has allowed to preserve the idea that runs through the New Testament – that of the equality of peoples and men in general, an equality that opposes the ideology of supremacy and submission’ (V. I. Sigov, G. A. Karpova, S. I. Pintsov).
The mentality of the nation thus synthesized is at the source of unprecedented adaptability, racial, religious and human tolerance. Russia has become an example of shared existence of various nations, peoples, and states that allows to avoid any discord or strife between them. Russia has managed to serve as a model of organisation