Vrylakas' Eastern European History-Question-a-Day Quiz

[Vrylakas]

Pawpaw wrote:

pilsudski was a polish radical who on the outbreak of the russo-japanese war of 1905 went to japan to talk about a polish legion coming to aid japan against the russians.

Essentially correct; Pilsudski was a socialist aggitating for Polish independence in the two decades prior to World War I. Not before but after the Russo-Japanese War he made a secret trip to Tokyo in an attempt to form an anti-Russian alliance with the Japanese. Obviously, Japan was not about to re-ignite a war with Russia with a rag-tag collection of Polish rebels as allies so they sent the Poles home with an arms shipment and dropped communications with them. Pilsudski nonetheless remained an ardent admirer of all things Japanese and wrote a book about the swift Japanese defeat of the Russians. Pilsudski eventually became marshall, then dictator of an independent Poland in the 1920s and 30s until his death in 1935. Good job Pawpaw!

Now a hard one:

Who was Samo, and what is he credited with? Why is his ethnic/national background controversial?

 

[Hitro]

Samo was the ruler of a (kind of) united Slavic empire in what is today considered Eastern Europe. He is credited with uniting the Slavs (in the 7th century I think), but his empire fell apart after his death.

Can't say anything about the controversy concerning his ethnic background, as a guess I say that maybe he could have been Germanic himself?

 

[Vrylakas]

Hitro wrote:

Samo was the ruler of a (kind of) united Slavic empire in what is today considered Eastern Europe. He is credited with uniting the Slavs (in the 7th century I think), but his empire fell apart after his death.

Can't say anything about the controversy concerning his ethnic background, as a guess I say that maybe he could have been Germanic himself?

Yes! - You got it! Samo created the first known Slavic state, in what is today eastern Czech Republic (Moravia), in the 8th century. Initially his state was besieged by the Franks but ultimately they accepted and integrated Samo's state into the Western Christian political structures. Samo's state eventually imploded but it laid the foundations for a successor state that developed in the 9th century, the Moravian Empire (Moravia Magna, Svatopluk et al) which eventually morphed into the Bohemian kingdom (after the Hungarian invasions).

Samo's ethnicty or origins are in dispute because there is too much legend surrounding him, and modern nationalists also want to claim him. He is reputed to have been a Frankish merchant, but his name - "Samo" - means "self" in Slavic (as in "self-govern", "self-Serve", etc.) so it's not clear whether this was really his name or a title, or a moniker. Also, his initial dealings and disputes with the Franks seem to indicate there was a learning curve on his part; why would a Frank have so much trouble dealing with fellow Franks? What is clear is Samo brought Christianity to the lower Western Slavs and helped integrate them into the Western European power structures at an early date, politically and economically.

Thanks Hitro - good one!

Next Question:

Which king of England was half-Polish, on his mother's side, and who was his royal grandfather?

[Hint: This was on one of my early quizzes in these forums.]

 

[nixon]

Not sure, but Canute the Great (1st)? Grandfather? Would that be Harald Bluetooth, credited with recognizing Christianity as the primary religion in Denmark?

Those are my guesses

Btw, isn't it disputed whether Samo's state really was the first Slavic state? I mean, you might as well say that Svyatoslav's Kievan Rus was the first Slavic state, or Bulgaria.

 

[Vrylakas]

Nixon wrote:

Not sure, but Canute the Great (1st)? Grandfather? Would that be Harald Bluetooth, credited with recognizing Christianity as the primary religion in Denmark?

Those are my guesses

Yer half correct: Knut/Canute, the last of the Danish-era kings of England, was indeed half-Polish from his mother, Swietoslawa, who had married Sven, King of Denmark and gave birth to Knut. Swietoslawa's father (i.e., Knut's maternal grandfather) was none other than Mieszko I, the probable founder of Poland and first Christian ruler of that country.

Btw, isn't it disputed whether Samo's state really was the first Slavic state? I mean, you might as well say that Svyatoslav's Kievan Rus was the first Slavic state, or Bulgaria.

No, this is not in dispute. Samo's state was founded out of the Slavic remains of the Avar empire more than a century before Riurik and Oleg established Rus, and while the founding of the Bulgar empire was contemporaneous with Samo's state, the Bulgars led by Isparikh/Asparukh were not yet Slavicized, speaking still a Turkic language.

It is certainly possible that earlier Slavic states were created that we just don't [yet] know about - it is claimed by some paleoethnographers that the Varangians did not so much conquer Rus territories as make deals with local Slavic rulers and thus knit together many smaller Slavic statelets, only occasionally resorting to arms - but as we know so far, Samo was the first to establish a Slavic state. As we know...

Next question: What was the official excuse for the American, British and Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War? Was this mission ultimately successful?

 

[polymath]

"What was the official excuse for the American, British and Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War? Was this mission ultimately successful?"

Hmm, the official excuse for all three?
Well, a half-remembered mish-mash here, but I'll give it a go:

Some Czech forces took over the Trans-Siberian railway (sounds strange to me, them being in Siberia, but I'm sure of it, they'd been fighting with the Russians who disengaged from the War, so they retreated East as you would) - they wanted a free Czecho IIRC, and had arguments with the Red Army on the way East. Therefore, they took over the railway and effectively controlled Vladivostock. The US (maybe the Brits too?) wanted to assist them, and also keep an eye on the Japs, who were I guess investigating the Northern Resource Area for their own ends.
Also, the ports in the Russian East were vital for the Allied war effort, and the US put troops there e.g. in Vladivostock and Murmansk, to make sure they did not fall.
Also, the Allies wanted to maintain a Russian front in the war, so Germany would have to keep fighting on two fronts.
And obviously, nobody liked the Bolsheviks and wanted to get rid of them.
So there's 3 reasons there (4 if you include plain wanting to get rid of the Bolsheviks).
But an official excuse? Wasn't there some trumped up economic aid thing? Dont know really.

Was it successful?
No, the US did not send enough men - there were none spare at that point. I think that's the primary cause of failure.

 

[Vrylakas]

Polymath wrote:

"What was the official excuse for the American, British and Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War? Was this mission ultimately successful?"

Hmm, the official excuse for all three?
Well, a half-remembered mish-mash here, but I'll give it a go:

Some Czech forces took over the Trans-Siberian railway (sounds strange to me, them being in Siberia, but I'm sure of it, they'd been fighting with the Russians who disengaged from the War, so they retreated East as you would) - they wanted a free Czecho IIRC, and had arguments with the Red Army on the way East. Therefore, they took over the railway and effectively controlled Vladivostock. The US (maybe the Brits too?) wanted to assist them, and also keep an eye on the Japs, who were I guess investigating the Northern Resource Area for their own ends.
Also, the ports in the Russian East were vital for the Allied war effort, and the US put troops there e.g. in Vladivostock and Murmansk, to make sure they did not fall.
Also, the Allies wanted to maintain a Russian front in the war, so Germany would have to keep fighting on two fronts.
And obviously, nobody liked the Bolsheviks and wanted to get rid of them.
So there's 3 reasons there (4 if you include plain wanting to get rid of the Bolsheviks).
But an official excuse? Wasn't there some trumped up economic aid thing? Dont know really.

Was it successful?
No, the US did not send enough men - there were none spare at that point. I think that's the primary cause of failure.

On the nail, Polymath. Tomas Masaryk had convinced the Allies to declare the Czech Legion an allied belligerent force, which (officially) prompted their "rescure mission". All three allies had ulterior reasons for their intervention, though only the British were particularly interested in overthrowing the Bolsheviks. Ultimately as you mention the Allied forces were far too small for any major adventures.

Masaryk and Benes BTW initially hoped to retrieve the Czech Legion for use in securing the new Czechoslovakia's borders from its neighbors, but after some time Masaryk begn to fear the radical political influence the Czech legionnaires might exercise over the republic...

Great job Polymath!

Next question:

What were the OUN and UPA, and what happened to them?

 

[stormbind]

They were the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Insurgent (Paramilitary) Army.

They were eventually dispanded!

--- Edit ---

Sorry, I'm no historian and cannot answer seriously

During WW2, they were a political organisation and militia dedicated to achieving an independent Ukrain. They were enemies of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

They continued their struggle after the Soviets had secured the territory and continued as freedom fighters until 1956. They had no funding, no external allies and weren't very succesful.

Ukrain became independent in 1991 by unrelated means.

 

[Vrylakas]

Stormbind wrote:

They were the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Insurgent (Paramilitary) Army.

They were eventually dispanded!

--- Edit ---

Sorry, I'm no historian and cannot answer seriously

During WW2, they were a political organisation and militia dedicated to achieving an independent Ukrain. They were enemies of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

They continued their struggle after the Soviets had secured the territory and continued as freedom fighters until 1956. They had no funding, no external allies and weren't very succesful.

Ukrain became independent in 1991 by unrelated means.

Yes! the UPA was Simeon Petlura's post-WW I army (revived as a partisan force in WW II) and the OUN was a WW II initially German-collaborative dorce led by Stepan Bandera that eventually turned against the Germans and ended up fighting just about everyone by 1945. It waged a guerrila war in Soviet Ukraine, Poland and Czechoslovakia into the 1950s until Bandera's assassination by the KGB.

Good job Stormbind!

Next question:

What modern Eastern European language is thought to have derived from the ancient Illyrians whose empire the Romans overcame in 167 B.C.?

 

[pawpaw]

albanian

 

[Vrylakas]

Pawpaw wrote:

albanian

Yes! Modern Albanian is believed to be the linguistic derivative of ancient Illyrian. This was a bit of a trick question because 19th century linguists for some reason referred to all Southern Slavs (Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Bulgars, etc.) as "Illyrians". Good job Pawpaw!

Next question:

In 1994 Croat forces defeated and effectively "ethnically cleansed" a region within Croatia long inhabited by Serbs called Krajina. How did Serbs end up living in such an enclave deep within Croatia in the first place?

 

[stormbind]

They were invited to settle there in the 16th Century but I don't know why.

That same region had been previously pillaged by a Turkish invasion, which unlocked the land for Serb collinisation. This explains how the land came to be vacant but doesn't explain the profitable reason behind the invitation.

It was recently and again depopulated by an Nazi-American alliance.

Moderator Action: Pls restrain yourself fr infecting the History forum with your own personal political bias. We have no need of politics over here. Thanks - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[polymath]

???..invited to settle there...thinks...

...buffer zone between the Turks and the rest of Europe?

Common tactic, Saddam Hussein did it to some guys and put them in between the Kurds and some other bunch...heard that on some news programme yesterday anyway, wasn't listening properly.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by polymath
...buffer zone between the Turks and the rest of Europe?

I didn't know it was a common tactic, but it sounds logical.


Poster's Question: With regards to "Moderator Action". What did you moderate? I don't see a change in the text of the post, except a rather insulting suggestion that I am "infecting" the forum...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

When the Ottomans marched into the region, they stocked it with Serbs to serve as self-sufficient border raiders. In return for land there, the Serbs would raid into Austria on behalf of the Ottomans. These Serbs would also serve as a source of military manpower when the need arose.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by XIII
When the Ottomans marched into the region, they stocked it with Serbs to serve as self-sufficient border raiders.

... but the region was governed from Vienna and the Serbs were Christians!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by stormbind
... but the region was governed from Vienna and the Serbs were Christians!

I'm making a wild guess as per my usual practise!

But remember reading fr a book on the Ottomans, they did settle some Serbs along the frontline with Austria, as raiders to harass the Austrians. Common Ottoman practise. 'Sides, the Serbs were Orthodox, not Catholic; they're none too fond of the Austrians IIRC.

 

[stormbind]

I'm confused!
There are many Orthodox-Catholic churches and find it hard to see a difference in the religions. Here's a quote from a Pope that I hoped would demistify the issue, but it doesn't...

Pope Leo XIII
The difference that separates the Eastern Churches from us is not so great, nay, with few exceptions we are so entirely at one that in defence of the Catholic faith we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, rites, and customs of the East. The principal subject of contention is the primacy of the Roman pontiff...

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Excuse me for intervention: Serbs were (&are) Christians as Croats, but they are Orthodox & Croats are Catholics. In XVI century after Turks invasion in Balkan Serbia became part on Ottoman Empire - Islamic (sunni) by confession. Then part of Serb's leaders seeked a religious haven anywhere. Ruler of HRE gave them chance to settle down in Krajina region for serving as Russian Csars gave lands for Cossack' leaders for settling down against Turks & Tartars later. But independence of some sort seeked by Orthodox Serbs leaders in Krajina region led to the same problems as Cossacks in Russian Empire underbelly & Croatians seeked a method to move them as far as possible.
Russian Czarina Ekatherine II the Great in the same situation was able to shut down any possible insurgency & move Zaporoje' Cossacks to edge of Russian Empire (or execute all else), but HRE Emperor hadn't strength enough for uprooting Serbs from Krajina.
Then this unsettled question led to modern problem. It you like to continue comparisons - Cossacks were stomped out from modern Russia by Red Rulers in Russian Civil war of XX century - local problems had the same reason as problem of Croatian Krajina.

Excuse me for bothering. Bash

 

[stormbind]

Ah, I like A_Bashkev's explanation of where the Serbs came from. It clears any doubt in why the Serbs were invited to settle. That is really the only thing that I was trying to figure out. Believe it or not, I don't like religious/political argument