Talk:Cossacks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cossacks and Jews?

As a Jew (by birth rather than religion, of which I have none) I was astounded to see so little (only one fleeting reference) about the Cossack brutality toward Jews. I have a great deal of respect for the democratic aspects of Cossack society, but their role, under various regimes, in suppressing the democratic aspirations of other groups (including Jews) should have been described in more detail. I might add that, in the past, one of the most insulting things that a Jew could say about a person would be to call him a Cossack. Too Old 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the 15th-18th centuries, the Jews often served as middlemen between the oppressive landlords and the peasants, often working as tax collectors or some such jobs. This was not their choice, the laws forbade them from owning property and the Jews certainly did not create this system, they just survived in it. But when peasants and cossacks revolted, this frequently made the Jews a target of assault and they suffered significant casualties. You are correct that a heading belongs on this subject. Faustian 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was watching a movie called "Snatch" in which a Jewish man says "I hate Russians...(those) anti-semitic Cossack sluts!" I laughed my butt off! Now that I read this article, I can understand his reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isuse33 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I too was astonished to find only a single fleeting reference to this subject in both this article and History of the Cossacks. I haven't gone through the edit history, but I would not be surprised if there was material dealing with this subject that was removed at some point. In any event, the article is seriously defective without a section devoted to this issue. I hope it will be rectified sooner rather than later. Cgingold 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The only thing I have ever heard before about Cossacks was about their brutality toward Jews. Cossack = pogrom in the Jewish family lexicon. I.e., "She has blue eyes because some Cossack made a pogrom on her great-grandmother." It was stunning to read that their popular image is a good one! To whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.16.231 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you want to add a section on how Jews are prejudiced towards Cossacks? Fine, if you want to show that it is OK to prejudge the whole group of people based on the actions of the few, by all means add it. We can use it here or here or there.--Hillock65 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See Jewish Cossacks.Galassi (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That last comment is absurd - where did anyone suggest adding a section saying Jews are prejudiced towards Cossacks? I agree with the original comment in this heading - there should be at least some reference of substance to the Cossack role in Pogroms against the Jews. The contributor Fuastian, above, describes his perspective on how/why Jews were persecuted in the Pogroms - vis-a-vis his explanation of the role Jews played "...Jews often served as middlemen..." - this is the story line that anti-Jewish forces have tried to promulgate for centuries. I am not saying Faustian is conciously spewing disinformation, no - I am sure he believes the explanation to be true and wrote the above in good faith. In fact, the vast vast majority of Jews living in Russia, in the Cossack regions, including my grandfather's people, were peasant farmers not as middlemen, enforcers, tax-collectors, etc. There was a Jewish class of merchants and shopkeapers of course, and as now, a tiny minority of Jews who were active in the financial sectors - a TINY minority - the rest were simple dirt poor farmers and they were slaughtered for no reason other then that they were Jewish. To argue anything else is to validate and legitimize the ethnic cleansing, which is what a Pogrom is and which describes the motives of the perpetrators accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.79.22 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cossacks are well-known worldwide as being among the most vicious and most profligate mass murderers of Jews of all time, and this isn't a major (if not *the* major) part of the article? This is as if our article on the Ku Klux Klan discussed only the family get-togethers Klan members held and not the thousands upon thousands of cross-burnings, house-torchings, and lynchings they were responsible for. And the "Jews often served as middlemen" line - does the editor not realize that that was anti-Jewish propaganda meant to foster hatred and to make Jews complicit in their own murders? So we have an entire article on a group that over a period of more than 300 years cold-bloodedly and with great joy and pride slaughtered hundreds of thousands of defenceless, poverty-stricken Jewish peasants (including huge numbers of babies, old people, etc.) and raped hundreds of thousands of defenceless women and that verifiable fact found in almost every history book in the library isn't even mentioned? These murderers were only second to the Nazis. Refusing to call them what they were - mass murderers who gloried in the murders and rapes of Jews - is very, very disturbing and alarming, and brings up the possibility that this article is otherwise completely inaccurate. (I've edited this because I don't want to say anything about the editors, whom I suspect have either never heard of this dark part of Cossack history or simply do not realize how many Jews were murdered by the Cossacks. Any group that goes around for centuries killing hundreds of thousands of innocent defenceless peasants in the name of Christ (a man of peace!) should not be portrayed as if those evil deeds are only a small part of their history, let alone that they never happened. But to a Jewish editor or reader this is exactly the case.) --NellieBly (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Often the conflict between the Cossacks and Jews is made out to be an ethnic one, when indeed the conflict is one of ideology or more specifically religious ideology. There existed ethnically Jewish cossacks. Any Jew who would convert to Orthodox Christianity was not persecuted. Indeed these were even absorbed into the Cossack ranks as can be attested by the epics and songs they sung. The religious views the Cossacks held polarized them against all religions and sects that were not true and this included Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholic Poles, and Ukrainian Uniates. The Cossacks raped and killed more Poles than Jews, and even more of their own bretheren who had Undergone a Union with Rome, and let us not forget the almost totally anihalation of the Cherkesses - however neither of these peoples write about these conflicts ith the same vindictiveness. Bandurist (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the pogroms have to be mentioned, as well as the "little Holocaust" during the Khmelnitsky Uprising. However, people here suggest some sweeping generalization. Several things to be understood here. First, this is about the Cossacks, not Jews, and Jews occupied comparatively little place in the the history of Cossackdom. If somebody wants to make this into "the major part of the article", he should write separate one. Second, Cossacks by the nature of their service in the Russian Empire were an instrument of subjugation. They would cut down popular protests and demonstrations the same way as the Jews. Third, the 19 and 20-th century pogroms were largely done by whatever local population and not by Cossacks who at that time largely moved out of the Pale to Kuban and beyond. I think the "popular worlwide image" of anti-semitic mass murderes is largely based on the Khmelnitsky Uprising, since from 18-th century on fewer and fewer Cossack lived in between the Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaidash (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been much discussion about the Conflicts in Ukraine under Khmelnytsky. The conflict was not an ethnic one and should not be transformed into an ethnic conflict. It was a religious conflict between Christian Orthodoxy and others that was stoked by economic concerns. This is attested by the fact that the victims of the the Cossacks were not just ethnic Jews, but Polish Catholics and Ukrainian Uniates.

The fact that the Khmelnytsky conflict was not an ethnic conflict is also attested by the fact that with the ranks of the Zaporozhian Cossacks there were ethnic Jews and Poles and people of a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Bandurist (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I see a coordinated POV pushing started again and nobody bothers to explain their edits. The introduction is replete with factual errors and outright POV. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. All I see is your copy/pasting of Krys' POved lead without a slightest change, the lead indeed replete with POV. You did not even bother to correct his "Dnipro" to an English name Dnieper, other things aside. --Irpen 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look above at the Compromise attempt #3. The intro marginalizes Zaporozhian Cossacks, the mere mentioning of Ukraine is virtually eradicated and is replaced by "rutheninans". Firther POV is pushed in dissolution of the Zaporozhian Sich, which was destroyed, not dissolved. Procalamation of the Hetmanate didn't initiate the rebellion - this is bullshit. The Treaty of Pereyaslav was not concluded to "ensure that Poland would never recover from the defeat" - this is another POV bullshit. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh Hillock where is the WP:CIVIL you so repeatedly wanted others to follow. Ruthenian refers to both Northeastern (Great Russians) and Western (Ukrainians and Belarusians) that joined the Don and Dnieper Cossacks respectively. Noone is marginalising anyone. There were a total of nine Siches not one. And Treaty of Pereyaslav was concluded to re-unite Ukraine with Russia but historically it was the beggining of the end for the Commonwealth.

Noone is marginalising anyone, there were about 30 different Cossack groups that existed in history, now you are never going to fit all of them into four paragraphs. There are specific articles on each of those groups that can go into great detail, there is also the main body of the article which is yet to be properly written. --Kuban Cossack 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Zap Sich was MUCH larger in terms of manpower and influence. In its peak the number of Zap Cossacks reached to over a hundred thousands. Don Coss never had anything close to that. While Don served the tsar, the Zap Coss in fact redrew the geopolitical map of Europe and forever changed the balance of powers. There is nothing to compare.
2. Fleeing serfes from Ukraine and other territories did join the Sich at all times, even near its very end. Let's not engage in hair-splitting: the overwhelming majority came from Ukraine and the overwhelming majority were fleeing serfs. That is the truth. If you want to expand on the territories and other peoples, the lead is hardly the place. Orthodoxy didn't unite them either, as there were Poles, Tatars and others among them.
3. Again, you hair-splitting. It was the Polish domination. Poles dominated in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.
4. You are confusing Ukraine with Russia. The role of Cossacks was indeed diminishing after union with Russia. The story with Mazepa clearly testifies to that. Finally, please keep the imperial bull with "reunification" out. We are not here to justify Russian imperialist aspirations with regards to Ukraine. It was just a union and a controversial one at that.
5. You are TOTALLY wrong on Cossack Hetmanate. Its capital was in Baturin and it existed idependently from the Sich. Please consult the Cossack Hetmanate article. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Don Cossacks had 2.5 million people in 1914. Their expeditions: Yermak etc. brought the whole of Siberia and Alaska to Russia. Re-drew map of Europe? They re-drew the map of the world!
2. See that is the confusion, the migrants fleeing or not, serfs or not, came much the same way to the Don as they did to the Zapor. In fact there was a saying that the Don Cossacks went by: S Dona vydachi net It was one of the main reasons why the Bulavin rebellion took place. That's the whole point about the "Ruthenian" part we don't specify the host or the group, you are the one who is splitting a section which can be kept compact and thus to avoid repeating.
3. Well since 1654 they were part of Russia, the story of Mazepa is one of how a loyal vassal got overbribed by Sweden and in turn got what he deserved. As for Imperialism, your POV is your POV, please keep it to yourself.

With respect to Mazepa, this is one (the traditional Russian) POV. Other POV is that the tsar failed to meet his obligation to Mazepa. Keep in mind that in the traditional European feudalistic system the vassal owed service to the liege, but the liege also had the duty to protect the vassal; if the liege failed to provide that protection then the relationship was terminated. Mazepa only came to an agreement with the Swedes after the tsar had refused to protect Mazepa's lands against the Poles and Swedes (Peter could not help, but the rules are the rules). More here: [1]. regardsFaustian (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mazepa as well as the officer-corps (starshyna) intended to maintain and defend their rights. Mazepa considered himself a faithful vassal of the Tsar, who in turn was obliged to guarantee and honor the basic provisions of the agreement reached in Pereyaslav.

Despite the Tsar’s favors, there were serious indications that Peter I wanted to abolish the autonomy of the Ukraine and oust Mazepa from office. 24 In addition, the Tsar refused the Hetman’s request for military aid against a possible Swedish attack. In fact, the Tsar expressed his refusal: "...I can give you neither ten thousand nor even ten men. Defend yourself as best as you can." 25 However, many of Mazepa’s regiments were engaged in the Tsar’s service elsewhere and the remaining troops were insufficient for the defense of the Ukraine. The Tsar’s refusal to defend his faithful vassal meant that Peter violated the Agreement of Pereyaslav — the basis of loyalty to him. Consequently, this agreement was no longer binding, because this contractual arrangement had been an act of mutual obligation. If the vassal, who was loyal, faithful and obedient to his lord, "had good reason to believe that his lord was breaking his obligations," argues Subtelny, "he had the right — the famous jus resistendi — to rise against him to protect his interests. Thus, in theory, the lord as well as the vassal could be guilty of disloyalty. Throughout Europe, the contractual principle rested on the prevailing cornerstone of legal and moral authority — custom. The German Schwahenspiegel, one of the primary sources for customary law in East Central Europe, provided a concise summary of the principle: ‘We should serve our sovereigns because they protect us, but if they will no longer defend us, then we owe them no more service.’" 26 Mazepa was not the only one who tried to protect the rights and privileges of his country. For example, Johann Reinhold Patkul from Livonia rebelled against the Swedish King (1697); the Transylvanian Prince Ferenc Rakoczi II led an uprising against the Habsburgs (1703—1711); Stanislaw Leszczynski, representing the republican traditions of Poland, aided by the Swedes, fought against the autocratically minded Polish King Augustus II; Demetrius Kantemir, Hospodar of Moldavia, a vassal of the Porte, aided by the Tsar, rebelled against the Sultan (1711). Yet none of them was branded as "traitor", but Mazepa was."Faustian (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1. You are right about that, however the Hetmanate as an admin unit was disbanded much earlier that in 1764, and at times there was no Hetman. --Kuban Cossack 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I broke the comments out to facilitate discussion. That way you can discuss and reach agreement on each point on it's own merits. It would help if you guys cited sources and refrained from editing until you had some consensus. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer number points, and I ask Hillock to create a similar "problem-analysis" of the current version. --Kuban Cossack 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Larger of the two?

The Zaporozhian Sich being larger of the two. How do you know it was larger? Did you count? Also what is large? Territory? Manpower? Military potency?

Hillock65, do you have a reference for that discusses the relative sizes of the Zap Sich and the Zap Coss? If not, would it be reasonable to state to edit the lead to say:"The Zaporozhian Sich lead a rebellion against Polish domination in Ukraine." and work the details out later? Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to establish one time frame to compare the both. Zaporozhian Cossacks had different structure, only arm-bearing men were considered part of the host, while at Don all people in stannitsas were part of the host. For Zaporozhian Cossacks I found this: In 1725 the Cossacks in Left-Bank Ukraine numbered 55,000–65,000: in addition, there were 8,000–10,000 Zaporozhian Cossacks, and 23,000 Cossacks in Slobidska Ukraine, which was part of the Russian state.[2] --Hillock65 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Don Cossack Host in 1914 had 2.5 million and controlled territory that was as very large the Don Cossack Oblast. Also it is Slobodska Ukraine not Slobidska. Again, the reason why larger of the two does not fit is that I want to preserve chronology in the lead, we begin in the 14th century, the larger of the two is a fact that the lead can do without. --Kuban Cossack 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting you making the changes in those places where you disagreed. Instead, you just reverted to a previous version.[3] This is not going anywhere. I voiced my objections to this version before to POV and factual errors. If you disagree with the version that you don't like, please make adjustments instead of wholesale reverts. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fleeing" "Ukrainian" "serfs"

Joined by numerous serfs fleeing from Ukraine. Only partially correct, first of all no time frame given to this sentance, serfdom in PLC came about in early sixteenth century, if we are talking before than incorrect. What is wrong, is that among the people absorbed into Cossackdom not all were peasants and serfs, many merchants, smiths, clergy and even gentry joined them. Second the definition of Ukraine in that time frame is also most abstract, and for one the people that came to the Cossacks were not necessary all from Ukraine, many came down from Belarus and Lithuania. What did unite them was Orthodoxy, not national feeling, which was rather absent at that point.

Since the goal is to make the lead more concise, I propose that it would be best simply to state that: The Zaporozhian Sich being larger of the two swelled into a powerful military force and lead a rebellion against Polish domination in Ukraine. and address the details in the main article. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish domination?

And lead a rebellion against Polish domination in Ukraine. Not Polish but Polish-Lithuanian, and domination is not exactly a correct term to describe a territory that was de jure integrally part of that state (I think we can do without some of our Polish colleagues coming here and telling us this).

Polish since Union of Lublin. However Ukrainian and Polish people were on both sides. I'm not sure if Jeremi Wiśniowiecki was more Polish than Bohdan Khmelnytsky.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The "diminishing"

Its prominence and the role of the Zaporozhian Cossacks began to diminish after the Treaty of Pereyaslavl with the Tsardom of Russia. . Not quite, the Treaty of Pereyaslavl had a huge affect on Russia, for the next century Ukrainian clergy would dominate the Russian Orthdox Church. The Cossacks would contribute greatly for the next century in keeping the southern buffer zone, settling the Sloboda region. Or how about Mazepa's little stunt, was not a big role?

The Cossack Hetmanate

The Cossack Hetmanate in Ukraine was abolished in 1764. Nonsense, the Hetmanate was first abolished, when the Treaty of Adrusovo split its territory into Right and Left bank Ukraine. Afterwards as a territorial unit, it ceased to exist after Peter I destroyed the original Zaporozhian Sich in Chertomlitskaya Sich in 1709. That would the more correct end of the independent Ukrainian Cossackdom. Only after their return from Turkish exile in 1734 did the Russian government allowed them to create the New Sich, which lasted for only 40 years as you know. That final Sich was already a shell of its former self, and effectively operated like any other Russian Cossack Host. And like all other Cossack Hosts. The Hetmanate by that point was nothing but a privleged title, which in 1764 was indeed written off and the final Hetman spent more time in a laboratory than in Ukraine. Again you insisted on removal of small beuracratical details...--Kuban Cossack 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hetmanate was seperate from the Sich following Pereyaslav (though with the same ruler), and continued to function with some degree of autonomy until 1764. Andrusovo did not end the Hetmanate; it merely confined it to the left bank and formalized the split between the Hetmanate and the Sich (the Sich tne elected its own rulers). The Hetmanate continued to exist after Poltava. Here is a summary from Britannica: [4].

"After the partition of 1667, the autonomous hetman state, or Hetmanate, was limited territorially to Left Bank Ukraine. At the head of the state stood the hetman, elected theoretically by a general Cossack assembly but in effect by senior officers, who in turn were largely swayed by the tsar’s preference. The terms of autonomy were renegotiated at each election of a new hetman, and this led over time to a steady erosion of his prerogatives. Nevertheless, for a century the Hetmanate enjoyed a large measure of self-government, as well as considerable economic and cultural development.

The ruling elite in the Hetmanate was composed of the senior Cossack officers, starshyna, who had evolved into a hereditary class approximating the Polish nobility in its privileges. The common Cossacks, too, were undergoing stratification, the more impoverished hardly distinguished, except in legal status, from the peasantry. The conditions of the free peasantry worsened over time, their growing obligations tending increasingly toward serfdom. Urban life flourished, however, and the larger cities and some towns continued to enjoy municipal self-government; the burghers largely maintained the rights of their social estate. In the ecclesiastical realm, the Uniate church disappeared, and the Orthodox Kievan metropolitanate itself was transferred in 1686 from the patriarchal authority of Constantinople to that of Moscow. Although Ukrainian churchmen eventually gained enormous influence in Russia, within the Hetmanate itself in the course of the 18th century the church progressively lost its traditional autonomy and distinctive Ukrainian character.

The hetman state reached its zenith in the hetmancy of Ivan Mazepa. Relying at first on the support of Tsar Peter I, Mazepa exercised near monarchical powers in the Hetmanate. Literature, art, and architecture in the distinctive Cossack Baroque style flourished under his patronage, and the Kievan Mohyla Academy, the first Ukrainian institution of higher learning, experienced its golden age. Mazepa aspired to annex the Right Bank and re-create a united Ukrainian state, initially still under the tsar’s sovereignty. But Peter’s centralizing reforms and the exactions imposed on the Hetmanate in connection with the Second Northern War appeared to threaten Ukrainian autonomy. In 1708, in furtherance of his plans for independence, Mazepa made a secret alliance with Charles XII of Sweden, but in the decisive Battle of Poltava (1709) their allied forces were defeated. Mazepa fled to Moldavia, where he died shortly thereafter.

Although Peter allowed the election of a successor to Mazepa, the Hetmanate’s autonomous prerogatives were severely curtailed and underwent further weakening over the remaining decades of the 18th century. From 1722 to 1727 and again in 1734 to 1750, the office of hetman was in abeyance, as the imperial regime introduced new institutions to oversee the country’s governance. In 1750 Empress Elizabeth revived the hetmancy for Kyrylo Rozumovsky, the brother of her favourite. On the accession of Catherine II in 1762, the hetman and the starshyna petitioned for the restoration of the Hetmanate’s previous status; instead, in 1764 Catherine forced Rozumovsky’s resignation. Over the next 20 years all vestiges of Ukrainian autonomy were eliminated, and in 1775 the Zaporozhian Sich, the bastion of the Cossacks, was destroyed by Russian troops."

I am not sure if this situation is comparable to that of other cossack hosts or not, as I do not know about them as much as you do.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Military rank table

There is something wrong with the table. There no direct connections between Cossacks' military ranks and modern Russian Army ranks. And there is as it extravagantly said Junior Lieutenant in Russian Army. It is possible to compare it with Russian military ranks. --Iakov (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the OR tag there is quite justified. There need to be sources presented to support those claims and comparisons with Russian Army ranks. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the copy of the 1998 presidential decree: [5]. The Cossack units in the Russian army use standard Russian army ranks, whilst the Host units use those ones. The similarity is only by comparison of historical hierarchy, there are ranks now that Cossacks have that Russians do not use anymore. --Kuban Cossack 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References in the lead

Hello,

There are no references in the lead at all. Here is a great article, in English, which disputes everything stated in the lead [[6]].

Are there any english articles which say that there were two separate schools of kozaks, one on the Don and one on the Dnipro?

Let's start there. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Horlo! You might want to take a look at the Google books link below, it's really quite excellent. -PētersV (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Migration # 1, mid 15th century and following, Zaporozhians (beyond the rapids) of the Dnepr, moving from island to island, beyond the control of Poland-Lithuania (which Ukraine was part of at the time), that is, the Zaporozhian Sech = Ukrainian Cossacks

Migration # 2, mid 16th century, fleeing Muscovy and heading to the land between the Don and Volga rivers, becoming the Don Cossak Host = Russian Cossacks

   Kuban Cossacks et al. came later. Quite conclusive on two separate schools, Ukrainian and Russian.

   Your source is off by a century (too late) regarding the origin of Ukrainian Cossacks. The article lead is a bit of a mishmosh of what happened and where. Both your source and the article lead (and elsewhere) would seem to focus too much too soon on the militaristic. -PētersV (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Slavs?

are the Cossacks Slavic poples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladar86 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cossacks are an ethnic group defined more by culture and geography than by blood. "Cossack" has historically referred to Tartar soldiers in the 1400's, tsarist cavalry in the 1800's, in the Soviet era, farm workers along the Don--typically always on the border of Russia, cast as both defenders and rebels.

   The Cossack blood-line is diverse, originally a community of Ukrainians, Great Russians, and Poles, also taking in Western Europeans, Turks, Tartars, and Jews--but the culture is Slavic.

   There's some excellent Google books reading here. It's a book on literature but provides an account of the development of the Cossacks in reality and in myth (as in "mythology" and in image). This vaguely reminds me of an old WP conversation regarding Balachka, but it could also be the lack of morning coffee.

   Short answer: culture yes, blood mostly.

Speaking of which, is there some controversy over whether the Russian or Ukrainian should come first in the intro for Cossacks? Apologies I can't help asking questions for which I already know the answer. —PētersV (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, edit warriors! Anyone care to discuss the order of Ukrainian and Russian and why they prefer one or the other (logical or irrational, whatever the reasons)? -PētersV (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cossacks were not slavic originally. They descended from Cuman\Kipchak population of Ukraine and Pontic steppes. But after mongol invasion they were partially converted to both eastern and western christianity. Ones who migrated to Hungary became catholics and assimilated among hungarians and orthodox christians stayed and later became known as cossack cavalry of Russian state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.104.29 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, here's what really happened: in the 14th century, the Steppes of Ukraine were basically uninhabitable because of Tatar raids. Tatars were descendents of the Golden Horde who lived in the Crimean peninsula, and conducted raids north (at least twice a year) to get slaves, and whatever else they could get their hands on. Because of these raids, nobody wanted to live in the Steppes (in the line of these raids), the most fertile of Ukrainian lands. Some serfs from the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth started making forays into the steppes to go hunting/trapping for a month or two, then return home with the goods. This was fund for a while, but after a few times the younger of such men decided to stay and rough it out in the Steppes. They were hard pressed at first, but then, as their numbers grew, they became more confident and organized. With time, they could withstand Tatar raids, and even made some attacks on Tatar slave camps (the slaves were bound for Istanbul). Eventually, the Tatars were absorbed into the Turkish empire, and the Turcic word "kazak" meaning either "freeman" or "vagabond" was applied to these young men who lived in the steppes. This became "kozak", or in later Russian, "Cossack".

Therefore, while the word "kozak" or "cossack" is of turcic origin, the people it describes are not.

In 1776, tsarina catherine 2 decided that the Zaporizhian kozaks were too dangerous and so she sent a few hundred thousand troops to destroy the Sich. The kozaks who were not killed moved to the Don delta, near the Sea of Azov. That's how the Don kozaks came to be.

Hope that helps, Horlo (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Don Cossacks are much older than that (as this article correctly states). Alæxis_¿question? 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything that backs up your statement? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He read it from awikipedia artocle: meaning it is the source itself. == Horlo you yourself provided any source for your statement. If you wish to have a solid argument, back it up.--71.184.14.79 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) ==

Too much history overlap with History of Cossacks

The history section is far too large and overlaps far too much with the History of article. There are also sections needing expansion or creation in this article, for example, the image of the Cossack in society and literature. Any thoughts on reconciling the two histories with more of a summary here? —PētersV (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)