Tuesday, 17 December 2019

Louisiana Purchase and the Homestead Act

Andrew Stepanenko
July 15, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/07/blog-post_15.html>
Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA
Purchase of Louisiana took place in 1803 - at the height of the Napoleonic wars, it gives an idea to assume that the reason of Louisiana transfer was someone's sovereign defaults and satisfaction of some creditors claims. For example, as the friend rodom_iz_tiflis has noticed, France officially received Louisiana "back" from Spain and sold within three weeks. It is very similar to some kind of arrest and sale of property of Spain for debts that is quite typical for "collector" character of Napoleon’s wars.

Let’s have a look the pace of developments.

On May 17, 1792 the New York share exchange was founded, and "the Panic of 1792" started, - the credit expansion of newly generated bank of the United States and impetuous gamble of influential bankers (I do not see the names in the Network).
In 1793, Frenchmen declared war to England and to the Netherlands, the basic creditors of America. In that 1793 the USA started to build up a new federal capital - Washington, District of Columbia, when the lines of credit from Europe had been already overlapped. It is logical that in such situation builders were focused on the attraction of the domestic private capital. By the end of 1793, the association of three main financiers acquired 40 % of building land in Washington.

ROBERT MORRIS
Morris was the main figure at that time. He landed 10 million pounds sterling to George Washington for his war with Britain; it was twice more than the final cost (already with the credit interest) of the total territory of French Louisiana. In 1781, he managed the finance of the USA. As the reward for the money help, he received some lands in the southern states from the government. These lands allowed Morris to create the North American Land Company and to issue shares for 3 million dollars - 15 times less, than he spent for freedom of the USA. There must be not divulged bonuses.

WORK WITH THE CLIENT
Speculative operations lasted for three years. In 1795, the superstructure was created for consolidation of land possession on the basis of the previous gamble - the North American Land Company. Moreover, in 1796 there was an eightfold collapse of the company securities cost. Among victims there were mainly southerners, for example, the family of the future general of Confederation Robert Li suffered much and finally became bankrupt.

PROJECT END
Three financiers got into debt prison, but money disappeared, and then... here I quote.

Morris was released due to acceptance of the first Federal bankruptcy law (on April 4, 1800...) that allowed arresting and selling actives of sellers and brokers who had indebtedness, for repayment of the bankrupt debts.

Judging by the course of events, actives arrests happened among large financiers from southern states co-operating with Morris, - for repayment of the debts created by Morris.

In 1803, the bankruptcy law was not prolonged, and the lands of the French Louisiana passed to the USA. Here it seems reasonable to ask, whether it happened so, what Louisiana was bought for the money collected from cheated Americans? The North American Land Company was engaged in Washington business "as a hobby", and the main money was collected for "the western lands".

THE MATTER PRICE
Morrison's total share value in 1795 was 3 million dollars, and it was initial, obviously low price, aimed at involvement of players. In 1796 of the share price fell eight times, and it means perhaps that the shares total cost was pushed up by the players up to 24 million. It was more than that sum that the USA finally paid to the Barings Bank for the total territory of French Louisiana, and I wonder, in whose hands those 24 million settled.

VICTIMS
Here are the states where the company operated: Georgia, Kentucky, Northern Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia - all of them are the southerners. Five of six of these states finally "left in a huff", withdrew from the USA and became a part of the Southern Confederation: Georgia, Kentucky, Northern Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

I will give a map bellow. The uninhabited green western lands are bought from France chronologically right after collapse (just for the sum of Louisiana buying) of the habitable red lands, which adjoined the Confederates later and then were forced to annex to the winner.


Pennsylvania organized by the Barings Bank, which directly supervised Louisiana purchase and, the main thing, was the headquarters of the North American Land Company which deceived investors, did not join the Confederates. Let’s add to that rather timely Napoleon's invasion into Holland, which gave the Dutch banks the reason not to get involved into that huge land swindle, without invoking the Americans’ suspicion.

WHAT EXACTLY WAS SOLD IN LOUISIANA
De facto Frenchmen did not control Louisiana. In 1803, the left bank of the Mississippi was annexed to the USA, and the right bank belonged to Spain. They mention the fact that in 1802 Spain secretly passed its part to Napoleon, but that transfer was only on paper. In fact, the air was on sale - the right to lands, which none of the participants of the deal controlled.

In such situation, I am inclined to think that the purchase of Louisiana was an exact analogue of Rupert Land purchase sold by the Hudson Bay Company, which never visited those lands. Those documents that the company had was a pure fiction. Both companies both the Hudson Bay and the North American Land – look like, and the main thing, behave as front organizations. The purpose was transfer of budgetary funds in the shadow sector.

MYTHICAL TRANSFERS
I doubt that Napoleon received something from those 15 million. Such "transfer" should solve two issues for the public:

1) the source of Napoleonic wars financing: all looks like so as if money having arrived from the sale of Louisiana, and the wars in Europe were real, though it is clear that France did not have any significant expenses as it was not the aggressor, but the collector.
2) who got 23.2 million dollars out of the state budget of the USA; there was an illusion created as if the USA regularly paid off the credit from the Barings Bank with the interest payments, though the necessary money was available in the USA - following the results of the southern states ruin.

The only reliable fact is roguish withdrawal of significant assets from the southern states, and it is clear that the southern states deprived of their assets were extremely convenient for the future absorption.

THE HOMESTEAD ACT
Wikipedia: the Homestead Act was free transfer of 600 million acres of the French Louisiana lands to the USA citizens for symbolical cost of 10 dollars per 160 acres. As a result, 285 million acres of land was passed to the USA that, in fact, brought the government 23.2 million out of 17.8 million dollars of formal expenses for purchase of those lands. Interested people were not necessary to wait the stipulated 5 years and could accelerate free execution for 1.25 dollars per one acre.
However, it is not all facts. Exact citations of the Homestead Act contain other formulations: free of charge land acquisition was not mentioned; there were lands for 1.25 dollars for an acre and for 2.5 dollars for an acre. If to pay 1.25 for an acre, 285 million acres would turn into 356 million dollars and if to pay 2.5 - it would be twice more. Investments into Louisiana paid off at least in proportion 1:16.

THE VARIANT WITH BUYING OFF
So-called free distribution concerned only those lands that belong to nobody. In addition, it is necessary to understand that those 24 million dollars stolen from the southerners were quite enough to give necessary 17.8 million dollars of charges to the USA government and to be engaged in the resale process. For Morris who had invested in the USA freedom of 44.6 million dollars, such step would be logical. Historians directly (though without details) point out: since 1804 "the companies (which beside businessmen included members of legislative assemblies and officials of states) appeared which bought up vast areas of land with sale and then selling it in small plots to actual settlers". Well, the documents of this kind usually disappear; I saw in connection with Morris the following formulation "documents are lost because of negligence". Original documents connected with Morris remained in small quantity, documents "attributed to Morris" prevail in the Network.

SHIFT IN 59 YEARS
To my huge regret, I cannot avoid this term. This shift was used to move in time some circumstances (especially financial ones) in the past, and is perfectly well notable in the financial history of Russia. It is observed here as well, and the most important thing is: the lands of French Louisiana got into the government possession in 1803, and were thrown out on the market in 1862 - 59 years later. In 1802-1803 the conflict situation with the southerners reached its apotheosis, but the Civil War began 59 years later. This shift is notable in the legislation as well: Louisiana accepted Napoleon's code in 1870, 67 years later after Napoleon's abandoning his claim for Louisiana, and it should happen around the date of annexing to the USA (1812) - otherwise (having lived 59 years within the limits of the USA legislation system) the French legal tradition was not possible to preserve.

I do not insist that all early history of the USA should be shifted for 59 years in the future, however, it is necessary to shift the financial history: significant circumstances are logically connected with this shift.

THE BASIC CONCLUSION
Louisiana purchase is a magnificent visual aid showing to the logician of the loan capital. Assets are concentrated not for investments, but for their immediate increase by means of the following financial operation.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 16 December 2019

Napoleon's сollector wars

Andrew Stepanenko
July 10, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/07/blog-post_10.html>
Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

The basic problem of history of the 19 century is the Napoleonic wars, impossible, in particular, for economic and organizational reasons. Revolution had left France in complete ruin:
- The scientists knowing secrets of weapon saltpeter, were sent to a guillotine;
- The officers (and all of them were 100 % noblemen) mostly escaped abroad;
- The colonies delivering the currency colonial goods, were lost;
- Doctors and hospitals disappeared together with the destroyed monasteries;
- In 1791-1793 (the period of "Great Horror”) everything was on fire in France;
- In 1799 France lost its Mediterranean fleet - entirely.

This totally ruined France conducted two series of protracted all-European wars in the result of which it submitted almost all countries.

I will add concomitant circumstances.

EFFICIENCY OF QUARTERMASTERS
The site genstab.ru mentions the following: “If we exclude the Austrians and Prussians and consider the number of the Great Army as 500000 Frenchmen and their allies, the ratio between combants and transport personnel will be 25:1. Now this ratio is approximately 10:1”. It means that the Napoleonic quartermaster supplied armies 2.5 times more effectively, than the modern one, despite of absence of the asphalted highways and railway networks.

PERCENTAGE OF THE MOBILIZED SOLDIERS
The participants of wars mobilized 7.9 million soldiers per 200 million population in Europe totally, that is, 4 %, the figure is 10-20 times higher the average values of army size in the 19 century. It means that during the Napoleonic wars there must be 10-20 times increasing of seamstresses number sewing regimentals, capacities of powder plants, the number of military warehouses, carts, masterful. All infrastructure working for army supporting, should be puffed up during some years in 10-20 times, thus, the free market was still not developed; the economy in Europe was feudal, the production was of guild type, and each worker was fixed to a certain seigneur, therefore a worker could not be simply taken from the place and engaged in some other job.

MOTIVES
When they asked Napoleon: “What do you go to Russia for”, - he had no answer.

SECULAR HIERARCHY
Napoleon for the European nobility was a mob, a wild aborigine with a fish bone in his nose. However, the members of his family became related with the key ruling families.

Now I will show how a large European war of three developed and rich countries looked like half a century later after Napoleon Bonaparte’s period.

LARGE EUROPEAN WAR OF 1864
Data about Danish-Austrian-Prussian war for Schleswig and Holstein.
1864. Duration of the war was 273 days (9 months). On the average, a war of the 19 century lasted four times shorter. Pay attention to the average percent of armies according to the total number of population – 0.22 %, that is, the countries of the 19 century could not afford more than 0.2-0.4 % of the country population, - it was too unprofitable.


The population was not involved in combat operations. The purpose of military operationsis capture of communications. Destruction of manpower of the opponent was not the purpose at that time, that is why there were extremely low battle losses if compared to modern estimates. To make it clear, just imagine that 1 (one) "killed in action" notice was for 42 five-storied houses with 80 flats. It was a large war. Other wars of the 19 century were, on the average, four times less costly. A unique exception was Napoleon Bonaparte's deeds.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE'S DEEDS
It is not necessary to read, however, it makes sense to look through these data.

November, 1799, France was subdued to Napoleon
June, 1800, Lombardy was ceded to Napoleon
December, 1800, Napoleon invaded Swabia and Bavaria
February, 1801, Rhine and Etsch were recognized as the borders of France
February, 1801, Napoleon abolished some imperial cities
February, 1801, Napoleon compensated some losses of imperial authorities by the church lands
February, 1801, Italy was made a pro-French republic

THE TREATY OF AMIENS
March, 1802, Napoleon got all colonies back, except Trinidad and Ceylon dominion
March, 1802, the republic of Seven (Ionic) islands was recognized
March, 1802, Malta came back to the Johannites’ Order
March, 1802, George III removed the French lilies from his coat of arms

THE TREATY OF LUNÉVILLE
February, 1803, the Batavian Republic was created, dependent on France
February, 1803, the Helvetic Republic was created, dependent on France
February, 1803, the Ligurian republic was affirmed dependent on France
February, 1803, the Cisalpine Republic was created, dependent on France
February, 1803, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany was transformed into Kingdom of Etruria
February, 1803, Napoleon returned the Roman Republic to the Pope
February, 1803, Napoleon returned the Parthenopean Republic to the Pope February, 1803, Otranto, Tarentum and Brindisi passed to Napoleon
1803 Napoleon became the president of the Italian Republic

1803 Napoleon transmitted a lot of land to Bavaria
1803 Napoleon increased the domain of the Margrave of Baden
1803 Napoleon increased the domain of Württemberg
1803 Napoleon increased the domain of Giessen-Kassel
1803 Napoleon increased the domain Giessen-Darmstadt
1803 Napoleon increased the domain of Nassau
1803 Napoleon increased the domain of Hanover, etc.

In 1803 only six imperial cities out of fifty kept their status:
Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Frankfort on the Main, Nuremberg, Augsburg
Other cities Napoleon reformatted so that it was convenient from his point of view.

THE THIRD COALITION
May, 1803t, Hanover surrendered to Napoleon
March, 1805, Napoleon's crowning in Milan took place
1805, Napoleon behaved as he was the lord of all Rhine riparian territory (Aachen, Cologne and Mainz)
1805, Napoleon obliged Spain to help France
1805, Napoleon prepared monarchy introducing in Holland for the benefit of one of his brothers
1805, Napoleon got support of the South German princes
1805, Napoleon was strengthened by troops from Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria, Giessen, Nassau, etc.
October, 1805, the Austrian army capitulated

THE TREATY OF PRESSBURG
December, 1805, Napoleon received the Venetian Area
December, 1805, Napoleon received Istria (except Trieste)
December, 1805, Napoleon received Dalmatia
December, 1805, Napoleon's allies received the lands to the west of Carinthia
December, 1805, allied to Napoleon the Electorate of Bavaria received Tirol with Brixen and Trent, Vorariberg, the area adjoining the right bank of the Inn, Burgau and Lindau, and also Passau and Eichstätt
December, 1805, allied to Napoleon the Electorate Württemberg acquired domain in Swabia: Altdorf, Hohenberg, Nellenburg, Ehingen and Bondorf
December, 1805, allied to Napoleon the Electorate Baden received Konstanz, and the territory of the Duchy of Breisgau, including Freiburg and Ortenaukreis
December, 1805, the monarchs of Bavaria and Wurtemberg got acknowledged titles of kings that excluded them from the power of the institutes of the Sacred Roman Empire 1805, Napoleon's brother got the crown of Naples
1805, the other Napoleon's brother got the crown of Holland

1805, Prussia enter into an alliance with Napoleon
1805, Prussia transmitted to Napoleon the Duchy of Cleves
1805, Prussia transmitted to Napoleon several Frankish princedoms
1805, Prussia received Hannover from Napoleon
1805, Napoleon's stepson married the princess of Bavaria
1805, Napoleon's brother Jérôme married the princess of Wurtemberg
1805, Napoleon increased the domain of Baden and transformed it into the Great Duchy
1805, Napoleon became related with the Grand Duke of Baden through Josephine's niece
1805, Napoleon transformed Berg into the Great Duchy - for the son-in-law Murat
1805, Napoleon presented taken from Prussia Neuchâtel to his marshal
1805, Napoleon assigned his uncle as the successor of Mainz archiepiscopate

1806, Napoleon gathered the Rhine Union subordinated to him
1806, Napoleon conducted mediatisation in the Rhine Union with the following resubmission of all system
1806, Napoleon granted the Neapolitan Kingdom to his brother Joseph
1806, Napoleon passed Benevento and Pontecorvo as feudal duchies to Talleyrand and Bernadotte
1806, Napoleon divided the Venetian territory into fees and passed them to his subordinates
1806, Napoleon gave Lucca, Massa and Carrara to the sister Eliza, and then Toscana as well
1806, Napoleon gave some unnamed domain to the sister Pauline Borghese (!)
1806, Napoleon put his brother Louis to rule Holland

THE FOURTH COALITION
1806, Napoleon mediatized related the Hohenzollerns the princely House of Thurn and Taxis
October, 1806, Napoleon captured Szczecin, Kostrzyn, Magdeburg
October, 1806, Napoleon captured Giessen, Braunschweig, Mecklenburg, Oldenburg
October, 1806, Napoleon imposed an indemnity on Hanse
December, 1806, Napoleon transformed Saxony into the kingdom
January, 1807, Napoleon invaded Warsaw
May, 1807, Napoleon captured Danzig

THE TREATY OF TILSIT
July, 1807, Napoleon forced Russia to acknowledgement of all his acquisitions
July, 1807 Napoleon forced Russia to prohibition of deliveries to England
July, 1807, Napoleon forced Russia to withdrawal of troops from Moldova and Walachia
July, 1807, Napoleon forced Russia not to prevent him to capture the Ionian Islands
July, 1807, Napoleon formed the Warsaw Duchy which was subordinated to him
July, 1807, Napoleon separated Prussia from Hanover, the County of Mark, with the cities of Essen, Verdun and Lippstadt, the County of Ravensberg, the city of Lingen and Tecklenburg, the Princedom of Minden, East Frisia, Muenster, Paderborn, Kleve and the easten coast of the Rhine
July, 1807, Napoleon transformed Prussia into the state which was subordinated to him

1807 Napoleon formed the Kingdom of Westphalia from the domain taken away from Prussia
1807 Napoleon made his brother Jérôme the king of Westphalia
1807 Napoleon possessed all Germany
1807 Napoleon squeezed out the House of Braganza from the continent - to Brazil. Control over Portugal passed to England

1808, Napoleon helped Russia to acquire Finland
1808, Napoleon occupied the domain of Sweden in the northern Germany
1808, Napoleon assigned Bernadotte as the successor of a royal throne in Sweden
1808, Napoleon put his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne
1808, Napoleon transferred the Neapolitan Kingdom to his son-in-law Murat

February, 1808, Napoleon invaded Rome

THE FIFTH COALITION
May, 1809, Napoleon captured Vienna
May, 1809, Napoleon suggested Hungarians to elect a new king
1809, Napoleon took from Austria Salzburg with Berchtesgaden, the Inn district and the western part of the Gauzruck district for the benefit of Bavaria
1809, Napoleon took away the western Galicia from Austria
1809, Saxony received from Napoleon some lands in the Upper Lusatia and half of salt mines in Wieliczka
1809, Napoleon took away from Austria some part of the eastern Galicia for the benefit of Warsaw Duchy and Russia
1809, Napoleon created Illyria from the lands of Austria (some part of Carinthia, Krajna, Trieste, Friuli, etc.) together with Dalmatia, Istria and Ragusa

SCHÖNBRUNN 
May, 1809, Napoleon joined the Papal States to France

1810, Napoleon joined Holland to France
1810, Napoleon joined Hamburg, Bremen and Lübeck to France
1810, Napoleon joined the Duchy of Oldenburg to France, and other lands between the Elba and Rhine
1810, Napoleon joined the Swiss canton of Valais to France

RUSSIA
1812, Unprecedented campaign of 500-thousand army to Moscow

THE MAIN CONCLUSION:
This dynamics of events (most likely, rather accurate and, certainly, with participation of armed forces) had no military character. It looks like not war, but the collapse of financial houses of cards. Synchronously with those events, the countries of Europe passed through - sovereign defaults.

1788 - sovereign default in France
1790 - sovereign default in the United States
1796 - sovereign default in the Archduchy of Austria
1798 - sovereign default in the United States
1802 - sovereign default in the Archduchy of Austria
1805 - sovereign default in the Austrian Empire
1807 - sovereign default in Germany - Prussia
1809 - sovereign default in Spain
1811 - sovereign default in the Austrian Empire
1812 - sovereign default in Germany - Westphalia
1812 - sovereign default in France
1812 - sovereign default in Sweden
1813 - sovereign default in Germany - Prussia
1813 - sovereign default in Denmark
1814 - sovereign default in Germany - Giessen
1814 - sovereign default in the Netherlands

Defaults are typically explained with war events, and it just that case where the cause and the effect should be changed in places.

WHAT IS THE SOVEREIGN DEFAULT?
If the monarch recognized that he could not pay off under financial liabilities, it always meant absorption of the debtor – in either peace or war. The people giving money for such purchase as Louisiana had no sense of humour. They just sent a collector.

In the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 a collector role were executed by Russia. The run into debt Ottoman Empire reformatted, - both politically, and territorially, - and, its lands and the people were estimated in quite certain sums of money; for example, that part that was passed to Russia, was estimated in 1 billion 100 million roubles.

NAPOLEON - THE COLLECTOR
Fantastic dynamics and character of the events proves that Napoleon was a collector. He was not at war in fact, but mostly reformatted the territories, paying off the mutual debts of the failed feudal pyramids. Mediatization was offsetting of debts according to feudal rules. The Napoleonic armies participated in it, but did not play a significant role; it was not necessary to do such things himself, it was enough to write off a couple of percent of debt to a feudal lord who had run into debt, and he would easily add his small army in the collector’s assets. So the impression appeared that all Europe took Napoleon's side at war. In practice it not war; it was force demonstration. Wars appeared in documents – as a claim requirement, and came to the end in documents as well - with the report of the confiscated property acceptance at a warehouse.

KEY BANKRUPTS
At the beginning of the 19 century, there were several empires in the world: France, Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Austria and Russia. Some states were also independent, some were satellites, but these ones were the core. So, who was in default there? Spain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark and Holland. They were Napoleon's sphere of action. Moreover, he really could do everything he wanted with the debtors. Resistance was impossible. If only Napoleon's owner had made a small nod, Hamburg or Danzig would have ceased shipments. And the guilty one fell in his lap.

I am ready to admit that almost all described military operations happened in reality. However, nobody dragged trains through all Europe. Napoleon's owner could only blink, and the neighbour attacked the neighbour - to perform the duty and formally as a part of the Napoleonic army. So all glory got the hired Corsican who was not getting out of a bureaucratic table.

WHAT FOR IT WAS NECESSARY TO HIDE THE FACTS?
The essence of the matter was hidden late enough, already in 1870. The proof: Marx did not know neither about Napoleon, nor about his Code, absolutely nothing. Marx’s "Capital" with its more than two million printable characters never mentioned this historical figure. Considering Marx's meticulousness, it seams impossible.

The essence of the matter was hidden during the epoch of the national states formation. To recognize in such situation that monarchs repaid conditional Sacred Pruss to usurers for the debts of boyars, meant to disorganize all ideological structure. Therefore, the real history of transition of the lands from hand to hand in the course of pledge realization was diluted with some military-patriotic drive.

NAPOLEON'S CODE OF 1804
In 1806, 2 years after accepting of Napoleon’s Code of, Napoleon distributed many lands as fees, and it was a typical feudal norm. Relations of the seigneur and the vassal do not keep within representation about citizenship. These are different legal spaces. As comparing of something yellow and something round. Napoleon's code was built in the past; first of all, not to show successfully fulfilled feudal mechanisms where the Native land was the most usual goods. It is not a jeer; the noble families traded pieces of their "small Motherland" basing the same legislative grounds as if they traded their rights to serfs. Napoleon’s Code imposed over the events allowed to camouflage the situation and to claim purchase and sale relations as the result of revolutionary or patriotic population feelings. It is clear that some evidences remained - it is difficult to make such enormous insert without any traces left.

Here we see the well recognized world where we all live – a real one, not poeticized by masters of the historical novel literature style.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wars of the past

Andrew Stepanenko
July 09, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/07/blog-post_9.html>
Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

Some wars of the past cause numerous doubts in circles of historical revisionists. Alexander the Great’s campaign to India through mountain ridges with average speed of 100 km a day, the two-million army of the Mongols which left no genetic traces on all sites of their way, and even the war of 1812 is impossible from the positions of military logistics. Let’s start with logistics.

DURATION OF THE HORSE CAMPAIGN
The maximum duration of an autonomous horse campaign - 14 days one way. Here is a calculation.

A single fighting unit of a horse campaign consists of 2 knights, 2 pacholiks (armourbearers), 1 driver and 10 horses. The general state of affairs is the following:
For 1 knight there must be 2 horses and 1 pacholik.
For 1 pacholik there must be 2 horses.
For 5 people according to the Crimean rate there must be 1 two-horse cart for provisions.
If the dirt road is bad, a two-horse cart is loaded with 500-600 kg (I assume 550 kg).
A horse of Russian army ate 5,.5 kg of forage a day.
A soldier of the Russian Federation ate 2.4 kg of food a day.
It was necessary to provide feeding of soldiers and horses on the way back.
We do not load water on carts in our calculations, but don’t figure on casual plundering as well.
The horse moves 4.5 km per hour and 6-8 hours (I assume 7 hours) a day (it is very high workload).

Capability of such unit is 8 days of travelling, and then it is necessary to add the number of carts and drivers.
One day is for a fight, and 1 day – for the gathering of weapon and wounded men; that is, one way trip can take 3 days or on 94 km.

If to add some provision and, accordingly, two-horse carts, it is possible to move further, but, since the 31st day of the campaign, the task of the fighting supply unit becomes mathematically unsolvable. The distance limit of the campaign: 14 days one way or 441 km where daily costs for transport exceed the optimum one 12 times.


Vulnerability of such division overloaded with transport is enormous: if a driver is ill, the horse breaks a foot, or a cart needs repairing, and all column has to wait or divide into parts.
I read the description of a campaign of a Prussian general on quite good roads of Central Europe in the second half of the 19 century: it took his division 2 weeks to move for 200 km. It is 2.2 times more slowly, than in my calculation, and it demonstrates real possibilities of army movement in the 19 century. For this reason, in the 19 century a war in Europe went on, on the average, about 8 weeks, it is official military statistics.

ADJUSTMENT
Some part of these rates are modern: 130 years ago horses were much more smaller and physically weaker; sliding bearings were not invented, wheels were worse, carts were heavier, roads were not regularly repaired, that is why a two-horse cart could hardly pull 550 kg of payload.
Brockhaus and Ephron point out that according to horse census of 1888, 58 % of horses had height below 1 arshin and 14 vershoks at the shoulder; that is, lower than 133. Depending on constitution, the height of 133 sm at the shoulder meant from 279 kg to 450 kg of weight, and there is a certain connection between the horse’s weight and the cargo which it can transport. The height of 133 sm at the shoulder is 40 sm less, than a working horse has nowadays, in 1888 a horse carried 30 % less cargo. Having recalculated the table, I see that the border of mathematical unsolvablity of horse division supply with provisions has moved from the 31st day of travelling to the 20th. These are 9 days of travelling or 284 km one way.

CAMPAIGNS OF THE CRIMEAN TATARS
These campaigns are described as horse ones, but the way from Simferopol to Moscow is 1300 km. The only one conclusion is possible: the Crimean Tatars went to some other Moscow. It is necessary to remember that on old maps you can find the Moscow gulf near the Crimea, and near Sevastopol there is the Kulikovo field which is considered situated near Moscow, well, and Marina Mniszech is moving into Moscow at the backland of sea and mountains (see the picture).


DURATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN CAMPAIGN
The maximum duration of an autonomous pedestrian campaign in the modern tourism is 16 days. These are the most difficult categories, and it is necessary to take into consideration that a modern tourist has hi-tech equipment and modern provision type. Just add the weapon, replace high-calorific snacks with groats, and the duration of the pedestrian transition would hardly be 4 days one way.

MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF FEUDS
In practice, small military abilities of armies of the past are adequate to military requirements of feudal formations. I will show it on the example of Utrecht in the 17 century. The size of a feud approximately 30 on 40 km. Basing on this example, Europe in the 17 century consisted of 10 thousand such formations. Therefore, the whole world in Europe had to look like that (and it did) up to 1848 when local patrimonial authorities appeared based on the feudal law.


Just such size feuds were at war with each other, with corresponding armies and war campaigns. How can you get a war cause with someone who is located at a distance of such 4-5 feuds? Yes, in no way. Therefore, any campaigns exceeding 100 km were not necessary in practice. Possibilities meet the requirements.

If to accept this thesis, all overland roads had strictly local importance, so the Smolensk road, in practice, was a network of the small provincial roads, joined in a single whole in a chance way.

MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF EMPIRES
Military requirements of trading empires are geographically two times wider; however, warfare was in a very narrow sector, - mainly, against competitive cities standing on the rivers.

MEANS FOR SIGNFICANT TROOP MOVEMENTS
Following the results of long-term debates by the most adequate according to the cost price troop movements and army transports is on the rivers. Here is an expression “To prowl (to wiggle) as a sutler boat”. Before the appearance of steam tract prime movers, it looked like that:


After the appearance of steam tract prime movers, it looked like that:


The photo and drawing are found by the friend bskamalov.

TECHNICAL RESTRICTION FOR WARS OF THE PAST
There is a general rule: the lower the development level of the society is, the more land it requires, and, accordingly, that lower density of population there is. Tribes in Amazonia live hunting, almost do not create stocks, and any occupation of these lands by the imaginary Roman Empire is doomed to financial failure. When density of population s 2-3 people per 10 sq. km and commodity production is not developed, the transport costs will exceed the cost of the exported goods many times.
Therefore, there, where the peasantry had appeared, the situation was better, but not everywhere. In floodplains of large rivers, the density of population was enormous, and commodity production was developed, and trade possibilities were fine. However, just not far around floodplains, the peasants could hardly feed themselves, and the export cost price exceeded critical values for a merchant. In such places, the army had nothing to do.
In France, there were places where the first priests got only in the middle of the 19 century, and police - even later. The reason: bad land, that is, undeveloped commodity production; whoever entered there, would get out only with financial losses. It is necessary to consider that before scientific and technological revolution got into village (and it was the first half of the 19 century) such lands prevailed in the world. The Institute of State as we know it, cannot rise in such territories; the best thing that it is possible to do here: once a year to pass with a caravan of boats on the largest rivers and to export those small surpluses of crop. All this did all antique empires year after year saving commodity stocks and throwing excesses there where the expected margin seemed higher. It was not the state in the present understanding; it was a merchant superstructure, a trading network thrown over poor, but independent tribal formations.

It is a basic technical restriction for wars of the past: there was nobody and nothing for empires to be at war on peasant territories. Only two kinds of conflicts were possible:
1) purely peasant conflicts for meadows
2) purely trading conflicts for trading stations and cities
Mixes were possible, when local peasants stood up for a merchant with whom they had already become related, but it was a local conflict not suitable for fixing in annalistic data.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMY
In the conditions of low density of population, it was impossible to create an army from peasants: assembly costs, transportation and feeding of people would exceed hypothetical war profit many times. To deliver recruits from the Ural Mountains to Europe would take months, and average war duration in Europe in the 19 century was 8 weeks. Up to the 19 century, real armed forces were city self-defense squads and small professional armies of feudal lords of different rank.

THE POLISH ARMY OF 1563-1652
The Quartian army was the first Polish army created on the constant basis, and the number of people in it within the period of 90 years fluctuated between one and six thousand. It was enough for total defense of unsecure eastern frontiers. That army was very expensively – it took the fourth part of the royal incomes, and it is necessary to remember that Poland in the 16 century was a developed country, periodically even the lead region; so, hardly the other regions of Europe could show a better situation.

ARMY OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
According to matricula 1521, structurally remained existing up to the end of Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (1806), all armed forces of the Empire consisted of 4001 horsemen and 19958 infantrymen. The figures are in accordance with the data concerning the Polish army of the 16-17 centuries. The only thing that puzzles me is absence in the matricula of any notions about military fleet of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.

ABOUT MILITARY ROBBERIES AND DISCIPLINE
There is a statement that armies were supplied with plundering of villages they passed by, however there is a restriction: before wide introduction of firearms tribes were armed the same way as the army, so the Roman legions sometimes perished entirely in fighting with barbarians. There is also the second restriction: even if soldiers would win, the necessary plunder would be equal to that provision they could carry in their arms. Risks in case of such plundering were quite comparable to risks of the basic fighting task fulfilment, but the ratio of the risks and plundering was hundreds, and even thousand times worse. Nobody would run risks of the basic fighting task failure in hope to benefit some sacks of groats. Therefore, there were also legends about iron discipline when the Roman cohort would not take an apple from a tree while camping on the host territory.

AZTECS’ DISCIPLINE 
The empire of Aztecs reached the level comparable to the Roman one. The Mexican archives and libraries perished in fire entirely, and many facts are not clear, however it is known that Tenochtitlan possessed a network of trading stations on host tribal territories, and that city-state was at war with the twin-brother city-state of Tlaxcala with just the same network of trading stations.
In addition, the main thing: the discipline of the Aztec soldiers was iron – exactly the same, as the Roman one, and it was for the same reasons: at that level of the society development the army was not at war with village, army was interested only in competitive trading networks. I am even inclined to think that in militarily way the land aristocracy (boyars) at that stage were considerably stronger than trading aristocracy (princes) were. The peasants could have worse arms and their martial arts knowledge was poorer, but merchants were on the host land, and possessed only boats on the river. To be at war with village for the empire at that stage meant obviously to lose. Rome, by the way, regularly lost to the barbarians.

RAIDS OF NOMADS ON PEASANTS
The dated and clearly described raids on peasants are not present in general. Wars usual happen not for cheap consumer goods, and for the basic production assets, and for the nomad they were cattle and pastures but not kitchen gardens. The thesis about raids as hooliganism for the only purpose to trample fields and to spoil maidens was obviously born in the course of school education: nobody was going to explain to kiddies the value of fixed capital.
No dated evidence confirmed the thesis about raids of the Tatars on Russian village for tribute gathering. The main obstacle to such tribute gathering was unreasonable transportation cost (have a look at calculation of a campaign cost at the beginning of the chapter), and there was the only one place where it was possible to take something, and the transportation cost was minimal - city markets and seasonal trade fairs, where peasants brought their surpluses.

RAIDS OF NOMADS ON CITIES
Such raids were possible in one case: if nomad tribes were a part of some trading empire as a military caste. The Lipetsk Tatars carried out this role in the Eastern Europe. Independent war for obtaining a city is deprived by for the nomads of any sense, as a city for them was not fixed capital. Moreover, outside the limits of a trading network a city was useless - as a cartridge without a pistol.
Deletion of the customer of the nomads’ campaign on a city from the historical context pursues quite clear aims - not to show assets and not to open all cards.

EXAMPLE CONCERNING THE MONGOLS
In 1241-1242 the certain Mongols have walked across the Eastern Europe, mainly through the mining cities extracting gold, silver and copper. I will show the list of those cities that I have found out:
The Czech Republic: Vác, Eger, Opava, Benešov, Přerov, Litovel, Evičko, Olomouc.
Croatia: Zagreb.
Hungary: Buda, Mohács, Fehérvár, Esztergom.
Poland: Złotoryja, Lublin, Zawichost, Brest, Drohiczyn, Navahrudak, Sandomierz, Koprzywnica, Wiślica, Skalbmierz, Tursko Wielkie, Khmil'nyk, Torchok, Cracow, Wrocław, Opole, Racibórz, Legnica, Otmuchów, Kłodzko.
Romania: Bistriţa, Oradea, Timișoara, Reghin, Arad, Perg, Egreš .
Slovakia: Banská Štiavnica, Pukanec, Krupina, Nitra, Bratislava.
Austria: Neustadt.

Here is a map where I, with feasible accuracy, have marked most cities. It is curious that some visited by the Mongols cities are obviously close to modern frontiers.


Germany
The Czech Republic
Belorussia
Austria
Rumania
Ukraine
Hungary
Croatia
Slovakia

It is clear that the Mongolian army bore extremely high expenses; however, having carried out the task of visiting cities, the Mongols left and did not come back any more. Synchronously with the Mongols crossing Europe, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire arranged a campaign to Rome, - in 1241 a really small distance divided the armies.
The armies’ visiting mining cities went on synchronously with resettlement of German mountain specialists into mining cities. Let’s have a look what historians write:

The Carpathian Germans also colonized Slovakia... mostly after the termination of the Mongolian invasion in 1241. In Slovakia, they mined, basically, copper, silver and gold.
1241. In the field of German influence there were seven mining Hungarian cities (now the Central Slovakia): Königsberg (New Bana) Schemnitz (Banská Štiavnica) Kremnitz (Kremnica) Neusohl (Banská Bystrica), Bugganz (Pukanec) Diln (Banská Bela) Libeten (Ľubietová). Settlers were known as Spi š Zipser Sachsen.

Friend Ruslan Poleshuk has come up with a sensible idea: the annalistic "Mongols", most likely, started their campaign of 1241 to the Eastern Europe from Serbia, and to Serbia they returned. I am inclined to agree with this hypothesis: in Serbia there were main military warehouses, weapon workshops and some part of garrisons of the Roman Empire. Moreover, no genetic traces of these Mongols were found in Europe. Personally I in this situation would place emphasis only on the following pint: it is not who those Mongols were, the more important fact is who the customer of the campaign was.

POSSIBILITY TO EARN FOR LIVING WITH PLUNDERING
It is entirely mythical. The most favourable sector was piracy, but without the king's bill granting the right to come into any port for supplies, and, the main thing, to deliver the plunder wholesale, the pirate’s life was very short. Closed river systems could not provide such possibilities. A merchant would not become a receiver of stolen goods and ruin his reputation of a fair person together with the risk to lose the right of the land rent under trading stations for the sake of one-time profit. Ninety present of those whom had a robber label practically carried out functions of the local feudal customs.

ABOUT TITLES AND CAMPAIGNS
We see the evidence: the Crimean khan Devlet went to Tula. An experienced revisionist would have a question about military logistics at once: how did he go to Tula? If it was a horse campaign, in 2 weeks his campaign would have become unprofitable, and in 4 weeks would have cost as half of Europe.

The conclusion is that it was some other Tula and it was closer to the Crimea.
However, there is also some other variant: to glance at the titles. As a rule, the Russian emperor was also the Polish tsar, the Lithuanian prince, and the Caucasian crown prince and so on. Moreover, he was not alone: there were a lot of families, having the right to call themselves Holstein crown princes, for example. Therefore it is possible to name a campaign of some emperor Alexander I to Moscow as a campaign of the Polish tsar (or just a campaign of the Poles) to Moscow, and it will be naked truth. So if through relationship someone from the Romanovs also received a title (and the right to add it to his name) of the Crimean khan (similar situations occurred regularly in Europe) such Romanov's campaign to Tula could be easily designated as the Tatar one, and be ascribed to the Crimean Tatars. It was worse, if that Alexander I was simultaneously both the Polish tsar and the Crimean khan, so it was possible to call his campaign as the Polish-Tatar campaign to Moscow.

I constantly see such confusion in the database: the Poles mentioned participation of the Russians, in a key campaign, the Russians mentioned the Lithuanians, the Germans - both of them, and the Frenchmen would add the Germans, but would delete the Poles. So it really happened. Thus the campaign was important, but had local character, and it is absolutely clear that nobody gathered the armies from all Europe there. These were just manipulations with the titles of a commander, probably, it was all about one person.

I saw the evidence that monarchs were forced to support the interests of those regions, which interests they, as title carriers, had to protect. Therefore, if the merchants from Novgorod broke the rules and invaded with their goods some conditional Gdansk, some conditional Alexander I was obliged, as the Polish tsar, somehow to punish the Novgorod invaders - as the Polish tsar.

I will remind here that Werner von Bolland was a vassal of 43 various sovereigns from whom he received more than 500 fees in total, including 15 counties, and he himself, in his turn, had more than 100 vassals. In case of a conflict situation, for example, in a judicial proceeding, Werner von Bolland hardly used all his 500 titles, - not all of them were necessary. That title that concerned the case was necessary. Probably, this fact explains numerous so-called "duplicates" when obviously the same person appeared in the history under different names. It was not a plot; simply in different circumstances people used those names that were appropriate in the situation.

The conflict of interests described by historians as inter-regional (Tula-Tatar, for example) could be absolutely real, thus, that there were no troop shifts for huge distances. It was the local representative, who solved all problems as he had the rights to the corresponding title and obligations according to that title. For this purpose, the high-ranking people became related with each other.

This fine justification for the annalists of the past. It is necessary to understand that the Tula monk who described the “Tatar" raid, did not accompany the aggressor army in the campaign that is why we can not find the description of the campaign in the annals. Nevertheless, for this monk Tula was attacked not by Ivan Petrovich Serpuhovskiy and not Charles-Friedrich of Holstein, but namely the Crimean khan Devlet. Yes, that was the same person, but in that case, Ivan Petrovich protected the interests of the Crimean trade and attacked Tula in the status of the Crimean khan, so he was in the present state of affairs.

AND - THE MOST SIMPLE VARIANT
If regal families from different regions came to agreement, there was grooms exchange. The Russian prince came to the Horde, married a local princess and started to manage her dowry, for example, carried on in her name skilful negotiations with familiar in behavior and traditions Russian merchants. There are numerous data when a Russian prince constantly lived and worked in the Horde.
Accordingly, a Tatar prince with his court came to some city Vladimir, married a local princess and did exactly the same. What did that prince to do if some Tula broke the rights of the city of Vladimir? He had to move out with his guys, probably, with an auxiliary Russian troop to Tula and to convince townspeople that they were wrong. If not to mention in the annals the legal spouse of that Tatar prince (Vladimir princess), it might seem that the Tatar invaded Tula not closer than from Kazan or the Crimea, however, the annals are not misleading: and the Tatar took part in the raid, and his name was Devlet, and the raid was real.

THE BASIC CONSTANTS
The maximum duration of an autonomous horse campaign was 9-14 days one way.
The maximum duration of an autonomous pedestrian campaign was 4-5 days one way.
The duration of an average European war of the 19 century was 8 weeks.
The size of an army in the 19 century was 0.2-0.4 % of population, and the further in the past we move, the lower percentage we see.
Two basic types of military conflicts were typical at that time: local, between feudal land aristocracy and conflicts of merchant empires for trading stations - mainly on the rivers.
Some part of interregional conflicts was definitely solved locally, with powers of the plenipotentiary (relative) of the lord of the remote region, without any troop shift.

ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF MILITARIZATION OF THE PAST
Militarization in our ideas about the past is a product of the second half of the 19 century, closely connected with the Great Social Revolution of 1848-1849 and significant repartition of the assets. I do not see any special purpose of militarization of history. I am inclined to think that it is a by-effect of replacement of matriarchal understanding of historical processes with patriarchal ones. Those rotations of property and power that go clearly on maternal lines, are simply not visible in patrilineal schemes, that is why they automatically mean power repartition.

BY-EFFECT
The Russian Tatars who were in matrilineal system of relations the strong historical allies of Russian princes, in the patrilineal system could be understood only as aggressors. As a result, almost every Tatar "campaign to Russia" looks surreal as the Tatars were constantly accompanied by some Rusichi. The Russians and Tatars were not enemies, it was a conflict of competitive corporations - each consisting of the Russians and Tatars. They write that when the history of the Tatar Yoke was ordered, Russian historians refused that work point-blank, and it was necessary to invite specialists from Europe.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, 18 November 2019

Russian-Turkish collector war 1877-1878

Andrew Stepanenko

July 09, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/07/1877-1878.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

The text is closely connected with the next text about wars of the past. The main objective of this text is to show a difference between a real progress of events and that version dominating in the society opinion according to the version given in high school textbooks.

In 1851 the Ottoman empire borrowed money from Palmer and Goldsmith.
In 1854 the Ottoman empire took 75 million francs from England and France.
In 1855 the Ottoman empire borrowed from the Rothschilds’.

In 1873 the world financial crisis burst out, and it is clear, it became more difficult to repay debts. In 1875, in April the Ottoman Empire intensified tax pressure in Bulgaria, and in September that act resulted in the first revolt. The same year, in the summer because of increasing of tax pressure the revolt happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina

In 1875, on October 6, the Ottoman Empire got into the partial default condition – they could not pay interests on the state debt in time any more. The same year internal taxes were cancelled in the Ottoman Empire, probably, for acceleration of money turnover.

In 1876 the Anti-Ottoman mutiny burst out in Serbia and Montenegro. The same year an exchequer appeared in Serbia issuing its own tickets. The war with the government demanded resources. Already on May 1, 1876, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Germany signed a memorandum of reforms in the Ottoman Empire. The sovereignty of the Ottomans was ignored as already nonexistent. England and France who lent money were in shadow. They appeared 2 years later in 1879 - as regulating forces.

Two weeks later after the memorandum, 17/29 May, 1876 revolution of "the New Eight" occurred in the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Abdulaziz was dethroned, his nephew Murad V was elevated to the throne. In case the dethroned sultan borrowed money in his own name, the debt was already not valid. However, I think, he took money in the name of his family, and Murad V should pay it off.

Seven months later, in December 1876 the Great Powers under the direction of Russia already sat in Constantinople. The powers decided which reforms the Ottoman Empire should carry out. It resembles external management in case of bankruptcy. On December 23, 1876, the constitution of the Ottoman Empire was proclaimed. Freedom and equality were declared, the two houses parliament appeared.

Here is an important turn point. If the sultan borrowed money in the name of his family, the family could be killed, and the debt - forgotten. But if a popularly elected president borrowed money in the name of his people, his displacement solved nothing, - the country had to pay off the debt all the same. The Ottoman Empire did not become a national democracy state, but the parliament took responsibility from below - on behalf of those whom it governed. It was as in the case with mortgage – banks needed a guarantor. The Parliament, it was unimportant, how much national it was, was such a guarantor.

The situation in 1876 was controlled by the Young Turks suddenly appeared out of nowhere. However, in January 1877 the Turkish party refused to discuss their country destiny in that way. As a result, on March 19 (31), 1877, Russia de facto delivered an ultimatum to the Ottomans.

The Ottomans were silent.

On April 16, 1877 Romania (a province of the Ottoman Empire) officially concludes a convention with Russia concerning an easy access of the Russian armies. Simultaneously the “mortgage tickets” of the Ministry of Finance and the National Bank of Romania not existing yet (it would be founded in 1880) were issued. On April 24, 1877 in Bulgaria (a province of the Ottoman Empire) the appeal to Bulgarians for the weapon - to help the Russian armies - was issued. The same year Macedonia, territorially still not arranged, also declared war to the Ottomans.

In June 1877, the meeting of the promised Turkish parliament took place at last, but the parliament did not agree clear off someone else’s debt. On a charge of conspiracy, many of the “New Ottomans” were subjected to repression, and, personally, I do not exclude that it was reasonable. However, the constructed road “Haidar-pasha (Istanbul) – Izmit” was immediately “sold” to the Deutsche Bank in exactly 1877 - obviously as payment off the debts.

In February 1878, the parliament unwilling to sign under someone else’s enslaving receipt was dismissed, and the Constitution of 1876 terminated its existence. Dictatorship (if the dictator was chosen correctly) appeared to be more reliable.

On March 3, 1878, the Treaty of San Stefano was signed between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The new sultan recognized independence of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria; Bosnia and Herzegovina received wide autonomy. Those forces that lent the Ottomans money, and started to dispose legally of earlier pledged rights to the state-owned property, persistently remained in the shadow.

Territories with their population were really regarded as something that it was possible not only to pledge in a bank, but to purchase and to sell as well. So, Russia received the contribution of 1 billion 410 million roubles, but 1 billion 100 million roubles of it were covered by the cost of the Turkish annexed territories. Thus, only 310 million roubles actually paid off.
http://ttolk.ru/articles/osvoboditelnyiy_pohod_na_tsargrad._otdannaya_rossiey_pobeda_chast_iv

As Russia added in the agreement something from itself (in Transcaucasia), the congress assembled in Berlin where all above added requirements were withdrawn.

From September 18, until April 14, 1879 the European Commission organic charter development operated. In Bulgaria the governor-general was administered, a Christian reform was carried out and local armed forces were arranged. Thus, the general power of the Ottomans over Bulgaria remained in force - until 1908. I think, the purpose was repayment of the Ottomans’ debt.

In 1879 it was mentioned for the first time that it all because of the English-French credit of 1854 - those 75 million francs. That debt is mentioned only because in 1879 the Ottoman Empire had to lend money one more time and again - in Europe. The creditor is not mentioned. It is known only that the taxation right in the Empire passed to a group of bankers from Galata in a tax farming (that medieval tax farming) for 10 years.

In 1881 a gold-coin standard was introduced in Turkey, - the country definitely tried to get out of the problem. Here, in 1881 the decree of the sultan was issued concerning creation of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration. Its council included representatives of England, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary and local creditors.

There is no Russia in this company of "observers"; at it had a different function. I will not tell about 1877, and in the first half of the XIX century, a Russian soldier cost for European customers approximately four times cheaper than a French one. It made sense to invite Russia in business, first of all, in case of war.

In addition, certainly, it is only an iceberg top. In that 1876 when the Young Turks appeared in Turky, the Young Czechs emerged in Czechia. That is, Vienna was a debtor as well. Marx wrote about this indebtedness of Austro-Hungary, but somehow without mentioning that both processes had much in common - both in Vienna and Istanbul.

Understanding that process had a uniform character, I have tried to find what occurred in Slovakia known for its silver mines, and found out that the history of Slovakia of the XIX century is a gap in the Slovak version of Wikipedia. Slovaks are not ready yet to describe the events occurring in their country during those 100 years. Meanwhile, one of the first railways in Europe was built in Slovakia, and it is a clear evidence of a huge some of money.

EPILOGUE:
Nobody hides this information, and so is the history of Europe which can be easily understood without drilling. The role of Russia looks absolutely different here: it is possible to dismiss charge in unreasonable aggression from it. National-liberation movement in the Balkans looks absolutely different as well. Moreover, the most important conclusion is not to forget any more about character of the logic connections created in this text.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

About invitation of the Varangians to Russia

Andrew Stepanenko

July 07, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/07/blog-post_92.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

The text is directly based on the article concerning the tribute from Russian cities.

INVITATION OF THE VARANGIANS
The Varangians founded cities that is why they needed only the right to rent of a piece of land at the river. At that stage, they contacted with peasantry only through trade with the military tribal nobility – the boyars. Eighty-four articles in Wikipedia devoted to Grand dukes of Kiev, is never mention the term "peasants" in chronology from 860 to 1272 (412 years). The reason: the peasantry did not exist for the princes; they were in “ownership” of local boyars.

THE KIEV PRINCES - STRANGERS
The first Varangians in Kiev were Askold and Dir, then they were replaced by the Ruriks, and this name is of the Caucasian origin, not Scandinavian; it explains close primary relations of the Ruriks with Khazaria, and then - with Circassia, Chechnya and Kabarda. There were neither invasion, nor any other act of submission of the Russian territory to external forces. Moreover, there was no any submission of local peasants to Kiev (and there could not be any at that stage). The city of Kiev for Russia at this stage resembled the French chain store "Ashan". If the prices were too excessive, the Ruriks would be simply refused in the rent contract prolongation, and Russia would invite someone other.

Pay attention, during the epoch of the seigniorial Duma the power was a two-chamber type: the Duma, using the Customer Law, played a legislature role, and princes were occupied with external relations. Without the boyars’ will no decision would come into force in Russia, but only princes decided, whether there would be any war for a city or a transport corridor. The sources of the historical loss of nobility is that it was not they, but princely cities who established price hierarchy of the goods. The same siyuation was everywhere.

THE CORE
The tribute of Russian princes to the Tatars and Khazars was a consequence of trade and economic expansion of Russian merchant class at the Tatar and Khazaria’s territories. Conflicts due to the not paid in time tribute, most possibly, were caused by some force majeure following the results of large natural disaster, and, accordingly, the broken important transactions.

Absence of long tributary relations in most parts of Europe is typical. It means that identical historical processes inside and out of Europe are interpreted differently. To create base conditions for the other interpretation is simple: you give to the annalistic term emptio the meaning of "purchase", and to the term coemptio – the meaning of "sale", and all history of a vast region should be considered in an absolutely different way.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)