THE EUROPE OF THE PEOPLES

The "Russian" Version of the Holy Alliance
"Русская" версия Священного Союза
La "versione russa" della Santa Alleanza
La "version Russe" de la Sainte Alliance
Die "russische Version" der Heiligen Allianz

For all the above reason, Russia was able to play a decisive role over the shape of the Holy Alliance, albeit its specific points of view were not taken into the hoped account. In particular, according to the secret instructions conferred, by the Tsar , on Novosiltsev, the political form of Europe should have been transformed deeply, from the one side, for accommodating the national ambitions of the peoples of Europe, and, from the other side, following a bit the scheme of the famous projects for the reform of Europe, which had been worked out, over the centuries, by Podĕbrad, De Sully, Crucé, St. Pierre, Rousseau, Kant, Novalis and others, whereby the European Kings should have stipulated a “Peacefully Pact” (Fœdus Pacificum) for avoiding wars and for protecting Christendom. In this sense, the Russian project defined Europe as “the Christian Nation”, and “Europe of the Peoples”T he document is of great interest, as in it we find formulated for the first time in an official dispatch the ideals of international policy which were to play so conspicuous a part in the affairs of the world at the close of the revolutionary epoch, and issued at the end of the 19th century in the Rescript of  Nicolas II and the conference of the Hague. Alexander argued that the outcome of the war was not to be only the liberation of France, but the universal triumph of "the sacred rights of Humanity". To attain this it would be necessary "after having attached the  tonations their government by making these incapable of acting save in the greatest interests of their subjects, to fix the relations of the states amongst each other on more precise rules, and such as it is to their interest to respect."

A general treaty was to become the basis of the relations of the states forming "the European Confederation"; and this, though "it was no question of realising the dream of universal peace, would attain some of its results if, at the conclusion of the general war, it were possible to establish on clear principles the prescriptions of the rights of nations." "Why could not one submit to it", the Tsar continued, "the positive rights of nations, assure the privilege of neutrality, insert the obligation of never beginning war until all the resources which the mediation of a third party could offer have been exhausted, having by this means brought to light the respective grievances, and tried to remove them? It is on such principles as these that one could proceed to a general pacification, and give birth to a league of which the stipulations would form, so to speak, a new code of the law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater part of the nations of Europe, would without difficulty become the immutable rule of the cabinets, while those who should try to infringe it would risk bringing upon themselves the forces of the new union."

As it is well-known, such ambitions were nullified by the resistance, to the Russian proposals, of the other main negotiators of the Vienna Treat, which refused to sign the general text of the Holy Alliance, which was not a legal text, but a political manifesto of a conservative project for a new “European Concert” inspired by the Enlightened Conservatism and by a form of Christian Ecumenism alongside the ideas of Novalis. Nevertheless, Alexander 1^st ordered that this document was read officially at least once a year in all Churches of the Empire.

Because of all of these initiatives, Alexander !st was the only soverain after Charlemagne to be called "the Empèeror of the Europeans"

Some of the ideas of this text of the “Holy Alliance” were taken over, unexpectedly, by West European politicians such as Mazzini and Gioberti, who continued the ideas of a “Europe of the Peoples”, and, respectively, of an Italian  federation presided by the Pope. Surely, Mazzini, and even Rosmini and Gioberti, who were considered, in their times, very “progressive” people, would not have appreciated this analogy. Nevertheless, it appears self-evident when reading secret instructions to Novosiltev and of the works of the two Italian politicians and thinkers.

For all the above reason, Russia was able to play a decisive role over the shape of the Holy Alliance, albeit its specific points of view were not taken into the hoped account. In particular, according to the secret instructions conferred, by the Tsar , on Novosiltsev, the political form of Europe should have been transformed deeply, from the one side, for accommodating the national ambitions of the peoples of Europe, and, from the other side, following a bit the scheme of the famous projects for the reform of Europe, which had been worked out, over the centuries, by Podĕbrad, De Sully, Crucé, St. Pierre, Rousseau, Kant, Novalis and others, whereby the European Kings should have stipulated a “Peacefully Pact” (Fœdus Pacificum) for avoiding wars and for protecting Christendom. In this sense, the Russian project defined Europe as “the Christian Nation”, and “Europe of the Peoples”T he document is of great interest, as in it we find formulated for the first time in an official dispatch the ideals of international policy which were to play so conspicuous a part in the affairs of the world at the close of the revolutionary epoch, and issued at the end of the 19th century in the Rescript of Nicholas II and the conference of the Hague. Alexander argued that the outcome of the war was not to be only the liberation of France, but the universal triumph of "the sacred rights of humanity". To attain this it would be necessary "after having attached the nations to their government by making these incapable of acting save in the greatest interests of their subjects, to fix the relations of the states amongst each other on more precise rules, and such as it is to their interest to respect."

A general treaty was to become the basis of the relations of the states forming "the European Confederation"; and this, though "it was no question of realising the dream of universal peace, would attain some of its results if, at the conclusion of the general war, it were possible to establish on clear principles the prescriptions of the rights of nations." "Why could not one submit to it", the Tsar continued, "the positive rights of nations, assure the privilege of neutrality, insert the obligation of never beginning war until all the resources which the mediation of a third party could offer have been exhausted, having by this means brought to light the respective grievances, and tried to remove them? It is on such principles as these that one could proceed to a general pacification, and give birth to a league of which the stipulations would form, so to speak, a new code of the law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater part of the nations of Europe, would without difficulty become the immutable rule of the cabinets, while those who should try to infringe it would risk bringing upon themselves the forces of the new union."

As it is well-known, such ambitions were nullified by the resistance, to the Russian proposals, of the other main negotiators of the Vienna Treat, which refused to sign the general text of the Holy Alliance, which was not a legal text, but a political manifesto of a conservative project for a new “European Concert” inspired by the Enlightened Conservatism and by a form of Christian Ecumenism alongside the ideas of Novalis. Nevertheless, Alexander 1^st ordered that this document was read officially at least once a year in all Churches of the Empire.

Moreover, some of the ideas of this text of the “Holy Alliance” were taken over, unexpectedly, by West European politicians such as Mazzini and Gioberti, who continued the ideas of a “Europe of the Peoples”, and, respectively, of an Italian federation presided by the Pope. Surely, Mazzini, and even Gioberti, who were considered, in their times, very “progressive” people, would not have appreciated this analogy. Nevertheless, it appears self-evident when reading secret instructions to Novosiltev and of the works of the two Italian politicians and thinkers.

A "EUROPEAN CONFEDERATION”: A LEGACY OF ALEXANDER Ist

The Emperor of the Europeans 

Царь  европейцев

L'imperatore degli Europei

L'empereur des Européens

Der Kaiser der Europaeer

Notwithstanding the change of Catherine’s mood towards Reforms after American and French Revolution, the relationships of the Russian Empire towards France and Napoleon was never completely negative.

The Czar Alexander 1^st was a follower of Freemasonry. During the first part of his reign, he was considered as favorable to reforms, and, by the Tilsit Treaty, he tried even to reach an agreement with Napoleon. However, the decision, by the latter, to invade Russia, left to him no other choice  than war. He was surrounded, from one side, by Freemason intellectuals of the most different orientations, and, from the other, by middle-of-the-way liberal reformers, such as Czartorysky and Novosiltsev, with whom he entertained complex relationships. In particular, Czartorysky, who had been active in the last struggles in Poland before the Third Partition, but who was a personal friend of the Tsar, had worked out, with the consent of the Emperor, a project, which merged the experiences of some pre-revolutionary constitutions, like the Polish “Konstytucja Trzeciego Maja” (which had the approval of Rousseau) and the final act of the Finnish Estactes of Borgå, with the project of Catherine II for a new Russian Legislation, so envisaging to introduce into Poland and into Finland some limited reforms, as an example to be followed lateron  in other parties of the Empire (it would have been the first occasion for utilizing the term “Finlandisation”).

One has to recall that the Finnish-Swedish aristocracy had even fought a war against the Napoleonic Swedish for maintaining its “Constitution”. On the contrary, the Polish Constitution of 1815, which referred to the Old Constitution of 1791, was not accepted by mainstream Poland, since it reflected just the ideas of the higher aristocrats.

For Russia, the Napoleonic invasion in 1812 resulted in a unique experience, which deeply influenced its perception of the world. It had, on the self-consciousness of Russians, an impact similar to the one had in other countries of Europe (such as, e.g., Spain, Italy and Germany), i.e., the raising of the national feelings. However, this feelings were different in scope. In first instance, the special scope of Russia emerged from the fact itself that it was Russia, and Russia alone, which, with its resistance to Napoleon’s invasion, determined the fall of the latter. It was precisely the disbanding catastrophe followed to the invasion of Russia the reason why the French Army was no more in a position to overcome its European foes.

It is true, the invasion of Russia from the West had never succeeded, as experiences by the Poled and by the Swedes. However, after the invasion of Napoleon, this invincibility of Russia was put under the eyes of everybody in Europe. This was sufficient to give Russia a special standing. But this was not enough. In fact, Russian troops had proven to be very effective all over Europe. An example for all: already in 1796, Suvorov had been able to defeat Napoleon in Piedmont, to conquer Torino and to recall the King of Sardinia (who, however, declined his invitation). Especially, Suvorov, himself a typical “national-popular” military leader, outbalanced Napoleon also in his policy of aggregating, under “Austro-Russian” flags, the Italian national voluntaries, as well as counter-revolutionary guerrilla. In this sense, even if this role has never been recognized, he contributed, at least as much as Napoleon, to anticipate the birth of Italian nationalism, in the same way as this happened with the other ant-Napoleon military movements in Germany, Austria and Spain. Moreover, Suvorov conducted an extraordinary campaign in Switzerland, for which he was designed as “The Generalissimo”.

At the end of the war, Russia’s armies were present even in France, and Russia was in a position to influence heavily the overall results of the Congress of Vienna.

Thirdly, the Russian Empire was a multinational entity, which could avail itself of the far-reaching experience of people like Czartorysky, who had been an active part in the political life of another big country, like Poland, where the newest reform trends were hardly debated and had found a first concrete step in the “Konstytucja Treciego Maja”.

Finally, the liberation war against Napoleon, which was called “The Patriotic War”, allowed also Russia to forge its own nationalism.

During the XVIII Century, the original identity of the Muscovite State, which had been imprinted by the religious heritage of the “Third Rome”, had been profoundly shaken. The rationalist attitude, as well as the foreign nationality, of some monarchs (like Catherine II), together with the huge influence of Polish, German, Swedish and Tatar aristocrats, as well as of Italian, French, English and Scandinavian artists, architects and officials (who all spoke, among them, in French), had distanced the Court and the aristocracy from common people. By the way, it has to be remembered that personal serfdom was not a traditional Slavonic, or Russian, institution; on the contrary, it was consolidated precisely during the Catherine period, with something which can recall the idea of slave labor in the Americas and in the other European colonies worldwide of the same period. And, in fact, the revolts of Razin and Pugačiov recall, under many points of view, the contemporary anti-colonial revolts, such as the one of Tupac Amaru in Southern America, as well as the peasant revolts in the Austrian Galicia. On the contrary, the fact that, during the Napoleon wars, the aristocratic officials class had fought, side to side, together with peasants, for the defense of fatherland, had diffused a completely new mood. Intellectuals were encouraged to look for the “national soul” of the Russian people, alongside the ideals of Romanticism. This event raised, at the same time, the social consciousness of many aristocrats, like Prince Volkonskij, or the Decabrists, and the utilization of national language instead of French.

The growing importance of the peoples rendered it impossible to impeach also all the infinite other ethnic entities of the Empire (starting from Poles and Finns, but going down to Caucasians and to Lithuanians, up to Ukrainians and to Jews) to vindicate their respective nationalities, languages and identities, as well as an increased role for lower classes. It is the moment when Kalevala were written by Lömroeth and Pan Tadeusz and Dziady by Mickiewicz, and, and when Hadzi Muhammad and Chamil raised the Daghestanian and Chechnyan revolts.

ROMANS IN RUSSIA

The Bosporan Kingdom and the neighbouring Roman Provinces

Regnum Bospori: a large Client State of the Roman Empire.

Боспорское царство - великое «государство-сателлит» Римской империи

Il Regnum Bospori, un importante satellite dell' Impero Romano

Le Royaume du Bospore, un important état client de l' Empire Romain

Konigreich Bosporus, ein wichtiger Satellit des Roemischen  Kaiserreichs.

Asander and Dynamis were the ruling monarchs of the Regnum Bospori until Caesar commanded a paternal uncle of Dynamis, Mithridates, to declare war on the Bosporan Kingdom and claimed the kingship for himself. Asander and Dynamis were defeated by Caesar’s ally and had gone into political exile. However after Caesar’s death in 44 BC, the Bosporan Kingdom was restored to Asander and Dynamis by Octavian . Asander ruled as an Archon and later as King until his death in 17 BC. After the death of Asander, Dynamis was compelled to marry a Roman called Scribonius, but the Romans under statesman Marcus Agrippa  set Polemon I(16 BC - 8 BC) as King of Pontus  in his place. Polemon married Dynamis in 16 BC and she died in 14 BC. Polemon ruled as King until his death in 8 BC. After the death of Polemon, Aspurgus, the son of Dynamis and Asander, succeeded Polemon.

The Bosporan Kingdom of Aspurgus was a "Client State" of the Roman Empire, helped by Roman garrisons. Aspurgus (8 BC - 38) founded a line of kings which endured with certain interruptions until 341. Aspurgus adopted the Roman names "Tiberius Julius" because he received Roman citizenship and enjoyed the patronage of Augustus and Tiberius. All of the following kings adopted these two Roman names followed by a third name, mostly of Pontic or Thracian origin , but also of local origin .

The kings adopted the "Pontic Era" introduced by Mithridates VI, which started with 297 BC; this era was used to date coins. Bosporan kings struck coinage throughout the kingdom period .  Their kingdom covered the eastern half of Crimea and the Taman peninsula, and extended along the east coast of the Azof Sea  to the mouth of the Don, a great market for trade with the interior.

They carried on a perpetual war with the native tribes, and in this were supported by their Roman suzerains, who even lent the assistance of garrison and fleet. The Bosporan Kingdom was incorporated as a part of the Roman Province of Moesia Inferior from 63-68. In 68, the new Roman Emperor Galba had restored the Bosporan Kingdom 

At one of these periods (255) the Goths and Borani were able to seize Bosporan shipping and raid the shores of Anatolia.

Besides influencing the Regnum Bospori, Romans controlled the town of Tyras (present days Tiraspol, capital city of the Republic of Transdnistria) .

Latin influence is strongly felt in the Romanian and Moldovan languages spoken in that area. Moreover, Russian rulers often were pleased in making reference to Roman cultural and political traditions, which is self evident in the denominations “Tsar’” (“Caesar”),Tsar’stvo “Kaiserreich”),Tretij Rim”Third Rome” (“Translatio Imperii”), “Imperator”, “Imperija” (“Imperium”), and, even, by constrast,”Respublika” (“Res Publica”).

Paradoxically, Roman words are present in Russian more than in many other Slavonic languages ( the names of the months;  “avion” instead of “zrakoplov”;"aeroport" instead of "aerodrom"; “kanikuli” instead of “odmor”; “Italija” instead of “Wlochy”; “Germanija”  instead of “Njemacka”; "President" instead of "predsedvik"; "Universitet" instead of "Sveuciliste", a.s.o.).