CC BY
24
THE COSSACK HOSTS IN THE DIALECTICS OF DEVELOPMENT
© Erokhin LUr*
Croydon College, UK, London
Review article, showing the main fragments of history of formation and development of the Cossacks troops. History Cossack troops is seen as a complex, contradictory and multifaceted process involving state institutions and authorities.
Key words: Cossacks, Russia, history, people, ethnicity, culture, traditions, troops.
A question about a nature of development of the Cossack territories belongs to the fundamental issues in considering the history and development of the state traditions and state ideology of the Cossacks [3]. The Cossacks' development and formation in their age-old, as well as in relatively new lands, was informed by a system of the Cossack host structure.
The history of the Cossacks in its relation with the state concepts and theories [5, 6, 8] gave rise to many mysteries, contradictions and questions. Some of them remain in the focus of research till our days [2, 7].
The Zaporozhian Sich was a progenitor to all later Cossack formations and associations. It laid foundations of the Cossack independent statehood. The Sich had many specific characteristics. One may speak about established principles of the military state democracy, electoral law, though based exclusively on the ideological concept of independence. The Sich rejected any external state influence and efforts of foreign state influence, state expansion. In essence, Cossacks' own traditional state values were defended.
The Almighty Don Host is given a special place in the system of other Cossack structures by historians and researchers. The Don Host in its early period directly continued traditions and principles of the Zaporozhian Sich. Usually, the Don Host is considered to emerge later than the Zaporozhian Sich; however, there is no single opinion on this matter.
«State» Cossack hosts. With the industrial growth and Russia's capitalization, the whole system of Cossacks' life and provisions had changed. Traditionally, the Cossack hosts emerged as free formations or even as fugitive refuges. It is sufficient to recall a thesis and a belief: «There is no extradition from the Don!» That is why it was rumored that Cossacks were robbers, brigands and aggressors. The Cossacks had their own legal culture and distinct understanding of the principle of law. All crimes committed outside of the host krug (assembly), stanitsa or
* Старший научный сотрудник.
Исторические науки
51
those committed against non-Russians were not considered as crimes. For a very long time, the power was building its relations with the «early» Cossacks on the diplomatic principles. With the beginning of the industrial revolution, the situation began to change drastically. The Cossack hosts, which were a center of independence and separatism, turned into a major outpost and conductor of the statehood of the Russian Empire.
A vivid example of formation of the Russian state Cossack host is the Kuban Cossack Host. In fact, it was formed, and then repeatedly reformed only by means of administrative measures on the part of the imperial Russia. Such situation was absolutely impossible in the Sich, early Don, or in the Yaik.
With development of the system of state Cossack hosts, an increasing number of ethnic and national groups were involved into Cossacks' life [1]. Moreover, the institute of family and family values underwent substantial changes, too. A role of the woman had changed drastically [4].
A principle of the state independence and the Cossack hosts. However, with the emergence of a completely new system of formation and development of Cossack hosts as a form of Cossacks' existence, Cossacks' ideas regarding their own state independence did not disappear. They were still living and developing within the Cossack structure. Those elements were especially vivid during periods of state crises and political cataclysms. Their examples include a rise of the so called Nekrasov Cossacks movement, emergence of numerous «white» Cossack republics during the Word War I (1918-1920), existence of the Cossack and peasant statehood in the concept and practice of N.I. Makhno's Guliay-Pole government, and many others.
In general, it is important to note, that development of the Cossacks and Cossack hosts was informed by the specificity, vastness and uniqueness of the territories of traditional Cossack inhabitance or those developed by this ethnic group during Yermak's periods, and so on.
References:
1. Ерохин И.Ю. Этно-социальные традиции и ценности казачества // Научный аспект. - 2013. - Т. 2, № 2 (6). - С. 167-168.
2. Ерохин И.Ю. Парадоксы истории развития казачества // Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук. - 2013. - № 12-1. - С. 153-154.
3. Ерохин И.Ю. Многообразие казачьих территорий // Сборник конференций НИЦ Социосфера. - 2013. - № 45. - С. 94-100.
4. Ерохин И.Ю. Казачья семья: уникальный культурный феномен в системе государства // Сборник конференций НИЦ Социосфера. - 2013. -№ 25. - С. 25-28.
5. Ерохин И.Ю. Казачьи республики и традиции государственности // Сборник конференций НИЦ Социосфера. - 2013. - № 20. - С. 10-14.
52
НАУКА И СОВРЕМЕННОСТЬ - 2014
6. Ерохин И.Ю. Казачество и государственность // Научно--информационный журнал Армия и общество. - 2013. - № 2 (34). - С. 74-79.
7. Ерохин И.Ю. Актуальные вопросы методологии истории казачества: новые подходы и концепции // Перспективы науки и образования. - 2013. -№ 6. - С. 176-178.
8. Ерохин И.Ю. Государство: роль и влияние на трансформации казачества // Общество и право. - 2013. - № 3 (45). - С. 323-325.
