16 ms·

Peter the Great’s Beard Tax

108 points by lermontov 5y ago

Eric_WVGG 5y ago
I bought a few replicas of the pictured token for my friends in Austin, all of whom have these Rasputin-ass facial carpets. https://www.beardtoken.com https://www.beardtoken.com
hereforphone 5y ago
The article states that this was part of an effort to reorient the country's culture. That might seem strange to Americans / Western Europeans today, but this was not an isolated case and while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing (with the right approach and an amount of luck). A more modern example is Turkey, where Atatürk revised script, clothing, education, and many other aspects of the country's culture. While no one will every know "what would have been", it's arguable that these reforms made Turkey more "European" and less "Middle Eastern" - which I think was the intent. So, today Turkey is more like an Italy than a Syria (though that is changing), and perhaps those reforms are part of the reason why.
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  > while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing That's called euro-centrism isn't it. And every westerner believes wholeheartedly that it is the best most constructive thing to do. So it is neither right nor wrong politically. But it does dull the world when every place you go to is Europe in microcosm. That is a true vision of dystopian hell itself.
  - hereforphone 5y ago
    Spend a couple years in Italy. Spend a couple years in Syria. Come back and tell me which you prefer.
    - ploika 5y ago
      The one not at war obviously. Being in Europe didn't save Bosnia from being a pretty awful place to be in the 90s.
      - tdsamardzhiev 5y ago
        Our part of Europe is... special.
    - romwell 5y ago
      Italy wasn't the nicest place to be in during the 1940s, which would be a fair comparison as far as war-torn states go
      - shadilay 5y ago
        Most people would still pick wartime Italy to wartime Syria.
    - vagrantJin 5y ago
      Why, so I can visit the Lamborghini factory and pizza restaurant? If you think my statement sounds like a shallow cliche then I would remind you that a group of people connected loosely by the idea of a state have cultural norms and traditions that make their little corner of the world unique...and Id say this surpasses the idea of materialism/unbounded consumption that undertones every conversation about "Europe Vs ...." measuring progress by how many cappucino cafes per square kilometer is a rather dull way to view the world at the very least.
      - FredPret 5y ago
        When people talk about this they simply mean that cappuccino cafes are better than landmines, and that Italy beats Syria by that good vs bad metric. It's not an argument that we should replace all culture with a European facsimile, merely that some movement towards the proven model for success is needed.
      - imtringued 5y ago
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. They chose it on their own. If you're going to say that their choice was wrong, that would be rather paternalistic, don't you think?
    - simonh 5y ago
      I don't think an authoritarian leader dictating cultural norms is really the same as a country 'choosing' it on it's own.
    - trhway 5y ago
      >Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. history was pressuring. In both cases the more advanced, technically/militarily in particular, Europe was an existential threat - in case of Russia to make Russia (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) into a small dukedom far in the forests, and in case of Turkey - for example the post WW1 partitioning plan for Osman Empire included partitioning of what is modern Turkey territory.
      - juki 5y ago
        > (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) The Grand Duchy of Moscow existed from 1263 to 1547, but the beard tax was from 1698 (Tsardom of Russia) to 1772 (Russian Empire).
        trhway 5y ago
        the point here is that after Mongol period Russia started to collide in 15xx with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth with the issue culminating in Polish invasion of 1610 resulting in Moscow capture and putting up Polish Prince as Tsar. It came pretty close to Russia just becoming a satellite province/vassal state of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the 16xx Swedish Empire is rising and is going south and east and firmly cutting Russia from Baltic Sea and taking a bunch of North West territories. In the second half of 16xx the slowing down Russia was no match for modern Sweden. Without Peter the Great's modernization (suppose his sister Sophia's coup succeeded) of Russia and winning the war with Sweden as a result, Russia would have most probably lost a lot of territories (including core territories like Novgorod and Moscow regions) in the next few decades to Sweden and Poland and, instead of becoming Russian Empire, would be reduced to some small dukedom(s) on the Eastern edges of Europe, and with probable forced Catholicization it would basically cease to exist as a familiar Russian state.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    Countries are allowed to change. A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. The leader of Turkey wanted to take his country in a particular direction. That is a valid local decision by a local leader. What is euro-centric is to dictate to those local leaders, to tell countries that they shouldn't change their culture as they see fit. Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.
    - dotcommand 5y ago
      > A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist. Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. > Other countries are not museums needing protection from change. Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies. In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        > And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". ... > Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. This is not an accurate reading of history. Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. Not only had the Ottoman Empire been dismantled, the territory of modern Turkey had been partitioned and split amongst the victors, much like Hungary had lost land in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being dismantled (for which Hungarian nationalists still harbour resentment to this day). Large parts of Western Anatolia were ceded to Greece as part of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and Constantinople was put under Allied military administration at the end of the war. This was the cause of the Turkish War of Independence, which began shortly after the end of the First World War. Winning this war was what made Atatürk's name, in a rather literal way - it is the very reason why he's considered the father of the nation. So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won. If he had been concerned about submitting to his 'European masters', events like the Greek genocide which carried on after the founding of the Republic of Turkey would never have occurred.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    You can remove the "euro" part from it, and pick any other successful civilization which produced a rich culture. E.g. Chinese culture influenced its neighbors to a very significant extent, and certain traits of it were consciously emulated, say, in Japan and Korea at certain times.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    Well we know what happened. Europe rose to ascendancy in the 17th and 18th century. I think it is fair to say he bet on the right horse.
- rolleiflex 5y ago
  As a Turkish person, we are reminded of this pretty much every day. However, it’s also important to avoid the cult of personality: Ataturk’s reforms did not come out of nothing. Turkey at that point had been a cosmopolitan society of many communities for almost a thousand years, many of which were non-Muslim and some of which were western. That kind of permanent interface was arguably one of the things that gave Turkey the ability to lunge for a western, secular democracy, and more importantly, manage to keep it (nascent as it is) for a hundred years, up until now. Erdogan has been in power for twenty years by now — much as he would have loved to dismantle it, this is as far as it has gotten. Imperfect as it is, if it manages to hand power off of Erdogan in 2023 peacefully, Turkish democracy will have passed the acid test. If that doesn’t work, nobody knows.
  - hereforphone 5y ago
    PS - Excellent second paragraph, you're right - but I've been hearing that "this is the critical moment" for years. Are in in Turkey now? Where?
    - rolleiflex 5y ago
      There are elections coming in 2023 (as scheduled) and possibly earlier if the opposition manages to force it due to current low confidence in the government. All prior ‘this is critical’ moments were either local elections (cannot affect the national gov’t) or sort of wishful thinking on the opposition’s part. This one is different, because Erdogan is not only not polling first in a very long time, he is polling fourth and the last. It also is significant because the collapse of TRY to half its prior value was both swift and for the first time ever, visibly caused by bad leadership.
      - hereforphone 5y ago
        For fun I walked around the lise that was the polling center during an election 4-5 years ago. There were poll workers caught stealing votes. There was a vehicle without a license plate waiting outside the front door of the school to steal the ballot box if necessary. There is also a massive influx of Syrian refugees who may be allowed to vote... and these refugees are said to almost entirely vote according to the Islamic perspective. I don't see Erdoğan losing if the election were to be held today. But a lot can change in a couple of years, and as you say the economic situation may aid the opposition.
- nine_k 5y ago
  A very interesting example of a similar but seriously different process was the Meiji revolution in Japan. It restored the emperor and pushed westernization into high gear — Western science, technology, and culture was studied very intensively. Along with that, the traditional Japanese culture was jealously preserved in other areas, so as to combine the best and most important Japanese traits and traditions with the most powerful and useful European knowledge. This is very unlike the effort of Peter the Great, who tried hard to make Russia more genuinely Western and replace as much traditional structure everywhere as he could. The success was mixed, of course.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  History is written by strong leaders with a vision. In Peter the Great's case it was making Russia a European power.
- int_19h 5y ago
  It's not quite so simple. Peter often gets criticized for borrowing the book on the parts he did like (science, engineering), but meticulously avoiding all the parts he didn't fancy - especially the political philosophy. Russia still acquired some; it was simply unavoidable with sending so many people to study abroad. But so long as we're speaking of would-have-beens, if Peter didn't do it, a later monarch might have carried it out in a way that didn't keep Russia lagging the rest of Europe politically by a century.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  A modern example are the various bans on hijab or other coverings
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Guthur 5y ago
  I don't think it started with Atatürk at all. The Ottomans were trying to follow a more European model for quite some time before WW1. Hence their close relation with Germany and folly of entering WW1.
DaedPsyker 5y ago
It sounds like being ruled over by a socialite. I don't know anything about Peter, did he take anything apart from fashion from his grand tour? It says he worked at a shipyard which is admirable but no further mention of what impression that left.
- vtail 5y ago
  Peter reformed Russian army, build an effective navy, won a few wars, and founded St. Petersburg, among other things.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ruggeri 5y ago
  He was an extremely active ruler. Founded the Russian navy, founded St. Petersburg. He was indeed also very interested in all kinds of science and technology and tried to import these to Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Great-Robert-K-Massie-audiobook/dp/B004UGJPQU https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Great-Robert-K-Massie-audiobook... On the other hand, it seems that all the monarchs of this time basically treated their land as their inherited, God-given wealth. So in that respect, Peter and practically all others were extremely ego-centric and shallow. Modernization did not extend to democratization.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    There were still some substantial differences between Russian take on monarchy, and what was common in Western Europe at the time. While European monarchs claimed divine right to rule, the concept of subjects' rights was already developed by then, and not just in England; rulers required some legitimate justification for the more drastic actions. In Russia, in contrast, literally every person in the country was deemed a slave to the ruler, to be disposed of at will - a legacy it inherited from the Byzantines via the adoption of Eastern Orthodoxy, and later reinforced by Mongol customs during the occupation.
anm89 5y ago
Coincidentally, I recently stumbled across a really great lecture series with maybe 50 hours of great university lecture style content on Imperial Russia and I've been listening to it as I go to bed. Around episode 7 or 8 I believe he discusses this episode. If anyone wants to learn about something off their normal radar, I really recommend this lecture series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qsss5phzpg&list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQN7jahEjbUPPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qsss5phzpg&list=PLEETkM6vwQ... It starts off kind of slow. Id say the first episode is probably the worst of the series but the guy's got a captive student audience so I don't think he's prioritizing reeling in the audience.
- wurstman 5y ago
  Thanks for this, it sounds interesting
lordleft 5y ago
This decision -- along with many others inaugurated by Peter -- contributed to the perception of a european/slavic bifurcation in the Russian soul. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and many others wrestled with the implications of this centuries later. I daresay it still shapes russian self-perception.
- boxerab 5y ago
  Not just perception - there was a very real conflict in the 19th century between traditional Russian values and western ideas such as nihilism and socialism. Dostoevsky was such an idealist in his youth, then turning his back on those movements after being imprisoned in hard labor camp. In his book Demons, he very much groks the dangers of these western ideas, which led to the disastrous 70 year reign of the Bolsheviks
  - soperj 5y ago
    If you take an objective look at the USSR from 1917 to 1990, while there was a lot of bad things, they also completely industrialized the country, literacy rates went from 28% to 99.7% (triple it in the first 15 years, by trying to teach everyone to read their native language first instead of Russian first). They were the first country to put a man in space. I'm not sure that it was all disastrous.
    - 988747 5y ago
      You must ask yourself a question here: did they accomplish all of that because of the socialism, or despite it?
      - c-smile 5y ago
        Idea was good. Socialism works quite well at critical times. Just in case: pretty much each country, including US, handles COVID problem in typical socialistic state way.
        5y ago
trident5000 5y ago
As someone with a beard, I just cant imagine shaving every morning. Seems like a huge pain in the ass and waste of time. You do you if thats your thing though.
- tenfourwookie 5y ago
  It certainly would have been then. Today even sandpaper beards like my own are quickwork with an electric trimmer. Have you ever tried trimming significant facial hair with a pair of scissors? Holy hell is that tedious!
- simonh 5y ago
  Eh, for me it takes less time than brushing my teeth. Then again under lockdown it's more like once or twice a week than daily. I suppose that counts against my argument though, if it was so easy why don't I still do it daily?
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    There are a lot of easy things that we don't do everyday... We brush our teeth for health & hygiene. We, for the most part, trim/shave our beards for fashion. After all, under lockdown did you always get dressed up in the same way you did before? Now, if it cost you money to keep your beard, that would be a different situation and probably motivate you more.
- cafard 5y ago
  In the days before the safety razor, not that many men shaved every day. Supposedly it was WW I that created the daily shaving habit in the US. Before that, it was common to be shaved by the barber.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    That seems plausible - being able to wear a gas mask with a tight seal was a matter of life and death in WW1. When a habit like that can save your life, I don't imagine you'd be quick to give it up after returning home.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simonh 5y ago
A digression for sure, but I really love the pseudo-historical comedy drama The Great, in which a beard ban is a minor plot point. It plays merry hell with historical accuracy, but is tons of fun.
its_nikita 5y ago
I cannot recommend this book enough to anyone interested in history/russia/ or good stories in general: https://www.harvard.com/book/peter_the_great_his_life_and_world_modern_library/ https://www.harvard.com/book/peter_the_great_his_life_and_wo... Peter the Great's life is extremely interesting, and that book, while being a biography, honestly reads like an exciting novel. There are so many "game of thrones"-like moments in his life.
danielodievich 5y ago
Peter the Great built St. Petersburg and one of the most spectacular palaces in the world called Peterhof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhof_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhof_Palace), a must to visit when you are there. Peter himself didn't much care for grandeur and so had a very modest building for himself that is part of the tour of the palace, with lots of baths in it. There is a list of "Peter's Rules" hanging on the wall in that "small palace" that were enforced, very short, including: - You can have one manservant only, no matter your position [the space was really small] - You bunk where you are assigned to, no trading, and no complaining about it - No boots on the bed I love the reasonableness of these!
alex_young 5y ago
This was one of the pet peeves of the Lykov family, descendants of persecuted beard wearers, to the point that they moved into the wilderness of Siberia for 40 years, missing any notion of WW2 in the process: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-rus...
- divs1210 5y ago
  thanks for this! very interesting rabbit hole!
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    If you search youtube, theres an excellent video of a hiker going out to see the last remaining Lykov (Agafia i think). Its a beautiful area and a fascinating story.
    - euler2100 5y ago
      https://youtu.be/tt2AYafET68 https://youtu.be/tt2AYafET68 This is the video, amazing story indeed.
rexreed 5y ago
Let's not pretend that there wasn't serious, and at times deadly, anti-semitic overtones to the requirement to shave beards, and the financial penalties that came from seeking exemption. The Beard Tax was notoriously leveraged against religious jews, forbidden by law to shave their beards. The "civilized" authorities took much advantage of this.
- trhway 5y ago
  sorry, man, you did misfire here. There is of course no question about antisemitism in Russia, it is just that the Russia of Peter the Great didn't have a number of Jews, especially not converted ("religious jews, forbidden by law to shave their beards"), to speak about. The beard tax was really a symbol of breaking the conservative Russian opposition (like that top nobility - "boayre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar#/media/File:Bojaren.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar#/media/File:Bojaren.jpg). FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Em... "Before the 18th century Russia maintained an exclusionary policy towards Jews, in accordance with the anti-Jewish precepts of the Russian Orthodox Church. When asked about admitting Jews into the Empire, Peter the Great stated "I prefer to see in our midst nations professing Mohammedanism and paganism rather than Jews. They are rogues and cheats. It is my endeavor to eradicate evil, not to multiply it.""
- etc-hosts 5y ago
  My understanding is the beard tax was in part a dig at the authority of the Orthodox Church. Jews in Russian Empire at that time would mostly be in Pale Of Settlement area, not Petersburg.
boublepop 5y ago
As silly as it sounds the policing of fashion and religious battles over appearances are still active across all of Europe.

108 points by lermontov 5y ago

I bought a few replicas of the pictured token for my friends in Austin, all of whom have these Rasputin-ass facial carpets. https://www.beardtoken.com https://www.beardtoken.com

hereforphone 5y ago

The article states that this was part of an effort to reorient the country's culture. That might seem strange to Americans / Western Europeans today, but this was not an isolated case and while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing (with the right approach and an amount of luck). A more modern example is Turkey, where Atatürk revised script, clothing, education, and many other aspects of the country's culture. While no one will every know "what would have been", it's arguable that these reforms made Turkey more "European" and less "Middle Eastern" - which I think was the intent. So, today Turkey is more like an Italy than a Syria (though that is changing), and perhaps those reforms are part of the reason why.

vagrantJin 5y ago
> while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing That's called euro-centrism isn't it. And every westerner believes wholeheartedly that it is the best most constructive thing to do. So it is neither right nor wrong politically. But it does dull the world when every place you go to is Europe in microcosm. That is a true vision of dystopian hell itself.
- hereforphone 5y ago
  Spend a couple years in Italy. Spend a couple years in Syria. Come back and tell me which you prefer.
  - ploika 5y ago
    The one not at war obviously. Being in Europe didn't save Bosnia from being a pretty awful place to be in the 90s.
    - tdsamardzhiev 5y ago
      Our part of Europe is... special.
  - romwell 5y ago
    Italy wasn't the nicest place to be in during the 1940s, which would be a fair comparison as far as war-torn states go
    - shadilay 5y ago
      Most people would still pick wartime Italy to wartime Syria.
  - vagrantJin 5y ago
    Why, so I can visit the Lamborghini factory and pizza restaurant? If you think my statement sounds like a shallow cliche then I would remind you that a group of people connected loosely by the idea of a state have cultural norms and traditions that make their little corner of the world unique...and Id say this surpasses the idea of materialism/unbounded consumption that undertones every conversation about "Europe Vs ...." measuring progress by how many cappucino cafes per square kilometer is a rather dull way to view the world at the very least.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      When people talk about this they simply mean that cappuccino cafes are better than landmines, and that Italy beats Syria by that good vs bad metric. It's not an argument that we should replace all culture with a European facsimile, merely that some movement towards the proven model for success is needed.
    - imtringued 5y ago
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. They chose it on their own. If you're going to say that their choice was wrong, that would be rather paternalistic, don't you think?
  - simonh 5y ago
    I don't think an authoritarian leader dictating cultural norms is really the same as a country 'choosing' it on it's own.
  - trhway 5y ago
    >Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. history was pressuring. In both cases the more advanced, technically/militarily in particular, Europe was an existential threat - in case of Russia to make Russia (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) into a small dukedom far in the forests, and in case of Turkey - for example the post WW1 partitioning plan for Osman Empire included partitioning of what is modern Turkey territory.
    - juki 5y ago
      > (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) The Grand Duchy of Moscow existed from 1263 to 1547, but the beard tax was from 1698 (Tsardom of Russia) to 1772 (Russian Empire).
      - trhway 5y ago
        the point here is that after Mongol period Russia started to collide in 15xx with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth with the issue culminating in Polish invasion of 1610 resulting in Moscow capture and putting up Polish Prince as Tsar. It came pretty close to Russia just becoming a satellite province/vassal state of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the 16xx Swedish Empire is rising and is going south and east and firmly cutting Russia from Baltic Sea and taking a bunch of North West territories. In the second half of 16xx the slowing down Russia was no match for modern Sweden. Without Peter the Great's modernization (suppose his sister Sophia's coup succeeded) of Russia and winning the war with Sweden as a result, Russia would have most probably lost a lot of territories (including core territories like Novgorod and Moscow regions) in the next few decades to Sweden and Poland and, instead of becoming Russian Empire, would be reduced to some small dukedom(s) on the Eastern edges of Europe, and with probable forced Catholicization it would basically cease to exist as a familiar Russian state.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Countries are allowed to change. A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. The leader of Turkey wanted to take his country in a particular direction. That is a valid local decision by a local leader. What is euro-centric is to dictate to those local leaders, to tell countries that they shouldn't change their culture as they see fit. Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.
  - dotcommand 5y ago
    > A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist. Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. > Other countries are not museums needing protection from change. Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies. In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      > And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". ... > Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. This is not an accurate reading of history. Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. Not only had the Ottoman Empire been dismantled, the territory of modern Turkey had been partitioned and split amongst the victors, much like Hungary had lost land in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being dismantled (for which Hungarian nationalists still harbour resentment to this day). Large parts of Western Anatolia were ceded to Greece as part of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and Constantinople was put under Allied military administration at the end of the war. This was the cause of the Turkish War of Independence, which began shortly after the end of the First World War. Winning this war was what made Atatürk's name, in a rather literal way - it is the very reason why he's considered the father of the nation. So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won. If he had been concerned about submitting to his 'European masters', events like the Greek genocide which carried on after the founding of the Republic of Turkey would never have occurred.
- nine_k 5y ago
  You can remove the "euro" part from it, and pick any other successful civilization which produced a rich culture. E.g. Chinese culture influenced its neighbors to a very significant extent, and certain traits of it were consciously emulated, say, in Japan and Korea at certain times.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  Well we know what happened. Europe rose to ascendancy in the 17th and 18th century. I think it is fair to say he bet on the right horse.
rolleiflex 5y ago
As a Turkish person, we are reminded of this pretty much every day. However, it’s also important to avoid the cult of personality: Ataturk’s reforms did not come out of nothing. Turkey at that point had been a cosmopolitan society of many communities for almost a thousand years, many of which were non-Muslim and some of which were western. That kind of permanent interface was arguably one of the things that gave Turkey the ability to lunge for a western, secular democracy, and more importantly, manage to keep it (nascent as it is) for a hundred years, up until now. Erdogan has been in power for twenty years by now — much as he would have loved to dismantle it, this is as far as it has gotten. Imperfect as it is, if it manages to hand power off of Erdogan in 2023 peacefully, Turkish democracy will have passed the acid test. If that doesn’t work, nobody knows.
- hereforphone 5y ago
  PS - Excellent second paragraph, you're right - but I've been hearing that "this is the critical moment" for years. Are in in Turkey now? Where?
  - rolleiflex 5y ago
    There are elections coming in 2023 (as scheduled) and possibly earlier if the opposition manages to force it due to current low confidence in the government. All prior ‘this is critical’ moments were either local elections (cannot affect the national gov’t) or sort of wishful thinking on the opposition’s part. This one is different, because Erdogan is not only not polling first in a very long time, he is polling fourth and the last. It also is significant because the collapse of TRY to half its prior value was both swift and for the first time ever, visibly caused by bad leadership.
    - hereforphone 5y ago
      For fun I walked around the lise that was the polling center during an election 4-5 years ago. There were poll workers caught stealing votes. There was a vehicle without a license plate waiting outside the front door of the school to steal the ballot box if necessary. There is also a massive influx of Syrian refugees who may be allowed to vote... and these refugees are said to almost entirely vote according to the Islamic perspective. I don't see Erdoğan losing if the election were to be held today. But a lot can change in a couple of years, and as you say the economic situation may aid the opposition.
nine_k 5y ago
A very interesting example of a similar but seriously different process was the Meiji revolution in Japan. It restored the emperor and pushed westernization into high gear — Western science, technology, and culture was studied very intensively. Along with that, the traditional Japanese culture was jealously preserved in other areas, so as to combine the best and most important Japanese traits and traditions with the most powerful and useful European knowledge. This is very unlike the effort of Peter the Great, who tried hard to make Russia more genuinely Western and replace as much traditional structure everywhere as he could. The success was mixed, of course.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
History is written by strong leaders with a vision. In Peter the Great's case it was making Russia a European power.
int_19h 5y ago
It's not quite so simple. Peter often gets criticized for borrowing the book on the parts he did like (science, engineering), but meticulously avoiding all the parts he didn't fancy - especially the political philosophy. Russia still acquired some; it was simply unavoidable with sending so many people to study abroad. But so long as we're speaking of would-have-beens, if Peter didn't do it, a later monarch might have carried it out in a way that didn't keep Russia lagging the rest of Europe politically by a century.
cblconfederate 5y ago
A modern example are the various bans on hijab or other coverings
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Guthur 5y ago
I don't think it started with Atatürk at all. The Ottomans were trying to follow a more European model for quite some time before WW1. Hence their close relation with Germany and folly of entering WW1.

DaedPsyker 5y ago

It sounds like being ruled over by a socialite. I don't know anything about Peter, did he take anything apart from fashion from his grand tour? It says he worked at a shipyard which is admirable but no further mention of what impression that left.

vtail 5y ago
Peter reformed Russian army, build an effective navy, won a few wars, and founded St. Petersburg, among other things.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ruggeri 5y ago
He was an extremely active ruler. Founded the Russian navy, founded St. Petersburg. He was indeed also very interested in all kinds of science and technology and tried to import these to Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Great-Robert-K-Massie-audiobook/dp/B004UGJPQU https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Great-Robert-K-Massie-audiobook... On the other hand, it seems that all the monarchs of this time basically treated their land as their inherited, God-given wealth. So in that respect, Peter and practically all others were extremely ego-centric and shallow. Modernization did not extend to democratization.
- int_19h 5y ago
  There were still some substantial differences between Russian take on monarchy, and what was common in Western Europe at the time. While European monarchs claimed divine right to rule, the concept of subjects' rights was already developed by then, and not just in England; rulers required some legitimate justification for the more drastic actions. In Russia, in contrast, literally every person in the country was deemed a slave to the ruler, to be disposed of at will - a legacy it inherited from the Byzantines via the adoption of Eastern Orthodoxy, and later reinforced by Mongol customs during the occupation.

anm89 5y ago

Coincidentally, I recently stumbled across a really great lecture series with maybe 50 hours of great university lecture style content on Imperial Russia and I've been listening to it as I go to bed. Around episode 7 or 8 I believe he discusses this episode. If anyone wants to learn about something off their normal radar, I really recommend this lecture series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qsss5phzpg&list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQN7jahEjbUPPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qsss5phzpg&list=PLEETkM6vwQ... It starts off kind of slow. Id say the first episode is probably the worst of the series but the guy's got a captive student audience so I don't think he's prioritizing reeling in the audience.

wurstman 5y ago
Thanks for this, it sounds interesting

lordleft 5y ago

This decision -- along with many others inaugurated by Peter -- contributed to the perception of a european/slavic bifurcation in the Russian soul. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and many others wrestled with the implications of this centuries later. I daresay it still shapes russian self-perception.

boxerab 5y ago
Not just perception - there was a very real conflict in the 19th century between traditional Russian values and western ideas such as nihilism and socialism. Dostoevsky was such an idealist in his youth, then turning his back on those movements after being imprisoned in hard labor camp. In his book Demons, he very much groks the dangers of these western ideas, which led to the disastrous 70 year reign of the Bolsheviks
- soperj 5y ago
  If you take an objective look at the USSR from 1917 to 1990, while there was a lot of bad things, they also completely industrialized the country, literacy rates went from 28% to 99.7% (triple it in the first 15 years, by trying to teach everyone to read their native language first instead of Russian first). They were the first country to put a man in space. I'm not sure that it was all disastrous.
  - 988747 5y ago
    You must ask yourself a question here: did they accomplish all of that because of the socialism, or despite it?
    - c-smile 5y ago
      Idea was good. Socialism works quite well at critical times. Just in case: pretty much each country, including US, handles COVID problem in typical socialistic state way.
      - 5y ago

trident5000 5y ago

As someone with a beard, I just cant imagine shaving every morning. Seems like a huge pain in the ass and waste of time. You do you if thats your thing though.

tenfourwookie 5y ago
It certainly would have been then. Today even sandpaper beards like my own are quickwork with an electric trimmer. Have you ever tried trimming significant facial hair with a pair of scissors? Holy hell is that tedious!
simonh 5y ago
Eh, for me it takes less time than brushing my teeth. Then again under lockdown it's more like once or twice a week than daily. I suppose that counts against my argument though, if it was so easy why don't I still do it daily?
- dfxm12 5y ago
  There are a lot of easy things that we don't do everyday... We brush our teeth for health & hygiene. We, for the most part, trim/shave our beards for fashion. After all, under lockdown did you always get dressed up in the same way you did before? Now, if it cost you money to keep your beard, that would be a different situation and probably motivate you more.
cafard 5y ago
In the days before the safety razor, not that many men shaved every day. Supposedly it was WW I that created the daily shaving habit in the US. Before that, it was common to be shaved by the barber.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  That seems plausible - being able to wear a gas mask with a tight seal was a matter of life and death in WW1. When a habit like that can save your life, I don't imagine you'd be quick to give it up after returning home.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

A digression for sure, but I really love the pseudo-historical comedy drama The Great, in which a beard ban is a minor plot point. It plays merry hell with historical accuracy, but is tons of fun.

its_nikita 5y ago

I cannot recommend this book enough to anyone interested in history/russia/ or good stories in general: https://www.harvard.com/book/peter_the_great_his_life_and_world_modern_library/ https://www.harvard.com/book/peter_the_great_his_life_and_wo... Peter the Great's life is extremely interesting, and that book, while being a biography, honestly reads like an exciting novel. There are so many "game of thrones"-like moments in his life.

danielodievich 5y ago

Peter the Great built St. Petersburg and one of the most spectacular palaces in the world called Peterhof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhof_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhof_Palace), a must to visit when you are there. Peter himself didn't much care for grandeur and so had a very modest building for himself that is part of the tour of the palace, with lots of baths in it. There is a list of "Peter's Rules" hanging on the wall in that "small palace" that were enforced, very short, including: - You can have one manservant only, no matter your position [the space was really small] - You bunk where you are assigned to, no trading, and no complaining about it - No boots on the bed I love the reasonableness of these!

alex_young 5y ago

This was one of the pet peeves of the Lykov family, descendants of persecuted beard wearers, to the point that they moved into the wilderness of Siberia for 40 years, missing any notion of WW2 in the process: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-russian-family-was-cut-off-from-all-human-contact-unaware-of-world-war-ii-7354256/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/for-40-years-this-rus...

divs1210 5y ago
thanks for this! very interesting rabbit hole!
- defterGoose 5y ago
  If you search youtube, theres an excellent video of a hiker going out to see the last remaining Lykov (Agafia i think). Its a beautiful area and a fascinating story.
  - euler2100 5y ago
    https://youtu.be/tt2AYafET68 https://youtu.be/tt2AYafET68 This is the video, amazing story indeed.

rexreed 5y ago

Let's not pretend that there wasn't serious, and at times deadly, anti-semitic overtones to the requirement to shave beards, and the financial penalties that came from seeking exemption. The Beard Tax was notoriously leveraged against religious jews, forbidden by law to shave their beards. The "civilized" authorities took much advantage of this.

trhway 5y ago
sorry, man, you did misfire here. There is of course no question about antisemitism in Russia, it is just that the Russia of Peter the Great didn't have a number of Jews, especially not converted ("religious jews, forbidden by law to shave their beards"), to speak about. The beard tax was really a symbol of breaking the conservative Russian opposition (like that top nobility - "boayre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar#/media/File:Bojaren.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar#/media/File:Bojaren.jpg). FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Russian_Em... "Before the 18th century Russia maintained an exclusionary policy towards Jews, in accordance with the anti-Jewish precepts of the Russian Orthodox Church. When asked about admitting Jews into the Empire, Peter the Great stated "I prefer to see in our midst nations professing Mohammedanism and paganism rather than Jews. They are rogues and cheats. It is my endeavor to eradicate evil, not to multiply it.""
etc-hosts 5y ago
My understanding is the beard tax was in part a dig at the authority of the Orthodox Church. Jews in Russian Empire at that time would mostly be in Pale Of Settlement area, not Petersburg.

boublepop 5y ago

As silly as it sounds the policing of fashion and religious battles over appearances are still active across all of Europe.