Customer Reviews

The Cossacks 1799-1815 (Warrior)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The book contains a lot of mistakes, starting from the origin and ethymology of the word Kazak. Kazak is a corrupted from of turcic Kazakh-outsider, the one expeled from his clan and living out of his wits and sabre. Author obviously doesn't know that only Don Kazaks were participating in the Napoleonic Wars also. Initially first kazaks were loose elements of the Tatar population, in time of the desintegration of the Golden Horde, in XIV century forming brotherhoods in the lower reaches of the Don and Dniper. Later on, Russian and Ukranian serfs escaping exploitaition by Lords, elements of the underclass trying to put between them and authorities as much space as possible, had started to dominate numerically among Kazak groups. While Don Kazaks, and their off shots Volga, Terek and Yaik(Ural) hosts were predominantely Russian-turcic mix, which is reflected in their dialects, the Zaporozhian Kazaks were predominantly ethnic Ukranians. Some of them were absorbed into Russian nobility, after turning Ukraine into the Russian protectorate in 1653, and on final absorbtion of the Ukraine,as integral part of the Empire in the end of XVIII century. Large part of the mostly poor and modestly wealthy were resettled in the the Caucasus foot-hills, and got name as Black See Kazaks, later on known as Kuban kazaks. Author is utmostly confused between different hosts, and using for whatever reason Ukranian terms common in the Kuban Host, and even at that he made mistakes. Hetman is an Ukranian term, and the title of the highest executive officer in the Russian Protectorate of the Ukraine. Ataman a turcic term initially meaning the cheeftaine, later a purely administrative position. Polkovnik(Polk-regiment)-regimental commander, Essaul-in Russian speaking hosts a squadron commander, sotnik (Sotnya-hundred) was used in Ukranian speaking hosts, and in pre-Petrine Moskovite army. Mistakes could be listed further. Obviously author has neither deep knowledge of the subject, nor original ideas. The book is a kind of compendium of information he had culled from other people books, and frequently very dated.