The Kozaks didn't rebel against Poland but against Ukrainian-Polish landowners

[Krakowiak]

Actually it was against Ukrainian mostly because they converted into Poles but were born and raised Ukrainian. I think Ukrainian nobles (schlachta) where also converted, and they were both samartists (along with Lithuanians).

[Krakowiak]

So you're saying Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Russians are the same people but only seperated by religion over time?

[Zbyszek]

Originally posted by Krakowiak
So you're saying Poles, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Russians are the same people but only seperated by religion over time?

Kathy is right. Historians tried to trace a nationality of Hmyelnistski - there was more than one theory about it. One reasonable historian stated: if chronicles fail to inform us about it, only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn: it must have been NOT IMPORTANT.
The process of forming nations was very long and slow. Rzeczpospolita did not know ugly things like xenophoibia, imposing nationality or language by force. It just did not exist in De Republica at that time. Yes, there was a social oppresion and there was a religious separation but the meaning of being Polish was much different at the time of Hmyelnitski.
There was a popular description of the Ruthenian nobles at that time: nationae Poloniae gente Ruthenus and it mostly applied to those who changed their religion to Catholic.
Poles who know the above facts can be proud about it but there is also another side of that coin: if we say that Poles did this or that in the XVIth or XVIIth century, we have to realize it means that those "gente Ruthenus" or gente Lihuanus" also participated in the historic processes stretched over vast territories of Rzeczpospolita.
Hmyelnitski was a Cossack but being a Cossack did not mean being Ukrainian.
Kathy is also right about the true intentions of Hmyelnitski.
He symbolized a Cossack fight for freedom. In my opinion he absolutely failed but had he forgotten about his primary goal, his Cossack subordinates would have killed him next day ( as they did to some of his predecessors). We should not forget that Cossacks were made mainly of refugees (and some of them came from the ethnic Poland) who were quite radical and did not have much to lose.
They challenged the very concept of traditional state. I should not call them idealists. For them being free meant sometimes being free from death sentence. Freedom has its price, sometimes too high.
Freedom is universal human notion and many times it is contradictory with religious calling. Most of us would agree that freedom has the highest priority but I ask: which freedom?
Kathy wrote: Most other Cossack uprisings were religion, not nationality based.
I would add: in fact, most of Cossack uprisings were socially based but there was no acceptable idea justifing it so they pushed religious issues to the fight front. In the XVIth century Cossacks showed indifference about religion but they rebelled quite often.

[Edited by Zbyszek on 3rd May 2003 at 02:15]

[Nickolas]

Ukrainians and Cossacks are synonymous.

With or without, state education.

[Zbyszek]

Originally posted by Prawda
i thougth he had noble status, a orthodox convert to catholic cause that was nede to become noble, if he was a normal cossack how did he become ataman among cossacks?..there was very strong requiremwents to become ataman..u had be been a good cossack soldier bravery,good caracter etc and if a subject cossack didnt obey ataman death was often outcome.. they wanted independance but by signing with russia whats the point?they go under russian/moscow flag...

Prawda, we have to be very careful about reconstruction of people's mentality centuries ago. National labels attributed by contemporary societies do not conform well to the old times and Kathy has a good feeling about it.
Hmyelnitski learnt in the Jesuit college just because it was a good school! In fact he did not have much choice because there was no regular Orthodox educational system in Ruthenia, comparable to a Catholic one.
You ask : what's the point of going under Muscovy flag? I ask: what other choice did he have? It was the only available alternative in Anno Domini 1654 and he surely ground his teeth signing the Pereyaslav treaty. It was a consequence of his own errors and miscalulations.
1. His Moldavian dynasty plans failed.
2. His plans to induce peasant riots everywhere in Rzeczpospolita by the paid agents failed.
3. His trials to be a part of coalition forces against Rzeczpospolita failed.
He could not build endlessly on the peasents rebellious feelings and he HAD to make a political move at last.

Nickolas: Cossack identification with Ukrainians was a prolonged process and in the XVIIth century there was no homogeneous Ukrainian nation yet.
It is a historic discussion so we have to be honest about the past just to understand the present time. We can not say that a new religion explained by Jesus became adopted next day. It was also a very long and complex process and it took centuries.
When Hmyelnitski was telling: Rzeczpospolita, he did not mean Poland, when he was telling: Ukraine, he did not mean Ukraine in the present sense.

[Nickolas]

Prawda,

Thanks for ALL the links.

[Nickolas]

Zbyszek,

Inherent Ukrainian identity is a process.