Spaces of Entanglement

The turn, which for past 25 years has directed attention of historians toward empires, may have lost its first impetus, but as journals Ab Imperio and Kritika as well as recent collective volumes and research projects have shown, it is by no means spent. The collapse of Soviet Union initially revived interest in Edward Gibbon's question about the decline and fall of empires, but imperiology has since passed from explaining breakdown of empires to asking not why they collapsed but how they survived for centuries, how they were organized and structured, and how rule was established and maintained. Scholars have abandoned metaphor of prison of for a more affirmative position that stresses relatively peaceful coexistence of diverse peoples and societies under rule of one dynasty, in contrast to murderous history of nation-state. This has led to various comparative projects, monographs, and collective volumes. Studies that examine Romanov and Ottoman empires include Dominic Lieven's pioneering book as well as comparative projects and collective volumes edited by Alexei Miller, Alfred Rieber, and Kimitaka Matsuzato. (1) These and other studies are mostly not comparative in strict sense, however, but instead juxtapose chapters or articles on each of two or more empires and attempt a comparison only in introduction and conclusion. Thus potential of comparative history is far from exhausted. The most recent comparative study is ambitious and stimulating in World History by Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper. It encompasses a very long period from ancient Roman and Chinese empires to 20th century, including Ottoman and Romanov empires, and places world history into an framework: Empires in nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as in sixteenth, existed in relation to each other. Questions of imperial intersections, competition, and imitation are thus included. (2) By adopting this orientation, work reflects a new trend in imperiology that asks about contacts and interactions between empires. This new direction is connected with a trend in historical sciences toward cultural transfers, transnational history, histoire croisee, and shared or entangled history. The first such studies concerned interactions between Western maritime empires and between France and Germany; later ones examined those between Germany and Poland and between Germany and Russia (for example, special issue of Kritika on Germany and Russia in first half of 20th century). (3) The histoire croisee of Russians and Ottomans has been neglected so far, despite its importance for both empires. It lasted at least five centuries, longer than relations Russia had with any other empire. Their interactions were shaped initially by a competition for heritage of Byzantine and Mongol empires and by a military, political, and cultural preponderance of Ottomans. During 18th century, balance of power was reversed and relationship was characterized by numerous wars, most of them ending with Russian victories. One recent publication includes six contributions on Ottoman Empire, six on Russian Empire, and one (by Marsha Siefert) comparing communications in both empires. Although book's title is Comparing Empires, subtitle is about encounters and transfers. The interactions concern, however, mainly transfers from Western Europe to Ottoman and Romanov empires; direct Russo-Ottoman entanglements are treated only sporadically. (4) In 2010, first collective volume devoted to entangled history of Russian Empire with other empires was published. It is focused on cultural transfers from West European empires to Russia, considered here as a European imperium inter pares. Only two articles touch on Ottoman dimension. Vladimir Bobrovnikov compares experiences of Russia in Caucasus and of France in Algeria--two regions, parts of which had formerly been under Ottoman rule--and looks for interactions between two colonial powers as well as borrowings from Ottomans. …