With the Caucasus region in the news recently, and my curiosity rising, I notice an increasing number of geographical entities identified on the map. It seems a lot of these areas are in the process of breaking away from some other entity. There appears to be a lot of ethnic fighting and there have been violent wars in the area post-Soviet Union breakup. Why is that? Did the USSR keep the lid on simmering tensions?
Also, what do some of these areas hope to achieve? Some of them are so small that I have to wonder if they can ever become viable independent nations - such a small area has few natural resources. Some of them are islands within another nation, or are several non-contiguous areas. How small will they go - down to the individual valley or village level?
Not sure if this question is factually answerable, so mods please move if needed.
Wasn’t it always this way? Always fighting over borders, trying to take land from each other, and fighting off the dominance of more powerful nations? Not too mention it’s the border zone between East and West.
Hello there, what’s the derivation of the map of the Caucuses?
I don’t doubt your good intentions but that whole area is a literal and real minefield.
One of many reasons the Great Powers have constantly undermined each other’s attempts at, (vassal), state building.
P
The bumpy parts of the globe are always fighting each other because it’s easier to be culturally different from your neighbours if there are terrain barriers between you. (Historically speaking, anyways.)
The USSR kept a lid on simmering tensions, yes, and it helped create or further foster some of those tensions, for instance by granting sub-republic autonomous status to a number of ethnic groups. These de facto meaningless but de jure existent institutions as well as the borders that came with them became a jumping off point for separatist movements. It’s been noted that some groups that did not have this autonomous status have been less belligerent and vociferous about independence. There’s several groups in the Caucasus that have been far more peaceful than some of the more familiar groups like the Chechens - the Armenians in Georgia, for instance, come to mind.
ETA: wanted to add that Hogarth makes a good point: mountainous terrain is a known correlate of conflict, as it makes things like guerrilla warfare much easier. It’s not so much that it breeds more diversity, though, which then prompts fighting, because diversity does not necessarily lead to fighting. But when it does, it’s more likely to be protracted.
‘It was always like this’ is a cliche that is not particularly helpful, and not even necessarily particularly true. The same goes for 'border zone between east and west - the notions of ‘east’ and ‘west’ don’t really account for what’s been going on in this region.
The border zone was more about the powers east and west of the region, they probably don’t see themselves that way in the region. The mountainous region part certainly makes sense.
What is distinctive now that makes the conflicts different?
In this case it does seem to have some evidentiary backing. A Greek chronicler (I forget the name right now) mentions that forty interpreters were necessary for a diplomatic mission to the region: even in ancient times it seems that every valley had its own distinct language. Ptolemy’s Geography (1st century) gives a particularly dense list of ethnicities, some still recognizable.
That said, I wonder where things could go. Could there be a checkerboard of tiny little independent republics, with seats at the UN, and teams at the Olympics? The Caucasus could rival western Africa for the area with the highest concentration of small countries.
The area’s history is really marred by genocide, relocations, wars, ethnic tensions, etc. I am not sure everyone getting their own little patch of land will create peace. certainly, I question how each one could become economically viable.
Ah. In that respect, the number of political kingdoms generally seems to have been small in ancient times. In classical Greek times, the rulers of Colchis (source of “Caucasus”) spoke a language of the Kartvelian group, perhaps a bit closer to modern Mingrelian than to Georgian, but had subjects of the “forty” languages mentioned. By Roman times there were kingdoms of “Iberia” and “Albania” most confusingly (no relation to either Iberians or Albanians as we usually understand those names).
I’d ascribe it to something I heard during the Libyan revolution: they think of themselves more as members of whatever tribe than as citizens of some nation.
The Caucasus is notorious among linguists for its diversity. The people (or rather languages) lumped together as “Caucasian people” in that ethnic map comprise at least 2 and perhaps 3 or 4 distinct language families none of which have known relatives outside the Caucasus.
Why the diversity? The mountains have something to do with it, along with the fact that it’s a crossroad between Central Asia and S.W. Asia.
Excellent point. The third factor (already alluded to, I think) is the relative difficulty in communication across even rather short distances leads to less sustained contact among villages or sub-regions, and therefore more (or more persistent) localized self-identity, language, intermarriage, and on some level political allegiance (although that can be partly brought under some larger entity, e.g. Colchis or USSR.)
Agree. But, why was that not the case in an area such as the Alps in Europe, where there are a similar people and climate with similar environmental challenges. There, you ended up with relatively larger cultures, languages, and nations. Granted, they still were fighting with one another, but they were generally larger.
The point about the Caucasus being a crossroads for east/west is resonating with me. The area was frequently conquered by this or that empire and it’s people frequently displaced, then returned - this is bound to create a sort of hash of language and culture, as well as prejudices against this or that neighbor, down to the valley/village level.
I guess we should define what “crossroads” means. Today, and for the last few hundred years it appears it is the interface between Christian and Muslim influences. Prior to that perhaps the Mongols from east Asia versus the more Mediterranean world. Was it ever anything else?
