MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W190837925

Anglo-Russian Relations during the 1730s: Evidence of the Impact of "Germans" at the Court of Anna Ioannovna

2007· article· en· W190837925 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael E. Bitter

Bibliographic record

VenueGermano-Slavica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReignGermanTreatyNegotiationEthnic groupLawPolitical scienceThroneHistoryEconomic historyPoliticsArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historians of Russia traditionally view the reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740) as a period during which ethnic Germans dominated the Russian court and its policies, to the detriment of ethnic Russians. Yet few concrete examples exist of the way in which these German advisors to the tsaritsa interacted with each other and with foreign, especially British, representatives. Sources from a relatively obscure eighteenth-century diplomatic exchange demonstrate how the ethnic German members of the Russian court of Anna Ioannovna dealt with representatives of Great Britain. A clear example of this Anglo-German-Russian interaction can be seen in the negotiations for the Anglo-Russian Commercial Treaty of 1734, particularly with regard to the counterbalancing roles of the two main Russian negotiators, Vice Chancellor Count Andrei Osterman and the infamous Count Ernst Johann Biron (Btihren), both ethnic Germans. Documents surrounding these negotiations also support the revised view of the of German-born advisors during the reign of Anna Ioannovna. They provide new insight into the historical role and perception of the tsaritsa's favorite, Count Biron, whose traditional image as the evil and controlling German behind the throne is so persistent that the reign continues to be described as the Bironovshchina, the Era of Biron. The negotiation of the Anglo-Russian Commercial Treaty of 1734 provided the occasion for the ministerial interactions discussed here. The treaty has been described by Douglas Reading as post-Petrine Russia's first formal commercial agreement with any western European power. (1) It placed the substantial trade between the two signatories on a modern legal foundation for the first time in the history of their long commercial and diplomatic relationship. The treaty granted English merchants trading under the auspices of the Russia Company exceptional economic advantages and ensured their rights and privileges in Russia. Anthony Cross has credited this treaty with ushering in the golden age of the Russia Company's power and influence in St. Petersburg. (2) The British had pursued this type of commercial agreement with Russia for decades. The natural resources and agricultural products of the eastern Baltic region had long provided England with important naval commodities such as masts, pitch, tar, flax, and hemp. These supplies were essential to the maintenance and hegemony of the British navy. The navy, in turn, was essential to Great Britain's national security and commercial success. As Russia began to dominate the trade of the eastern Baltic, the stability and profitability of Anglo-Russian trade became increasingly important to the English court. In 1733, the British crown dispatched to St. Petersburg a diplomatic mission with the explicit purpose of negotiating a formal commercial agreement. By the end of the following year, the English merchants of the Russia Company celebrated the signing of the Anglo-Russian Commercial Treaty of 1734. Commerce between Britain and Russia flourished in its wake. Later Anglo-Russian negotiators used this first treaty as a model for all subsequent eighteenth century commercial agreements. The documents detailing this exchange are the official and personal papers of Great Britain's chief negotiator, George, Lord Forbes, who traveled to St. Petersburg expressly to conclude the Anglo-Russian treaty. Great Britain's King George II sent Forbes as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the court of the Russian tsaritsa, Anna Ioannovna, in May of 1733. He returned to England a year later having settled nearly every commercial dispute between St. Petersburg and London to Britain's advantage. His correspondence, diary, and journal of observations provide a wealth of information regarding Russia and the treaty that resulted from his mission. They describe the negotiations, as well as the Russian court and the individuals closest to the tsaritsa. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGermano-SlavicaSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207