Russians went into Siberia because they needed fur for export (and for luxury consumption in Russia proper), and Eastern European fur animals were almost exterminated by 16th century. If Kievan Rus' hunters somehow intensified hunting, then expansion beyond the Urals would begin earlier.In OTL, Novgorodian merchants-cum-pirates (so-called "ushkuiniki") traveled to westernmost part of Siberia as early as in 12th century. There was simply not very much sense to conquer Siberia, when they had almost unexploited forests of Northern Russia. Siberian expeditions were very risky enterprises - normal mortality was somewhere near 80% of expedition's participants (data of early 17th century - with firearms and improved boats).In OTL, Russia didn't expand past the Urals until after the Mongols had been kicked out. What if they had expanded earlier? In the Keivian era?
They expanded. That expansion sat base for later expansion past the Ural.In OTL, Russia didn't expand past the Urals until after the Mongols had been kicked out. What if they had expanded earlier? In the Keivian era?
There was hardly any population in Rus to do that kind of expanding. I mean, there was just that much free territory they already controlled...why would you want to "expand" to Siberia?
They couldn't even hold on to the Don settlements (at Sarkel, for example) in the 10th c.
Still - if you were really trying to get "a" settlement in Siberia before the Mongols come, you need to keep it unified and a permanent base on the Volga. Which means defeating Khazars and holding on to Khazaria or as above with the Volga Bulgars.
By 1100, all nobles and great merchants were Orthodox Christians. So, if trans-Urals expansion took place after 11th century, Pagan Russian Siberia would be next to impossible.Question is: would these "Eastern Rus" convert to Christianity? I'd suspect not.
Or at all, because I don't think that a pagan Kievan state would ever be powerful enough to expand into Siberia.By 1100, all nobles and great merchants were Orthodox Christians. So, if trans-Urals expansion took place after 11th century, Pagan Russian Siberia would be next to impossible.
Easiest river road to Siberia goes through Volga-Kama-Chusovaya river system and confluence of Volga and Kama is well into Steppe, which makes Russian advance there dubious (Kieavn Rus could hold it's own against nomads, but couldn't push deep into nomadic heartland). OK, to be absolutely fair, there's a portage from Northern Dvina basin to Kama, allowing to travel from Northern Russia to Urals through "nomad-safe" forest area, but it's one bridge too far. As Sahaidak said, it doesn't make sense to go to Siberia before Northern Russian fur resources are exhausted.Still - if you were really trying to get "a" settlement in Siberia before the Mongols come, you need to keep it unified and a permanent base on the Volga. Which means defeating Khazars and holding on to Khazaria or as above with the Volga Bulgars.
Or at all, because I don't think that a pagan Kievan state would ever be powerful enough to expand into Siberia.
Easiest river road to Siberia goes through Volga-Kama-Chusovaya river system and confluence of Volga and Kama is well into Steppe, which makes Russian advance there dubious (Kieavn Rus could hold it's own against nomads, but couldn't push deep into nomadic heartland).
By 1100, all nobles and great merchants were Orthodox Christians. So, if trans-Urals expansion took place after 11th century, Pagan Russian Siberia would be next to impossible.
All 3 of them? Look, roving bands of axe-wielding adventurers in chainmail does not sound like much, but stone-age hunters-gatherers of Siberia around 1000 AD aren't likely to be able to resist. Not when their biggest unit of social organization was an extended family with dozen males (land couldn't support bigger groups).I suspect the people living there would object.
It wasn't a problem for Rus to defeat nomadic hordes and to occupy whatever urban settlements they have. It was a problem for them to hold on conquered territory, as soon as said territory was deeper than 5 miles into Steppe proper. East European border between Turkic nomads and Slavic farmers was more or less static from 8th to 16th century and then it slowly went farther south, 1000 years of flaming frontier. Svyatoslav could install as many Rus princes of Bolghar as he wanted to, sedentiary duchy in the middle of Great Steppe corridor was doomed to fall in 100 years or so (as they all did IOTL).Suppose that Svyatoslav installs a Ryurikid prince in Bulgar - so the Russian heathens conquer and hold the region.
How would the 11th century history of Bulgaria be if its status as another province of Russia - like Rostov or Vladimir - were the status quo?
Yes, but I'm very skeptical about Rus (or any other agriculture-based medieval state) being able to firmly control anything in the middle of the Steppe in pre-gun era. And Bolghar fits the "in the middle" definition.Well, you could access the said road if you controlled Bulgar on the Volga, no?
Yes, but I'm very skeptical about Rus (or any other agriculture-based medieval state) being able to firmly control anything in the middle of the Steppe in pre-gun era. And Bolghar fits the "in the middle" definition.
But there were Turkish (Tatar and Chuvash) and Fenno-Ugrian (Mari and Mordva) farmers on Middle Volga.East European border between Turkic nomads and Slavic farmers was more or less static from 8th to 16th century
Svyatoslav could install as many Rus princes of Bolghar as he wanted to, sedentiary duchy in the middle of Great Steppe corridor was doomed to fall in 100 years or so (as they all did IOTL).
Yes, but I'm very skeptical about Rus (or any other agriculture-based medieval state) being able to firmly control anything in the middle of the Steppe in pre-gun era. And Bolghar fits the "in the middle" definition.
FWIW, he also attacked Bulgaria and made punitive plans to migrate with the Rus people to the Danube. (I remember reading that in some book a while ago.)Svyatoslav, a heathen, attacked Khazar empire in 960-s. He reached Volga Bulgaria, sacked Khazar capital Atil in Volga delta, went as far as Terek, conquered Sarkel on Don, Tmutarakan on Taman peninsula...
However, the rest of Khazaria was lost very quickly to the Patzinaks and other encroaching nomads.Sarkel and Tmutarakan, however, lasted as Russian outposts for well over a century. Russian rulers sometimes visited them, they had Russian princes or governors - like various cities of Russia proper.
I expect this would be as successful as Sviatoslav's endeavors in the south - IE any gains only short-lived and in the end unimportant.Suppose that Svyatoslav installs a Ryurikid prince in Bulgar - so the Russian heathens conquer and hold the region.
Yes, so? I was talking about Russian ability to move the border into steppe zone.But there were Turkish (Tatar and Chuvash) and Fenno-Ugrian (Mari and Mordva) farmers on Middle Volga.
Their fighting force was nomad-based.Um, Volga Bulgaria OTL WAS agricultural-based medieval state. As was the Khanate of Kazan.