AHC: Earliest Independent Belarusian state

Would the term White Ruthenian/Russian even be popular in a more Ruthenia based Grand Princedom of Lithuania?
Wouldn't they promote a more Kievan derived ethnicity? To distinguish "Moscow or 'Green' Ruthenians" from the "real deal".
 
Maybe...

Napoleon's invasion results in a retreat from Moscow (but not a disaster) to Smolensk. French reinforcements together with an unusually warm winter stabilize the situation. As both empires are exhausted and increasingly reliant on troops imported from their respective Empires with reluctant motivations, a peace treaty is signed between Imperial Russia and Imperial France. Poland, Lithuania and Belarus are all established as independent "Grand Duchies". Catholic Poland and Lithuania go into the French orbit. Orthodox Belarus goes into the Russian orbit.

Following Napoleon's exile (even with out a Moscow disaster, his ability to fight well, the rest of Europe was still slipping), Belarus and the others retain their independence. Belarus then exists as a separate nation, though still tied to Imperial Russia by culture and religion.
 
Leaving aside the question of whether the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a proto-Belarusian state, or in any event a proto-Belarusian-and-Ukrainian state (since it did include Ukraine for quite a while)--I am curious why some people here seem to think Belarus can't be Belarus unless it is Orthodox. Just because the Poles classified Belarusian-speaking Catholics as Poles doesn't mean that *we* are obliged to see them as anything other than Belarusians. In Belarus today, Catholicism is by no means confined to the Polish and Lithuanian minorities: "over 1 million Latin-Rite Catholics are ethnic Belarusians (over 15% of ethnic Belarusians total)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Belarus
 
Fun fact regarding the religion: due to Russians repurposing Uniate cathedrals for Orthodox churches in 19th century, and Uniate & Catholic churches have similar architecture style, Minsk now has their archidiocese Orthodox and Catholic cathedrals looking pretty much the same (the archidiocese Orthodox one was once the Uniate cathedral one) AND for bonus points - staying across the square from each other.
Regarding personal anecdotal facts, and not dry wiki stats - some of my friends of no Polish ancestry are Catholics, my uncle's wife is one as well, despite being neither Polish nor Lithuanian. So, @David T is right.
 
Leaving aside the question of whether the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a proto-Belarusian state, or in any event a proto-Belarusian-and-Ukrainian state (since it did include Ukraine for quite a while)--I am curious why some people here seem to think Belarus can't be Belarus unless it is Orthodox. Just because the Poles classified Belarusian-speaking Catholics as Poles doesn't mean that *we* are obliged to see them as anything other than Belarusians. In Belarus today, Catholicism is by no means confined to the Polish and Lithuanian minorities: "over 1 million Latin-Rite Catholics are ethnic Belarusians (over 15% of ethnic Belarusians total)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Belarus
I think it's not just an artefact of Polish authority but one of Imperial Russian too, orthodoxy being considered part of what it means to be Russian/Ruthenian not just Great, White, Little, or Red.
I've not seen any posters be explicit about needing orthodoxy despite that one can get an implicit feeling of this in the OP terms.
 
That's something that many Belarusians will argue for and many Lithuanians will argue against, but I feel as if any state calling itself "Lithuania" can't quite be White Ruthenia. Especially because there'll always be a preference to Lithuanians in such a state, as was OTL

FWIW, the formal name of the state was the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, *Rus* and Samogitia." And the "Rus" language was the official language of the Grand Duchy--the Statutes of Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Lithuania for example being written in it--until Polonization led to it being superseded by Polish and Latin.
 
FWIW, the formal name of the state was the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, *Rus* and Samogitia." And the "Rus" language was the official language of the Grand Duchy--the Statutes of Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Lithuania for example being written in it--until Polonization led to it being superseded by Polish and Latin.
Plus the fact that Grand Princedom/Principality would be the more literal translation of it before its subsumation into Poland or Russia.
 
FWIW, the formal name of the state was the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, *Rus* and Samogitia." And the "Rus" language was the official language of the Grand Duchy--the Statutes of Lithuania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Lithuania for example being written in it--until Polonization led to it being superseded by Polish and Latin.
Chancellery language. Medieval Lithuania, much like, I imagine, all other states at the time, had no designated "official" language. It's just that since Chancery Slavonic was used by nearby Ruthenian states whom Lithuania conquered, and thus it was more easy for the Lithuanians to use that language for official text rather than import Western scholars to write texts in Latin.

It was a choice of pragmatism, not any ethnic or linguistic allegiance. Had Lithuania expanded to the West instead of East, Latin would have been their chancellery language for the same reasons.

Plus the fact that Grand Princedom/Principality would be the more literal translation of it before its subsumation into Poland or Russia.
Not really.

The Lithuanian term for the ruler of Medieval Lithuania, "didysis kunigas" (later evolved to "didysis kunigaikštis", as kunigas began to mean priest), most accurately translates to something like "great duke". Or probably even "great king", as kunigas is a linguistic borrowing of the German König.

I mean, in my opinion, calling Medieval Lithuania "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is an anachronism, but so is "Grand Principality of Lithuania", for the same reason.
 
How did the Slavic-speaking and Slavic-writing Gudijans of medieval Lithuania call their ruler? "Veliki Knyaz"? Was that the same title they applied to the rulers of Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow?

Also, between 1341 and 1452, there were sundry disputes between the descendants of Gediminas. Jaunutis, Algirdas and Kestutis. Vytautas, Žygimantas, Švitrigaila... It was only after 1452 that Švitrigaila was out of picture and Casimir son of Jagailo accepted in both Lithuania and Poland.

How were the supporters of various Gediminids aligned? What was the logic of their alignments and defections?
Was there at any point a possibility (that OTL did not materialize) of Lithuania splitting between rival Gediminids so that one claimant gets mainly the Lithuanian-speaking, heathen or Catholic part and the other consolidates the Slavic speaking Orthodox part?
 
Chancellery language. Medieval Lithuania, much like, I imagine, all other states at the time, had no designated "official" language. It's just that since Chancery Slavonic was used by nearby Ruthenian states whom Lithuania conquered, and thus it was more easy for the Lithuanians to use that language for official text rather than import Western scholars to write texts in Latin.

It was a choice of pragmatism, not any ethnic or linguistic allegiance. Had Lithuania expanded to the West instead of East, Latin would have been their chancellery language for the same reasons.


Not really.

The Lithuanian term for the ruler of Medieval Lithuania, "didysis kunigas" (later evolved to "didysis kunigaikštis", as kunigas began to mean priest), most accurately translates to something like "great duke". Or probably even "great king", as kunigas is a linguistic borrowing of the German König.

I mean, in my opinion, calling Medieval Lithuania "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is an anachronism, but so is "Grand Principality of Lithuania", for the same reason.
Lots of linguists beg to differ on that accuracy.
My point is that Duke isn't a sovereign term, it's always a subordinate to a temporal power. Prince however does have sovereign as one of its definitions - it's probably worth pointing out that the rank of Prince in western Europe is more accurately Prince Minor, above a Count but below a Duke, Prince Major having the more sovereign aspect [1]. It's significant that the words in Baltic and East Slavic both derive from the Germanic for King: kunungaz.
Why didysis kunigaikštis and veliki knyaz were later translated to Grand Duke was precisely because they became subordinate to Kings (Poland) and Emperors (Russia), and under Russia were often held by sons of the sovereign Emperor - in the contemporary west they would have been given ducal titles.

[1] Note in the British Royal Family the title Prince for a son of the monarch is the minor title, while the title in Prince of Wales is the major one.
 
I mean the Norman didn't assimilate without consequence. The Anglo Saxons evolved into the English after this

We'd see something similar with the Belarusians at that rate, with this analog

Off topic, but Aethelstan was King of the English more than a century before William the Bastard ever showed up.
 
Top