Last edited:
I'd say that literary Russian would still develop, but later and slower than OTL. However, once developed, it could progress faster than OTL (the very closeness of Church Slavonic to Russian vernacular delayed development of Russian literary language, there was no need to, educated person could read and write Church Slavonic by the time he could read and write at all).Seriously, Russian culture would develop very differently - instead the main influences being being Greek and Church Slavic, they would be Arabic, Persian, and Turkic. As Russia didn't have an own literary language at that time, this place would be taken by Arabic and / or Persian, leading to a much wider separation between the literate elites (clergy) and the non-literate (Church Slavic and Old Russian were very similar, which is not true with regards to main Islamic literary languages at the time).
Yes it might. Not that I believe in success of those crusades too much. Rus is too far and too powerful. But some outlying areas like Halych might fall.Russia may become a target of the Crusades.
I don't believe in Islamic Novgorod. Agricultural civilization without pork can't compete in this climate. Islam would naturally stop South of Ryazan-Nizhni Novgorod line. Novgorod would likely adopt Roman Christianity from it's Baltic trade partners between A.D. 900 and 1000.3) An Islamic Novgorod would be less open to the West and would play less of a special role; it would be just one of the Russian territories not directly ruled by the Volga Khanate.
This whole Lithuania thing becomes extremely interesting ITTL. IOTL it wasn't so much "expansion" as setting up patronage of Lithuanian Rurikids over Western Rus principalities, which were looking for a new overlord once Kiev fell. I don't believe in massive islamization of territory of OTL Belarus, climate doesn't approve (and yes, I know about Belarussian Tartars and Karaims, but it is a very special case). So, at moment of Vladimir's conversion to Islam you get a Slavic territory under his influence which can't be Islamized. Methink, Polotsk would assume overlordship over the territory, likely under local branch of Rurikids (IOTL Polotsk prince is considered by many researchers as "last Russian pagan prince", although he ruled a century after official conversion). This "duchy" would, most likely, just ignore fall of "muhammedan" Kiev. It's relationships with Lithuanian "princes of swamps and forests" should be considered separately, but my monies are on "Great Ruthenian duchy" (capital - Polotsk, converted into Catholicism around AD 1100), which lords over Lithuanian pagans and later enters into alliance with Poland (similar to GDL IOTL).4) The Lithuanian expansion of the 13th/14th century would probably run into resistance earlier. With the stronger polarisation between Russia and its Western neighbours, the Lithuanian elite would have to choose early on between Islam and Catholicism.
I would bet on Iran rather than Ottomans. IOTL Russia didn't have problems with Iran until at least 1800, but Ottomans and Russians were competing for Ukraine and (later) Northern Caucasus. And, as Iranian-Ottoman wars prove, religion doesn't prevent long and bitter wars if both states are looking for control of the same territory.5) If we get a united Islamic Russia, it may become an ally of the Ottomans, at least until their borders meet and they become rivals.
Northern Russian muslims (Tatars, Bashkirs) do drink vodka, but I'm not sure it isn't the late influence of surrounding Russian civilization.Actually, the easy way to get around the alcohol ban would be to say that Mohammed only forbade wine, and not any other type of alcohol.
Yes, all Slavic and Nordic conversions were quite pragmatic. They converted into faith of your mightiest neighbour and main trading partner to make trade easier and to prevent Holy Wars. Poles and Norse were trading with Germanies - they became Catholic. Rus was trading with Constantinople - behold Orthodox Rus. So, in order to convert Rus into Islam, you need to eliminate Khazars somehow and give Rus control of Volga. Iran would become Rus's main trade partner and it would make sense for southern Rus rulers to adopt Islam.There is no way that Vladimir would have converted to Islam.
I doubt it, assuming no butterflies, just because there was a large blob on the map to the east didnt stop colonization in rl, why would an Islamic blob (which they had in otl also, so 2nd blob) be different? Assuming no butterflies of course.I think it would stop the European colonial adventures.
I'd say that literary Russian would still develop, but later and slower than OTL. However, once developed, it could progress faster than OTL (the very closeness of Church Slavonic to Russian vernacular delayed development of Russian literary language, there was no need to, educated person could read and write Church Slavonic by the time he could read and write at all).
The question is whether the Russian principalities would start splitting up as they do IOTL (and you have lots of splits in the Islamic world at that time, too). If yes, the crusaders might go further, only for their states to be wiped out when the Mongols come knocking.Yes it might. Not that I believe in success of those crusades too much. Rus is too far and too powerful. But some outlying areas like Halych might fall.
I don't believe in Islamic Novgorod. Agricultural civilization without pork can't compete in this climate. Islam would naturally stop South of Ryazan-Nizhni Novgorod line. Novgorod would likely adopt Roman Christianity from it's Baltic trade partners between A.D. 900 and 1000.
Hmm - I'd say there was so much historical accident in OTL's Polish-Lithuanian Union that I don't necessarily think an equivalent to it would arise ITTL. I agree on the possible role for Polotsk as a Catholic Russian - Lithuanian principality.It's relationships with Lithuanian "princes of swamps and forests" should be considered separately, but my monies are on "Great Ruthenian duchy" (capital - Polotsk, converted into Catholicism around AD 1100), which lords over Lithuanian pagans and later enters into alliance with Poland (similar to GDL IOTL).
I would bet on Iran rather than Ottomans. IOTL Russia didn't have problems with Iran until at least 1800, but Ottomans and Russians were competing for Ukraine and (later) Northern Caucasus.
I thought about Turkish story. It isn't entirely correct comparison, as Turks conquered numerous men of letters who were creating their literary language for them. In case of Islamic Russia it would be relatively few preachers/imams who would come and Russians would need to care for themselves. Better comparison might be so-called Old Turkic, a language different from Tatar, Bashkir, Azeri etc. vernacular but close enough to be understood.I think Ottoman Turkish would be a possible parallel - a Turkish-based (here: Russian-based) literary language so full of Persian (and Arabic) loanwords and grammatical constructions that non-literate Turks (here: Russians) wouldn't understand it when it's read to them. Then, at some point in the modern age, a radical language reform that throws out many of these elements.
Historically, Crusaders had contact with outlying areas of Russia less prone to splits: Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk. Besides, as we agreed, Northern Crusades would need to go through a belot oc Catholic or Pagan principalities North of Ryazan and Vitebsk but South of Baltic tribes (although we can witness a Catholic Polotsk, for example, crusading against Muslim Chernigov; that would be a sight to behold).The question is whether the Russian principalities would start splitting up as they do IOTL (and you have lots of splits in the Islamic world at that time, too). If yes, the crusaders might go further
I do think Scandinavian influence is very over-emphasized in Novgorod's history. Scandinavians were never anything more than tiny minority in Slavic-Finnish sea there. Yes, Novgorod would become Catholic, yes there're good chances they would become an independent nations, but you need to look at Poland for inspiration. Another Catholic Slavic Nation.Again, if the Rusian principalities split, there wouldn't be a central power to stop Novgorod from Christanisation. In that case, it would be even more independent from "Russia" than IOTL, becoming a separate nation, more oriented towards Scandinavia. It probably still would colonise the Russian North
I don't think so. A main road to Siberia goes up Kama river and across Urals, so Russian Khaganate would always control it (there's alternative one through Pechora basin, I think, but it is much harder and, although IOTL Russians knew about it since pre-Mongol, I think, it had never been widely used). So I'd bet on Siberia becoming a Russian Khaganat's colony ITTL., and there may be competition between Novgorod and Islamic Russia over Siberia.
There's alternative one through Pechora basin, I think, but it is much harder and, although IOTL Russians knew about it since pre-Mongol, I think, it had never been widely used). So I'd bet on Siberia becoming a Russian Khaganat's colony ITTL.
1) I don't believe in massive islamization of territory of OTL Belarus, climate doesn't approve (and yes, I know about Belarussian Tartars and Karaims, but it is a very special case).
2) And, as Iranian-Ottoman wars prove, religion doesn't prevent long and bitter wars if both states are looking for control of the same territory.
3) Yes, all Slavic and Nordic conversions were quite pragmatic. They converted into faith of your mightiest neighbour and main trading partner to make trade easier and to prevent Holy Wars. Poles and Norse were trading with Germanies - they became Catholic. Rus was trading with Constantinople - behold Orthodox Rus. So, in order to convert Rus into Islam, you need to eliminate Khazars somehow and give Rus control of Volga. Iran would become Rus's main trade partner and it would make sense for southern Rus rulers to adopt Islam.
Resulted? In the expansion period when the Ottomans wanted to go pick a fight with them they'd get the religious scholars to declare that the Shia (Twelvers) were indeed heretics. That only stopped somewhere in the 1600s I thought, maybe not until the Safavids were overthrown.2) A bit nitpick here. While the main source of Ottoman-Safavid conflict was political, it almost immediately resulted in a sharp ideological difference between the belligerents. Your basic point still stands though.