DBWI: Novgorod didn't unite Russia

Well, that timeline where Muscovy "rolled all sixes" had the Jurchens take over China after the Ming collapse.
Northern barbarians have taken over China repeatedly and always ended up Sinicising fast. They were often great factors of innovation, too, e.g. through patronising Buddhism, relaxing protectionist measures and facilitating free trade, before they, too, finally went "centre of the earth" crazy. A jurchen China sounds interesting, maybe it holds out better against the Portuguese and the Burgundo-Brabantians than the Sheng and don't lose their Pacific trading network to them? Either way, the timelines seems to overdo butterfly effects. Why would a Muscovite Empire instead of Lord Novgorod the Great affect Chinese history so early?
 
@Whiteshore I meant no trouble but it would seem that Optimate is blatant falsehood and call them truths when denounce all vigiism and other movments and procliam that Opimates just knew their cards right when not realise that so-called revolt cause the serf revolt of 1712 have big-part to play.

You agree, this clear revisionism in play?
 
Say what you want, Justice was delivered.

The Caesar was overthrown and the populace voice was given, also you forgotten the few brave souls called The Black Flag militia whom believed in earlier form of Bakuninism called
Kopatel(the ones that dig) whom aided in overthrow the Tsar.

So in sense I am talking about the year of 1744 but it very clear that you think it purely Optimate affair and clear not true Vigism or Bakuninism had hand shapes these events

That is the problem with you neo-optimate* vigist who's trying discourage this fact, and you wonder the lower class votes for us

*TLL literally would Translate to neoconservative
What exactly did I say to draw such ire???

Steady on there, yeah? Revisionism does your cause no favors. Though proto-liberationist groups were no friends of the Tsar, the fact of the matter remains that Novgorod post-1744 was an iron-clad oligarchy. Attempts by serfs to express any manner of dissent or make any sort of move to control the land held by their lord were brutally repressed.
 
Can we agree to disagree and discuss what PODs could have prevented Novgorod from uniting Russia?
Yes, the see Muscovy was and still breadbasket of Russia thus Novgorod fail and didn't force unfair trade deal it would been likey that Novgorod wouldn't had risen but that doesn't Muscovy would win since we all know that Muscovy was greaten weaken by mongols and were rule by most despotic the grand princes of Rus which meant they would loss favour from both god and people, as whom to unite Russia then it would be Tver altough they barely better than Muscovy it quite that there were "so called" third-runner even look at their were actual second runner until Muscovy luck out

It sad we don't see Tverian TL though
 
Can we agree to disagree and discuss what PODs could have prevented Novgorod from uniting Russia?
OK I know I said it was near-impossible, but I´ll still try.

I´ll rule out random military defeats, for Novgorod could always just acquire new mercenaries.

Same goes for political instability, for Novgorod had enough of it IOTL and it never shook its foundations.

At the core, what you`d need to change is to undermine Novgorod`s wealth, its economic power. So perhaps its trading partner in the West, the Hanseatic League, somehow blunders and loses power in the 15th century instead of rising to dominate the Gates of the Baltic? Or one of Novgorod`s primary export products either expire or are no longer desired? Maybe an earlier discovery of Wabanakia`s [1] Southern islands [2] and their sugar-producing power which hurts Novgorodian honey exports? Or the Crisis of Catholicism in the 16th century doesn`t evolve into the Union of Canterbury and Constantinople and instead some of the crazier Protestant sects which were against fasting wins, so Novgorodian fish isn`t as attractive anymore? Or some fish disease? Or Northern Wabanakia is discovered earlier and Novgorod`s furs become cheaper?
I don`t know - I suppose something along these lines?

[1] North America
[2] the Caribbean islands
 
I would agree that a broken or at least severely weakened Novgorod is crucial for an ascendant Muscovy. Part of me very much wants to simply say "No Mongols!" as a means to ensure Muscovy's continued economic and population growth but even then there would be no reason for the elites of Muscovy to piss off their Novgorodian protectors by trying to consolidate political power in the area (not to mention the butterfly massacre such a POD would guarantee). I agree with Salvador79 that a weakening of the Hanseatic league would be a pretty reliable way to achieve this. Rather than having them commit some sort of blunder, however, I think it makes more sense for them to simply be out-competed by a stronger and more stable Denmark; perhaps even a united Scandinavia (hey, it almost happened in the 1200's) or a Danish-Gaelic union.
 
Rather than having them commit some sort of blunder, however, I think it makes more sense for them to simply be out-competed by a stronger and more stable Denmark; perhaps even a united Scandinavia (hey, it almost happened in the 1200's) or a Danish-Gaelic union.
Yeah, that`s a possibility, too, though what I meant by blunder also included the Hanseatic League not playing the Danish and Swedish kings so well as they did IOTL. Denmark and Sweden could have urbanised and developed economically on their own, I suppose, though that would require some really good governance. Strong kingdoms were at best temporal in that region and time, though. A Danish-Gaelic union? Hm, the alliance was pretty solid in the next centuries for sure, but could a unified state really have helped here? It´s not as if the Danes lacked in naval power... rather, it always looked more profitable for Danish kings to just skim off what Hanseatic progress, wealth and development brought, and otherwise let them be - until it was way too late.
 
Yeah, that`s a possibility, too, though what I meant by blunder also included the Hanseatic League not playing the Danish and Swedish kings so well as they did IOTL. Denmark and Sweden could have urbanised and developed economically on their own, I suppose, though that would require some really good governance. Strong kingdoms were at best temporal in that region and time, though. A Danish-Gaelic union? Hm, the alliance was pretty solid in the next centuries for sure, but could a unified state really have helped here? It´s not as if the Danes lacked in naval power... rather, it always looked more profitable for Danish kings to just skim off what Hanseatic progress, wealth and development brought, and otherwise let them be - until it was way too late.
My thinking with the Danish-Gaelic union bit was that if Denmark solidified their influence in the British isles through marriage and diplomacy to the point where they could claim the throne of Gàidhealtachd and then extend influence southward, competing with England, the Hanseatic League would see Denmark as not necessarily a rival but rather as a potential ally through which they could gain access to British markets leaving Denmark with an eventual free hand to outcompete Novgorod in the Baltics. Novgorod would collapse or wither under Danish and maybe even Hanseatic pressure leaving a power vacuum that Muscovy could potentially fill. Of course, this all relies on the assumption that Denmark looking west and not south would work well enough to eventually give them a free hand to look east.
 
That Two headed eagle had novgorod struck by bubonic plague. Which was known as black death back then, which Moscovy used to seize the oppertunity to overshadow novgorod.
 
Top