Kievan Rus reunified

Hi guys, I'm rather new and inexperienced at this guys so go easy if things are a bit off :openedeyewink: Eager to hear any advice for improvements you have.

Wondering under the following circumstances which nation would be most likely to reunify the Kievan Rus? If it's unlikely then how would the balance of power look in eastern Europe? Would we still see the rise of Moscow? Would the Ukraine or Lithuania be anywhere close to being the dominant power in Eastern Europe?

I have a POD in Asia which causes a change to the Mongol invasions in Europe. They invade Europe and are quite a bit weaker militarily than they were OTL (it involves the Mongols suffering a defeat to China). The invasions last roughly 10 years after which the Europeans drive them out completely. The Mongols are similarly driven out of the Middle East and their conquests in North Asia. After withdrawing some events severely weaken the Mongols and for the purposes of this part of the story they never venture or influence any nations beyond Central Asia again. Even the folks in Muscovy have seen the last of Mongols for quite a while.
 
If the Mongols are only a short episode, then the Kievan Rus doesn`t need to be re-united because it simply continues (albeit severely weakened and shaken up by the Mongol invasions which still happened). What is most important then is which parts of the Rus are hit most severely, who goes where, who reacts how, who drives the Mongols out etc.?
 
Kievan Rus de facto fell apart a hundred years before Mongols into several independent princedoms. What Mongols did is to destroy a few most prosperous ones on modern Ukraine territory and severally weaken northern ones. It allowed for Lithuania and eventually Muskovy to rise to power. Without Mongols a single unifying force in Russia may not develop for longer time and it almost certainly will not be Moscow which owed its success to its profitable cooperation with Golden Horde. With Southern Rus (Ukraine if you want) largerly intact economically and politically there might be serious rivals to North-East (Vladimir) North-West (Lithuania or Novgorod) attempts to unify. There still will be some cultural notion of unity, but it is possible that it was strengthened OTL due to long and real threat from Mongols and Europeans.
 
Thanks for the prompt reply

Salvador79, the invasion of Europe was initially quite similar to what happened between 1236 and 1241. This includes the sacking of Kiev, Crimea, Peresiaslav and Chernihiv, the defeat of the Kypchaks and Alans. At this point the invasion diverges from OTL. Rather overconfident from their victories they advanced along the North European Plain through what is now Germany into France while another group attacked Austria. Their cavalry didn't function well in the heavily forested terrain in France where they suffered a crushing defeat. Seeing that the Mongols were vulnerable, the other territories that had surrendered to the Mongols revolted and the Mongols suffered crippling losses as they retreated out of Europe. Things went badly for the Mongols in the Middle East as well. It was a few years after this retreat that the Great Khan died and the hordes returned to Central Asia to choose another Great Khan. Just a draft of their tactics through. How plausible does that sound?

If it's relevant, some time in the alternate mid 1300's some nations in North Asia opened a trade route into Siberia for furs. This led to technological exchange and agricultural development in the region. Over the centuries this led to the development of wealthy kingdoms in Siberia and a trade route that runs west over the Volga river into Europe. The kingdoms of Siberia make quite a bit of money off mining and furs. The Song Dynasty hangs around into the mid 1300's in this timeline. Wondering how likely a trade route would be to develop based on furs and later mining?

Bakenellan, so we'll see a roughly three way split of power in the region? Do any of the Eastern European nations come out significantly stronger than the others, for example a balance of two nations allied together against the other? Would it be a more equal split?
 
Last edited:
the invasion of Europe was initially quite similar to what happened between 1236 and 1240. This includes the sacking of Kiev, Crimea, Peresiaslav and Chernihiv,
That's not quite similar to what happened to Rus in OTL.

It seems that the Grand Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal is spared. Which makes it the main contender to get the devastated Rus lands.
The other spared Rus principalities would take part in taking control over the Rus lands devastated by the Mongols.

The Lithuanians might snatch some Rus lands, but here in ATL they are at an obvious disadvantage (unlike OTL), being pagan, being non-Slavic, being non-Ryurikid etc.

So Rus would have been weakened but mostly the same structurally, with demographic and economic emphasis shifted to the lands which had escaped the Mongol invasion.
 
Bakenellan, so we'll see a roughly three way split of power in the region? Do any of the Eastern European nations come out significantly stronger than the others, for example a balance of two nations allied together against the other? Would it be a more equal split?

May be more then three way. At the time of Mongol invasion there were six regional powers - Vladimir, Smolensk and Novgorod on the North, and Volhynia-Galicia, Chernigov and Kiev itself on the South.
Though like Russian said above, if the Southern Rus would still suffer, but Northern is left intact Vladimir has a clear advantage, though Smolensk might pose a challenge. Lithuania is nor real contender at the time though can become later.
 
The Lithuanians might snatch some Rus lands, but here in ATL they are at an obvious disadvantage (unlike OTL), being pagan, being non-Slavic, being non-Ryurikid e
"Unlike OTL" does not apply here because Lithuania was pagan, non-Slavic and non-Rurikid in OTL as well.
 
"Unlike OTL" does not apply here because Lithuania was pagan, non-Slavic and non-Rurikid in OTL as well.
You of all the people know, that I am aware that Lithuania was pagan, non-Slavic and non-Rurikid in OTL.

And actually I meant that - read this statement of mine before the comma:
The Lithuanians might snatch some Rus lands, but here in ATL they are at an obvious disadvantage (unlike OTL), --- don't read after comma ---
This (unlike OTL) is referring to the "Lithuanians being at an obvious disadvantage".
I meant that in OTL they were at an obvious advantage.
 
Last edited:
You of all the people know, that I am aware that Lithuania was pagan, non-Slavic and non-Rurikid in OTL.

And actually I meant that - read this statement of mine before the comma:

This (unlike OTL) is referring to the "Lithuanians being at an obvious disadvantage".
I meant that in OTL they were at an obvious advantage.
I thought you meant that the whole pagan non-Slavic thing was the disadvantage you mentioned, judging by the way the sentence was structured, but it just shows how bad at English I am
 
Ah, good point there Russian, might have forgot to add a few words labeling where the Mongol invasion diverges from OTL. I've added the words "At this point the invasion diverges from OTL". Paragraph doesn't make sense otherwise, describing the OTL invasion, then in a few lines later asking if that tactic sounds plausible. Sorry about that.

If the bit about the "sacking of Kiev, Crimea, Peresiaslav and Chernihiv, the defeat of the Kypchaks and Alans" is inaccurate I suppose that may be a research error, I'll look into it. Assume up to the "At this point the invasion diverges from OTL" phase that the invasion is pretty similar to the 1236 and 1241 invasion, including any important events that I might have missed.

Nice feedback so far. How might expansion into Siberia work out between these factions? There quite a bit of resources over there, I imagine that whichever one of those powers gets a hold of the resources there might have a significant advantage over the others.
 
How might expansion into Siberia work out between these factions? There quite a bit of resources over there, I imagine that whichever one of those powers gets a hold of the resources there might have a significant advantage over the others.

IMO, the only one interested in Siberian expansion will be Novgorod. They will be very interested in lucrative trade if there is any. Others likely will squabble over Kievan legacy. As long as there is no clear winner, they won't expand much. It is also question of geography. Only Vladimir and Chernigov had a convenient eastern borders (though it depends on neighbors). Chernigov also had a history of productive relationship with pre-Mongol steppe peoples, though it is hard to say how it can use this for expansion. And there were smaller but still resourceful principalities like Ryasan and Murom who can exploit Siberian ways. Though they were near Volga Bulgaria which probably limited what they could do. I am not aware of any OTL interests in eastern expansion from them. Only Novgorod and Vladimir were involved.
 
If the total population of Siberia is low enough (reaching roughly 20 million in 1400's for an entire region split into more than 10 countries) and if the black plague was averted in Europe, would we be likely to see Novgorod eventually behaving towards the Siberians in a similar way to Russia OTL? Might we be likely to see Novgorod picking off the Siberian kingdoms one at a time in a Genocidal rampage? Might any of the nations in Eastern Europe eventually start sweeping through Central Asia and the Caucasus?
 
Novgorod by itself does not have the manpower united Russia had. It is rich, prosperous, reasonably populous and not shy of raiding when trading fails, but unless it unites sizable part of Russia first, I doubt it can conquer Siberia outright. Especially Siberia with 20 mil population 1400. It has only 40 now. What it can do is spread trade posts and forts if possible. Depending on local politics and other factors Novgorod can become a dominating force there.
 
If, like in OTL the trade from Asia to Europe is impaired by nations in the Middle East how likely would it be that another trade route going around the Middle East via Central Asia would come into being? Instead of entering Europe via Constantinople it would cross into Europe westward across the Volga river into the southern regions of Eastern Europe. If the Mongols and the rise of the Ottoman Turks are butterflied away then how likely would it be that a disruption to the Asian-European trade routes would occur and what might such a cause be? When might such a disruption be most likely to occur?

In my timeline to far I've got the people in Novgorod realizing through their trading partners in Siberia that China is south east of their nation and sending explorers to map out a new trade route. The situation grows out of their control when people start realizing that a route travelling through the southern parts of Eastern Europe rather than through Novgorod is much shorter and more efficient, leading to the establishment of the trade route mentioned above. Still weighing up how much of an advantage such a trade route would be and which of the southern powers in Eastern Europe would gain the most of out it. Would it present a big enough of an advantage to reunify a significant chunk of the Rus?

By this point in the timeline we're well into the era of guns and after a multiple humiliating losses the folks in Central Asia are beginning to realize that continuing to be a nomadic culture of horsemen raiding nearby nations with horse archers is no longer sustainable. What used to be the Golden Horde is now multiple small, rather weak but stable agricultural based nations.
 
In this timeline the Byzantine Empire still exists and controls what is roughly OTL Greece and Anatolia. So how does the rest of Europe develop if Russia never develops and Eastern Europe stayed divided? How would Sweden have developed? Might the Byzantine Empire get involved if Sweden attempted to invade Eastern Europe? I would imagine Sweden might be hesitant to attack Eastern Europe now that the Byzantine Empire can render assistance to the nations there.
 
@Salvador79 good point, probably a bit much to have the Byzantine Empire involved. With the Byzantine Empire just minding its own business it does still present an interesting question. Now that Eastern Europe is on its own and Russia doesn't exist how does Sweden fare?
 
Last edited:
I suppose sweden still has its old quarrels with Novgorod. Lithuania and various German Players, including the Order too.
 
In OTL, this man created a kingdom in Southern Rus, when mongols were powerful. Without mongols, he and his kingdom should be stronger.
In Vladimir (not Moscow), this man ruled - if I understand correctly, he is not killed by mongols in your timeline.
So, IMHO, Danylo and Yaroslav II divided Rus - in first years.
But Yaroslav had a lot of sons, and they should start a war after his death - and the question is - who would by their allies without mongols.
 
Top