Make Russia considered part of the West

The OP is just too vague. Just what is "the West" and just who (Russian or non-Russian) considered Russia part or not part of it? If "the West" means "Europe" a classical statement that Russia was part of it was in Catherine the Great's famous Instructions:

6. Russia is an European State.
7. This is clearly demonstrated by the following Observations: The
Alterations which Peter the Great undertook in Russia succeeded with the
greater Ease, because the Manners, which prevailed at that Time, and had
been introduced amongst us by a Mixture of different Nations, and the
Conquest of foreign Territories, were quite unsuitable to the Climate. Peter
the First, by introducing the Manners and Customs of Europe among the
European People in his Dominions, found at that Time such Means as even
he himself was not sanguine enough to expect.

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his241/Documents/Nakaz.pdf

Potemkin, when introducing his military reforms, argued that when the modern trends had been introduced in the Russian army, the people responsible (aka, Peter) did not understand what "regularity" (modernization) amounts to and concentrated on the superficial things like copying uniforms, hairstyle and "other such nonsense" which was ill-suited for the Russian habits and climate.

The process was long but eventually during the reign of Alexander III Russian uniforms became quite close to the national costume.


OTOH, some Russians have considered Russia a "Eurasian" rather than a European nation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism

But "Euroasianism" started only in 1920's when "Europe" became almost "f-word" in the Soviet Union. ;)
 
The OP is just too vague. Just what is "the West" and just who (Russian or non-Russian) considered Russia part or not part of it? If "the West" means "Europe" a classical statement that Russia was part of it was in Catherine the Great's famous Instructions:

6. Russia is an European State.
7. This is clearly demonstrated by the following Observations: The
Alterations which Peter the Great undertook in Russia succeeded with the
greater Ease, because the Manners, which prevailed at that Time, and had
been introduced amongst us by a Mixture of different Nations, and the
Conquest of foreign Territories, were quite unsuitable to the Climate. Peter
the First, by introducing the Manners and Customs of Europe among the
European People in his Dominions, found at that Time such Means as even
he himself was not sanguine enough to expect.

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his241/Documents/Nakaz.pdf

It is easy to see that for Catherine and her contemporaries (including "Western" ones) it was all about "Manners and Customs", not about the ideological differences: item #9 identifies autocracy as the only governmental system possible in a country as big as Russian Empire and ##10 - 13 are just repeating this idea.

However, the items dedicated to the laws make a clear distinction between the Ottoman approach to justice and one presumably typical for the "moderate states": in the 1st case the goal is to resolve any issue fast by using arbitrary decisions and punishments while in the 2nd life of even a humblest citizen is to be respected and, as a result, every case requires a thorough investigation and strict following of the law (with death penalty being applicable only in the gravest cases). This is probably a good distinction between "West" and "East".

Another distinction formulated by some modern author is "Western" and "Asiatic" approach to the state budget: unlike "Western" approach where the government has limited rights of taxation, the "Asiatic" model does not have a notion of a budget deficit because government can extract from the subjects as much money as it needed. Not sure if too many countries in the modern world have a clear cut "Asiatic" model but at least in the XVIII it was still functional. As far as I can say, it seems that at least by the mid-XVIII Russian Empire was more or less "European" in that area even if separation of the personal expenses of the imperial family from the state budget was a matter of the future.
 
IOTL, Russia was always considered too Asiatic or Eastern since atleast the medieval ages for a number of factors.

But how can a timeline where Russia is considered part of the West effect the world ?

Maybe Russia becomes part of the European enlightenment and renaissance and later the industrial revolution?
This site’s ignorance of Russia is showing again.

I’ll save some time by not rehashing what was already brought up by certain other posters about West’s view of Russia (as a European power).

Instead, I’ll point out that Russia was part of the Enlightenment movement (Catherine the Great for example was a proponent of enlightened despotism) and industrialization (if memory serves me well at one point Russia produced more steel than Britain and by the end of 19th century the Empire was more industrialized than Austria-Hungary or Spain, claiming the title of ~4th most industrial country on the planet at the time (behind the likes of Britain, USA, Germany & France)
 
There was a non-zero chance for Kievan Rus to adopt Catholicism instead of the Orthodoxy. Admittedly, not a very high in OTL (there was seemingly a strong Orthodox lobby at least in Kiev) but not impossible either.


ok, I admit that the chance is non-zero, but what method is most likely, in your opinion, that would cause this?
 
BTW, Hamilton Fish Armstrong in his memoirs *Peace and Counterpeace: From Wilson to Hitler* had an amusing account of the “more Western than thou” syndrome:

“One of Dante’s heirs, the waiter in the Trieste cafe, flicking away the flies from the spotted tablecloth, would say: ‘You are going to Zagreb? A filthy place. My mother was a Croat but she had the good fortune to marry an Italian and escape to Europe.’ The Croats, in turn, had the satisfaction of feeling more Western than their Serbian kinsmen: they said earnestly that when you reached Serbia you would see for the first time what it means to have been under Turkish rule for all those centuries. Naturally, the Serbs told of the inferiority of their neighbors to the east, the Bulgars with their Tartar blood. And the Bulgars pointed out that the East began where Europe ends, at the Bosporus…”

The funniest thing is that this sort of thing doesn't even end in Turkey. I've seen Turks do the "Turkish culture is basically European, the Orient begins with those unwashed yokel Kurds" routine on more than once occasion. How the Kurds themselves feel about it, none can say.
 
The funniest thing is that this sort of thing doesn't even end in Turkey. I've seen Turks do the "Turkish culture is basically European, the Orient begins with those unwashed yokel Kurds" routine on more than once occasion. How the Kurds themselves feel about it, none can say.

Recent attitudes among Syrian and Iraqi Kurds included self-perceptions as the bastions of secularism and freedom facing Arab fanatics ;)
 
ok, I admit that the chance is non-zero, but what method is most likely, in your opinion, that would cause this?

I'm absolutely indifferent to the religious issues so my opinions on the subject tend to be on a cynical side. Orthodoxy was enforced on a majority of Vladimir's subjects so why not Catholicism? I have serious doubts that Vladimir's "druzina" consisted of the devouted Orthodox Christians. BTW, Vladimir's predecessor and half-brother, Yaropolk, was presumably baptized as a Catholic (or at least was planning) by the time Vladimir killed him.

I'm not sure that the doctrinal issues mattered too much and, taking into an account that for the next few centuries Russian Church had been controlled by the Greeks, I'd assume that the services had been conducted on Greek as well so why not Latin? One way or another, it is a foreign mambo jumbo.

Well, IIRC, Vladimir got for his efforts Byzantine princess as a wife but, besides a pure prestige, what was the tangible gain? It is not even clear if they had any children and his successors were definitely NOT children of Anna. If there were important trade relations with Byzantine Empire, they would continue, anyway.
 
This site’s ignorance of Russia is showing again.

I’ll save some time by not rehashing what was already brought up by certain other posters about West’s view of Russia (as a European power).

Instead, I’ll point out that Russia was part of the Enlightenment movement (Catherine the Great for example was a proponent of enlightened despotism)

And financially supported the French "philosophers" who tended to be quite excited about her and her rule.

and industrialization (if memory serves me well at one point Russia produced more steel than Britain

This "point" amounted for quite a few decades (but it was iron). ;) The Brits got ahead by only by the mid-XIX.
 
The OP is just too vague. Just what is "the West" and just who (Russian or non-Russian) considered Russia part or not part of it? If "the West" means "Europe" a classical statement that Russia was part of it was in Catherine the Great's famous Instructions:

6. Russia is an European State.
7. This is clearly demonstrated by the following Observations: The
Alterations which Peter the Great undertook in Russia succeeded with the
greater Ease, because the Manners, which prevailed at that Time, and had
been introduced amongst us by a Mixture of different Nations, and the
Conquest of foreign Territories, were quite unsuitable to the Climate. Peter
the First, by introducing the Manners and Customs of Europe among the
European People in his Dominions, found at that Time such Means as even
he himself was not sanguine enough to expect.

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his241/Documents/Nakaz.pdf

OTOH, some Russians have considered Russia a "Eurasian" rather than a European nation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism

We could say for a country to qualify to be western is for it to be a European or a former European colony inhabited by mostly Europeans, while also being fairly developed.

Since many countries are developed like Israel, S.Korea and Japan but aren’t considered western, or Christian catholic countries like Latin America or the Philippines who are also not considered western, but Latin America is from European origins but isn’t considered western, could be because it’s not developed?

Or maybe the concept of the West just means the NATO/EU bloc, but then you have Turkey, so yeah...
 

Vuu

Banned
Peter the Great ruined the Russian language and I'm still waiting for those blatantly unnecessary words be expunged, not to mention other unaesthetic things

As for being a part of the west - i'd say that's blatantly impossible, lest you prevent the Great Schism, in which case there's no such thing as East or West in our sense (the East being Asian powers). Russia is simply closer geographically to Constantinopol, and will be influenced from there
 
We could say for a country to qualify to be western is for it to be a European or a former European colony inhabited by mostly Europeans, while also being fairly developed.

Since many countries are developed like Israel, S.Korea and Japan but aren’t considered western, or Christian catholic countries like Latin America or the Philippines who are also not considered western, but Latin America is from European origins but isn’t considered western, could be because it’s not developed?

Or maybe the concept of the West just means the NATO/EU bloc, but then you have Turkey, so yeah...
Israel is usually regarded as "Western" although this is not universal.
As many people noted here, "West" is in most cases a rather fluid concept that may apply to differently grouped countries depending on context.
Between roughly 1812 and 1917, for instance, many people would have easily agreed that Russia counted as "Western" politically. Others would have contested that. Race, religion, power, wealth, "culture" and political alignments both domestic and foreign all intersect in defining the "West" so that the whole concept tends to range between the subjective and the arbitrary despite retaining some approximate value as a shorthand.
Nobody seriously entertained seeing Ethiopia as "West" despite its being Christian, which has probably something to do with race, for example. South Africa is sometimes classed as "Western" and sometimes is not. And so on.
 
If you prevent the eastward expansion of Russia after the Mongol invasions, and keep them west of the Volga River and based on Kiyv, I think that Russia would be far more closely tied to Poland, and as such, it might be considered more Western.
 
Get Russia to embrace Catholicism and.o Lutheranism, and/or keep the Ottomans out of Europe, and you're much of the way there. But even that may not really be enough.
 
If you prevent the eastward expansion of Russia after the Mongol invasions, and keep them west of the Volga River and based on Kiyv, I think that Russia would be far more closely tied to Poland, and as such, it might be considered more Western.

Rus ceased to be "based" on Kiev well before the Mongols came into the picture. The Southern regions had been too exposed to the raids of the nomads living in the steppes of the Black Sea shore and one did not need the Mongols to make life there miserable: there was no way to protect the Southern border from the raids.

Poland of that period also was not excessively "Western" (the term hardly made sense but even in the XVII century the French considered Poles more or less "Asiatic", especially after the Polish embassy arrived at the court of Louis XIV) but Southern Rus ended up being a part of 1st Lithuania and then Poland without too much of the "Western" reputation acquired until Galicia became a part of the Hapsburg empire.

Not sure what is so mysterious about Volga (Asia is East of Ural, not Volga even if Charles XII had been assured that Asia starts somewhere within Hetmanate's territory ;)) and why expansion Eastward would make any difference in the terms of anybody's perception.
 
Rus ceased to be "based" on Kiev well before the Mongols came into the picture. The Southern regions had been too exposed to the raids of the nomads living in the steppes of the Black Sea shore and one did not need the Mongols to make life there miserable: there was no way to protect the Southern border from the raids.

Poland of that period also was not excessively "Western" (the term hardly made sense but even in the XVII century the French considered Poles more or less "Asiatic", especially after the Polish embassy arrived at the court of Louis XIV) but Southern Rus ended up being a part of 1st Lithuania and then Poland without too much of the "Western" reputation acquired until Galicia became a part of the Hapsburg empire.

Not sure what is so mysterious about Volga (Asia is East of Ural, not Volga even if Charles XII had been assured that Asia starts somewhere within Hetmanate's territory ;)) and why expansion Eastward would make any difference in the terms of anybody's perception.

Of course Poland and Russia wouldn't be considered Western until later, but today Poland is clearly part of "the West" and a more Polish-aligned Russia would probably be seen as another Lithuania, rather than this pseudo-Asiatic other. And further contact with Poland (rather than Poland conquering the southwestern parts of Rus') would probably substantially alter Russian culture.

Without the Volga Basin, there's no Tatar minority in Russia, no Bolgar influence and less dealings with nomadic tribes in Central Asia and Siberia. Plus Russia, without an eastern window, will probably look (and be influenced) by the West a greater deal.
 
Of course Poland and Russia wouldn't be considered Western until later, but today Poland is clearly part of "the West" and a more Polish-aligned Russia would probably be seen as another Lithuania, rather than this pseudo-Asiatic other. And further contact with Poland (rather than Poland conquering the southwestern parts of Rus') would probably substantially alter Russian culture.

It seems that you are thoroughly confused in terminology. Today's "West" is purely political as opposed to the "East" and has little to do with anything like culture or geography. Traditional terminology (pre-Soviet) was "Europeean" and "non-European" ("Asiatic"). Russia was "European" starting from the XVIII century even without a beneficial influence of the Polish culture (which by that time was anything but a beacon of the "Western civilization") and kept developing quite successfully all the way to the 1917.

Without the Volga Basin, there's no Tatar minority in Russia, no Bolgar influence and less dealings with nomadic tribes in Central Asia and Siberia. Plus Russia, without an eastern window, will probably look (and be influenced) by the West a greater deal.

Term "European" civilization subduing non-European nations remains "European" so this is neither here nor there: having markets and territories (and HUGE population) in Asia was OK for Britain. BTW, a big part of the Central Asian population within Russian Empire belonged to the ancient (and not quite nomadic) civilizations which already existed when most of Europe had been just a big forest so I would not be too condescending. As for the influence, there was plenty of it even in the XVII century and, anyway, why do you think that the "influence" was one-way street going exclusively to Russia?
 
It seems that you are thoroughly confused in terminology. Today's "West" is purely political as opposed to the "East" and has little to do with anything like culture or geography. Traditional terminology (pre-Soviet) was "Europeean" and "non-European" ("Asiatic"). Russia was "European" starting from the XVIII century even without a beneficial influence of the Polish culture (which by that time was anything but a beacon of the "Western civilization") and kept developing quite successfully all the way to the 1917.

This whole thread, titled 'make Russia stick to the West', uses West as a cultural term. Russia may have been considered somewhat European, but it was clearly an 'other' from Western Europe - while by the XVIII Century Poland was far more ingrained, due to political, cultural and social influences, into the concept of the West.

It's kinda absurd to say that European cultures thought everyone was the same before the Russian Revolution, considering, for example, how mediaeval historians described Byzantium.

Term "European" civilization subduing non-European nations remains "European" so this is neither here nor there: having markets and territories (and HUGE population) in Asia was OK for Britain.

Colonialism and direct territorial annexation are two very different things, and Britain wasn't influenced by India or East Africa until very late in the colonial era, while it's ludicrous to say that Tatars, Bolghars and Turks didn't influence Russian culture profoundly.


BTW, a big part of the Central Asian population within Russian Empire belonged to the ancient (and not quite nomadic) civilizations which already existed when most of Europe had been just a big forest so I would not be too condescending. As for the influence, there was plenty of it even in the XVII century and, anyway, why do you think that the "influence" was one-way street going exclusively to Russia?

Calm down, I'm not being condescending (I never said that Russia didn't conquer existing civilisations, and when I said nomadic I referred mostly, as my post said, to Siberian peoples and steppe tribes, and OBVIOUSLY not to, say, Sogdiana) nor did I EVER said it was one way (in fact, conquered peoples in Central Asia are OBVIOUSLY more influenced by Russia than Russia is by, say, Kazakh culture) but to say there's not an influence of seminomadic tribes in Russian culture that sets it apart from other contemporary Europeans (well into the CE, when Europe was no longer 'a big forest' - btw, talk about condescending) is, frankly, absurd. And regarding the XVI century, that point is clearly moot, since my argument is that for Russia to be tied to Poland and therefore more western-oriented the POD must happen WELL before the arbitrary date you set in your argument, when Russia had already conquered the Volga Basin and large parts of Western Siberia. So please stop strawmanning my argument, thanks.
 
This whole thread, titled 'make Russia stick to the West', uses West as a cultural term.

And it was explained by more than one posters that "West/East" terminology is too modern to be of a practical meaning in the forum restricted by 1900 as the latest date.

Russia may have been considered somewhat European, but it was clearly an 'other' from Western Europe - while by the XVIII Century Poland was far more ingrained, due to political, cultural and social influences, into the concept of the West.

Well, by the mid-XVIII Russia was proclaimed as being "European" by the French (who at that time gave themselves a license on using the terminology ;)) and none of the contemporaries had been seriously questioning that status or its status as one of the "Great Powers" (which was strictly "European", the Ottomans were not included). I have no idea what "somewhat European" means and who and how was making that distinction. OTOH, to say that by the XVIII century Poland (or rather the PLC) was ingrained into the "West" is more than a little bit silly: the country was a complete political and economic mess (thanks to its ruling class) sneered upon by its neighbors and eventually consumed by these neighbors. An attempt to reform country to catch up with the existing political "European standards" came too late and was doomed. The downfall process started at least in the early XVII when PLC lost Livonia to Sweden and by the late XVIII the PLC was going down the tubes full speed because it was practically ungovernable. What could be learned from it at that time? XV - XVI centuries was a different story but, even prior to spreading beyond Volga, the Muscovite state started having problems with its immediate Western neighbors and looked for the things "advanced" elsewhere. When the "western dress" was initially _officially_ adopted in Tsardom (reign of Alexis or Feodor II), the model was Hungarian, not Polish and the foreigners had been coming from Germany, Netherlands, England, Scotland, France.

It's kinda absurd to say that European cultures thought everyone was the same before the Russian Revolution, considering, for example, how mediaeval historians described Byzantium.

Well, if you are familiar with the "European cultures" of the late XIX, you definitely know that they hardly considered themselves as being "the same". The French despised Germans and tended to have a little bit caricature view of the Brits, the Brits were looked down their noses on pretty much everybody else, etc.. But Russia was a part of the whole circus even if there were/are certain confusions: it seems that the Brits (judging by 2 modern British writers) are still under impression that Chekhov was famous as an author of the boring plays and not as the greater Russian humorist, quite a few people on the left side of the Atlantic coast are under impression that "Overture of 1812" is dedicated to the 2nd War of American Independence (I checked) and very few are aware of the fact that "War and Peace" is not an accurate translation of the title. On an encouraging side, it seems that nobody is confused regarding the "Pavlovian reflexes". :winkytongue:


Colonialism and direct territorial annexation are two very different things, and Britain wasn't influenced by India or East Africa until very late in the colonial era, while it's ludicrous to say that Tatars, Bolghars and Turks didn't influence Russian culture profoundly.

I'm always open to the new ideas, providing they have some facts behind them. Can you describe at least some details of the "profound" Bulgarian impact on the Russian culture? Ditto for the Tatars (which ones?). The "Turks" (as in "inhabitants of Turkestan") became part of the Russian empire (or its vassals) only in the mid-/late-XIX century and probably can be ignored.

Calm down, I'm not being condescending (I never said that Russia didn't conquer existing civilisations, and when I said nomadic I referred mostly, as my post said, to Siberian peoples and steppe tribes,

They simply were not numerous or developed enough to amount to any noticeable impact. Not even in the terms of folklore or some fashions, as was the case with the American Indians.

and OBVIOUSLY not to, say, Sogdiana) nor did I EVER said it was one way (in fact, conquered peoples in Central Asia are OBVIOUSLY more influenced by Russia than Russia is by, say, Kazakh culture) but to say there's not an influence of seminomadic tribes in Russian culture that sets it apart from other contemporary Europeans (well into the CE, when Europe was no longer 'a big forest' - btw, talk about condescending) is, frankly, absurd.

This is not condescending or absurd: what was Germany at the time of the Early Empire? A huge forest.

And, personally, I can't figure out any significant impact of these seminomadic tribes on anything. Oops, sorry: the Chukchi by no fault of their own became one of the most popular subject of the jokes in the Soviet Union (but AFAIK not in Tsarist Russia). :winkytongue:

And regarding the XVI century, that point is clearly moot, since my argument is that for Russia to be tied to Poland and therefore more western-oriented the POD must happen WELL before the arbitrary date you set in your argument, when Russia had already conquered the Volga Basin and large parts of Western Siberia. So please stop strawmanning my argument, thanks.

Well, your argument did not make too much of a historic sense because it starts with a failing premise: Russian state centered on Kiev. This was not a possibility even before the Mongolian conquest - centers moved to the Western Rus (Galitz-Wolynia) and Central Rus (Vladimir). As experience of the Galitz-Wolynia demonstrated, peaceful "ties" were not quite possible: in a series of wars this entity had been consumed by Lithuania and later joined to Poland.

Extension beyond Volga happened after the Muscovite state became a well-defined cultural and political entity so it is anything but clear in which way the minuscule tribes of Siberia (most of which were not a part of the Muscovite state prior to the mid-XVII) could have any noticeable impact on the Russian culture. Ditto for the CA: its real conquest did not even start seriously until mid-XIX and by that time it was a little bit too late for the "Asiatic" cultural influence.
 
Last edited:

werewolf

Banned
IOTL, Russia was always considered too Asiatic or Eastern since atleast the medieval ages for a number of factors.

But how can a timeline where Russia is considered part of the West effect the world ?

Maybe Russia becomes part of the European enlightenment and renaissance and later the industrial revolution?


it is very easy to make a pod to make russia "western"

just make the novgorod republic be the center of russia instead of moscow

a russian state built on trade and the separation of powers instead of conquest and autocracy will be a land based uk of sorts and probably the most powerful nation worldwide in this TL
 

samcster94

Banned
it is very easy to make a pod to make russia "western"

just make the novgorod republic be the center of russia instead of moscow

a russian state built on trade and the separation of powers instead of conquest and autocracy will be a land based uk of sorts and probably the most powerful nation worldwide in this TL
Novgorod being in charge may not lead that way but it would be more liberal minded than Moscow.
 
Top