More diverse Kievan Rus'

I'm pretty ignorant about early Russian history so this is more meant for me to get a little educated on the subject. Could the area of Kievan Rus' have evolved into a ton of ethnically distinct Slavic states, like in the Balkans? If not, why? Did the rivers promote cultural uniformity?
 
I'm pretty ignorant about early Russian history so this is more meant for me to get a little educated on the subject. Could the area of Kievan Rus' have evolved into a ton of ethnically distinct Slavic states, like in the Balkans? If not, why? Did the rivers promote cultural uniformity?

The Kievan Rus was very diverse, at least during its first century or so. The Slavic tribes who inhabited the area that was to become Kievan territory had been quite disorganized, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, though there is a theory about a ‘Rus Khaganate’ that had existed in times before. The best bet for Balkanization, if you’ll excuse my alliteration, would be a P.o.d before the consolidation of the unified Rus state sometime in the early 10th century. Another possibility would be considerably limiting the success of the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, by which time the Rus states were basically at each other’s throats.
 
In Balkans there is also religious diversity-Muslims, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I wonder if religious division of East Slavs is possible (Catholic Novgorod, Orthodox Kiev)?
 
I'm pretty ignorant about early Russian history so this is more meant for me to get a little educated on the subject. Could the area of Kievan Rus' have evolved into a ton of ethnically distinct Slavic states, like in the Balkans? If not, why? Did the rivers promote cultural uniformity?

Well, it DID evolve into a number of the ethnically distinct states, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, with some ethnic distinctions within at least Russia and Ukraine (AFAIK, they are still fighting in Ukraine). ;)
 
Well, it DID evolve into a number of the ethnically distinct states, Russia, Ukraine, Belorus, with some ethnic distinctions within at least Russia and Ukraine (AFAIK, they are still fighting in Ukraine). ;)
True, but one variant of the Rus' grew to be much larger than the others. My question is - could this have been avoided? Could Novgorod, Smolensk, Chernigov, etc. have ended up speaking different Slavic languages? Could these divisions have been so great that a large state would not have been formed?
 
True, but one variant of the Rus' grew to be much larger than the others. My question is - could this have been avoided? Could Novgorod, Smolensk, Chernigov, etc. have ended up speaking different Slavic languages? Could these divisions have been so great that a large state would not have been formed?

Novgorod and Chernigov ARE speaking different Slavic languages, Russian and Ukrainian.

As for the rest, the trend was just as in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc.: ethnically similar small states had been merging into the greater entities. In the case of Russia the smaller "variants" retained/developed substantial differences from the greater one because for centuries they had been parts of different states. The rest qualifies as regional dialects which exist in many sizable countries. Then, of course, the greater part became substantially bigger by conquering the territories which had nothing to do with Kievan Rus and the Slavs.
 
In Balkans there is also religious diversity-Muslims, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. I wonder if religious division of East Slavs is possible (Catholic Novgorod, Orthodox Kiev)?
OTL East Slavs had a sizable Eastern/Greek Catholic populations in western parts of Ukraine, Belarus, & the Carpatho-Rusyns.
 
OTL East Slavs had a sizable Eastern/Greek Catholic populations in western parts of Ukraine, Belarus, & the Carpatho-Rusyns.
Union of Brest' officially made Orthodox population of PLC Catholic, but for Ruthenian peasants nothing really changed, they have still considered themselves Orthodox and hardly noticed, that they are now Eastern Rite Catholics. Only 19th Century and rise of Ukrainian nationalism in Austrian Galizia made that distinction clear among lower classes, still, cultural impact of Union of Brest was not very significant. Tsars erased Union with ease. Novgorod being Latin Catholic from begining of Christianization, that is another thing...
 
I'm pretty ignorant about early Russian history so this is more meant for me to get a little educated on the subject. Could the area of Kievan Rus' have evolved into a ton of ethnically distinct Slavic states, like in the Balkans? If not, why? Did the rivers promote cultural uniformity?
The Kievan Rus's has multiple succesor ethicities(if that is even a term), among them Russians, Belarussians, Rusyns, Ukrainians and sometimes Cossacks.
 
As you mentioned, geography is an extremely important factor in regards to unity and homogenity. The Balkans are very rugged, allowing a diverse population to develop, while the East European Plain is the exact opposite.
 
As you mentioned, geography is an extremely important factor in regards to unity and homogenity. The Balkans are very rugged, allowing a diverse population to develop, while the East European Plain is the exact opposite.
I don't think this is all that accurate. Not only is relative cultural uniformity in Eastern Europe a relatively recent phenomenon - Slavic political and by extension cultural expansion to the Volga Region, for example, only started in the 16th century - but the East European Plain isn't as open as it might appear, either. Before the Early Modern Era, this was a vast, sparsely populated forest with some of the largest swamps in Europe.

Not to mention that Eastern Europe is massive. Just the region between the Vistula and the Urals is larger than the rest of Europe combined. There is nothing preordained about a single culture group dominating that whole area.
 
Early Russia was diverse. A million kinds of Slavs, varangisn kingdoms, Siberian peoples, Greeks, khazars, and a not insignificant number of Muslims, even much later on (ie 15th century) in the case of kazan.

Any timeline to preserve that, though, is going to need to screw over muscovy. Knowing how useless Novgorod was at warfare, it would have to be outsiders.
 
I don't think this is all that accurate. Not only is relative cultural uniformity in Eastern Europe a relatively recent phenomenon - Slavic political and by extension cultural expansion to the Volga Region, for example, only started in the 16th century - but the East European Plain isn't as open as it might appear, either. Before the Early Modern Era, this was a vast, sparsely populated forest with some of the largest swamps in Europe.

Not to mention that Eastern Europe is massive. Just the region between the Vistula and the Urals is larger than the rest of Europe combined. There is nothing preordained about a single culture group dominating that whole area.

True. And it seems that author of the initial post is somewhat confused: big parts of the modern European Russia and modern Ukraine have nothing to do with the Kievan Rus and even now, with all historic expansions into the Volga and Black Sea areas, they have big non-Slavic ethnic groups.

The modern ethnic divisions seems to be byproducts of the political history rather than geography.
 
I've wondered about a prince of Halych uniting the Danubian Principalities.

Not in OTL: Galitch-Wolynia had been thoroughly damaged by the continued Mongolian raids (or by serving as a base for the raids to Hungary & Poland) and hardly had resources for anything of the kind.
 
Top