PC/AHC: Byzantine Kiev... and a successor state?

As theoretically good as the agriculture of the region is with modern technology, the moldboard plow didn't see widespread adoption in the Pontic Steppe until the 18th and 19th centuries. The benefit of the chernozem couldn't be fully realized in the Middle Ages

Agricultural techniques could diffuse faster than they did historically, though. Still, the steppe would probably remain an important geopolitical boundary even if it was more heavily cultivated.

That does seem to (largely) be in line with the colonisation and increase in security for the region however, as the moldboard plough is centuries old at that point. Most of the techniques that are needed (to my knowledge) are already about in Germany, and have been around since the 6th century. So I can only think that colonisation, cossacks and steppe peoples are the cause of the delay. (Again, I would like to be proven wrong).

But yes, I'd expect that, but if we are to have as suggested by the OP, we're effectively trying to buttress the steppe against Kiev and the Dneiper, rather than the Carpathians, Vistula and Danube.
 
1) Look, without a source I can look at and read, I'm going to have to take that at face value. Its literally in a different script and I have to take your translation. In which case the statement "Ukraine has some of the best soil in the world" is still true.

I did not say that statement is untrue for the modern "Ukrainie". I said that the part of modern Ukraine with the good soils has almost nothing to do with the Kievan Rus. Without going into the details, using the term "Ukraine" in the context of X - XII century simply does not make any historic or geographic sense.

2) I already addressed the concern with fighting the people of the Steppe.

3) Pontic Steppe around Kiev is not the full Kievan Rus, it is the lands to the south which have the black soil in. The Kievan Rus is less relevant than the Pontic Steppe in question.

"Pontic Steppe" is not Kievan Rus ar all.

To make it short and clear: it was absolutely unrealistic for the Byzantines to conquer and secure the Wild Steppe. Would not and could not happen because this would require combination of the massive well-garrisoned fortified lines (which, as OTL experience demonstrated, would not provide a complete guarantee against the raids), massive resettlement into the territory and ability to maintain and expand this effort for centuries. Fighting people of the steppe was not a problem. The problem was to prevent their raiding and this was not possible until the modern times even with the sedentary neighbor states being much more powerful than Byzantine Empire (and Kievan Rus) and better suited geographically and demographically for accomplishing such a task.
 
There's a huge problem with that, and the problem (aside from the Byzantine armies not being particularly successful against the Rus at the edges of the Empire) is the steppe between Kiev and the Black Sea. In the early 10th c. when their best window is, the Magyars are still there complicating diplomacy. Then there are Pechenegs, Oghuz and Cumans. And by the late 11th c. when all of those have been broken as threats, the Rus are not going to be remotely scared of any Byzantine intervention. On the other hand, Russian rulers and nobles didn't really contest the way they fit into Byzantine diplomacy through the high middle ages at all and could probably influenced remotely.

Well, I would not be too optimistic about all the threats from the steppe being gone by the late XI: by the mid-XII the Kievan Rus declined and was replaced by Vladimir-Suzdal Rus just because of the exposure to constant threat from the steppe. Even the fact that by that time the Russian states came with a military system that worked reasonably well in the field (and which made them to be too cocky for their own good in 1223 when they misidentified the Mongols as "simple horse archers like Polovtsy") and that there were inter-marriages and frequent alliances, was not preventing the regular raids which made maintaining agriculture quite difficult.

The "model" proposed assumes that the Byzantine army is capable of a complete and permanent removal of the nomads from a big part of a steppe with a guarantee from the future raids. I don't think that the empire was up to such a massive task at any time. Then, of course, goes the touchy picture of the Byzantines spreading the advanced agricultural methods among <not sure whom, there is no settled population in the area> with the neighboring Russian princes not looting Kiev and the area (something that was happening routinely).

BTW, how exactly would the Bizantines find out where exactly the good agricultural lands are? "Dear Pechenegs", please allow our agricultural specialists into your steppe so that they'll report which of your lands we are going to conquer"? ;)

You point about diplomatic relations between the Russian princedoms and Empire is valid and you can add that there were close Church relations (Russian Church was still subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople) but, while the Empire was "prestigious" it was by no way domineering. I'd say that most of the time it was pretty much irrelevant to what was going in the Kievan or Vladimir Rus. An idea of the Byzantine conquest of Kiev may (or may not) be practical militarily but only as a raid: in a long term it would be unsustainable.
 
As theoretically good as the agriculture of the region is with modern technology, the moldboard plow didn't see widespread adoption in the Pontic Steppe until the 18th and 19th centuries. The benefit of the chernozem couldn't be fully realized in the Middle Ages

Agricultural techniques could diffuse faster than they did historically, though. Still, the steppe would probably remain an important geopolitical boundary even if it was more heavily cultivated.

The problem (in a real life) was that it could not be heavily cultivated until threat from the Steppe is removed or significantly lowered. The encroachments into the Steppe territory started in the XIVI - XV when the 1st Cossack hosts appeared on Don (as military settlers & bandits) and in Zaporozhian Sich (bandits). There was a very gradual expansion both on the Lithuanian/Polish and Muscovite side of the steppe helped by introduction of the firearms on one side and weakening of the Steppe (Crimean Khanate with the Nogay Horde) on another.
 
I did not say that statement is untrue for the modern "Ukrainie". I said that the part of modern Ukraine with the good soils has almost nothing to do with the Kievan Rus. Without going into the details, using the term "Ukraine" in the context of X - XII century simply does not make any historic or geographic sense.

"Pontic Steppe" is not Kievan Rus ar all.

To make it short and clear: it was absolutely unrealistic for the Byzantines to conquer and secure the Wild Steppe. Would not and could not happen because this would require combination of the massive well-garrisoned fortified lines (which, as OTL experience demonstrated, would not provide a complete guarantee against the raids), massive resettlement into the territory and ability to maintain and expand this effort for centuries. Fighting people of the steppe was not a problem. The problem was to prevent their raiding and this was not possible until the modern times even with the sedentary neighbor states being much more powerful than Byzantine Empire (and Kievan Rus) and better suited geographically and demographically for accomplishing such a task.

Can you not cut out the parts of my post that explicitly address your concern? It comes across poorly. I finished the post with an explanation of the caveat of needing to develop a model, for which the Pruth is a great place to develop one on a smaller scale. It could be any number of things - small fortified settlements, aggressive pre-emptive warfare that doesn't just raid but effectively kidnaps entire peoples that even come close to the frontier, it could be the "clientelsiation" of nomadic people to build a network of alliances that punish members of their own community that raid. As of yet, I don't know. It could be all three and a great bloody wooden wall along the length of the Pruth.

As to the rest - ok, so Ukraine is an anachronism. I was referring to the lands South of Kiev, and West of the Dneiper. Ukraine was a shorthand for it.

As to the use of the Kievan Rus - I don't care. I didn't introduce the Kievan Rus into this discussion, you did. I have been discussion either Kiev (the City), or the lands south of it.

As to some of the factious postings afterwards - you are mixing motivation and advantage. The thread was focusing on the results. If you want a motivation (since again, you aren't actually providing constructive critique, a pattern that I'm noting an objection to here) then, ending the raids. It isn't implausible that the Romans decide that it is worth some effort to take a stance to end raids across the Danube, and at the same time use new lands to both pay soldiers and establish new recruitment areas for troops from the descendants of those settled.

Motivation: Raids into Roman territory are costly, and the Danube is a longer border than the Pruth, and guarding Carpathian passes. Thus securing the northern border is the goal.

Action: Campaign into the region, taking any major population centres, and either capturing (and resettling elsewhere) the people who live there who aren't already settled, or killing them. Up to the commander. Continue campaign until the Pruth is reached and the area is pacified. Adjust strategy and tactics to fit - as you've stated, fighting them isn't the problem.

Expected Result: With the Pruth River and Carpathians as natural frontiers, the Romans can fortify the area, and settle soldiers in the region. The lands south are secure, and are less raided, and can provide more taxes. (Also, fewer soldiers needed on the border). Also, shorter border that raiders from the steppe can come from, meaning that if raids are limited by distance from the frontier, less land that will be raided by these peoples.

Unexpected Result: Better than expected harvests that can lead to a local agricultural boom (and whatever minerals are found) - which can more likely lead to supporting both the Pruth Frontier, and elsewhere.

Does this hold true for the Vistula? I don't know. As stated repeatedly. I however don't take the opinion of it being impossible. It may well be that the Pruth strategy doesn't scale, but instead a campaign that goes further (trying to both capture Kiev and mimic the results of a hypothetical Pruth frontier on the Vistula) fails, and instead you develop a large "Cossack" region. Of dubious loyalty to Constantinople and Kiev, but hard to control, and as liable to raid Romans as anyone else. That could lead to a withdrawal, or it could lead to trying to bring the Cossacks on side as a preferable group to the other people who live on the Steppe. At least these "Cossacks" are Christians.

I quite like the idea, but I disagree on its feasibility, mainly around the point of Kiev. Sure, it isn't going to be Greek, I think it'd stay some form of Russian. However, I think that Kiev, it taken, can easily be garrisoned, and then supplied by river, as at least by my research it isn't hard to reach, even in winter, by ship from Constantinople, the only difficulty being that in bad years you may want to have "Icebreaker" galleys in place.
 
Can you not cut out the parts of my post that explicitly address your concern? It comes across poorly. I finished the post with an explanation of the caveat of needing to develop a model, for which the Pruth is a great place to develop one on a smaller scale. It could be any number of things - small fortified settlements, aggressive pre-emptive warfare that doesn't just raid but effectively kidnaps entire peoples that even come close to the frontier, it could be the "clientelsiation" of nomadic people to build a network of alliances that punish members of their own community that raid. As of yet, I don't know. It could be all three and a great bloody wooden wall along the length of the Pruth.

To start with, as you had been explained by others, the whole motivation behind the idea does not make too much of a practical sense because Byzantine Empire, as a whole, was not suffering from the grain shortages except for the artificially maintained free grain programs for Constantinople.

Then goes geography. Pruth as a "model" for anything based upon Kiev is simply inapplicable: Dnieper was not "West/East" border with the Steppe - the nomadic-controlled areas were on both left and right banks of it.

As to the rest - ok, so Ukraine is an anachronism. I was referring to the lands South of Kiev, and West of the Dneiper. Ukraine was a shorthand for it.

As to the use of the Kievan Rus - I don't care. I didn't introduce the Kievan Rus into this discussion, you did. I have been discussion either Kiev (the City), or the lands south of it.

Apples and oranges. Kiev, as city and adjacent region, is Kievan Rus but the lands South of it is the Steppe controlled by the various nomads.

As to some of the factious postings afterwards - you are mixing motivation and advantage. The thread was focusing on the results.

The results worthy of a discussion only if they can be achieved by the plausible means (aka, without the ASB being involved). So far, I don't see how this could be done realistically.

If you want a motivation (since again, you aren't actually providing constructive critique, a pattern that I'm noting an objection to here) then, ending the raids. It isn't implausible that the Romans decide that it is worth some effort to take a stance to end raids across the Danube, and at the same time use new lands to both pay soldiers and establish new recruitment areas for troops from the descendants of those settled.

I'm assuming that this is still somehow related to the goal stated in the header of the thread and not "stop on the Pruth" scenario which has no practical link to it.

You want a constructive critique? How about you look at the map to find out what would it take to end raids across the Danube by conquering space between the Danube and, at least Don? Just stopping on Dnieper would not work - the nomads are still too close to your future settlements. Analogy between Pruth and Dnieper is not applicable.


Then goes "use new lands to both pay soldiers" - how exactly are you going to use a newly-conquered steppe to pay the soldiers?

"establish new recruitment areas from the descendants of those settled" - the area is not populated so you have to launch a massive resettlement program from the Empire and then wait for couple generations before you can start any meaningful recruiting. In between you'll have to spend enormous effort and manpower to build a long fortified defensive line and garrison it for many decades while being almost permanently busy fighting with your neighbors on the North, West and South.



Motivation: Raids into Roman territory are costly, and the Danube is a longer border than the Pruth, and guarding Carpathian passes. Thus securing the northern border is the goal.

1st, you'll need a permanent occupation of Bulgaria and then what does this motivation have to do with what you defined as "Ukraine"? Where os Pruth and where is Dnieper? And if the Danube is too longer border how the whole thing may work with even longer border across "Ukraine"?

Action: Campaign into the region, taking any major population centres, and either capturing (and resettling elsewhere) the people who live there who aren't already settled, or killing them. Up to the commander. Continue campaign until the Pruth is reached and the area is pacified. Adjust strategy and tactics to fit - as you've stated, fighting them isn't the problem.

If you are settling on the Pruth (AFAIK, not the best agricultural area and the region in a whole is rather short of water) because it provides a shorter border, why are you going to campaign far to the East of it?

Then, of course, you did not quite get what I said bout fighting. Defeating the Polovtsy or Pechenegs if and when they were foolish or careless enough to let themselves to be cornered into a pitched battle was not a problem for the heavier (and mobile enough) force. The problem was that forcing them into such a battle was a matter of a great luck and that, short of a complete annihilation (as Polovtsy did to Pechenegs), such a victory solved little in the terms of the future raiding. Then again, figuring out a proper tactics was taking generations.


Expected Result: With the Pruth River and Carpathians as natural frontiers, the Romans can fortify the area, and settle soldiers in the region. The lands south are secure, and are less raided, and can provide more taxes. (Also, fewer soldiers needed on the border). Also, shorter border that raiders from the steppe can come from, meaning that if raids are limited by distance from the frontier, less land that will be raided by these peoples.

Unexpected Result: Better than expected harvests that can lead to a local agricultural boom (and whatever minerals are found) - which can more likely lead to supporting both the Pruth Frontier, and elsewhere.

Byzantine Empire simply would not have enough resources to hold Carpathian line for any protracted time. You are completely ignoring the Serbs, Magyars/Hungarians, Bulgars and successive opponents in Anatolia.


Does this hold true for the Vistula? I don't know. As stated repeatedly. I however don't take the opinion of it being impossible.

Well, everything is possible in theory if you keep ignoring the problems and obstacles. ;)

Byzantine Empire did not have enough resources to even keep Anatolia but expanding to Vistula is OK.

I already expressed my opinion about the Kiev thingy.
 
Last edited:
To start with, as you had been explained by others, the whole motivation behind the idea does not make too much of a practical sense because Byzantine Empire, as a whole, was not suffering from the grain shortages except for the artificially maintained free grain programs for Constantinople.

Who? You are the only one who has addressed me with this. I've never said the grain was a motivation. In the post you are quoting, I literally address that you are mixing motivation and advantage. You are doing it again. I did say that grain provides promise. If the reason that is a good thing is unclear, it is because it provides an increased likelihood of the region being able to prosper.

Then goes geography. Pruth as a "model" for anything based upon Kiev is simply inapplicable: Dnieper was not "West/East" border with the Steppe - the nomadic-controlled areas were on both left and right banks of it.

... Whoever said it was? The point is that you're coming from the south and west, buttressed by the Carpathians, towards the Dnieper.

Apples and oranges. Kiev, as city and adjacent region, is Kievan Rus but the lands South of it is the Steppe controlled by the various nomads.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it makes no sense with what I was saying.

The results worthy of a discussion only if they can be achieved by the plausible means (aka, without the ASB being involved). So far, I don't see how this could be done realistically.

You have made no effort to even suggest a solution to the problems you've identified.

You want a constructive critique? How about you look at the map to find out what would it take to end raids across the Danube by conquering space between the Danube and, at least Don? Just stopping on Dnieper would not work - the nomads are still too close to your future settlements.

Constructive is not the same as snide and crass. Entertain the idea for a moment that somehow the lands west of the Dneiper had been cleared - how do you think you can minimise the impact of raids in the long term on settlements that could be formed?

Then goes "use new lands to both pay soldiers" - how exactly are you going to use a newly-conquered steppe to pay the soldiers?

The Romans historically have paid their soldiers with land in the past. If the land is empty, you can pay them with parcels of land. If it has already got people living there, some taxes can be raised, pronoia granted, the Romans had numerous ways of using land to pay their soldiers, be it directly or otherwise.

"establish new recruitment areas from the descendants of those settled" - the area is not populated so you have to launch a massive resettlement program from the Empire and then wait for couple generations before you can start any meaningful recruiting. In between you'll have to spend enormous effort and manpower to build a long fortified defensive line and garrison it for many decades while being almost permanently busy fighting with your neighbors on the North, West and South.

Now see, this is where you and I can agree. It isn't an immediate profit. In fact I don't think I'd recommend this course of action if I was asked. But the point of the thread was to try and achieve this. The potential of agricultural land is that yet, in a couple of generations, that land could start providing meaningful recruits, in fact in significant abundance if the harvests are as good as I understand them to be. But it isn't a reason in itself to conquer those lands. It could be as simple (and frankly daft) as a prestige invasion, effectively going and capturing Kiev. Perhaps its ruler insulted the Emperor, or kills his daughter who they married. It'd be costly, but if the Emperor at the time is able to raise that army, and secure his borders - which depending on innumerable PoDs could determine when it is or isn't possible, I'm nowhere near sure where that could be achieved.

1st, you'll need a permanent occupation of Bulgaria and then what does this motivation have to do with what you defined as "Ukraine"? Where os Pruth and where is Dnieper?

That assumes a post-bulgaria timeframe, but if you make that assumption, yes. - and I'm getting there.

The Pruth is here.

Prut-River.jpg


It is a tributary of the Danube that comes from the north. To take that territory you'd have to clear the lands between the Danube (before the Pruth (prut) reaches the Danube). That land to my knowledge has been considered the extreme west of the Steppe. This is why I focused on this first.[/QUOTE]

If you are settling on the Pruth (AFAIK, not the best agricultural area and the region in a whole is rather short of water), why are you going to campaign far to the East of it?
So you do know where it is then.

Then, of course, you did not quite get what I said bout fighting. Defeating the Polovtsy or Pechenegs if and when they were foolish or careless enough to let themselves to be cornered into a pitched battle was not a problem for the heavier (and mobile enough) force. The problem was that forcing them into such a battle was a matter of a great luck and that, short of a complete annihilation (as Polovtsy did to Pechenegs), such a victory solved little in the terms of the future raiding. Then again, figuring out a proper tactics was taking generations.

No, I understand that. I'm aware that forcing nomads to fight pitched battles isn't possible. It is why I refer to a Pruth Model. I don't think standard warfare would work. I didn't think I needed to be quite this explicit. It would likely be an annoying campaign of maneuver, raids, ambushes, bribes and misinformation to force battles like Levounion.

Byzantine Empire simply would not have enough resources to hold Carpathian line for any protracted time. You are completely ignoring the Serbs, Magyars/Hungarians, Bulgars and successive opponents in Anatolia.

I'm really not. I'm being purposely unspecific because I'm not trying to pinned down to any one timeline, let alone one single point in our time line. I'm also not saying which side of the Carpathians the Romans are on. It could be that the Romans are East of the Carpathians in one TL, but another could be a Bela-Alexios TL where expanding beyond the Carpathians shortens the eastern border of Hungary-Rhomania.

Well, everything is possible in theory if you keep ignoring the problems and obstacles. ;)

Byzantine Empire did not have enough resources to even keep Anatolia but expanding to Vistula is OK.

I already expressed my opinion about the Kiev thingy.

(Emphasis mine)

.... Ok, my bad. That really should be the Dniepr and not the Vistula. Imma call that one a massive brainfart.

However, as I've stated, I'm not ignoring them. This is all overwhelmingly high level. It is why I haven't stated a date this entire time for achieving this. It could be anything from a different Justinian, to a no-Phocas scenario, to (I don't know) Attila died in his crib of SIDS, to the previously referenced Bela-Alexios scenario. I don't think we're anywhere near close to a PoD yet, but simply outlining what the problems/benefits are.

The big difference is I don't want to go "No" in 50 foot tall letters. I'm trying to have fun with the idea before getting down to brass tacks.
 
I think I could see this happening if Justininan was more focused and destroying threats to the empire and solidifying it and making it safe and not restoring the power bit still had that drive to make the empire prestige great once again I could see him Eliminating the Bulgarian then seeing how great the reward using some minor insult as a cause images Ukraine region all the way update to Kiev and then realizing the rich soil decided to resettle that along the Black Sea and Rick soil area and with tribute states surrounding it would be well of and could sell that grain all across the Mediterranean
 
@Wolttaire

Justinian555AD.png



Justinian 482 – 14 November 565. Old Great Bulgaria - North of the Black Sea (632 - 665) so probably the Bulgarian part can be omitted.

Old_Great_Bulgaria_and_migration_of_Bulgarians.png


There could be some settlements of the Slavic Polan tribes in the Kiev area by VI century but hardly something in the terms of a meaningful state or area worthy of conquering. The 1st fortifications on Kiev's site belong to the VIII century.

The plan means that Justinian has to abandon all his military campaigns and plans to restore the Roman empire (and the areas meaningful politically and economically) and instead launch a major conquest of the totally alien area populated mostly by the nomads. What "rich reward" are you talking about? It is an open steppe all the way to Asia and you need to spend a lot of resources to at least somehow secure the Eastern border on Don if you want to be able to use the good agricultural lands (much later experience of the Kievan Rus demonstrated that border on Dnieper does not serve the purpose. Plus, he would have to organize a massive resettlement into the area from other parts of the empire.

Honestly, does not sound as a feasible strategic program.
 
Top