Pre Christian Slavic Writing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Christian_Slavic_writing

How would a distinct Slavic writing system affect the Slavic world?

Would the Slavic writing system share roots(a shared predecessor) with Greek or Latin?

In the "Life of Saint Cyril-Constantine the Philosopher", Rastislav, the duke of Moravia sent an embassy to Constantinople asking Emperor Michael III to send learned men to the Slavs of Great Moravia, who being already baptised, wished to have the liturgy in their own language, and not Latin and Greek. Emperor called for Constantine and asked him if he would do this task, even though being in poor health. Constantine replied that he would gladly travel to Great Moravia and teach them, as long as the Slavs had their own alphabet to write their own language in, to which the Emperor replied that not even his grandfather and father and let alone he could find any evidence of such an alphabet. Constantine was distraught, and was worried that if he invents an alphabet for them he'll be labelled a heretic.
Even if some form of writing existed among the Slavs in previous centuries, by the 9th century the learned men in the Eastern Roman Empire were not aware of its existence in any of the Slavic lands that they had sent missionaries or ambassadors to. Either this writing had died out or it wasn't a real form of writing, but rather just "tallies and sketches" as mentioned in Chernorizets Hrabar's An Account Of Letters, using which books could not be written.
How would the existance of Slavic alphabet change the perception of Slavs among non-Slavs?
 
Well, Glagolitic and Cyrillic are distinctly Slavic scripts, albeit based on Greek and, in the case of Cyrillic, also adopted later by non-Slavic languages. There is some scattered evidence suggestive of the possibility of a Slavic script before Glagolitic, or parallel to it, but if it existed at all (apparently not in Great Moravia anyway) it was likely somehow derived from either Gothic or Runic, and therefore, more distantly, from Greek (and/or Latin) ultimately (if not taken from the Turkic Runes, of ultimately Indian origin, but that seems very unlikely). I am not aware of clear, decipherable attestations of such a script. In the end, I doubt it would matter. The functional equivalent of Cyrillic would probably look more exotic to the rest of Christianity ITTL but that is about it.
 
The issue is that even if the Slavs can create a script, it inevitably will not spread to all Slavic tribes, and even then, I'd say that it still probably wouldn't change a whole lot. The Norse had a series of runes that were used as writing and yet they mostly used it to brag about themselves. This is all because to have a strong literary tradition, you need a.) something to write on, 2.) have that thing be thin and durable, and c.) somewhere to store the aforementioned writing. Pre-Christian Rus' at least didn't really have any of those.
 
The issue is that even if the Slavs can create a script, it inevitably will not spread to all Slavic tribes, and even then, I'd say that it still probably wouldn't change a whole lot. The Norse had a series of runes that were used as writing and yet they mostly used it to brag about themselves. This is all because to have a strong literary tradition, you need a.) something to write on, 2.) have that thing be thin and durable, and c.) somewhere to store the aforementioned writing. Pre-Christian Rus' at least didn't really have any of those.
Oral cultures don't need to put their literary tradition into writing, and usually don't do that (even if they possess a script, as the Norse), precisely because that tradition works as a flexible oral record. Writing is about power as much as it is about memory and its use establishes canonical authoritative texts; that's why organized Axial religions played such a part it its spread all over the place, likely also explaining the longstanding prohibition of consigning to writing the Vedas for instance (would have shifted authority from the local brahmin; even if, of course, ultimately they would be written down). In a sense, written culture is "dead" relative to the oral one. Norse sagas and Homeric poems lost they adaptive vitality as a living archive consigned to the memory and creativity of skalds and aeds, assiming instead a relatively definitive, unchangeable form, a this occurred precisely when they lost immediate living relevance to the culture who wrote them (as in, Snorri Sturluson no longer believed in the pagan gods he recounted for us, the heroic ethos of Homeric epic was not the one of the Hellenic polites anymore, pre-Islamic Arabian Bedouin lanscape was foreign to the urban Iraqi literati who consigned Arabic pre-Islamic poetry into written form, the Irish monks did not live the same world of the Gaelic epic tradition they wrote down, and so on).
 
While i mostly agree with you here, i would like to point out that the entire reason Snorri wrote the younger edda was to allow skaldic poems to keep being made.

And in modern times, wide spread literacy and mass media allows for a more flexible writen 'tradition' , as seen in adaptations of an authors works, fanfiction, etc.
Though in honesty there's a lot of legal restrictions on them due to stupid I.P. laws
 
While i mostly agree with you here, i would like to point out that the entire reason Snorri wrote the younger edda was to allow skaldic poems to keep being made.

And in modern times, wide spread literacy and mass media allows for a more flexible writen 'tradition' , as seen in adaptations of an authors works, fanfiction, etc.
Though in honesty there's a lot of legal restrictions on them due to stupid I.P. laws
Agreed.
 
Top