Russia united by Novgorod Republic?

What if Russia was united by Novgorod Republic rather than Moscow? It had greater autonomy during the Mongol domination and wasn't periodically sacked like the rest of Russia. It was part of the Hanseatic League with an economy dependent on export of fur to the Baltic. The power of the princes of Novgorod were also more limited than that which was exemplified by the rule of Ivan III.

Did they have a shot and how would this Russia be different culturally and politically?
 
That Russia would be a completely different country. Different political philosophy and everything. Novgorodian Russia would always stay part of Europe. Though, its views on expansionism are difficult to guess.
 
I'm not sure you had such a drive for "unionism" in Novgorod. As you said, it was quite teamed up with Baltic powers, rather than having real interest in southern Russia.

It would be, all proportions kept, as with Venice suddenly trying to unite Italy.
What could be more easily done, at least in a first time, would be unification of northern and Baltic Russia.

Crushing Pskov Republic, either integrating it totally as a territory, or making it a submitted republic, would be a good first step. Then, having some kind of lasting personal union between say, Vladimir and Novgorod would help greatly, ending probably with a growing monarchical power from the prince, and a less powerful Assembly (as it happened in Florence, for example).
 
Baltic Russia.

Agree about the rest, but this is funny - what is Baltic Russia? :). Ingria? When Novgorod existed Ingria was populated by Ingrian Finns and I'm not sure Novgorod was as keen on Russification of everybody, as was Muscovian Russia.
 
Agree about the rest, but this is funny - what is Baltic Russia? :)
Baltic in the sense of Baltic region. As such, for exemple (without all of Poland, but you get the general idea)

Novgorod,Pskov, parts of Teutonic Order lands, Riga, Ingria etc. "Russia" being used in an anachronical way (as you can use southern Russia to name parts of Russia that weren't even remotly Russian back then). Sorry for the confusion.

I'm not sure Novgorod was as keen on Russification of everybody, as was Muscovian Russia.
Even if it wouldn't (I'm doubtful about it : struggle against Sweden and Germans would eventually make cultural and "national" identity a key marker), an at least partial russification or re-russification of elites seems quite bound to happen, would it be only trough religion (critically when the metropolite had that much power in Novgorod) and the situation of cultural dominance that appears with political dominance.
 
What if Russia was united by Novgorod Republic rather than Moscow? It had greater autonomy during the Mongol domination and wasn't periodically sacked like the rest of Russia. It was part of the Hanseatic League with an economy dependent on export of fur to the Baltic. The power of the princes of Novgorod were also more limited than that which was exemplified by the rule of Ivan III.

Did they have a shot and how would this Russia be different culturally and politically?

There is also the Tver Merchant Republic.

Also wonder, how/if serfdom would develope in such a scenario
 
struggle against Sweden and Germans would eventually make cultural and "national" identity a key marker), an at least partial russification or re-russification of elites seems quite bound to happen, would it be only trough religion (critically when the metropolite had that much power in Novgorod) and the situation of cultural dominance that appears with political dominance.

Very good point. Religion and foreign affairs could indeed on their own be enough factors to push state towards more or less, but real assimilation, especially in regions close to the capital and central regions.

As for competing against and outright trying to conquer Livonian and Teutonic orders - not sure. The concept of "eternal expansion" that Muscovy inherited from Golden Horde was absent in Novgorod. The comparison to Venice stands good here. So why go against militarized German-led crusader-states? Any such expansion would directly disrupt the power balance in a merchant republic. And would be justified only if victory over Livonian order would be very swift and thus would not disrupt trade too much. But, a quick conquest over Livonia might be possible only in 17th century (historically Muscovy tried in 16th c., but it turned out to be a very, very long war with many involved parties), if nobody else would have started gathering its de-centralized pieces. So much more likely that Livonia by that time would have been conquered by Poland-Lithuania, since Polish managed to win over Teutonic order, so gaining additional victory over Livonian order even without Muscovian involvement might be just a question of time.
 
There is also the Tver Merchant Republic.

Also wonder, how/if serfdom would develope in such a scenario
Tver was a regular Russian principality, that is, a monarchy (maybe less autocratic than Moscow, but then, Moscow of the 15th century was not really an autocratic regime either - both Tver and Moscow had powerful princes and powerful nobility, whose power would only be broken by the Muscovite occupation in Tver (1485) and by Ivan the Terrible's terror in Moscow (1560s).)

Medieval Russia had three republics - Novgorod, Pskov and Vyatka. All of them were noble republics rather than merchant republics (even though all three had lively trade relations with their neighbors, they dealt mostly in agricultural/hunting products, and this business was controlled by landowners).

Interestingly, there was no serfdom and no wish to introduce it in Novgorod (the greatest and best researched of the three republics). The great lords (some 40 of them) owned most of the farmland, and they did not fear peasants moving out of their estates to another lord's lands, because conditions in most of these estates were more or less equally bad/good (the lords did not try to outcompete each other with better conditions for their tenants, so acting as an oligopoly of sorts). There also was no free land to settle in core Novgorod areas (so-called 'five fifths of Novgorod land'), as all land there, even still unploughed, was already claimed by some lord. Therefore, peasants had to make do with their lord's exactions, or move out of Novgorod land altogether, and most stayed put.

As was pointed out here by previous posters, Novgorod was well integrated into the Baltic trade area and felt no need to subdue other Russian states, except Pskov, which they saw as part of their rightful domain, and tried to reconquer a few times. Of course, had they known that one of these other Russian states would grow strong enough to subdue Novgorod itself, with disastrous consequences for every Novgorodian lord, they might have rethought their non-intervention stance.

However, even had Novgorod united Russia, it would likely be forced to transform itself into a highly militarized and authoritarian state to conquer, rule and defend their empire. Moscow's example is instructive, as the ruling house's powers there grew in step with the state's military commitments, and the subjects' freedoms were being curtailed accordingly, resulting eventually in autocracy, serfdom and lack of ecclesiastical autonomy.
 
Top