How about a scenario that sees Anglo-Saxon migration out of Britain in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest? The small trickle of settlers heading to the Black Sea in our timeline becomes a flood in this timeline. Merging with the native Crimean Goths, they form a powerful and recognizably English (or at least Germanic) kingdom in OTL Southern Ukraine and thereabouts.
New England (medieval) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This kingdom forms an alliance with the nearby Russians to fight Mongols, Turks, and other invaders. The strong relationship becomes the basis for a personal union, and later a political union, between the two countries.
The challenges are massive, as I'm discovering a personal union between monarchs is one thing a political / economic union are a very different thing. My exploration certainly wouldn't stand up to the plausibly levels of pre or post 1900 forums too much handwavium. In fact when I first thought of the idea I gave serious consideration to posting it in the frivolous asb thread. 350 000 words later it can no longer be considered frivolous but even with the experience I have gained writing the timeline I don't think I could manage to tighten it to avoid a level of hand waving that would see it condemned as being asb.What would have had to happen for the Russian Empire and British Empire to unite into one mega-empire? Would a queen have to marry a tsar? How would this Empire work and how would it interact with the rest of the world?
Harald II defeats the Papists at the Battle of Hastings saving England for the Orthodox faith.
This leads to Russia and England developing close cultural, economic and political ties. There are many intermarriages between the elites and the two countries wage war against their common enemies the Crusaders.
Eventually one of the ruling houses dies out and a personal union proclaimed.
The hardest part is keeping an isolated England Orthodox for a couple hundred years against the inevitable Crusaders
How about a scenario that sees Anglo-Saxon migration out of Britain in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest? The small trickle of settlers heading to the Black Sea in our timeline becomes a flood in this timeline. Merging with the native Crimean Goths, they form a powerful and recognizably English (or at least Germanic) kingdom in OTL Southern Ukraine and thereabouts.
New England (medieval) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This kingdom forms an alliance with the nearby Russians to fight Mongols, Turks, and other invaders. The strong relationship becomes the basis for a personal union, and later a political union, between the two countries.
The OTL United States was founded by British settlers but we would not call it a "British Empire".
It's silly to make an issue of typos and spelling on a site with so many non English speakersAFAIK, there were Harold II Godwinson and Harald Hardrada of Norway. The 1st had absolutely nothing to do with the Orthodoxy or Rus while the 2nd was killed before Hastings but had been married to the daughter of the Great Prince of Kiev. 🤪
So, what you need is:
1. Harald is victorious at Stamford Bridge and Harold is being killed. Quite possible.
2. Harald is victorious against Willian the Bastard. Possible even if in Sicily he was not too lucky against the local Normans and there are other not too encouraging encounters of the Scandinavian vs. Norman military system.
3. Harald is a King of England and Norway (not a big deal comparing to Canute the Great) and in 1073 there is a coup in Kiev: the Great Prince Iziaslav is expelled by his younger brothers. In OTL he looked for help in Germany and Poland (in 1075 the Pope sent him a crown proclaiming him the King of Rus) but here his brother in law is available. So he retakes Kiev with the help of Norwegian army in 1074 (preferably, both his younger brothers end up being killed) making Harald Prince of Novgorod, and dies soon afterwards (after eating something disagreeable while entertaining his brother in law in a victory feast in Kiev) 4 years ahead of schedule leaving Harald in a right time and place for claiming the throne of Kiev.
So you have a short-lived empire which includes England, Norway and Kievan Rus (at least a part of it with a titular claim to the highest throne).
The religious issues are not, yet, too serious: the Great Schism already happened but serious antagonism is a matter of the future.
The irony was related not to the non-existing typo but to the fact that out of two possible candidates you picked one who was absolutely irrelevant to the subject.It's silly to make an issue of typos and spelling on a site with so many non English speakers
As to Harold II having "nothing to do with Orthodoxy", a simple Google search of Harold II orthodoxy would have enlightened you about Harold, the passion bearer and martyr to the faith, who died fighting the Papists at the Battle of Hastings
Harold II the last Orthodox king of England
On October 14, 1066, at Hastings in southern England, the last Orthodox king of England, Harold II, died in battle against Duke William of Normandy. William had been blessed to invade England by the Roman Pope Alexander in order to…pemptousia.com
So, as I said, simply have Harold defeat the Papist invaders and defend the true faith against the Pope's minions
If you consider the Papal blessing of the invasion and the massive "reforms" imposed on the English Church by William, the religious context of the invasion is real.
The irony was related not to the non-existing typo but to the fact that out of two possible candidates you picked one who was absolutely irrelevant to the subject.
To start with, you are clearly confusing “Orthodoxy” as “English Church” with “Greek Orthodoxy” to which the Russian Church belonged. There were no connections between these two and even the article referenced does not insist that this connection existed (its quality as a reference is a separate issue). Anglo-Saxon church of pre-Norman England always was under the general Papal authority and the article you are referenced talks just about acceptance of some reforms. Here is a breakdown after the Great Schism.
View attachment 517163.
There was no, at that time, serious conflict between the Catholic states and the Russian Principalities. On a contrary, there were numerous dynastic marriages between the Russian princes and the Catholic royal houses. {/Quote]
Dear Lord, of course there weren't struggles between the Russian principalities and the Papacy yet and of course there were intermarriages- they were part of the same Church. why would there have been any conflict between the Russians and the papists before the Schism?
There were no cultural or any other noticeable connections between Saxon England and Rurikid Rus and no realistic reason for them to appear in any short-term future.
“Crusading” part is also irrelevant: there was never serious threat to the Russian states from this corner.
Nobody ever said there were. I said that if you keep England Orthodox, the ties would develop over the centuries. Try responding to the argument instead of creating strawmen.
In other words, Harold’s victory at Hastings would be absolutely irrelevant for the Rurikid state and your whole scenario of “unification” is not plausible. Both Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria had much closer relations with Kievan Rus and were much closer geographically but the union did not happen on the cultural & religious base.
Irrelevant. Nobody argued that such close ties inevitably lead to union- just that they could. See, for example Spain and the Holy Roman Empire under Charles
OTOH, Harald of Norway:
(a) Was related to the Russian ruling family by marriage (and also to the kings of Poland and France)
(b) Spend years at the court of the Great Prince of Kiev and obviously had good connections there.
(c) While not belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church, was well familiar with it: besides time in Kiev and Orthodox wife, he spent years on Byzantine service.
(d) His “base state”, Norway, had the well-established cultural ties with Rurikid state.
Problems:
1) During tthe schism, Harald and Norway backed the papacy. He was Catholic as was his country. His marriage doesn't change this- and again, since he was married before the schism there is no "Greek Orthodox Church" to become familiar with. They were one and the same faith.
2) No one argued that the union would take place at the time of the Battle of Hastings. I said "over the centuries". Its a concept you need to understand
And what abou Gytha? She's Harold II's daughter who marries Vladimir II Monomakh ?
Yes, I know that the marriage is somewhat contested because the earliest known reference is to the 13th century- however, no known contemporary chronicle identifies Monomakh's wife as anyone else.
P.S. still waiting for the name of the court and its membership that could override Tsar Nicholas II in 1900
Speak for yourself bub. 😉The OTL United States was founded by British settlers but we would not call it a "British Empire".
No, sir, I picked the Orthodox one which was the important part.
You are appallingly ignorant of the Christian faith and the Great Schism. Before 1054, the EnglishChurch was "Orthodox" as was the entire Western Church. It was in communion with "Greek Orthodoxy" a term that hadn't been invented yet
Maybe if the P.O.D is moved back a generation so the personal union is between Victoria and a Russian prince who then unexpectedly becomes Tsar.,
As to Harold II having "nothing to do with Orthodoxy", a simple Google search of Harold II orthodoxy would have enlightened you about Harold, the passion bearer and martyr to the faith, who died fighting the Papists at the Battle of Hastings
Eventually, he proposed a marriage to Elizabeth’s niece, Mary Hastings, but was rejected due to his reputation (well, he had as many wives as Lizzy’s father and even did not execute any of them so what’s the big deal? Surely, not execution of the aristocrat because both Henry and Elizabeth also had been quite good in that area. 😂).Apparently Ivan the Terrible once suggested marriage to Elizabeth I of England. That would've made an interesting match, and is probably the closest one could get to fulfilling the OP.
Either that, or do a total Russian wank, where Russia ends up controlling most of continental Europe, and then ends up annexing the British Isles through a dynastic marriage. But any such state might not even be that recognisably "Russian" anyway.
With respect, that's an extremely anachronistic and simplistic way of looking at things. The English Church was seen by Rome as being corrupt and in serious need of reform, which is why the Pope gave William his blessing, but that's not the same as the English Church being Greek Orthodox, and there's no evidence that Harold or the Saxons considered themselves anything other than good Catholics in communion with the Pope. Nor, for that matter, did the schism of 1054 result in the immediate division of Christendom into two hostile and exclusive camps: the anathemas in question were delivered to individuals in the Byzantine Church, not to the Byzantine Church or Empire as a whole, and many Churches continued to remain in communion with both Rome and Constantinople for centuries after 1054. Most Englishmen probably hadn't even heard of the schism by 1066, and even those who had probably would've thought of it in terms of "A few Greek bishops getting excommunicated", not "I need to make a choice between Rome and Constantinople."