Russo-British Empire?
- Thread starter Starforce
- Start date
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Jesus has to return. That needs to happen...
Never gonna happen. Never. Ever.
Never gonna happen. Never. Ever.
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.
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.
New England (medieval) - Wikipedia
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.
Starforce
Banned
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
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.
Hmm...very interesting idea. Tell me more.
Zagan
Donor
@DJP has a very good TL with this premise: Two Empires Unite {how A British Prince's Marriage to the Russian Tsaritsa shaped the modern world}.
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.
Once Britain has an empire a merger is almost impossible without some external driving force. Before Britain has an empire the merger may be possible but the resulting empire would be very different.
Please feel free, to use anything within two empires unite to attempt your own merger. For my self I have a long way to go merging and then evolving the empire so that it doesn't just fly apart .
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., I don't see it as totally impossible to make a mon asb timeline but to keep it plausible and stop it becoming a total Russo-Brit wank would need a writer more skilled than me.
For now I will continue my timeline, assembling the components so the united empire can emerge when events create a heat to weld the pieces together.
Wish you luck f you try your hand at writing your merger.
Dave
Aphrodite
Banned
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
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
AFAIK, 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.
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
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.
But this wouldn't be a British state, it would be a state founded by British people, which is not the same. The OTL United States was founded by British settlers but we would not call it a "British Empire".
A personal union could work, if it's successfully mantained through a few generations.
Sadly.
Sadly.
Aphrodite
Banned
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.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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Grey Wolf
Donor
If Tsar Paul had not barred women from succession then the marriage of Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh to Maria of Russia would effectively have put Alfred's Edingburgh-Saxe-Coburg line in succession to the Russian throne, as well as its place in succession to the British.
Maria was a daughter of Tsar Alexander II, whilst Alfred was the second son of Queen Victoria
Maria was a daughter of Tsar Alexander II, whilst Alfred was the second son of Queen Victoria
Aphrodite
Banned
My dear Mr. Milman you will have to do far far better than his
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
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
Last edited:
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
This one is difficult. Likely the most difficult union of European states to accomplish. I think you would have to start with a Tsar converting to Catholicism early on and then use Reformation shenanigans to unite the two. Good luck tho: Russia's large area tends to keep people rural thus conservative. A Catholic Russia likely would be bad for the prospective Reformation. I honestly can't think of another way that isn't ASB, perhaps some big f-you to Napoleon but by that time the two empires were radically different.
Speak for yourself bub. 😉
You seemingly have comprehension issues: I was talking about post-Great Schism period because prior to it the whole argument simply does not make sense.
As far as the Orthodox part being “the important part”, OK, I’ll try to make it even more clear: your idea is based upon a short and rather bizarre article writren by a clearly biased person (judging by the source) and it does not make sense historically because connections between the pre-Norman England and Kievan Rus were practically nonexistent. Even assuming that England retains its own Church, creation of the united state of England and Rus based exclusively on that principle is a pure nonsense.
If unification based on this principle was possible there would be union of Rus and Byzantine Empire and/or Bulgaria: in both cases there were much closer cultural links and much greater geographic proximity.
Last edited:
Would have to be even earlier, considering that OTL, after the Congress of Vienna, when the delegates met in London, the British POINTEDLY refused to grant passports to Nikolai and Mikhail Pavlovich out of fear that there was a plan on the part of Alexander I to marry one to Princess Charlotte of Wales.
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."
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."
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. 😂).
But, the marriage aside, by that time the cultural differences had been too big: the Tudorian approach to, shall we say, “absolutism” (still having a Parliament, some kind of the legal procedures, etc.) looked to Ivan as something absurd. He was an absolute monarch in the terms of making decisions without looking for anybody’s agreement. When Elizabeth wrote to him that she needs Parliament’s consent for certain decision his answer was that she is not a true monarch but rather a commoner if she needs consent of her subjects. And it is not that Ivan was just a tyrant going against the common perceptions because his subjects had been sharing this view of the world with seemingly a single caveat: Tsar could freely dispose of their lives but he could not change a pedigree. Outside of Oprichnina court where the existing rules had been explicitly abandoned, Tsar could not put a person to a higher place at his table than was warranted by person’s ancestry. Neither could he make a military appointment in a violation of this principle. The boyars and lower nobility would start litigating based on the recorded precedents even at a risk of Tsar’s disfavor.
Even with the allowance for the friendly relations (English trade with Tsardom started at that time and the English merchants got significant trade privileges), how can you put together two worlds so different?
As for the XI century, I quite agree with you: with all possible dogmatic issues the Church of England was within the Roman sphere of influence and the Papal interdict was clear demonstration of his authority (an equal, like Patriarch of Constantinople, would just curse him back). After all, during the reign of King John the Pope interdicted the whole England and later, IIRC, the same thing happened to Scotland under Robert the Bruce. And as far as the HRE was involved, this weapon was overused against the emperors fighting with the Papacy.
In the Rurikid Empire the Schism did not produce any noticeable immediate results. Izyaslav I remained married to the sister of King Casimir of Poland and after being overthrown by his brothers looked for help in Poland and Germany and even was acknowledged by a Pope as King of Rus (which did not prevent him from getting his throne back). It is not clear if Queen Anne of Kiev (spouse of Henry I of France) ever explicitly converted into Catholicism after 1054 but when in 1059 Henry feuded with the Papacy over Bregorian Reform (would this make him “the last FrenchOrtnodox”? 🤪), the Pope asked Anne to calm down her husband. Serious “us vs them” brouhaha began centuries later when the Russian Orthodox Church started getting its own bishops and escalated after the fall of Constantinople when the Russians had been seeing the Greek clergy as the agents of either Papacy or the Sultan. Needless to say that by that time due to the expansion of the Muscovite state the conflicts with the Catholic Western neighbors (especially Lithuania and Poland) started escalating so one may assume that real politik had been wagging the ideology and not the other way around.
Of course an idea of the medieval Russian state conquering a big part of Europe and even expanding tothe British islands would be too much of the ASB and probably the same goes for the chance of any other “universal” European monarchy. The only medieval force with the resources potentially adequate for the task would be the Mongols under the seriously different model of their conquests, succession rules, religion (adopting a major branch of the Christianity, preferably Catholicism would be necessary), policies, etc. and even then probability would be very low. As a purely theoretical model, one may assume creation of a much bigger substitute of the HRE using conflict between the Hohenstauffens and the Papacy and then somehow expanding it to England. As you said, the resulting state would be anything but “Russian”.
Last edited: