Seljuk Kiev: What if the Turks were forced North?
- Thread starter TemporalRenegade
- Start date
Keenir
Banned
Surprised Midgard hasn't shown up to condemn this TL...
why would he condemn anything that gives Byzantium a stay of execution?
Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
What teutonic armies? The Teutonic Order? It was founded in Holy Land in 1191. Polish prince Conrad of Masovia invited Teutonic Knights to fight pagan Prussians (Prus) in 1226. How they come to be in your timeline?
How they come to Poland?
More important, in XIth century Poland was still relatively weak country. So was Lithuania, and nobody ever heard about Teutonic Knights.
Theoretically, it is possible that facing Turkish threat Poles organize themselves faster nad receive strong support from the west. Still...
.
What teutonic armies? The Teutonic Order? It was founded in Holy Land in 1191. Polish prince Conrad of Masovia invited Teutonic Knights to fight pagan Prussians (Prus) in 1226. How they come to be in your timeline?
How they come to Poland?
More important, in XIth century Poland was still relatively weak country. So was Lithuania, and nobody ever heard about Teutonic Knights.
Theoretically, it is possible that facing Turkish threat Poles organize themselves faster nad receive strong support from the west. Still...
I'm upset to disappoint you, but I don't see any poin in this TL
First. Were Oghuz really better warriors than Cumans and Pechenegs? I'm not so sure. Both the latter never even _tried_ to take military and political control over Rus, their campaigns against it were all about plundering, not conquest. Still, Russians more than once heavily defeated them, and by the beginning of 13th century they partially became allies and almost vassals of Southern Russian principalities
Second. Kievan Rus was a rising power of this time, recently smashed to splinters Khazar Khaganate, and seriously troubled Byzantium on its peak. It's a problem so easily conquering it, especially in russian woods, espelcially for Turkic cavalry, and Russians could perfectly use river system to impose fighting on enemy practically where they want and when they want.
You'd say - how they manage to vanquish Byzantine Empire 100 yrs later? Bur by that time Byzantines had massive internal political, economic, and miltary crisis. Russians had none of it. And, what much more important Seljuks had a perfect base for invasion, numerous islamic allies and sophisticated administrative machine of Persia on its side. In your TL they were no more than usual nomadic horde, that could trouble the frontier, maybe take some of the cities, maybe even impose temporary tributes, but nothing more.
First. Were Oghuz really better warriors than Cumans and Pechenegs? I'm not so sure. Both the latter never even _tried_ to take military and political control over Rus, their campaigns against it were all about plundering, not conquest. Still, Russians more than once heavily defeated them, and by the beginning of 13th century they partially became allies and almost vassals of Southern Russian principalities
Second. Kievan Rus was a rising power of this time, recently smashed to splinters Khazar Khaganate, and seriously troubled Byzantium on its peak. It's a problem so easily conquering it, especially in russian woods, espelcially for Turkic cavalry, and Russians could perfectly use river system to impose fighting on enemy practically where they want and when they want.
You'd say - how they manage to vanquish Byzantine Empire 100 yrs later? Bur by that time Byzantines had massive internal political, economic, and miltary crisis. Russians had none of it. And, what much more important Seljuks had a perfect base for invasion, numerous islamic allies and sophisticated administrative machine of Persia on its side. In your TL they were no more than usual nomadic horde, that could trouble the frontier, maybe take some of the cities, maybe even impose temporary tributes, but nothing more.
Keenir
Banned
the Mongol army of Genghis Khan was primarily composed of Turks, so clearly being a nomadic army isn't a bad thing, particularly when up against Russians. (and that army was one that defeated Russia in the winter - something no other nation ever did)
Well, Mongol Army had Cenghiz Khan and his Yasa first of all
They were not just nomadic horde, but extremely well-organized and disciplined army, with a very elaborate system of supply and planning. I'm not even speaking about the number of troops they could use for their offensive.There were no equals to Mongols among steppe peoples, they were exception, not rule.
Still, even Mongols didn't try to colonize Russian lands. It wasn't very interesting aim for them
PS Interesting fact - some Oghuz, known as Torki, or Chernye Klobuki, in reality lived in Rus, on the wood-steppe frontier and were most loyal vassals to Chernigov and Kiev Grand Princes
Last edited:
Keenir
Banned
I'm sure the conquest of Persia and eastern Byzantium wasn't a cakewalk either.
I recall this timeline accounts for that -- it has all the Turks of the MidEast sweeping up to Russia.
given that the vast bulk of the Mongol army were Turks...
Byzantium did suffer some reverses during administration of Romanus III (around 1028 and thereabouts), and further on down... I think the map posted by Tocomocho is pretty accurate.
Surprised Midgard hasn't shown up to condemn this TL...
Well, here is my 2 rubles on it... one big misconception at the heart of this TL is that Kievan Rus was a centralized state akin to Byzantium, which it was not. At its most centralized, Kievan Rus was more akin to the Holy Roman Empire of the Hohenstaufens, and most of the time, it was a lot more like the "average" (post-Staufen) HRE.
Second thing. Vladimir is a rather capable ruler, and not a bad politician... so much of what caused the Russians to fall to the Mongols (inability to devise a common strategy, infighting amonst the princes, etc) will not be there. And the Seljuks are not using tactics radically different from what Russians are used to. If you want to have the Seljuks actually have a reasonable chance of taking Kiev, you will have to do a lot of damage to the Rus before they will be on the even playing terms - the Rus are on their home territory, possess long tradition of fighting the type of armies the Seljuks are likely to use, and the Seljuks are not the Mongols, as their tactics and coordination are not THAT advanced. In other words, Seljuk takeover of Kiev under Vladimir is not particularly plausible in the first place, and with the apparent easiness you've had them take over with, almost completely ASB-ish.
Now, if Kiev IS taken, the whole story takes another turn. Remember, this was prior to the adoption of Christianity (which happened in 988, and might not have happened here). So, religion is not much of an issue to the Rus just yet - even if they did adopt Christianity, they would probably still be quite open to reconversion if its benefits can be displayed to them. So, a Turk can crown himself a "Velikii Knyaz" of Kiev, and expect to be treated as one - that is, unless the remaining Rurikids (of whom there were already quite a few, each with his own fiefdom to begin with) unite to throw them out, which they can, simply for the idea that an "outsider" is holding a Rurikid throne.
Still, the thing is, capture of Kiev alone does not automatically indicate conquest of the Rus - at this stage, the Rus is still pretty amorphous as a nation, and is more accurately described as HRE-like collection of states. Sure, taking one could do some damage, but it would require a lot more effort for the Seljuks to be able to make permanent damage, especially since they would not be dealing with incompetent governments of Michael VII and Nicephorus III. Playing off Russian states against one another is about the only way they can approach the same degree of damage, and the thing about taking Novgorod... again, they are not Mongols, not as advanced, and the Varangians could put up a hell of a fight, especially since they will have easier logistics, more familiar territory, and more familiarity fighting the steppe invaders.
Last edited:
It was a matter of leadership on both sides, plain and simple. You had Kievan Rus at a low point of HRE-like divisiveness, with civil strife for much of the past fifty years, and inability of the princes to work together or even to decide upon a single war leader, while the Mongols had some of the most advanced tactics thought up by Temujin and Subotai, probably two of the foremost military geniuses of their time. In other words, a perfect storm of sorts. Take away those advanced tactics and great men, and make the Rus much more powerful and give it a leader who by the sheer force of will could impose his will on the lesser princes (but whose defeat would not necessarily stop the fighting - only have another take his place, with or without Kiev)... the outcome would be different.
Well, you guys could probably tell my opinion on how it would develop if it ever came to pass. If you think OTL Russia was backwards for most of its history...
I understand this is anachronistic. When I used Teutonic, I used it in the sense of "Deutsch" or "German", more a reference to the West Germanic tribe of Teutons (who among other West Germanic peoples such as Alemani, Angles, Franks, Friesians, Jutes, Saxons, etc. contributed to the post-Roman peopling of England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc.). Granted the "Teutons" mentioned are ancestral to the Holy Roman Empire (and the Teutonic Order, Prussia, Austrians, etc.). I should clarify that the warriors are NOT Teutonic Knights, at best mere forunners.
As nomadic warriors? I am not sure. Of course in my TL, I assume that the Turks in question develop a mixed strategy wherein they still retain their steppe nomad culture but in their attempts against Persians and Byzantines modify their military and political strategy.
Cumans and Pechenegs were largely raiders, essentially, "Vikings of the steppe". As you said, their campaigns were about plundering, not conquest. The Seljuks in this TL, on the other hand, attempted to colonize the Mideast but were defeated. They are therefore desperate and in search of a country, so as a sort of refugee army they have a strong motive to continue fighting, assuming they are not just ready to retreat into the steppes.
Remember, in my TL the Seljuk invaders came to the aid of the Khazars (which in OTL were in decline hence why the Rus were able to "smash to splinters" the Khazar Khaganate), and together posed a serious threat to the emerging Rus. In OTL the Oghuz forrunners of the Seljuks were on friendly terms with the Khazars. Also, the Turks posed a MORE serious trouble to Byzantium at its apex, and would shortly thereafter conquer it.
A power on the rise may be better off than a power in decline, but neither power is necessarily established. At this point, the Rus were not yet established, and many promising empires have been unable to survive to establish themselves in the long term. In this case, the conditions were good for the growth of the Rus states in the OTL, but what if some entity were to challenge the power early on, before the Rus established themselves.
What if the newly arrived Seljuk Turks used this divisiveness to their advantage?
ASB?
I guess, I might as well give the Seljuk armies some AK-47 assault rifles!Of course, if the Turkic invaders manage to successfully conquer the lands and pacify the remaining peoples, the newcomers may have to exterminate the Rurikids, but it is not uncommon for a new dynasty to wipe out the old one.
Fair enough.
Hence why "janissaries" would be used. Convert some of the local Slavs and Vikings to Muslim Seljuk loyalists and have them fight, using their strategy.
I sense a contradiction. I am sorry but based on this statement I can not take your argument seriously. You claim that the Kievan Rus were a decentralized collection of states akin to the Holy Roman Empire and use this divisiveness as an argument against the plausibility of my timeline. Granted, the lack of a strong centralisation and an amorphous structure might make the Rus as a whole resistant to conquest, even with a successful seizure of Kiev, but then given this divisiveness, what stops the Turks from playing Varangian Rus groups against each other? My TL overlooked a useful possibility! You then claim however, that the lack of a centralization of power in Russia enabled the Mongol conquest, as if a top-down reign would command a more effective resistance. So which is it? Is political decentralization advantageous or disadvantageous? Why is a Holy Roman-type Empire effective against an Oghuz conquest but not against a Mongol one?
Originally Posted by Midgard
If you think OTL Russia was backwards for most of its history...
I am sorry to say it, but nothing indicates to me that OTL Russia was NOT relatively backwards for most of its history.
In the meantime, I thought of another possibility which the invaders might use to their advantage. Perhaps given the strong stratification of Russian culture, the Turks might use the class conflict to their advantage, perhaps somehow utilizing uprisings to destabilize the Rus leadership.
Stalker
Banned
@TemporalRenegade
If you speak of Svyatoslav's time (precisely the time of ruining Kaganate), you make your TL even more impossible for there was no force to stop Svyatoslav close to his bases. If you had known how Svyatoslav made it and which directions he chose for his attack of the Khazars, you would have been a little bit more careful with suggesting such a thing!
@Midgard
Kievan Rus from Svyatoslav the Brave to Vladimir Monomach is a strongly centralised state. It may be compared with the HRE only after late 12th century. One needs to be more precise and careful with comparisons...
If you speak of Svyatoslav's time (precisely the time of ruining Kaganate), you make your TL even more impossible for there was no force to stop Svyatoslav close to his bases. If you had known how Svyatoslav made it and which directions he chose for his attack of the Khazars, you would have been a little bit more careful with suggesting such a thing!
@Midgard
Kievan Rus from Svyatoslav the Brave to Vladimir Monomach is a strongly centralised state. It may be compared with the HRE only after late 12th century. One needs to be more precise and careful with comparisons...
That was the one thing I postulated as being one of the ways their conquest could have succeeded - but then, it would have taken much longer than a few years you have had it happen in, and when the Rurikids had a strong figurehead leader (as they did with Vladimir - think of him as Russian Barbarossa), that leader would not quite allow the underlings to get out of line. If you have the invasion when there is no such leader, it would be more plausible, but with Vladimir around? Nope.
ASB?
See above.
And in a meanwhile, the old dynasty, which still holds more than considerable lands and power, will just sit back and do nothing? This is the point I am contesting.
But building up such "janissary corps" takes time, and it means that the Seljuks in Kiev would have to be left alone for at least a decade - which is not likely to happen. If they survive the initial decade, there might be a chance of "janissary corps" - but with everything thrown at them from a number of different states united only enough to throw away the Seljuks (although there might be a traitor or two in the mix, the Seljuks will be outnumbered by the people who are seasoned warriors, and who are used to fighting against the steppe warriors)... nope. Your "janissary corps" are also a bit too late - the Seljuks would need them to advance further north, and having them only appear after Novgorod... not particularly realistic.
Holy Roman Empire under a strong leader was a very different beast to the one without such a leader. You are ignoring the second half of my argument, which is that Kievan Rus aroudn 980 had precisely such a leader, but around 1230-1240 it did not. Where the decentralized nature comes into play is that if a leader is removed, another one will simply take place... and consider also that after initial devastation, the Russian princes got the idea that if they cooperated with the Mongols, they could retain their religion, their domains, etc. There was no need to fight to the last, because they were not afraid that they would be exterminated/forcibly converted. While conversion is less of an issue at the time, a Russian prince would have less of an issue in paying tribute than in knowing that it is his throne on the stake.
Then you are missing the point I made... the Seljuk Russia is likely to be even more backwards, simply because, unlike Byzantium, there is not a thousand years of tradition, science, technology, and administration there at the time, and while Kiev and Novgorod were quite impressive, most of the rest was not quite there in 980. Russia conquered (and annexed) in 1240 would be quite different - and even then note the technological and the organizational disparity even the relatively backwards Russia of late Rurikid dynasty possessed against the remaining Mongol Khanates by 1500 to the point that Yermak managed to take over Siberia with a pitiful force.
Wrong. Stratification of the nature you are describing did not appear in Russian society until (and quite possibly as an indirect result of) the Mongol conquest, further strengthened by Muscowy's autocratic tendencies. Russian society circa 980-1000 actually still possesses a reasonable degree of social mobility - perhaps more so than many states in Europe, while in some parts (Novgorod in particular) the outlook is already semi-republican, only to become even more liberal (for the time) later on. An anachronism if I see one.
The conquest of Persia was much easier because of lack of political unity. They destroyed one kingdom after another. Also mind relatively low morale of persian soldiers and issues of supplies. It's obvious that Persian gives good infrastructure for easy supply of invasion army, what definitely can't be said about Russia
And what would they eat?
Are you sure? Turkic tribes (Kipchaks mostly - but among Kipchak really turkic was only part of nobility - these were people of Indo-European origin) served mostly as auxiliary troops but spine of the army were still Mongols. During the Invasion of Russia the situation as a whole stayed the same
Last edited: