small plausibility check

so I'm [co]-authoring a timeline with someone else (don't think they use this forum), and one of the major PODs is that the Varangians resist being assimilated into the Rus' slavs, and manage to make a more distinguishably Varangian Rus' Khaganate.

one of the butterflies we have been playing with is this: a great Rus' Khagan manages to expand down bot the Volga Trade Route, and along the Dnieper River. this makes the Khaganate very rich from trade, and much of these riches are traded with fellow Northmen in Scandinavia, mainly Danes and Norwegians. and because of this sharp increase in goods and money, the more powerful Danes / Norwegians are able to successfully subdue England in the early 11th century following the St. Brice's Day Massacre. this leads to no Norman conquest of England, but that part isn't the main focus of the TL.

my question is, would you consider that plausible, or ASB bull? could trade from a very rich Rus' Khaganate butterfly to create stronger Vikings leading to weaker England dominated by the Norse?

feedback would be great, thanks. I really need this answered before working any more on it.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
ah, right, I had the dates confused. so just substitute Khaganate with Kievan Rus'.

with that changed, how is it?


One thing Denmark did subdue England after the St. Brice's Day Massacre in OTL, and you can keep the Normans out with pure butteflies, so it's plausible.

But the interesting thing is a Scandinavian Russia or "Rusland" (which would make better sense): How would the culture and religion be, how would the local east scadinavian dialect evolve?
 
Last edited:
The whole use of the term "Khanate" as well as the sheer numbers concerned.
regarding the Khaganate, it is a different term than simply a Khanate. up until the beginning of the 11th century Slavic princes sometimes were called Kagan, so that part isn't too implausible. just my two cents on the matter though, the OP may have something else to say.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
regarding the Khaganate, it is a different term than simply a Khanate. up until the beginning of the 11th century Slavic princes sometimes were called Kagan, so that part isn't too implausible. just my two cents on the matter though, the OP may have something else to say.

But one of the point here is that they are North Germanic not East Slavic, and would most likely use title like "Konge", "Fyrste", "Jarl" or "Hertuge" instead.
 
But one of the point here is that they are North Germanic not East Slavic, and would most likely use title like "Konge", "Fyrste", "Jarl" or "Hertuge" instead.

This is true. Again, however, I'm not sure that the Varangians themselves were really all that numerous.
 
I suppose the real question is whether greater wealth from so far distant would manage to trickle down (aka Ronnie) and make a sufficient boost to the economic well-being of a politically separate different group of Norse that they are that much more able to carry something off in a completely different direction ?

I have no idea, myself, just wanted to elucidate the question. IMHO to answer it you're going to need to look at trading patterns and revenues, and ask whether these would be substantially changed all the way along the chain. Not something I could do myself...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
But one of the point here is that they are North Germanic not East Slavic, and would most likely use title like "Konge", "Fyrste", "Jarl" or "Hertuge" instead.


ah, you're right.... they probably would be more likely to use those. it would be interesting to see how a Norse system of governing would work, setting up Jarldoms and whatnot in Russia.. very different from OTL.
 
Top