The Rus germanizes the Eastern Slavs

Could the Rus Germanize the Eastern Slavs instead of being assimilate into them.

AFAIK, the "Rus" were supposedly Scandinavians (Swedes?), not Germans so how "Germanization" got into the picture. As for the rest, these Scandinavians were neither numerous enough (and you'd need a LOT of them to make a demographic impact on territory that big) nor dominating (militarily/economically, etc.) enough to accomplish such a task. They did add something to the local culture but other than that their assimilation was inevitable.

For your purpose you need something like "Baltic Crusades" on the steroids in the terms of the numbers of the German-speakers moving into the area (controlled by the Swedish rulers so why would they need the Germans?), which simply was not realistic in IX - X centuries. Besides, the Rurikid dynasty did not have an absolute control over its "empire": a lot of power remained in the hands of the natives and even in Kiev "veche" (assembly of the citizens) was powerful enough to overthrow more than one ruler. In general, situation was closer to one in Bulgaria (the invaders made a pact with the local tribes) then to the Norman England ("perfect" conquest with the local resistance crushed).

BTW, a noticeable part of the native population of what became "Rus" were not Slavs, but the Finnish tribes, like Meria, Muroma, Meschera, Cheremisi, etc., colonized and assimilated with the Slavs within framework of the "Rurikid Empire".
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, the "Rus" were supposedly Scandinavians (Swedes?), not Germans so how "Germanization" got into the picture. As for the rest, these Scandinavians were neither numerous enough (and you'd need a LOT of them to make a demographic impact on territory that big) nor dominating (militarily/economically, etc.) enough to accomplish such a task. They did add something to the local culture but other than that their assimilation was inevitable.

For your purpose you need something like "Baltic Crusades" on the steroids in the terms of the numbers of the German-speakers moving into the area (controlled by the Swedish rulers so why would they need the Germans?), which simply was not realistic in IX - X centuries. Besides, the Rurikid dynasty did not have an absolute control over its "empire": a lot of power remained in the hands of the natives and even in Kiev "veche" (assembly of the citizens) was powerful enough to overthrow more than one ruler. In general, situation was closer to one in Bulgaria (the invaders made a pact with the local tribes) then to the Norman England ("perfect" conquest with the local resistance crushed).

BTW, a noticeable part of the native population of what became "Rus" were not Slavs, but the Finnish tribes, like Meria, Muroma, Meschera, Cheremisi, etc., colonized and assimilated with the Slavs within framework of the "Rurikid Empire".

In this context germanization come from Germanic rather than German. I also agree that it's extremely unlikely that it would happen. But it's not impossible.

The best way for it to happen is a you say increase the number of settlers. Away to do this would be if England fell earlier, which would mean Danish surplus population had to find a new target of settlement. If it did happen it would have interesting consequence, Scandinavia would likely go Orthodox rather than Catholic, The Russia and Scandinavia would be part of the same cultural phere, creating a Scandinavia-Rus crescent as border of the Christian world. We would also see a faster transfer of West European know-how and knowledge to Russia.

Scandinavian culture would also end up dominated by the Rus in the long term, while Slavic culture would also be significant change without the Russian big brother.

For Russia a major benefit would also be when it began to expand eastward, it would be far more natural for Scandinavians to migrate to Russia than it was for the Western Slavs (it easier to go from Copenhagen to Caspian Sea than from Lesser Poland). Which means Russia would have access to a greater number of settlers.
 
In this context germanization come from Germanic rather than German. I also agree that it's extremely unlikely that it would happen. But it's not impossible.

The best way for it to happen is a you say increase the number of settlers. Away to do this would be if England fell earlier, which would mean Danish surplus population had to find a new target of settlement.

AFAIK, they don't speak Danish in England so why do you think that this would work elsewhere? BTW, the main "Russian connections" had been (AFAIK) with Sweden and Norway so how the Danes would go into the picture? And, anyway, you'd need MUCH more of them then ever came to England to produce a critical mass in the terms of assimilation. Was population of Denmark big enough to produce such a critical mass? And why would they be able to settle to start with?

In OTL the "Varyangians" produced just the top ruling/military elite. In your schema the settlers would have to squeeze the locals from their territory, aka, they'd come as the enemies. Would they be able to squeeze the natives out of their lands? The cultural (and military) difference was not great enough for this to be an easy process.

If it did happen it would have interesting consequence, Scandinavia would likely go Orthodox rather than Catholic,

Now you completely lost me. "Rurikid Empire" had been created well before the territory was baptized and when Christianity came into the play the link between Sweden/Norway and Rus was not strong enough to influence each other.


Scandinavian culture would also end up dominated by the Rus in the long term, while Slavic culture would also be significant change without the Russian big brother.

Notion of the "Russian big brother" is hardly relevant prior to the XIX century by which time the native cultures had been more or less settled and, anyway, which "Slavic culture" are you talking about? There were quite a few of them.

For Russia a major benefit would also be when it began to expand eastward, it would be far more natural for Scandinavians to migrate to Russia than it was for the Western Slavs (it easier to go from Copenhagen to Caspian Sea than from Lesser Poland). Which means Russia would have access to a greater number of settlers.

By the time of the Russian eastward expansion migration from Scandinavia was in a remote past and migration from Poland was simply non-existent. Then, of course, no offense but Denmark was not a country with the population big enough to make a drastic change in the number of "settlers". Not that there was a real need in too many of them prior to the mid-XVIII.
 
I asked a similar question a while back, still ticked everyone focused exclusively on linguistic matters rather than what I actually asked.

Well, one may easily find some similarities between the "Rurikid empire" and Scandinavia as far as the military tactics was concerned. The problem is that it seems to be very difficult to figure out how the warfare of various local tribes looked like prior to Rurik (or whoever) or even for a while after the "empire" was established. I was under impression that the 1st more or less coherent description of the land tactics belongs to the time of Svyatoslav and his war with John Tsimisces over Bulgaria. At Dorostol the troops of Svyatoslav were seemingly fighting in the formation similar to the shield wall (rather hard to tell based on what's written by Leo the Deacon), traveled on the horseback but fought on foot. Was this Scandinavian influence or native fighting style I can't say.

Initially, mostly the scale armor had been used but later it was substituted by various types of the mail. The warriors shown on the Bayeux Tapestry look quite similar to their contemporaries in Rus. The noticeable differences in armor and weaponry started later and could be attributed to a need of fighting the nomadic neighbors with their light cavalry. It does not look like initially there were big differences in the costumes either.
 
If they introduced a real administration with a bureaucracy of people who only speak Germanic languages, the Russians would have to learn these to be able to talk to their government... but the Vikings weren't civilized enough for that.
 
Where there any Old Norse settlements that didn't assimilate to one degree or another?
England seems where they assimilated the least considering the effect they had on the language.
 
Where there any Old Norse settlements that didn't assimilate to one degree or another?
England seems where they assimilated the least considering the effect they had on the language.

It's because the norse and anglo-saxon cultures were similar, as both the two germanic peoples who came to England were from north germany, close to Denmark. The languages were sufficiently close for being easy to swap vocabulary.
 
Top