The Silver Knight, a Lithuania Timeline

What's your opinion on The Silver Knight so far?


  • Total voters
    448
Are there any 'unpatriotic' Slavs in the Lithuanian Empire?
Anyone like Bohdan Khmelnytsky of OTL for example?

In OTL the Slavs started to be aware of their own other identity in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth a good century ago.
What happened to the Slavs in ATL? They don't think about autonomy (at least)?

You know making 'Lithuanian Empire' is possible; even keeping it for a century or so is doable.
What is impossible is keeping it "Lithuanian"; as the Lithuanians are a tiny 'ethnic' minority ruling over the ocean of the Slavs.
It is doable. The Habsburg empire was for a good portion of its history ruled by the german minority. Now what I think is not doable, is this empire lasting. At some point things are going to break, like it did for the Austro-Hungarians. Nationalistic tensions are simply too strong. But by this point Lithuania would have become a significantly stronger country, with Lithuanization of the Baltics and a small part of Ruthenia.
EDIT:
And a possible breakup of OTL Russian ethnicity into two or three parts: Russian, Volgak Russian, and the Novgorodian Russian Augenis hinted at earlier.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm, I wonder what makes you an expert in Slavic languages?

Me, though my nickname is @Russian , my mother is an ethnic Belorussian and my father's dad was a Ukrainian, and that's why I know what I am talking about:
- those Slavic languages are mutually comprehensible even now,
- centuries ago in OTL those Slavic languages had even more in common,
- in this ATL all those Slavs lived within the same Empire and mixing and communicating their languages are more similar to each other than in OTL (actually much of the difference is because the Slavs of OTL lived in different countries and were separated by state borders, which is not the case in this ATL).

Nothing, it's just the fact that slavic language is located over large distances people get different influence history and this langage get many subdivision, so i just make a quick search about some text in different language to see it, but if you know well about this subject and you support opposite then I apologize
 
It is doable. The Habsburg empire was for a good portion of its history ruled by the german minority.
Germanisation is a thing from OTL, it started long before the Habsburgs.
Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL for the periods we're talking about, in OTL the Lithuanians themselves were being Slavicised - first by the 'Ukrainians/Belorussians'; and after joining the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by the Poles.

And the pattern of the Habsburg Empire is different, it is a patchwork quilt.
The Lithuanian Empire swiftly conquered territory of Rus, who had been part of Rus, it is not a patchwork quilt.

And I specifically mentioned Austria-Hungary as it was the dual monarchy - Hungary was very important. There is no Hungary equivalent in the ATL Lithuanian Empire, which makes your comparison irrelevant.

Now what I think is not doable, is this empire lasting.
Absolutely. My point.

But by this point Lithuania would have become a significantly stronger country, with Lithuanization of the Baltics and a small part of Ruthenia.
As I said - the Lithuanization is the main ASB component of this ATL for the periods we're talking about. Any Lithuanization, especially Lithuanization of the Baltics for the periods we're talking about.
Try to realize that OTL Lithuania had a very unstable culture because it was the last to convert to Christianity and had the weakest culture in the region.
And once again Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL.

The ATL Lithuanian Empire has - 80-90% of the Slavs within the country; it borders ATL Slavic Russia in the East and it borders ATL Slavic Poland in the West which makes most of land borders.
Ethnic Lithuania is a tiny chip in the region overwhelmed from all the sides by the Slavs, who are culturally superior.
 
Last edited:
Germanisation is a thing from OTL, it started long before the Habsburgs.
Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL, in OTL the Lithuanians themselves were being Slavicised - first by the 'Ukrainians/Belorussians'; and after joining the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by the Poles.

And the pattern of the Habsburg Empire is different, it is a patchwork quilt.
The Lithuanian Empire swiftly conquered territory of Rus, who had been part of Rus, it is not a patchwork quilt.

And I specifically mentioned Austria-Hungary as it was the dual monarchy - Hungary was very important. There is no Hungary equivalent in the ATL Lithuanian Empire, which makes your comparison irrelevant.
It doesn't. The Dual Monarchy is a latter development, a reaction to unrest in the Empire. I wouldn't be surprised if in latter updates such a dual monarchy emerged, for the exact same reasons.
Absolutely. My point.


As I said - the Lithuanization is the main ASB component of this ATL. Any Lithuanization, especially Lithuanization of the Baltics.
Try to realize that OTL Lithuania had a very unstable culture because it was the last to convert to Christianity and had the weakest culture in the region.
And once again Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL.
Now you're not making any sense. There is no such thing as an inherently weaker culture, and I especially don't see how that follows from latter Christianization. What makes a culture weak or strong is whether or not it's allowed to express itself. IOTL, it wasn't: it was the minority culture, dominated by the Polish majority. ITTL, it's the Russian culture which is under Lithuanian domination. Moreoever, Baltics and Prussian tribes have a similar culture, that they would evolve to be one and the same, particularly with a school system favoring Lithuanian culture, is perfectly logical (see: France, and its various ethnicities which became nowadays 'monolithical' French ethnicity.
Finally, this is AH. Saying it can't happen because it didn't happen IOTL just doesn't make sense, else why write AH?
The ATL Lithuanian Empire has -80-90% of the Slavs within the country; it borders ATL Slavic Russia in the East and it borders ATL Slavic Poland in the West which makes most of land borders.
Ethnic Lithuania is a tiny chip in the region overwhelmed from all the sides by the Slavs, who are culturally superior.
Sure. There will be cultural change on both sides. But every culture change with time. Lithuanian 19th century culture will be different from Lithuanian 15th century culture, of course, but it still will be recognizably different from Russian culture, a Lithuanian culture.
 
Well, I suppose the two large Russian rebellions we've had so far point in that direction, yes.
You know, I meant the Ukrainians and the Belorussians. They did rebell against the PLC in OTL.
And all of a sudden they did not rebel in your ATL.

And this is where we get an important factor in Slavification that was present IOTL, but never happened ITTL - in our timeline, Lithuanian was seen as a language for the poor, and anyone who spoke it publicly was often shamed for speaking a "peasant language". This never happened in this timeline, because in this case Lithuanians are not the people at the bottom of the nation.
I don't get it.
Think for yourself - there were insanely rich ethnic Lithuanians, magnates. Why did they forget their mother tongue? Lithuania was not conquered or something, it was a rich imperial country even in OTL in the PLC.
But that's the cliche, what they teach you at school.

The reality was - due to the later conversion, the Lithuanian culture and literature were weak and underdeveloped, and most of the teaching and commerce and government was in more developed Slavic languages - first in Ukrainian/Belorussian, later in Polish.
That did not change in your ATL.

Obviously, say, Russians wouldn't feel much patriotism for a foreign conqueror.
I still don't get why the Ukrainians and Belorussians feel so much patriotism for a foreign conqueror in your ATL.
 
I won't try to interfere in the argument, but this in particular is false.
@Augenis, did you read your link?

Because it proves me right and it proves you wrong:
Even when some localities received the appointed Gediminid leaders, the Lithuanian higher nobility in the Ruthenian lands largely embraced the Slavic customs and Orthodox Christianity and became indistinguishable from a larger Ruthenian nobility resulting in the two cultures merging to the extent that much of the upper class of Ruthenians merged into Lithuanian nobility and began to call themselves Lithuanians gente Rutenus natione Lituanus(Litviny),yet spoke the Ruthenian language. In the effect of the processes, Lithuanian higher nobility became largely Ruthenian, while the nobility in the ethnic Lithuania and Samogitia continued to use their native Lithuanian language. The adapted Old Church Slavonic and later the Ruthenian language, acquired a status of a main chancery language in the local matters and relations with other Orthodox principalities as lingua franca...
 
I don't get it.
Think for yourself - there were insanely rich ethnic Lithuanians, magnates. Why did they forget their mother tongue? Lithuania was not conquered or something, it was a rich imperial country even in OTL in the PLC.
In the PLC, Lithuania was a poor agrarian province that paled in comparison to Poland, which was far more wealthy, developed and advanced than what Lithuania could come up with. In addition, Poland, as the bringer of Catholicism, was also the bringer of Western culture, so the Lithuanians of the time grew to think that Polish = Western and Lithuanian = primitive.

The reality was - due to the later conversion, the Lithuanian culture and literature were weak and underdeveloped, and most of the teaching and commerce and government was in more developed Slavic languages - first in Ukrainian/Belorussian, later in Polish.
This was part of the reason, yes, in OTL.

That did not change in your ATL
But it did.

In this timeline, Lithuanian literature started almost a century earlier and Lithuania was able to embrace Western culture without the need of a foreign overlord thanks to the Concordate of Brest. I think I emphasized this enough times.

@Augenis, did you read your link?

Because it proves me right and it proves you wrong:
No. You said this:

"And once again Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL."

You were not talking about Ruthenia in context of this sentence at all. You talked how the Lithuanians would be unable to assimilate even fellow Balts, and I gave an example that explained that they did assimilate fellow Balts IOTL, as stated here:

"In the early Middle Ages the consolidation of Baltic lands by the Duchy of Lithuania led to gradual Lithuanization and subsequent assimilation of neighboring Baltic tribes or their parts, including the Selonians,Jotvingians, Nadruvians and Curonians who shared religious, cultural, and linguistic similarities with the Lithuanians."
 
No. You said this:

"And once again Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL."

You were not talking about Ruthenia in context of this sentence at all. You talked how the Lithuanians would be unable to assimilate even fellow Balts, and I gave an example that explained that they did assimilate fellow Balts IOTL, as stated here:

"In the early Middle Ages the consolidation of Baltic lands by the Duchy of Lithuania led to gradual Lithuanization and subsequent assimilation of neighboring Baltic tribes or their parts, including the Selonians,Jotvingians, Nadruvians and Curonians who shared religious, cultural, and linguistic similarities with the Lithuanians."
You're right. My bad.
It was not correct saying of mine and I tried to make it right - I already edited the posts.

When I said "Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL" I meant only the periods mentioned in your ATL. I did not mean the "early Middle Ages" or the 21-st century, only the periods which you covered in your ATL.
Sorry for the wrong wording from my part, my fault.
 
You're right. My bad.
It was not correct saying of mine and I tried to make it right - I already edited the posts.

When I said "Lithuanisation never ever happened in OTL" I meant only the periods mentioned in your ATL. I did not mean the "early Middle Ages" or the 21-st century, only the periods which you covered in your ATL.
Sorry for the wrong wording from my part, my fault.
It's no problem. I make mistakes when arguing as well.

Anyway, regarding this entire argument, what I advise is waiting before making assumptions. One should remember that societies and governments are never static, and it's not a good idea to extrapolate on what Lithuania or any other country will look like by the end of the TL judging from what it is like at the moment.

I already follow this rule while writing this TL - after all, who in 1368 could have guessed that Lithuania would become a military dictatorship, and the HRE would turn into a centralized Reformist monarchy and then into a revolutionary republic?
 
But it did.

In this timeline, Lithuanian literature started almost a century earlier and Lithuania was able to embrace Western culture without the need of a foreign overlord thanks to the Concordate of Brest. I think I emphasized this enough times.
Yes, you did emphasize this enough.
And for you it seems important.
For me it doesn't.
First before Concordate of Brest the Lithuanians in your ATL had met with the higher 'Ruthenian' culture and the process of Ruthenisation had already started. In this ATL of yours this Ruthenisation was even more intensive than in OTL - in your ATL the Lithuanians got religion from the Ruthenians, Orthodoxy IIRC. I mean at least half of their religion the Lithuanians took from the Ruthenians.
So my point stays. The Ruthenian culture is as superior as the Polish culture as opposed to the Lithuanian culture. Give or take a hundred years - that doesn't change too much here.
 
Yes, you did emphasize this enough.
And for you it seems important.
For me it doesn't.
First before Concordate of Brest the Lithuanians in your ATL had met with the higher 'Ruthenian' culture and the process of Ruthenisation had already started. In this ATL of yours this Ruthenisation was even more intensive than in OTL - in your ATL the Lithuanians got religion from the Ruthenians, Orthodoxy IIRC. I mean at least half of their religion the Lithuanians took from the Ruthenians.
So my point stays. The Ruthenian culture is as superior as the Polish culture as opposed to the Lithuanian culture. Give or take a hundred years - that doesn't change too much here.
Thank you for your point of view.
 
I understand how it would be irritating a person like you, seeing as you said you are from Belarus
Well, I am not from Belarus.
My mom is.
But that makes me 50% Belorussian.
My Father's dad is a Ukrainian, which makes me 25% Ukrainian.

So overall in your eyes I am 75% Ruthenian and 25% Russian.
I guess, ye, some things are irritating for me in your ATL, I have to admit :)

* There's a village called Litviny (Литвины) not far from my mother's village in Belorussia.
** Belorussia has a soft place in my heart, it's like Ireland - it suffered severely throughout her history from the conquerors (including the Lithuanians); but it survived.
 
Last edited:
I think that there's not much of a point in arguing about this. Yes, Augenis has probably made some decisions for his TL that aren't the most realistic or likely - and I say that, as long as it makes the story more interesting, it doesn't really matter. I mean, which sounds more interesting to you; the story where the Lithuanians conquer Slavic lands, but hold onto their own identity which causes their empire to shatter later on due to Nationalism or the story where the Lithuanians conquer Slavic lands, get Slavicized and you end up with uber-*Russia?

As for this being a revenge timeline, well... I don't think it is. Yeah, Augenis probably allowed the fondness for his home country to affect his decision making and as such Lietuva is more successful than it would be otherwise, but I think this is perfectly normal. Anybody who likes their home country will probably be inclined towards wanking it a little in any TL they write. If Russian was writing a Belorussian timeline, he'd probably find himself making them a bit more prosperous than they realistically should be.
 
Last edited:
...but I think this is perfectly normal. Anybody who likes their home country will probably be inclined towards wanking it...
...as long as it makes the story more interesting, it doesn't really matter.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Let's play an exciting game "wank your home country".
That would be full of Lithuania colonizing India, Belarussia conquering China, Finland occupying all of Europe and Vietnam colonizing North and South Americas, making the Vietnamese language lingua franca of the world.

That would be a real fun... in the forum 'Alien Space Bats and Other Magic', of course.

As for this being a revenge timeline, well... I don't think it is.
As I said, I am not sure of that myself, but...
reread the lines of the Lithuanian genocide of the Russians in this TL, and you'll find out that these parts are the most picturesque you've seen in this forum this year - the blood literary freezes in your veins because it exceeds all the terrors that Tamerlane made in OTL (and it was not me, who noticed that, that was acknowledged by other forum members).
But maybe that's just a coincidence and the modern Lithuanians disliking the Russians has nothing to do with this... I don't know, maybe...
 
Last edited:
Special Chapter: A Political Revolution
576px-standard_of_the_presiden-svg-png.312700


Special Chapter

A Political Revolution - 19th Century Ideologies
One of the most influential developments brought by the Enlightenment was the creation of political theory. In the past, monarchs and democratically elected rulers would rule according to what they saw to be best for either themselves for their nation, not really caring about a specific agenda or "ideology". It all started to change in the 17th century thanks to the foundation of the Republic of France - unlike it's neighbours, France was a democracy, and it's politics were quick to develop into party rule. Each party or movement, like, say, the Reds or the Blues, represented an idea, rather than a person, and this laid the foundations for the development of concrete political ideologies. The Great German Revolution, meanwhile, was the spark that set the stage for a new age in political thought.

Politics was now not just an art or a job, but an entire field of science and psychology.

shield_png1273-png.326852


Symbols and colors of the three main ideologies of the 19th century - Protectionism, Republicanism and Unitarianism
To some, especially the aristocracy and the more reactionary parts of the masses, the Great German Revolution and the wars that proceeded after it were a time of horror. They would point to revolutionary terror under Maximilian Schwarzburg and the millions dead in the battlefields across Central Europe as proof of the dangers of radicalism and radical changes. This was the ideology of Protectionism, and it's primary ideologues was the French writer, entrepreneur and political figure Emmanuel de Tassigny. de Tassigny was a businessman from Wallonia and watched in terror as the German Revolutionary Army marched across the Rhine and beyond, spreading it's ideology across Central Europe. In his "Contemplations about the German Rebelllion", he wrote that "revolution and rebellion are, by nature, only destructive and counterproductive - within those events, radicalism thrives, and it always leaves blood in it's wake". It is in this book that he formulated the primary ideas of Protectionism, that in some shape or form have survived until this day: "protecting the old structures of society from dangers; moderate, calculated reform with as many positives and as little negatives; mutual trust between the government and the people". It is why the symbol of this ideology is a shield - it sees itself as a means of defense against radicalism.

Red and purple are considered to be primary colors of Protectionism, and while there have been many attempts to explain the reasoning for this pallet with symbolism, the main reason for adopting these colors was the French Red Party, one of the first political movements in Europe to adopt this ideology.

While some saw the Revolution as a threat to the ways of old, others hailed it as the beginning of a new era in human history and as a symbol of the battle against oppression. The Enlightenment saw the beginning of many ideas and problems that we would now associate with the ideology of Republicanism - universal enfranchisement, the need for basic human rights, establishing republics instead of absolute monarchies or oligarchies, so on and so forth. While it's name hints that it's main focus was reforming dictatorial regimes into democratic republics, it was just as prevalent in already established democracies, where it called for freedom, civil rights and liberty. Republicanism was born and forged in the short-lived Republic of Germania, and the Battle of Sopron and the Paris Conference did not end it's existence. After the Revolutionary Wars, the ideology was formalized by the Vespucian Frederik von Hejer and French Maximilian Robespierre, both philosophers and writers who sought to introduce Republican ideas to the masses. Later writers, like John Bradley, would tie free market economics to the ideology, relating it to the universal human desire for liberty and freedom, not just in politics, but also in economics.

Yellow and white are considered to be the primary Republican colors, representing liberty, equality and freedom, and many parties that adopted the Republican ideology have symbols associated with fire (like torches), much like "man's burning desire for freedom", or the dove, a symbol of purity, liberty and peace. With born Protectionism and Republicanism set in place, this breakthrough in political thought seemed to be over.

A third movement originated in the 1850s, however, and it was directly tied to the Industrial Revolution. The age of machines sharpened the differences between the rich and the poor, the common workers and the bourgeoisie, and the struggle between these two classes was what marked many conflicts in the 19th century. While entrepreneurs and aristocrats bathed in newfound wealth, many workers lived in awful conditions, with no security or government support, living off tiny wages and anything they can find in charities and on the street. Was this really what society should be like? Does our divided world need to stay divided. While thinkers who fought for the common classes have existed for centuries, the 19th century finalized this long development and led to the birth of Unitarianism. In many ways, this ideology was the result of one man - Theodore Weber. Weber was not a politician nor a philosopher - he was a biologist and spent most of his time studying insects and plant life. However, in his many years of studies, he came to a conclusion - the difference between man and animals is that unlike his fellow forms of life, man has purposefully divided himself into different groups that exploit one another, and Weber saw no purpose in this division of society. In his famous "Treatise on the Future of Politics", he gave the example of ants - there is no subjugation nor bourgeoisie exploitation in ant colonies, all workers in that society are completely equal, and thus they are able to build structures and destroy opponents many times their size. Extrapolating from this, Weber figured that the main thing that holds back human development is this class division, and should that "antiquated structure" be torn down and all of humanity were to be turned into an equal, free and united society with nothing separating one individual from another, then humanity will enter a new era of unmeasurable prosperity and power.

In his work, Weber mostly wrote about what he wanted to happen in the future, not what should be done to achieve such goals - and even though he planned a follow-up to the Treatise which would explain the path that humanity needs to take to achieve this perfect envisioned society, he died before he could finish it. Nevertheless, Weber's utopian ideas of Unitarianism spread across Europe like wildfire, and soon, parties following this new ideology began to crop up across the continent. However, the movement almost instantly fractured into sub-movements, as nobody actually knew how to accomplish this dream. The widest branch of the movement, called Democratic Unitarians, believed that the power of the upper classes can be weakened through the democratic process, especially releasing pro-worker laws like minimum wage, child labor bans and social security. Others, called Revolutionary Unitarians, believed that the perfect society can only be accomplished by destroying the old system and building a Unitarian society from scratch. The end of the 19th century saw a third branch of the Unitarian movement, which was a distortion of Weber's work, believing that the biologist was actually calling for national unity, chauvinism and the "purification" of society from minorities. The other Unitarian movements nicknamed them Purple Unitarians, as they believed that they were "infected" by Protectionist beliefs, represented by the purple color. While it started as a fringe movement among ultra-nationalist circles, it later became directly responsible for one of the bloodiest dictatorships of the 20th century.

The color blue, as the symbol of Unitarianism, is actually a reference to one of Weber's allegories, where he compared a future Unitarian society to the waves of the ocean - a united, unstoppable force that erodes even the strongest boulders and mountains.

---

The next chapter is going to be called "Rise from the Ashes"
 
Last edited:
As I said, I am not sure of that myself, but...
reread the lines of the Lithuanian genocide of the Russians in this TL, and you'll find out that these parts are the most picturesque you've seen in this forum this year - the blood literary freezes in your veins because it exceeds all the terrors that Tamerlane made in OTL (and it was not me, who noticed that, that was acknowledged by other forum members).
But maybe that's just a coincidence and the modern Lithuanians disliking the Russians has nothing to do with this... I don't know, maybe...
Alright, you've mentioned this enough times that I will have to explain myself.

When I was writing the events of the Great Russian Revolt and the Second Glinskiada, I had three reasons for writing brutality in mind:

First, it would be a way for me to paint the Russian revolutionaries as the side with the moral high ground. Which seems to have been successful, as you mention Lithuanian brutality in almost every single post you make that mentions Lithuania at all. It might sound paradoxical here, but I am actually somewhat sympathetic towards TTL Russians - I paint many of their leaders as heroes and martyrs, I describe the development of a Russian equivalent of the sisu, and I even created Volga-Russia as a way to not completely screw Russia over.

Second, I believe that in this day and age of AH.com, where almost half of the timelines posted are more or less worse and bloodier than OTL, people have gone numb to actual atrocities and how they affect others. It's simple to write about 15 nuclear explosions in World War II, or about mass genocides by simply posting the numbers of people killed, but it doesn't really make a reader actually feel shocked anymore. That's why I decided to go for a more personal approach, explaining the horrors of war in detail and with more actual realism. Have you noticed how many of the wars during this TL were followed by famines? That happened all the time in real history, but many writers in this site completely ignore that.

Third, and this might also be paradoxical, but I wanted to show the Lithuanians as the villains in this part of the story. You see, both in my country and across the world, few people know about how brutal Medieval Lithuania actually was. They hear about how Lithuania was conquered by Russia and had to free itself and immediately project that view onto the Grand Duchy - while in reality, they were far more like the equivalent of the Vikings in the 13th century. Raiders, looters, conquerors, basically what happens if you place an Early Medieval state in a Late Medieval environment. And it would be an interesting subversion to have Lithuania as the megalomaniac empire reigning over dozens of nationalities, instead of the tiny Baltic state with a huge inferiority complex, right?
 
Top