What if the Mongols don't dominate the Rus?

This is taken from an idea I'm working on for my timeline, which goes roughly as follows:

Emperor Theodore I (no relation to Theodore Lascaris) beats the Mongols and they suffer a painful lesson in humility. The Rus principalities probably still suffer as they're in the way, maybe as badly as OTL. And the Mongols are still the Mongols.

But after Ogedei's death, the Mongols splinter, and the Golden Horde is less of an issue that it was - maybe it never really forms since a Mongol civil war between Batu and the others would be to the east.

So how do the Rus states evolve in this situation? The ERE isn't going to have any direct impact on anything - it has a foothold on the Crimean peninsula but that's it. On the other hand, not only are the Mongols less of a problem than OTL, the Center of Orthodoxy is still around and still a power as time moves on - so no Third Rome is coming in this timeline. But I imagine things will start to divert because of the different circumstances before this.

If the idea for the POD seems implausible, I'm all ears - this is part of a timeline meant to be a success story for the ERE, not a uber-ERE that dominates everything in the East and reconquers the West.

So while I think a severe defeat for the Mongols is entirely possible, crushing them entirely seems absurd. The civil war is just a matter of things working out worse than OTL - judging by most such threats, Hordes are more prone to splintering than uniting, and the possible Great Khans were not on the friendliest of terms.

Sources (in English please) for OTL history involving Russia in the 1200s to say 1500 would be appreciated as well.

Note: The ERE at this point is similar to that of Basil II, though without the Italian presence. The fact eastern interior Anatolia is more "vassal despotate(s)" and less "part of the state" should be noted, but its pretty firmly vassalized.

Using the Byzantine term since...well, I'm writing from a ERE-centric perspective on this timeline, for the most part. That and it seems likely that Turkish vassals drawn into the Byzantine (cultural) sphere will use more Greek and less Arabic.
 
Last edited:
Very confused - is Theodore I fictional? POD is what?

Are we saying that Basil II's empire less Southern Italy endures throughout the Crusades? If it did wouldn't the crusades be very different (obviously the fourth but the first three as well). Two hundred years of strong emperors and a vassalised Turkic zone for recruitment will be very much better for the empire (will they convert?)

Rus would also maintain their links to a much greater extent with Constantinople though mercenaries and trade and probably through a close religious link too. Arguably if the Byzantines get to the point where they haven't lost anatolia to the Turks in the early 1200's then they could be in a position where they are de facto leaders of Orthodox Christendom including the Rus - which would make for a much closer bond and could explain why they can give the Mongols a bloody nose.

However the same religious strength would be bound to result in even greater tensions with the Crusaders to the South.
 
Very confused - is Theodore I fictional? POD is what?

Are we saying that Basil II's empire less Southern Italy endures throughout the Crusades? If it did wouldn't the crusades be very different (obviously the fourth but the first three as well). Two hundred years of strong emperors and a vassalised Turkic zone for recruitment will be very much better for the empire (will they convert?)

Okay. Tell me if this is still insufficient:

The point of departure is 1143, with John II Comnenus living another three and some years instead of dying from a poisoned arrow in a hunting accident.

Theodore is John's great-grandson. So there have been only a bit over a century and a half of good emperors (1081-1240 or so currently), not counting Theodore's short lived brother.

Alexius II (Theodore's father), Manuel II Comnenus, (said brother) and Theodore I Comnenus are all fictional.

The success of the Comneni has regained control of Anatolia, though not driven out the Turks entirely - there is still a Turkish presence in the interior of eastern Anatolia. They're not all converted most likely, but the balance has been tipped in that direction.

The result is that the empire's borders, including its Turkish vassal/s, have been restored to about their 1025 extent, minus the Empire's possessions in Italy which were lost before the Komnenoi came to the throne.

So the first two crusades went essentially as OTL, the third was somewhat different, the 4th and 5th I haven't done any work on since I haven't planned out how things went differently in the third, but obviously no one has sacked Constantinople.

Rus would also maintain their links to a much greater extent with Constantinople though mercenaries and trade and probably through a close religious link too. Arguably if the Byzantines get to the point where they haven't lost anatolia to the Turks in the early 1200's then they could be in a position where they are de facto leaders of Orthodox Christendom including the Rus - which would make for a much closer bond and could explain why they can give the Mongols a bloody nose.

However the same religious strength would be bound to result in even greater tensions with the Crusaders to the South.
Well, the idea is that the Byzantine army is the only army this side of India that can give the Mongols a bloody nose - no one else has either horse archers or professional soldiers. Well, there were the Cumans, but they came up short on the "professional" and "leadership" aspects compared to the Mongols.

The Rus may or may not benefit from this in the short run.
 
Okay. Tell me if this is still insufficient:

The point of departure is 1143, with John II Comnenus living another three and some years instead of dying from a poisoned arrow in a hunting accident.

Theodore is John's great-grandson. So there have been only a bit over a century and a half of good emperors (1081-1240 or so currently), not counting Theodore's short lived brother.

Alexius II (Theodore's father), Manuel II Comnenus, (said brother) and Theodore I Comnenus are all fictional.

The success of the Comneni has regained control of Anatolia, though not driven out the Turks entirely - there is still a Turkish presence in the interior of eastern Anatolia. They're not all converted most likely, but the balance has been tipped in that direction.

The result is that the empire's borders, including its Turkish vassal/s, have been restored to about their 1025 extent, minus the Empire's possessions in Italy which were lost before the Komnenoi came to the throne.

So the first two crusades went essentially as OTL, the third was somewhat different, the 4th and 5th I haven't done any work on since I haven't planned out how things went differently in the third, but obviously no one has sacked Constantinople.

Well, the idea is that the Byzantine army is the only army this side of India that can give the Mongols a bloody nose - no one else has either horse archers or professional soldiers. Well, there were the Cumans, but they came up short on the "professional" and "leadership" aspects compared to the Mongols.

The Rus may or may not benefit from this in the short run.

So we lose Manuel's adventurism in return for a more defensive minded, gradual expansion (his older brother is a good candidate for this).

Try this link and it's bibliography

http://www.sras.org/the_effects_of_the_mongol_empire_on_russia
 
So we lose Manuel's adventurism in return for a more defensive minded, gradual expansion (his older brother is a good candidate for this).

Well, we do get it (since I'm trying to avoid too many changes until the 3rd crusade or so), but without quite as much damage - though Alexius II (Manuel's son, one of the elements hit by a butterfly - historically he was born at the end of the 1160s, here he's born earlier) still has to repair some of the things Manuel's adventurism broke.

But the period after Manuel is in that spirit (defensive and gradual), yes.

Thanks.
 
Top