WI Muscovy did not conquer Novgorod?

Dmitri Travin has written, at rosbalt.ru, an interesting imagining of what Muscovy would have become had it not managed to conquer Novgorod, and after Muscovy eastern Europe.

"Let's return to our example. Remain Muscovy a small state, lost in the forests, no imperial syndrome of the Muscovites would not have arisen - just like the merchants-Novgorodians. Tatars would have endured the long times of greatness of the Golden Horde, but, unable to revive them, would also forget about the empire. Although, perhaps, part of the huge Polish state would be the lands of present-day Ukraine and Belarus. Accordingly, the imperial syndrome could be formed there, and not with us.

Now about Orthodoxy. Baptized us Vladimir the Holy long before the XV century - no doubt. But there are historical subtleties. On the western borders of Kievan Rus in the absence of a powerful Moscow power, the influence of Catholicism would be stronger. And it is not known, it would be possible in this case to survive the Orthodox faith in the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands. And Novgorod, having fought back in the 15th century from Ivan III, could have been influenced by Sweden in the second half of the 17th century - in the era of its unique dominance in the Baltic. And Lutheranism would spread not only among the "Finnish Finns", but also among the Ingermanlands, also grabbing the westernized Slavic merchants, who would like to be accepted for their own in the rich trading Europe. And then the milons would run around Novgorod in T-shirts with portraits of the Swedish reformer Olaf Petri, shouting at the top of his voice "Lutheranism or death!"

The Volga would remain predominantly Islamic. The North Caucasus is, too. And about Siberia, I do not even want to guess. Without Cossack conquistadors, it would be completely different. Which, by the way, would remove the problem of the resource curse from Muscovy, since it would not have any resources in it. And Novgorod would be struck by a fur curse, because the proteins would replace oil.

It is clear that the Russians would not have any anti-Semitism because of the total absence of Semites. And in the Ukrainian and Belarusian territories, in Lithuania and in Poland, this problem would clearly remain. And now the Grand Duke of Moscow would wholeheartedly support Brussels's calls for tolerance, criticizing Polish-Lithuanian xenophobes and asking for their civilization a soft loan in European currency to stabilize lean public finances.

Novgorod would have entered the European Union. Not because it was steep (it was only a trading outskirts of the Baltic in the Middle Ages), but because it would stand out for the better against the background of other Russian lands. Something like Slovenia stands out today against the background of other South Slavic states, as it has more contact with the West and has adopted its economic culture."​

Thoughts?
 
Okay so first of all, it's a huge butterfly net to consider that the EU would even form with a 15th century POD, not the least of which being that a part of the reason why the European Economic Confederation (predecessor to EEC) was even created was because of the Russian threat, which obviously would not exist in this scenario.

It's possible that Poland and/or Lithuania could replace Moscow as the premier power in Eastern Europe and could very well replace Russia in expansion to the east steppes, but I don't believe that they would have mirrored Imperial Russian xenophobia and anti-semitism. The conditions are really different, for one - Poland and Lithuania were considerably closer to the West both geographically and culturally, and historically they were beacons of tolerance in all of Europe in general, rarely, if ever, persecuting Jews, Orthodox and Protestants. And as Poland-Lithuania, if it ever forms, would be composed of dozens of nationalities, I simply can't see the same level of supremacism and cultural oppression which Tsarist Russia was famous for happening there.

And note "if it ever forms". It's likely that if Moscow remains weak and Novgorod doesn't attempt replacing them, Lithuania and Poland would never end up uniting anyway. The big reason for the Union of Lublin was the ongoing Livonian War, which practically forced the Lithuanian nobility to negotiate with the Poles in unfavorable conditions. No Russia = no Livonian War = no pressure on the Lithuanians to seek Polish help, so once Sigismund II dies, the personal union ends. It's likely that the Lithuanians would then elect one of their own, maybe a Radziwill, or a Sapieha, to prevent the Poles from electing the same King as them. Maybe a war between Lithuania and Poland could break out, but I see a continuation of the personal union as unlikely.

How the dynamic between an independent Lithuania, Novgorod and Moscow ends in Eastern Europe is anyone's guess.
 
I secon @Augenis's comments about the EU, Poland, Lithuania and anti-semitism

Concerning Novgorod, I personally fi nd it more interesting to explore the potential of its very own possible religious pecuiarities. Their elected and powerful archbishop is an interesting concept, come Reformation, and so are Orthodox heresies of the 15th c. Not just a copy od Sweden.

But what I feel is most relevant to comment on is the notion of quasi-natural Eastern economic underdevelopment and all the compensating Moments that go with it, as evidenced in the comments on Slovenia. the disparities were there in the 15th c., but Scandinavia was just as poor and underdeveloped. I don't believe in Weber here. I think the growing chasm of OTL owes to second enserfment in a cash-crop export-oriented aristocratically dominated manorial economy, and then later to the consequences of back-and-forth Transformation between market capitalism and state planning.

None of this is a fate carved in stone for EE.
 
If Muscovy doesn't not unify Russia, there is a HUGE power gap that will get filled in the East one way or another. It might be a Catholic Novgorod, a super-Commonwealth, Denmark/Sweden or even the Teutons, but sooner or later one of these powers will be breaking out into Siberia.
 
If Muscovy doesn't not unify Russia, there is a HUGE power gap that will get filled in the East one way or another. It might be a Catholic Novgorod, a super-Commonwealth, Denmark/Sweden or even the Teutons, but sooner or later one of these powers will be breaking out into Siberia.
I seriously doubt that the Teutonic Order would do such a thing. And I very much doubt that Novgorod would ever turn Catholic, and even less if it enters the Age of Reformation.
 
Even in OTL where Moscovy formed, there were fears of English penetration along the Northern Siberia river routes. Not sure how much of that was mere hysteria and how much was actual potential for England to penetrate, but the Pomors did form based around trade with Norwegian, Dutch, and English merchants. While the Pomors would still exist, without the backing of powerful Moscow with the power and will to defend 'their' areas of influence you might actually see northwest (and eventually eastern) Siberia being colonized. Don't think the Ob, Taz, and Yenisei Rivers are impossible grounds for a Hudson Bay Company type development.

Novgorod had already semi-sponsored Pomors to expand to their north and northeast, and had trading interests there. However it was geographically separated from the Siberian Route that OTL most eastward expansion was focused on. They'd have to develop a far more northern route. Not impossible, but with noticeable disadvantages.

Another option is Mangazeya type city-states forming. Moscow banned use of the northern Siberia river routes because of the threat of English penetration but also simply because it was impossible to enforce its authority and collect taxes on such remote trading centers. Without a strong central authority, you could see adventurers and traders establishing trading centers with no state authorization. Such an ad hoc eastern colonization would actually be interesting in their interactions with the natives and potential independence from the west.
 
I think you have to figure out a way around the Little Ice Age. It depressed northern populations significantly, and depressed northern food production even more. Novgorod was dependent on southern grain, its population hamstrung. I don't see a way around that?
 
@CaedmonCousland
You got any Text on these English-Muscovite rivalries?
It's a bit of a marginal topic. I originally learned of it from studying Norwegian history, as Christian II had sent a disastrous exploration trip to try and find the Northern Passage, and exploration during the Age of Exploration/Colonization. Pomors are also noted as trading with English, Norwegians, and Dutch. It's also historically recorded that in 1619 Moscow banned use of the trade routes down the Ob and Tax Rivers to Mangazeya due to fears of foreign penetration. The most I could get quick for you was a brief reference here
https://books.google.com/books?id=0...J#v=onepage&q=Northern Sea Route 1619&f=false

Just a quick mention of the exploration being done, Mangazeya, and the ban of 1619. Unfortunately, before I only did a quick wikipedia search for Mangazeya before that post. I rely on libraries for research, and so don't have books sitting around.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a English-Muscovite rivalry as Moscow securing itself in marginal areas. Moscow expanded through a route in the southern half of the Urals, and had little ability to project power in distant Mangazeya. It also couldn't hope to compete with the English or Dutch in naval matters at this time through Arkhangelsk. Just shutting down the entire market in a marginal area it couldn't control to prevent foreign participation, really. Without a power capable of doing that though there could have been greater foreign investment.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
How important was Novgord and Pskov for propelling Moscow on the route to greatness?
Does it really matter that much pre-Peter I?
Without Novgorod/Pskov - no wars over Livonia and an earlier/stronger push south and east?
 
Dmitri Travin has written, at rosbalt.ru, an interesting imagining of what Muscovy would have become had it not managed to conquer Novgorod, and after Muscovy eastern Europe.

"Let's return to our example. Remain Muscovy a small state, lost in the forests, no imperial syndrome of the Muscovites would not have arisen - just like the merchants-Novgorodians. Tatars would have endured the long times of greatness of the Golden Horde, but, unable to revive them, would also forget about the empire. Although, perhaps, part of the huge Polish state would be the lands of present-day Ukraine and Belarus. Accordingly, the imperial syndrome could be formed there, and not with us.​
Thoughts?

It is not happening without a dedicated and specific enough POD, Novgorod was too weak, and Muscovy was gaining too much steam. Muscovy was for a while the Golden Horde's tax collectors as a Yarliks and also hereditary princes of Vladimir granted to them by the Golden Horde which gave it power over other Rus Principalities. There is no way to stop a Russia even those benefits managed to go to another Prince without military intervention like in @Augenis's TL you are not going to stop Muscovy or any other principality from gaining momentum to form Russia. The Golden Horde was simply too weak and divided to enforce order to stop Muscovy, from rising.

How important was Novgord and Pskov for propelling Moscow on the route to greatness?
Does it really matter that much pre-Peter I?
Without Novgorod/Pskov - no wars over Livonia and an earlier/stronger push south and east?

It wasn't critically important that Muscovy/Russia would be drastically weakened without it, Novgorod was too divided really stand on its own as the city council was split between either pro-Muscovite or pro-Lithuanian factions. Without Novgorod, whatever this may mean, Muscovy still had plenty of power that it could go seize the Don Volga trade as in OTL, even without Novgorod, there would always be land to seize from Lithuania. Granted this all on what is meant by not conquering Novgorod, being able to seize most of its land but the city proper is under someone else's protection?
 
Top