WI: Vladimir the great converts to Judaism instead of Christianity

In the year 986, Vladimir the Great met with various religious representatives including Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews, he ultimately decided on Christianity as Islam was seen as unfit due to taboos against alcohol and Judaism due to their loss of Jerusalem along with other reasons which invalidated the two in his eyes, what if he instead chose to convert to Judaism?
 
Last edited:

krieger

Banned
In the year 986, Vladimir the Great met with various religious representatives including Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews, he ultimately decided on Christianity as Islam was seen as unfit due to taboos against alcohol and Judaism due to their loss of Jerusalem along with other reasons which invalidated the two in his eyes, what if he instead chose to convert to Judaism?

Than we would see crusades on Russia. But HRE could be interested in creating strong Poland as a shield protecting from Russia, so Boleslav the Brave could not be denied Bohemian throne by Henry II. @Jan Olbracht
 
Than we would see crusades on Russia. But HRE could be interested in creating strong Poland as a shield protecting from Russia, so Boleslav the Brave could not be denied Bohemian throne by Henry II. @Jan Olbracht
And a stronger Poland would definitely butterfly, i'm not sure how as i'm not that knowledgeable about this time period.

About the crusades how successful would they be, could we see crusader states forming in Russia like they did in the Middle-east? If they do how long would they last, could they become genuine Catholic/Orthodox Russian kingdoms?
 

krieger

Banned
And a stronger Poland would definitely butterfly, i'm not sure how as i'm not that knowledgeable about this time period.

About the crusades how successful would they be, could we see crusader states forming in Russia like they did in Middle-east? If they do how long would they last, could they become genuine Catholic/Orthodox Russian kingdoms?

It'd result in no Bohemia (Boleslav I the Brave was chosen a prince of Bohemia by Bohemians themselves and it was Henry II who denied Boleslav princedom). I'd say that some states could emerge in Novogorod area (but it'd be similar to Teutonic Order rule over Prussia or Sword Brethren over Livonia, not to Middle East), but majority of gains would go to Poland as a strongest Catholic neighbouring state.
 
It'd result in no Bohemia (Boleslav I the Brave was chosen a prince of Bohemia by Bohemians themselves and it was Henry II who denied Boleslav princedom). I'd say that some states could emerge in Novogorod area (but it'd be similar to Teutonic Order rule over Prussia or Sword Brethren over Livonia, not to Middle East), but majority of gains would go to Poland as a strongest Catholic neighbouring state.
That'd be a VERY stronk Poland(provided the Russians don't manage to revolt and break away) they'd be much more capable to fulfil any ambitions they might have, i don't know about what Poland's goals were in the high middle ages though.
 

krieger

Banned
That'd be a VERY stronk Poland(provided the Russians don't manage to revolt and break away) they'd be much more capable to fulfil any ambitions they might have, i don't know about what Poland's goals were in the high middle ages though.

It depends on how much gains they would get from crusades. But I'd say that Middle Ages would be dominated by eastwards expansion and conflicts (how ironic…) with Hungary, who could try grab a bit for itself too.
 
It depends on how much gains they would get from crusades. But I'd say that Middle Ages would be dominated by eastwards expansion and conflicts (how ironic…) with Hungary, who could try grab a bit for itself too.
so thicc poland, nice

About russia itself, with the religious divisions that would be created if the crusader states are successful in converting their parts of russia, when the Russians unite would they unite all ethnic Russians or would catholic/orthodox and Jewish Russians be separated, with all this crusader and polish influence the western parts could very well diverge into their own languages or at least very unique dialects given enough time and seperation.
 
Than we would see crusades on Russia. But HRE could be interested in creating strong Poland as a shield protecting from Russia, so Boleslav the Brave could not be denied Bohemian throne by Henry II. @Jan Olbracht

The concept of that sort of Crusade didn't exist in the 960s, and you can't make the Armed Pilgramage arguement for an area with no religious significance. Religious wars? Sure, but I doubt a few Polish and Magyar attacks will be enough to enforce conversion by the sword for the medium term.

Biggest problem will be convincing everybody else to adopt Judaism. The whole adult foreskin snip is a tough sell...
 
Than we would see crusades on Russia. But HRE could be interested in creating strong Poland as a shield protecting from Russia, so Boleslav the Brave could not be denied Bohemian throne by Henry II. @Jan Olbracht

The Kievan Rus of the X century was too far from the HRE to be a military consideration of any significance. Besides there was a pagan Lithuania between it and Poland.
 
It depends on how much gains they would get from crusades. But I'd say that Middle Ages would be dominated by eastwards expansion and conflicts (how ironic…) with Hungary, who could try grab a bit for itself too.

The Baltic crusaders attracted as many people as they could and created as many ‘crusader states’ as was technically possible. But there was a big difference between conquering the disorganized tribes (as did happen in OTL; Prussia took a while but Lithuania remained unconquered) and major wars against the states which are on the same level of a military development: the border wars between Livonia and Pskov/Novgorod had been dragging through a big part of the Middle Ages without any noticeable result.

The only country that was doing successful expansion eastward was Lithuania.
 
It would probably end up like the Khazars, with the elites converting but the masses not doing so.

Probably. However, taking into an account tha by the time of Vladimir there was quite strong pro-Byzantine ‘lobby’ among the Kievan aristocracy, the whole premise is quite unrealistic, outside the legend.

There is a theory according to which Svytoslav was trying to create a new state in Bulgaria to became independent from these people and the same goes for his reluctance to return home after defeat and a surprisingly small size of a band which was with him when the Pechenegs attacked (and perhaps a chance of them being ‘stimulated’ by Christian aristocrats of Kiev). Pressure kept growing during Vladimir’s reign.
 
In the year 986, Vladimir the Great met with various religious representatives including Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews, he ultimately decided on Christianity as Islam was seen as unfit due to taboos against alcohol and Judaism due to their loss of Jerusalem along with other reasons which invalidated the two in his eyes, what if he instead chose to convert to Judaism?

Vladimir’s free choice is a legend. By the time decision was made there was no serious competition to Byzantine Orthodoxy. Judaism, anyway, did not make any practical sense.
 

krieger

Banned
The concept of that sort of Crusade didn't exist in the 960s, and you can't make the Armed Pilgramage arguement for an area with no religious significance. Religious wars? Sure, but I doubt a few Polish and Magyar attacks will be enough to enforce conversion by the sword for the medium term.

Biggest problem will be convincing everybody else to adopt Judaism. The whole adult foreskin snip is a tough sell...


It is a long-term consequence. Hmmm...Poland and Hungary (while Poland was divided and weak, which isn't the case ITTL) basically conquered Orthodox Galitz and were forced to retreat only by quarell between Leszek the White and Andrew II. And Poland will have Bohemia ITTL (Henry II the Saint would be afraid of Jewish state this large and would not back Jaromir against Bolesław the Brave), so it makes bigger difference than crusades.

The Baltic crusaders attracted as many people as they could and created as many ‘crusader states’ as was technically possible. But there was a big difference between conquering the disorganized tribes (as did happen in OTL; Prussia took a while but Lithuania remained unconquered) and major wars against the states which are on the same level of a military development: the border wars between Livonia and Pskov/Novgorod had been dragging through a big part of the Middle Ages without any noticeable result.

The only country that was doing successful expansion eastward was Lithuania.


The biggest differences in this ATL are: Poland having Bohemia and tradition of passing of the crown from Bolesław I the Brave (if Russia is Jewish than Henry II the Saint wouldn't be prone to negate Bohemian's free choice and denying Bolesław princedom in Bohemia, he could even allow earlier coronation of Bolesław in exchange of his state joining HRE) and more Hungarian engagement.
 
I'm not sure him converting to judaism would be enough to stop the pressure of christianity coming from Greece. But it may create a more jewish-affected christianity among the ruling class perhaps, like in Ethiopia.
 
The main trouble with this is that the Rus' state had quite close economic, and to a certain degree cultural, political and military, ties to the Byzantine Empire so there was strong pressure to convert in order to strengthen those ties. We could imagine a scenario where the Byzantines are more heavily weakened and Islam is stronger in the Steppe putting the Rus' in a position similar to the Khazars where Judaism could be seen as a neutral option between the two camps, but under those circumstances they could just as easily decide to join team Islam or Team Christianity.

Biggest problem will be convincing everybody else to adopt Judaism. The whole adult foreskin snip is a tough sell...

That didn't stop the spread of Islam.
 
It is a long-term consequence. Hmmm...Poland and Hungary (while Poland was divided and weak, which isn't the case ITTL) basically conquered Orthodox Galitz and were forced to retreat only by quarell between Leszek the White and Andrew II. And Poland will have Bohemia ITTL (Henry II the Saint would be afraid of Jewish state this large and would not back Jaromir against Bolesław the Brave), so it makes bigger difference than crusades.

1st, this happened centuries after the reign of Vladimir and it took a Mongolian conquest to pretty much destroy Galitz (it was routinely used as a "staging area" for the Mongolian raids into Poland and Hungary) and disintegration of the Princedom of Galitz-Wolynia into the smaller princedoms for this to happen.
2nd, Galitz-Wolynia was a peripheral state (as was pointed out) only marginally relevant to the "Russian" affairs of that period and its conquest does not qualify as conquest of "Russsia".
3rd, it is absolutely unclear why would <whoever> be more afraid of a Jewish state than of an Orthodox state.
4rd, "Russia" at that time (fall of Galitz - XIV century) was not "a state" but a set of the princedoms vassal to either Golden Horde or Lithuania. An attempt by any person on your list to start a crusade would result in Horde's involvement. In OTL one such attempt took place but the crusaders lost all their enthusiasm as soon as they heard that the Khan is sending troops to defend his vassals.
5th, premises that all problems could be solved by the different marriages or that a medieval king of more than one country would have resources of ALL his countries in his disposal are a little bit too ...er... "optimistic".


The biggest differences in this ATL are: Poland having Bohemia and tradition of passing of the crown from Bolesław I the Brave (if Russia is Jewish than Henry II the Saint wouldn't be prone to negate Bohemian's free choice and denying Bolesław princedom in Bohemia, he could even allow earlier coronation of Bolesław in exchange of his state joining HRE) and more Hungarian engagement.

Poland would not "have" Bohemia. Bohemia and Poland would have the same king who would not be free to combine their resources just because he has an itch in his royal posteriors. Not that all these combinations would have anything to do with conquest of "Russia".

All this being said, the very premise is unrealistic.
 
The main trouble with this is that the Rus' state had quite close economic, and to a certain degree cultural, political and military, ties to the Byzantine Empire so there was strong pressure to convert in order to strengthen those ties. We could imagine a scenario where the Byzantines are more heavily weakened and Islam is stronger in the Steppe putting the Rus' in a position similar to the Khazars where Judaism could be seen as a neutral option between the two camps, but under those circumstances they could just as easily decide to join team Islam or Team Christianity.

If anything, example of the Khazars would clearly show that this is a bad option.

Islam probably would have a chance if Kievan Rus had stronger economic and cultural relations with Caliphate than with Byzantine Empire. But having Islam stronger in the Volga-Dnieper steppes may produce an opposite result because it would be closely associated with "the enemy". Besides, by converting to the Orthodoxy the Great Prince of Kiev remained a completely independent ruler (Patriarch of Constantinople was relevant only in the religious matters) while conversion into Islam meant (as I understand) recognition of Caliph's both religious and secular superiority.
 
Related question running with the idea of this scenario, but what impact would a Jewish Russian region have on Western Europe, I wonder? I mean, wouldn't having a Jewish state in the east provide a natural flocking point for those displaced after pogroms and the like? Could we potentially see a gradual exodus of the diaspora as they move to this region? If so, could that be what sparks a more wide scale conversion of the region's peoples?

I'm unfamiliar with the era and the region in detail, so any insight is warmly welcomed! :D
 
Top