speaking of Novgorod, how many ports on the Baltic did it have?
AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.
- Thread starter AllthetTropesMan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia democracy
I don't think Russia is a 'corrupt Democracy' as many seem to think. First of, in a classical oligarchy oligarchs are not killed (there were a lot) throughout all of Europe by your own agents, without any backlash in your own elites. I agree with you for the Russian Communists and Liberals, and Navalny was... special (I don't want to insult the recently dead though). And yeah modern meanings of what we know as 'liberalism' or 'democracy' are different (it's much like romantic, pre-1848 democracy and liberalism, merged into nationalism, collectivism and radicalism IMO).
And true for Putin and the West, I think he tried to mimic Chinese foreign politics during the 2000's but he soon realized that there were too many confliction points between him and the 'West', and the 2008's invasion of Georgia led to a new dynamic were their bilateral relationship got more tensed by each year until the true breaking point of 2022.
Since when Sarmatians were "Asian"? Sarmatians were Iranians, the part which didn't migrate to Asia and stayed in SE Europe, and in XVIIth century Sarmatists mostly thought that Sarmatians and Scythians were Slavs as well because it wasn't known yet that they spoke Iranian language.
I think Russia was as European in the late 19th - early 20th century as I think its ever going to be. Yet it still was regularly labeled by its political opponents as asiatic. I dont think thats ever going to change. Its size and population predestines Russia to be a Great Power at least in Eastern Europe - which also predestines it to have some political opponents in western Europe. And I suspect those will always find reasons to label it as asiatic.
Another potential way for Russia to go Catholic would be to nip Orthodoxy in the bud with the Seljuks and not the Ottomans (if Enrico Dandolo could do it) being the ones to take Constantinople before the Great Schism could truly solidify (IIRC, 1054 was something of a non-event), now you mentioned it.
Simple, no 1054. But with a PoD so far back it’s not going to be anything we would call “Russia”.
Even if that was the case, certainly an independent surviving Novgorod Republic would have made a difference and helped shore up its connections with the European world - particularly since (as far as I'm aware) it was never subject to Mongol rule.
Why would that make any difference? OTL Russia eventually got St. Petersburg, German czars and got completely absorbed into European politics, even getting a colonial empire as their western peers got in Americas. I don't think Moscow, Novgorod or any East Slavic state that could emerge are fundamentally different.
Last edited:
to modernize the country, thus avoiding what happened with Iberia, Poland and later the ottomans. adopting the most modern model of government and institutions. Russia before this was a gunpower empire similar to groups like the Ottomans and Mughals. What Peter did was remake the culture of the Russian elite (to a certain extent) by taking the culture (and more importante institutions) of Western and Central Europe (the most modern regions of Europe at the time) and using that as a model for a new Russia. He got inspirations from different areas: Netherlands, England and France in western Europe. Austria, Prussia and Poland-Lithuania in central Europe. Sweden and Denmark in Scandinavia.
Russia entered the power struggle later, when it broke its allegiance to the Mongols. But if we go by this, Iberia is not part of Western Europe, after all they were vassals of the Arabs until they expelled their oppressors in a similar way to the Russians.
I would say that what has really created a more fixed idea in parts of the world of Russia not being European is communism. After all, the Russian elite had German, French and English blood running through their ranks.
Russia especially in its imperial era was producing a large amount of philosophy and literature.
German philosophy was at the center of a dispute between Westerners, germophiles, nihilists. Is basically a pre-modern dispute between globalists, nationalists and moderates.
Last edited:
This is another term that doesn't make sense. If it's by religion the countries are Catholic or Protestant, if it's by color Argentina and Uruguay are whiter than the USA will ever be, if it's by wealth Argentina was richer than much of Europe (and Brazil normally remains in the top 10 largest economies), if it is size, Brazil is bigger than the continental USA. Russia has more to do with Denmark than Uruguay has to do with the Yucatan region.
My thinking is basically what if, instead of a single entity that called itself Russia, three was instead a continuation of the preceding situation, albeit a bit more consolidated, where there was more than one principality (or, in Novgorod's case, republic) that covered that same space without unifying into a greater whole. Hence, "Russia" is more of a cultural region for those areas (yes, including Kiev, Poland-Lithuania, et. al.) that were originally part of Kievan/Kyivan Rus. This conception of Russia would be more malleable and have some bits considered part of Europe before or instead of others, as different principalities understand their legacy of Mongol rule differently (or, to put it more specifically, have more parts of Russia that jettison the patrimonial state ASAP; Novgorod and Kiev, in this case, have a head start due to independence/affiliation with the Hansa or being part of Poland-Lithuania, respectively).
Novgorodian Republic (of course, nobody called it “republic”) was a dead end. Yes, it conducted a lot of trade with Hanse but that trade was one-sided: the Germans were bringing their goods to the city and carried purchases back home. They had a strictly defined settlement in the city and the cultural mixing was, AFAIK, quite limited. The only time when Novgorodians tried to adopt …er… “western warfare” was during their war with Ivan III. Their militia (seemingly the wealthy people who could afford the expensive stuff and, of course, they were mounted; no Flemish or Swiss style infantry) put on the heavy German armor and was defeated by a small detachment of the Russian & Tatar light cavalry. They were just shooting arrows at the horses with a predictable result: the heavy riders were “grounded” and taken prisoners. Neither did the city had an artillery superior to one of Ivan’s army.
The city, or at least the upper classes, was wealthy but it heavily depended upon the grain supplies from the outside territories to the East (which ended being Princedom of Moscow) and a big part of its merchandise (especially furs) was obtained by looting the dependent “Yasak” territories of the North East. The “civilized” part of its territory was quite small with no good chance to increase noticeably. Militarily it strongly depended upon the invited princes who were coming with their professional military bands and, with the rest of the Russian territories being steadily absorbed by Moscow on one side and Lithuania on other, the options in that area were shrinking.
Judging by the easiness with which the Princes of Moscow killed its trade after absorbing the city, it was not even critically important as reseller of the goods and, unlike Venice, it produced little (or nothing) of its own unique products.
Last edited:
This quotes just further prove my point. It is almost impossible for Russia to be western because nobody can state an irrefutable checklist of what it means to be Western and what countries are in it! How could Russia be Western when the "West" is just some nebulous concept that just boils down to "act like the way USA/UK/France, etc. wants you to act". The only way Russia can be unquestionably Western by all definitions would be if it became a colony of the USA or UK, but that isn't really possible with realistic PODs.
Here are some better thread ideas:
- Have Russia join the EU
- Have Russia become an advanced capitalist nation
- Have Russia become a liberal democracy
- Have Russia join NATO (although if Russia is an honest member of NATO, NATO doesn't need to exist).
- Have Russia become Protestant/Catholic
Don't forget the objective of the thread is not making Russia part of the West, but being recognized as part of the West.
That is, the whole point should be switch the views of the "West" but mainly the answers are "well, if Russia does what US wishes, maybe..."
Historically, one of the main reason Russia was considered 'other' or 'asiatic' (note the preciseness of the term) by the 'West' was because it was considered too dangerous and huge to be part of the traditional European balance of power. E.g: 1812, Russia vanquished Napoleon: Russia is the defender of the 'West' and 'civilization' against the French revolutionnaries / 1853, Russia invaded the Ottomans and try to take over the Middle-East: Russians are barbarians... I could continue all day, but you've got my point. Just to Say, if you want to make Russia be considered Western by the West, then make it a smaller country (no Siberia for example) and make it follow all 'Western' ideological changes (Absolutism during 17-18th centuries / nationalism during 19th century / liberal democracy during the 20th Century...).
And it would be much simpler and straighforward if Americans used a word other than "West" to describe their post WWII vassal states.
When Queen Victoria has a Russian great-grandson potentially ruling as Emperor of Russia, that's an indication that this country was fully accepted as part of Europe/West in this time period.
Last edited:
I would say it was only half-considered Western during certain Times. E.g: during the Crimean War, the 1878 crisis with the Ottomans, but for the vast majority of the time Russia was just the Easternest part of the West. TBH, for the 'Western' countries, the 'West' was/is used as a way to describe the 'civilized world'. So yes, when the UK, France, Germany, Austria... Didn't consider useful for them to portray Russia as an enemy, they considered it as a 'Western' nation (frankly, it seems normal, Russia is Christian, even if not Catholic or Protestant, has Big greek/Byzantine influence, just like the 'West' who adopted Ancient Greek philosophy, and Byzance itself could be considered 'roman', the Roman Empire had also left very Big parts of its legal system to the 'West', so yes, Russia is very close to being 'Western' IMO).
Indeed. It is often overlooked that during all period of its existence Novgorod did not bother to create a port on the Baltic coast. Seemingly, the merchandise was unloaded on the coast to be loaded on the Novgorodian river boats going to Novgorod (and then other way around). Not sure if these trade relations resulted in any noticeable adoption of any adopted technologies.
Ok, but then we have the definition problem, people using "West" meaning things like Christendom or details of the US current foreign policy.
What I'm saying is by being part of European monarchies system since the early 18th century, they were seen as part of "Europe" (and by consequence of the "West"). Queen Victoria descendants wouldn't marry into Ottoman, Persian or Chinese imperial families.
Last edited:
"Russia needed
As for the other three:
-Russia joining the EU would require a completely different trajectory and set of leaders after the fall of the Soviet Union, requiring that the nation as a whole abandon the path of shock therapy and instead transform its economy by integrating into EU trade systems; the question though is whether Brussels and Moscow would be willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt. It could easily turn into a situation like Britain the entry is met with a heavy degree of Euroscepticism due to historical differences in priority from the continent.
-Russia could become "advanced capitalist" if the 18th and and 19th century Romanovs had invested time in consolidating their autocracy in a way that broke apart the remaining power of the feudal lords and gave favors to low ranking innovators such as Lomonosonov and and his colleagues. By the later nineteenth century, decades of this pattern would leave the the aristocracy in a similar state to the British or French prior to 1789 (at the most) as well as pave the ground for Russian companies to compete alongside their continental counterparts.
As for NATO, I'm a doubtful it would even exist in recognizable form in a world where Russia was unquestionably western, but if you want a later POD where post Soviet Russia joins, then we'd have to see both Russia willing to form a team with the democratic capitalist block and an increasingly militaristic China and global south that is more willing to enegage in proxy wars against the west.
You're completely right to be honest; if CalBear is watching this thread he may want to add a new rule about the use of clarifying language, but on the other hand we wouldn't have this major discussion. As for what I honestly mean by west, Russia becoming Protestant (which raises the question of what a Protestant-style schism in Orthodoxy would look like) or Catholic would not help its reputation for long ecspecially after the rise of early modern European power politics
As for the other three:
-Russia joining the EU would require a completely different trajectory and set of leaders after the fall of the Soviet Union, requiring that the nation as a whole abandon the path of shock therapy and instead transform its economy by integrating into EU trade systems; the question though is whether Brussels and Moscow would be willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt. It could easily turn into a situation like Britain the entry is met with a heavy degree of Euroscepticism due to historical differences in priority from the continent.
-Russia could become "advanced capitalist" if the 18th and and 19th century Romanovs had invested time in consolidating their autocracy in a way that broke apart the remaining power of the feudal lords and gave favors to low ranking innovators such as Lomonosonov and and his colleagues. By the later nineteenth century, decades of this pattern would leave the the aristocracy in a similar state to the British or French prior to 1789 (at the most) as well as pave the ground for Russian companies to compete alongside their continental counterparts.
As for NATO, I'm a doubtful it would even exist in recognizable form in a world where Russia was unquestionably western, but if you want a later POD where post Soviet Russia joins, then we'd have to see both Russia willing to form a team with the democratic capitalist block and an increasingly militaristic China and global south that is more willing to enegage in proxy wars against the west.