Challenge: Ukrainian "Russia"

The challenge, with a POD after the Mongol conquest of Kievan Rus, have a state form that:

-calls itself "Russia" and sees itself as a successor to Kievan Rus

-has its capital in Kiev or another Ukrainian city

-has Ukrainian (or something recognizably close to Ukrainian) as its official, standard language

-eventually reaches a size and shape roughly comparable to the OTL Russian Empire

Go!
 
Poland-Lithuania does better in the 17th century and successfully transforms into the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, with the third component centered on Kiev. Over time large parts of Russia are added to the Ruthenian part. As nationalism develops, the Slavic parts of Lithuania leave it and also join Kiev which is becoming the Commonwealth's true center of gravity, having also incorporated Siberia by this point.
 
Is Ukrainian even really a separate language from Russian or is it close enough to be a "dialect"? I mean a lot of German and Italian dialects are quite different but they are referred to as dialects rather then languages.
 
Poland-Lithuania does better in the 17th century and successfully transforms into the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, with the third component centered on Kiev. Over time large parts of Russia are added to the Ruthenian part. As nationalism develops, the Slavic parts of Lithuania leave it and also join Kiev which is becoming the Commonwealth's true center of gravity, having also incorporated Siberia by this point.

If Poland- Lithuania is more successful, there might be no Ukrainian. On the other hand, if Commonwealth gets its "third nation", it might simply mean same thing as in Lithuania- slow, gradual polonization.

Split between Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian started during Mongol conquests. Later it's doubtful that these 3 cultures will merge.
 
IOTL, the main official language in PLC until late 17th century was (Old) Ruthenian, which is variously described as Old Ukrainian, Old Belarusian, an intermediate dialect of both, or an intermediate language that wasn't either. It probably counts as "recognizably close to Ukrainian" in that it's closer to OTL Ukrainian than to OTL Russian (though really differences in the East Slavic group are so minuscule as to border on dialectal, and were even smaller in the 17th century).
In a TL where the PLC includes large parts of Russia by then, it might keep Ruthenian as the main language (as much less of the population would speak Polish).
 
IOTL, the main official language in PLC until late 17th century was (Old) Ruthenian, which is variously described as Old Ukrainian, Old Belarusian, an intermediate dialect of both, or an intermediate language that wasn't either. It probably counts as "recognizably close to Ukrainian" in that it's closer to OTL Ukrainian than to OTL Russian (though really differences in the East Slavic group are so minuscule as to border on dialectal, and were even smaller in the 17th century).
In a TL where the PLC includes large parts of Russia by then, it might keep Ruthenian as the main language (as much less of the population would speak Polish).

Huh? Main language of PLC was Ruthenian, but only in terms of number of people using it. Nobility used mostly Polish, official language of Grand Duchy (as part of Commonwealth) was Old Belarusian (not Ukrainian), while official language of Crown lands (simply Poland) was Polish. Polish was used in official affairs, when Sejm convened, it was also only literate (in terms of art- as I said Old Belorussian was used as state language in GD too) language in PLC up until partitions.

My source is "God's Playground" written by Norman Davies as well as lecture about Belarus on my university (lecture is lead by Belorussian by the way).
 
Huh? Main language of PLC was Ruthenian, but only in terms of number of people using it. Nobility used mostly Polish, official language of Grand Duchy (as part of Commonwealth) was Old Belarusian (not Ukrainian), while official language of Crown lands (simply Poland) was Polish. Polish was used in official affairs, when Sejm convened, it was also only literate (in terms of art- as I said Old Belorussian was used as state language in GD too) language in PLC up until partitions.

My source is "God's Playground" written by Norman Davies as well as lecture about Belarus on my university (lecture is lead by Belorussian by the way).

Co-sign to this. From linguistic POV it is nonsense. Saying this as a Belarusian who majored in linguistics in university.
If anything, many consider Ukraininan language to be "just" a dialect of Old Belarusian, making even the case in point with existence of transient Polesye dialect spoken in the Pripyat drainage which has traces of both Belarusian and Ukrainian and is old enough to be explained not by geographic proximity.

The confusion might be created by the fact that the Old Belarusian (aka language of Statute of 1588) is named Ruthenian in English Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthen...tween_literary_Ruthenian_and_literary_Russian
 
Is Ukrainian even really a separate language from Russian or is it close enough to be a "dialect"? I mean a lot of German and Italian dialects are quite different but they are referred to as dialects rather then languages.

They are not entirely mutually intelligible (They would be even less, AFAIK, if most Ukrainians weren't schooled also in Russian anyway). Italian "dialects" are more far apart in some cases, but they should actually be called "languages" (and they are, for instance, in Ethnologue lists).
Dunno about German.
 
Co-sign to this. From linguistic POV it is nonsense. Saying this as a Belarusian who majored in linguistics in university.
If anything, many consider Ukraininan language to be "just" a dialect of Old Belarusian, making even the case in point with existence of transient Polesye dialect spoken in the Pripyat drainage which has traces of both Belarusian and Ukrainian and is old enough to be explained not by geographic proximity.

The confusion might be created by the fact that the Old Belarusian (aka language of Statute of 1588) is named Ruthenian in English Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthen...tween_literary_Ruthenian_and_literary_Russian

Yeah, I was under the impression that Old Belarusian and Old Ruthenian amounted to the same thing.
 
As far as I know, it is debatable whether Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian are different from each other, or from Old Russian from that matter. It doesn't help that Ruthenian is also a modern closely related language (Rusyn).
Unfortunately, the obvious way out would end up with a label like "West East Slavic", which, even ignoring the linguistic confusion, just sounds funny. Russian Wikipedia seems to use a term that would probably translate as Old West Russian, which might well be as good a simplification as any. (And most languages in the correct region seem to just use a word cognate to "Russian" and differentiate from modern Russian by spelling, which makes the situation even more muddled...)
 

whitecrow

Banned
The challenge, with a POD after the Mongol conquest of Kievan Rus, have a state form that:

-calls itself "Russia" and sees itself as a successor to Kievan Rus

-has its capital in Kiev or another Ukrainian city

-has Ukrainian (or something recognizably close to Ukrainian) as its official, standard language

-eventually reaches a size and shape roughly comparable to the OTL Russian Empire

Go!
Points 1 and 4 are already met by OTL Russia. Point 3 seems moot as during the Mongol conquests there was no Russian or Ukrainian language AFAIK and so a POD at this point might mean nothing "recognizably close to OTL Ukrainian (or Russian for that matter)" develops at all. So the only point we would really need to focus on is point 2 -- keeping Kiev as the capital of this "Ukrainian Russia".

Now from what I recall of history of the time is that the Mongols wrecked Kiev for resisting them while Moscow, over centuries managed to become powerful by sucking up to the conquers, eventually being allowed to collect taxes from the surrounding region on behalf of the Khans which meant that via a combination of skimming some of the tax gold meant for the Golden Horde and the the decline in power of the Horde itself Moscow grew into the center of an eastern slavic state.

So it seems if you get some clever Kievan princes they might try to do what Moscow did. Of course, Kiev is much closer to powerful Western nations like Poland-Lithuania which might hinder its development as an independent polity.
 
As far as I know, it is debatable whether Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian are different from each other, or from Old Russian from that matter. It doesn't help that Ruthenian is also a modern closely related language (Rusyn).
Unfortunately, the obvious way out would end up with a label like "West East Slavic", which, even ignoring the linguistic confusion, just sounds funny. Russian Wikipedia seems to use a term that would probably translate as Old West Russian, which might well be as good a simplification as any. (And most languages in the correct region seem to just use a word cognate to "Russian" and differentiate from modern Russian by spelling, which makes the situation even more muddled...)

No, no, no. Of course at some point these 3 languages were similar to the point of being different in very few points. But then Mongols came, wrecked everything and later left (they even reached Silesia!). Lithuanians conquered modern Belarus and modern Ukraine (whole it seems :p) plus parts of Russia proper. Possibly that's when these 3 languages probably started to split. Ukrainian most likely grew as well "thanks" to civilizational decline after Mongol conquests (eastern Ukraine was scarcely populated well until XVIII/XIX century). Last thing that added to differences was settlement of Ukraine by Polish magnates.

Still these 3 languages are quite similar today. After all, while Polish ethinc border with Belarus and Ukraine is pretty clear (thanks to communists), but it's pretty hard find border between Ukrainians and Belorussians.


Points 1 and 4 are already met by OTL Russia. Point 3 seems moot as during the Mongol conquests there was no Russian or Ukrainian language AFAIK and so a POD at this point might mean nothing "recognizably close to OTL Ukrainian (or Russian for that matter)" develops at all. So the only point we would really need to focus on is point 2 -- keeping Kiev as the capital of this "Ukrainian Russia".

Now from what I recall of history of the time is that the Mongols wrecked Kiev for resisting them while Moscow, over centuries managed to become powerful by sucking up to the conquers, eventually being allowed to collect taxes from the surrounding region on behalf of the Khans which meant that via a combination of skimming some of the tax gold meant for the Golden Horde and the the decline in power of the Horde itself Moscow grew into the center of an eastern slavic state.

So it seems if you get some clever Kievan princes they might try to do what Moscow did. Of course, Kiev is much closer to powerful Western nations like Poland-Lithuania which might hinder its development as an independent polity.

I don't know how could Kiev achieve this. Even if it's not wrecked by Mongol conquest, moment after Mongols leave (they'll most likely stay a bit longer if Ruthenians don't oppose) , Lithuanians are next in line. At best they get quite richer lands. And then we've union with Poland... It might mean that there won't be Cossack Hetmanate, or it'll be weaker in result, but I can't see how this might make Kiev grow again. Too much competition...
 
One thing that came to mind-what if we somehow make the Polish-Lithuanian union never happen or fall through? Lithuania likely converts to Orthodoxy and gets more involved in the politics of the other Russian principalities (since it now has a religious connection and can intermarry into their royal families). Furthermore, lets also say that Orthodox Lithuania conquers Muscovy at some point (perhaps they ally with Novgorod against them, and once Muscovy is gone, Lithuania gradually puppetizes Novgorod). Considering that the OTL Grand Duchy used Ruthenian as an official language, I imagine they'd be completely Ruthenianized ITL. Though considering the language debate above, this might lead to more of a "Belorussian Russia"...
 

Maur

Banned
Stronger Lithuania could lead to it. Needs two things - winning the competition against Muscovy so the path to the east is open, and eliminating (i mean, completely eliminating) Crimean Khanate, so the southern Ukraine is open for settlement and central Ukraine doesnt experience Tartar slave raids, both things required for it to be center of ruthenized Lithuania.

It doesnt even preclude the union with Poland, although it would likely require no transfer of Ukrainian land from Lithuania to Poland.
 
You're all right. Ruthenian was the original Latin name for Old Belarusian/Old Ukrainian, so in TTL it would be called simply Russian.

IOTL, the main official language in PLC until late 17th century was (Old) Ruthenian, which is variously described as Old Ukrainian, Old Belarusian, an intermediate dialect of both, or an intermediate language that wasn't either. It probably counts as "recognizably close to Ukrainian" in that it's closer to OTL Ukrainian than to OTL Russian (though really differences in the East Slavic group are so minuscule as to border on dialectal, and were even smaller in the 17th century).
In a TL where the PLC includes large parts of Russia by then, it might keep Ruthenian as the main language (as much less of the population would speak Polish).

Huh? Main language of PLC was Ruthenian, but only in terms of number of people using it. Nobility used mostly Polish, official language of Grand Duchy (as part of Commonwealth) was Old Belarusian (not Ukrainian), while official language of Crown lands (simply Poland) was Polish. Polish was used in official affairs, when Sejm convened, it was also only literate (in terms of art- as I said Old Belorussian was used as state language in GD too) language in PLC up until partitions.

My source is "God's Playground" written by Norman Davies as well as lecture about Belarus on my university (lecture is lead by Belorussian by the way).

Co-sign to this. From linguistic POV it is nonsense. Saying this as a Belarusian who majored in linguistics in university.
If anything, many consider Ukraininan language to be "just" a dialect of Old Belarusian, making even the case in point with existence of transient Polesye dialect spoken in the Pripyat drainage which has traces of both Belarusian and Ukrainian and is old enough to be explained not by geographic proximity.

The confusion might be created by the fact that the Old Belarusian (aka language of Statute of 1588) is named Ruthenian in English Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthen...tween_literary_Ruthenian_and_literary_Russian
 
One thing that came to mind-what if we somehow make the Polish-Lithuanian union never happen or fall through? Lithuania likely converts to Orthodoxy and gets more involved in the politics of the other Russian principalities (since it now has a religious connection and can intermarry into their royal families). Furthermore, lets also say that Orthodox Lithuania conquers Muscovy at some point (perhaps they ally with Novgorod against them, and once Muscovy is gone, Lithuania gradually puppetizes Novgorod). Considering that the OTL Grand Duchy used Ruthenian as an official language, I imagine they'd be completely Ruthenianized ITL. Though considering the language debate above, this might lead to more of a "Belorussian Russia"...

In this case, it could be tied in with a surviving Novgorod Republic, with all the butterflies and implications. Could the surviving *Russia/*Lithuania adopt the veche system from Novgorod?
 
The challenge, with a POD after the Mongol conquest of Kievan Rus, have a state form that:

-calls itself "Russia" and sees itself as a successor to Kievan Rus

-has its capital in Kiev or another Ukrainian city

-has Ukrainian (or something recognizably close to Ukrainian) as its official, standard language

-eventually reaches a size and shape roughly comparable to the OTL Russian Empire

Go!

As it has been pointed out above in this thread it would have been extremely difficult to do even impossible without the help of extraterrestrial flying mammals.

But on the other hand there is such thing as the Great Man. The Mongols before Chengiz Khan were a miserable bunch of nomads badly suffering from most of their neighbors. But after Chengiz Khan they became world conquerors.
So if we give the Ukrainians the Great Man of similar charisma that might help.
The best shot the Ukrainians made was under Bohdan Khmelnytsky - the so called Khmelnytsky Uprising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnitsky_Uprising
He was good. I'll give him that. But not good enough.
So let's make him as talented as Napoleon, Caesar, Chengiz Khan all put together.

So he wins all(!) his OTL battles against Poland. He devastates Poland killing, burning right and left together with his ally Crimean Tartars. And at some moment he realizes that Poland is so depopulated that this country will not be a threat for generations to come and he starts to look thoughtfully at the Crimean Tartar Army which is happily plundering nearby.
And one day he treacherously attacks it after giving some gifts or something and massacres these natural enemy of the Ukranian people killing the Khan and all the prominent beys.
The remnants of butchered Tartars are fleeing to steppe from Poland through Ukraine harassed from all sides by the Cossacks and peasants.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky makes a treaty with what left from Poland. This treaty is humiliating for the Polish honor but they are happy that Ukraine is distracted by the Crimean Tartars and so able to keep its souverenity.
And there goes a long Crimean War where Bohdan Khmelnytsky annihilated the nomad threat which hung over Rus for so many years. He gloriously defeated the forces of Ottoman Turks and so gained a worldwide reputation as a general.
Most of the Tartars are murdered, some sold to slave markets of Porta. But some Tartars smelled the winner and switched sides before the end of the war. These Tartars as Lipka Tartars of Poland became some kind of warrior caste inside the Ucranian state they were settled all over Ukraine and since then played an important role in the Ukrainian army as light cavalry which was so needed. And they were loyal personally to Khmelnytsky and his dynasty and somehow couterbalansed the Cossacks.
By the end of the Crimean War Bohdan Khmelnytsky was no longer a Hetman. He became a ruler of Rus, a champion of Orthodoxy, a hegemon in Slavic world.
I am not sure if he would call himself tsar, Caesar at this time. The Ukrainians are closer to Europe and they would not want confrontation with HRE because of this title. I think that Bohdan Khmelnytsky would style himself after the kings of Poland, his role model in titulature and court manners.

And now comes the most interesting part - most naturally Bohdan Khmelnytsky feels himself as a leader of all Rus. Kiev is an ancient capital of Kievan Rus and all that stuff. And that does not meet an understanding in Moscow for obvious reasons.
The clash is inevitable and choosing the right moment Bohdan Khmelnytsky invades Moscow Russia with the biggest army this part of the world ever seen. Of course the Muscovites give him a few battles and some cities resist the invaders. Of course Khmelnytsky wins these battles. But contrary to his reputation of ruthless conqueror in Orthodox Russia he shows himself as a most merciful Christian - he personally help the wounded Russians and publicly cry that he is so sorry that Orthodox Christians have to kill each other in this war.
That strikes the cord and Moscow surrenders without a fight. Even a tsar with his family goes to Bohdan Khmelnytsky and asks him for mercy which is granted.
The Sobor of all Russia is gathered and the former tsar publicly abdicates and ask all the land to make Bohdan Khmelnytsky the tsar of all Russia. There are a lot of miracles which prove that Bohdan Khmelnytsky as a champion of Orthodoxy who defeated innumerable hosts of the Polish Catholics and Muslim Tartars is the true tsar destined to rule over all of Rus.

Since then Kiev is the capital of all Rus and the place of Orthodox Patriarch. Some of the Moscow boyars are ordered to live there taking all their riches with them.
The rest of his life Bohdan Khmelnytsky devotes to consolidate his power over his vast Empire. There were a few riots in Russia after one of which all the family of the previous tsar was secretly executed by the angry Khmelnytsky. The defeated Russian rebels were moved in mass to settle the newly conquered Crimean lands and the Crimean Tatars were given lands in Russia.
But it was not the time of nationalism. The Moscovites did not use the word "Russians" for self identification, they used the world (Orthodox) "Christians".
So "us and them" was not "Russians against Ukrainians" it was "The Orthodox against Non-Orthodox".

I am not sure though that this country would be called "Russia" though. Probably it would be close to "Rus" or something like that.
 
The challenge, with a POD after the Mongol conquest of Kievan Rus, have a state form that:

-calls itself "Russia" and sees itself as a successor to Kievan Rus

-has its capital in Kiev or another Ukrainian city

-has Ukrainian (or something recognizably close to Ukrainian) as its official, standard language

-eventually reaches a size and shape roughly comparable to the OTL Russian Empire

Go!

OK. Let's try it from another angle:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus_(name)
""Rus'" as a state had no proper name; by its inhabitants it was called "rusĭska zemlya".(русьска(я) земля) (with rusĭska alternatively spelled russka, rus'ka, and most often ruska[citation needed]), which might be translated as "Land of the Rus'". The word "rusĭska" is an adjective: the morpheme -ĭsk- is cognate with "-ish"; -a marks feminine adjectives (namely, zemlya, "land", is grammatically feminine in Slavic). In similar fashion, Poland is called Polska by its inhabitants, that is, Pol-sk-a, originally being the adjective Polish (land).
"
So- it won't work. It won't be called Russia for 99%, unless something incredibly... incredible happen, making Ukrainians call themselves Russians.

2. Easy enough- Kiev was once most populous and prosperous city in whole eastern Europe (apart from Byzantine lands- but it's obvious).

3. Modern Ukrainian is recognizable for Russians as well as Belorussian (and vice versa). At least that's what our guide said when I visited Ukraine 5 years ago (maybe something changed since then? Apart from borders that is :p)

4. No Mongols. This might make Poland most west- orientated (invasion has seriously thwarted our progress to recover from feudal fragmentation), while Kiev might simply become consolidator among Russian principalities. Without Mongols these three cultures might not become distinct from each other sufficiently to became different cultures.
 
Top