"What If" Thread: What If Novgorod had repulsed and Conquered Muscovy?

[Vrylakas]

Some Western historians have wondered about this: What if the merchant-dominated Novgorod had managed to resist Muscovite attempts to conquer them?

Novgorod was a merchant city-state with extensive trade relations across Europe and a strong European orientation with a decentralized political system. Moscow was an autocratic and expansionist state ruled by boyar landowners. The rivalry and power struggle that took place between these two early proto-Russian states in the 15th century is seen by some modern historians as a struggle between two very different Russian traditions, that of the well-connected trader vs. the hermitic autocrat. Moscow overcame Novgorod with much slaughter and went on to define Russian history for centuries to come (with its area of expansion interest being in the Caucasus and Central Asia while it abandoned Novgorod's extensive contacts in the Baltic), but some wonder whether Russia may have developed very differently had Novgorod been victorious. Moscow gave Russia Ivan Grozny ("The Terrible"), the Oprichnina (extensive system of secret spies and police), autocratic rule over rule of law, and ultimately it would take another two centuries until Russia would truly join the rest of Europe under Peter I the Great.

Others may claim that this is a very simplistic theory and a Novgorod Russia may not have been very different, but I think their traditions are quite starkly different.

What does anyone think? Imagine Russia parttaking in European affairs, trade and diplomacy extensively in 1500 rather than 1700?

 

[Hitro]

Double post due to a "too many connections" problem...

 

[Hitro]

I could well have been for the better of Europe and the world. Okay, my Hansetic sympathies may bias the view , but a trade and diplomacy oriented Russia (or whatever name they would have chosen) could have made a very different impact.
Another possibility is of course that it would have fallen to agressive neighbours sooner or later.
If that wouldn't have been the case it may have resulted in Russia being much quicker in advancing technologically. They could have industrialized faster, unlike in reality.

 

[Hamlet]

Novgorod could have made Russian history a lot different. Novgorod was almost the polar opposite of Muscowy in many ways. Certainly, I'm not saying I would forsee some sort of ultra-liberal Novgorod by any means. But I have a hunch Novgorod would have made Russia a lot more moderate and 'westernised'.

 

[Hamlet]

Would make an interesting AH.

 

[Vrylakas]

Hitro raises a good point, that Novgorod's lack of Moscow-style militarism may have left it and Russia open to external invasion. Not to over-simplify, but it seems a bit like an Athens-vs.-Sparta rivalry, and we all know who won that one...

Would a Novgorod Russia have dominated the Baltic, perhaps joined or competed seriously with the Hanseatic League? Would Russia perhaps have learned to exploit its natural resources much earlier and more effectively than it did, challenging Western Europe economically? Fichte travelled to the American West in the 19th century and claimed in his Lebensraum theory that the U.S. was building an internal empire that gave it the wealth the British and French derived from their colonial empires. Would a Novgorod Russia have been able to similarly harness the vast resources of Siberia to build an economic giant?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Had Novgorod dictated Russia's future, I don't foresee this mercantile state expanding much beyond the Urals or even reaching the Urals, considering all the peoples scattered around European Russia in those times. Siberia and further east would probably be unclaimed or remained under native/nomad rule.

IMO, it took Muscovite expansionism and brutality (need for land and more land/serfs etc) to stretch Russia into the wildlands of the East and South.

A Novgorod-led Russia would expand westwards instead, to consolidate its trade connections with the West, I think. And to deal with threats to its trade in the West as well (Sweden, Poland etc).

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Excuse me, but I'm sure - Novgorod just didn't have any chance at all. It was really important city in IX-Xi centuries due to constant flow in Northern Knights that was driven from their land by Olaf the Fat (or Thick?) in Christianity establishing process. While this input took place Novgorod's military was just superior for Russian standarts (Vladimir, Jaroslav or Jarizleif by Varangian tradition rules are examples of this process). No military in Russia of that times could overcome this Viking' stream.
But in ending of XI - beginning of XIII century we got total different picture - Scandinavia is Cristianized completely & Russia (especially Novgorod!) didn't get military support from the Europe. But other Russian states got really heavy support from Byzanthium. This state had got really bad affairs against Catholic majority of Europe & began looking at Russia as backing power of their jealous Orthodoxy fight against Catholicizm. Then we got mighty batches of Byzanthium Knights that come in to Russia for helping to overcome enemies of Byzanthium friends. Most important friends of Byzanthium was Vladimir Monomach & his sons - especially Juri Dolgoruky (that found Moscow in 1147) because Juri was Vladimir youngest son & this son got all "mother heritage" by Russian customs of that times. Juri became Great Prince of Russia in his time & his sons - Andrej & Vsevolod became Great Princes as well. Any of these three Leaders got Novgorod by force due to effective & liberal usage of Knights of Byzanthium origin.
Don't forget that it were times of Fourth Crusade! All Byzanthium Knights outlived this massacre must get some bay anywhere - & Orthodox Russia was best & safe Harbor!
Then regular massacring of Novgorod populace by her Eastern neighbors began very earlier then Moscow establishing as "big power" (on 200 years to be exact!). Famous Alexander Nevsky (who won couple battles against Sweden in Neva & big war against Teutonic Order by sacking Dorpat & mightily trashed Grand Duchy of Lietuania in 40-50 of XIII century began in Novgorod as Commandant of Vladimir military garrison in this subdued city. Novgorod uprised couple of times against Alexander & his father - Great Prince Jaroslav Vsevolodovich of Perejaslav, but Knights of Byzantium origin saved them - Novorod were "cleansed" with mass-executions three times around!
I think it was battle between Orthodoxy & Catholicism in some sense & Orthodoxy got upper hand in very bloody manner.

These Novgorodians just hadn't any chance - any chance indeed .

Sincerely yours, Alex

 

[Vrylakas]

You pointed out siomething that I forgot to consider, A_Bashkuev; the constant struggle between eastern "Orthodox" and western "Catholic" Christianity in Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia.

For centuries Poland unsuccessfully attempted to convince its fellow European Christian states that Russia practiced a Christian heresy bordering on paganism, requiring a crusade. (Nobody outside of Poland bought it.) The Orthodox church was a "legally" recognized religion in Poland (with nearly one-third of its subjects practicing Orthodox Christians) but zealots in Kraków never ceased attempting to convert the Orthodox. They scored a partial success with the creation of the Uniate Church in the late 16th century, convincing many Ukrainian Orthodox to at least recognize the Pope's authority in Rome instead of the Russian Patriarch in Moscow. (The Habsburgs did something similar in Transylvania later among Romanian Orthodox.) When the Poles took Smolensk the first into the conquered region were the Roman Catholic priests. The Catholic clergy played a big role in scuttling the proposed Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian union in 1569, managing to exclude the Orthodox Ukrainians from what eventually became the Union of Lublin.

It is sometimes forgotten today how important the religious divide was in medieval European history. A non-Orthodox Novgorod standing victorious would have changed a lot! As you say though, it was too far removed for the western Christians to bother helping it while Byzantium was quite willing and able to intervene. Many states in Europe flopped back and forth between western and eastern Christianity - the Czech lands, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, southern Italy - all at one time or another switched allegiances between Rome and Constantinople, with the usual subsequent flood of priests.

Very well written! I was hoping for some Russian input...

 

[Bifrost]

Reading the thread I realized that the thing we call "pravoslavie" foreigners call "orthodox" ...*sigh* ... disgusting.

Actually, Alex is right, and Novgorod couldn't resist Moscow's attacks unless all the Rurikovich dynasty was kiled or there happened a nuclear bombardment of Moscow in XIII or XIV century. But in that case Novgorod conquered Moscow, and ...oohhh! - thinking about it scares me: modern Russian southern border lay somewhere on the Briansk - Tula latitude. (it scares me because I live in Voronezh ) - I think that way, because Novgorod had never been an expansionist country, and its borders wouldn't change much since the times of joining of Moscow lands. Well, I realize that my last phrase was controversial, and I can easily change my point of view, if there appear some facts on the thread, but I think that uniting Novgorod's and Moscow's lands was inevitable, because it is abnormal for two countries with the common language and similar culture to remain independent in a large period of time.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Vrylakas!

Post deleted

 

[Bifrost]

Alex, what happens to 40% of your messages? It is too hard for me to understand how it is possible to delete such huge messages you write, if numerous disconnections is the problem, I advise you to use "back" button, and always copy the part of message you've already written, as often as it is possible.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Bifrost!

I killed them myself due to realizing that part of them is just rubbish. In this case I tried to flood about Ukraina situation with really many Faith & Religions made really strange impact on each other, but - it's have no any link to Novgorod situation. Then I delete it.

OK. I explain - I read Vrylakas message & made my own flaming about Ukraine - in XVII century this country became great battlefield between Catholicism, Orthodoxy & Islam (Western, Eastern & Southern Ukraina respectively) & Bogdan Khmelnitzky as "Turkish Getman" in "Three Getmans war" won from "Moscow Getman" Krasnitsky before coming to Russian side & harsh cleansing of Southern Ukraine form ethnic Ukrainians having Muslim Faith & welcoming by Count Vorontsov )Odessa Governor) -"Polish - Dark Jews" for his own political reasons (he needed jewish support against Benckendorff family influence who were leaders of "German - Light Jews" of Riga - Voronstov & Benckendorff families was most rich & influent clans in international trade of Russia in end XVIII- beginning XIX centuries, then - Polish Jews were "dropped" by other political reasons - "Pogroms" of political "unnecessary" Jews - bla-bla-bla etc. etc.
Short speaking - great flaming about nothing ...
Just flood...

Sincerely yours, Alex.

 

[Vrylakas]

A_Bashkuev:

I don't think you "flamed" Ukraine in your posts. It is a historical fact that Ukraine's history is riddled with religious questions and strife. At the end of the 17th century I know Polish Ukraine had over 100 mosques functioning (mostly for Tartars), Kiiv/Kiev/Kijów under Polish rule never stopped having Orthodox churches. Also, a little known fact nowadays is that 16th and 17th century Poland had a very large Protestant population and they also attempted to set up communities in Ukraine; Poles overwhelmingly embraced Catholicism as a part of their identity only after the 1772-1795 Partitions when (Orthodox) Russians and (Lutheran) Prussians took over most of the country.

The poor Ukrainians; we all (Poles, Russians, Turks, Tartars, Habsburgs) spent centuries trying to convert them to our respective religions...

Bogdan Chmielnicki (Bohdan Khmyelnyitzky) and the 1648-1667 rebellions in Ukraine are a strange picture that many modern nationalists from all sides try to twist to suit their agendas. Polish peasants often joined Ukrainian peasants in their revolts against the Polish szlachta ("Pany"), Tartars fought on both sides, although revolting against Polish mis-rule the Zaporozhe Sech went into official mourning when the Polish king Wladyslaw IV (Waza) died in 1648 and sent official condolensces, all sides indiscriminately trashed virtually any village or town they came near, Chmielnicki at different times before his death declared allegiance to Poland, the Ottoman empire and Russia.

Bifrost wrote:

Well, I realize that my last phrase was controversial, and I can easily change my point of view, if there appear some facts on the thread, but I think that uniting Novgorod's and Moscow's lands was inevitable, because it is abnormal for two countries with the common language and similar culture to remain independent in a large period of time.

The German states managed for centuries to live apart. After the Thirty Years War, the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" consisted of hundreds of independent states and city-states. There are English-speaking countries all over the world, and arguably French and Spanish as well. Historical India is today split into 3 (or 4 if you include Nepal) countries. There is a big political argument that has manifested in these forums over whether there is one or two Chinas...

Your point is well taken though. You'll understand that others may not be so sad about a non-expansionist Russia, but it is probably highly likely that Novgorod and Moscow would be united at some point. I am wondering if that infers that only Moscow could have united the two though? Alex's argument that MOscow had more immediate supporters through Byzantium seems to suggest that. Had Novgorod prevailed, would Siberia have been settled by Russians? Would Ukraine have been absorbed completely by Poland, Lithuania or the Ottoman empire?

Our history books typically tell us that our various nations (naród, volk) formed over time the states that represent them, but I believe it happened the other way around - that because a feudal Polish state was formed sometime in the early 10th century, it collected all the Slavic (and non-Slavic) tribes under its control (who otherwise may have formed states of their own or been absorbed into surrounding states) and eventually forced a kind of cultural and linguistic standard on them that gave birth to a Polish nation. In this sense, do you think that a Novgorod victory - with the apparent belief that Novgorod was too passive to extend its territory - might have meant that a Russian identity might never have formed? This I guess is the core of my question; how much is Moscow's history a core of Russian history? Could Novgorod, or any other "proto-Russian" state have done the same as Moscow in forming the Russian state?

 

[Bifrost]

I killed them myself due to realizing that part of them is just rubbish. In this case I tried to flood about Ukraina situation with really many Faith & Religions made really strange impact on each other, but - it's have no any link to Novgorod situation. Then I delete it.

The thing that really irritates me here on CFC is that everyone's trying to limit himself when the conversation changes the topic. I think it is better to finish with those secondary questions before returning to the headline one, being limited to express the things you really want to express feels really baaad! BTW, isn't it hard to talk about questions of religion for a technically educated ( =(?) atheist person) ?

It is a historical fact that Ukraine's history is riddled with religious questions and strife.

And it is not a cause of full value for Ukranians to whine at every corner about the injustice of history and to feel anger and hatred towards Russia, Poland, Turkey (but especially!Russia) ...etc. Going on like this Ukraine is doomed to divide itself. But that is the topic for another thread, I think the question of difference between two banks of Dnieper is veeery interesting.

The poor Ukrainians; we all (Poles, Russians, Turks, Tartars, Habsburgs) spent centuries trying to convert them to our respective religions...

The poor ukrainians - the artificial nation;.. the degenerate nation. Just imagine how it was: dividing a country ( it doesnt matter, if "a country" is a variety of states ), with the definite single culture, on two pieces. Kyev - the center of Rus culture was lost to Lithuanians, still infidels in some generations, what is a country without a capital; damn, why don't you pity Russia in XIV-XVII, at least ukranians had Kyev, Russians had dirty village of Moscow.
Yeahhhhhhhh... artificial nation. The spirit of native orthodoxial traditions was wiped out from the territory of Ukraine. Ukrainian history starts from the period of Lithuania's Rise, because Ukraine is a land of half-strangled orthodoxy and premature catholicism. Since in the XIII century the Chernigov, Kyev, Turov, Galich, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk lands were destroyed as independent lands, they were destroyed as cultural valueable territories, they turned into lands without face, the fertile ground of Rus mind was plant with oaks of orthodoxy, but Lithuanians chopped them down to plant there something else without rooting out the ortodoxial stumps; a couple centuries was enough to convert "fertile Rus mind ground" into the cultureless Ukrainian desert. What is Ukraine? If you think that there was some "Ukraine" before XIII century, you are mistaken - that was the single "Rus state" with peoples having common culture, the real Ukraine had never been the real country. Could you consider the state of Don cossacks the real state, if it appeared, the state of full value. Ukrainians formed as barbarians, that had in common with Krymean Tartars much more than they had in common with Russia. It is haarrrrd to express everything I think about - my brain spawns the ideas, but they fly away so rapidly, that I can't remember their real essences, that is why my messages remind a number of incoherent phrases.

Your point is well taken though. You'll understand that others may not be so sad about a non-expansionist Russia, but it is probably highly likely that Novgorod and Moscow would be united at some point. I am wondering if that infers that only Moscow could have united the two though? Alex's argument that MOscow had more immediate supporters through Byzantium seems to suggest that. Had Novgorod prevailed, would Siberia have been settled by Russians? Would Ukraine have been absorbed completely by Poland, Lithuania or the Ottoman empire?

I wished I knew that. There can be endless discussions on this topic, but we can never guess what would there be.

Polish state was formed sometime in the early 10th century, it collected all the Slavic (and non-Slavic) tribes under its control

The only Non-slavic might be the Baltic tribes only, BECAUSE!!!----> slavic tribes occupied the territories (!) of south Sliezwig, Golstein, Maclenburgh and Pomerania until 1147!!!

In this sense, do you think that a Novgorod victory - with the apparent belief that Novgorod was too passive to extend its territory - might have meant that a Russian identity might never have formed? This I guess is the core of my question; how much is Moscow's history a core of Russian history? Could Novgorod, or any other "proto-Russian" state have done the same as Moscow in forming the Russian state?

Ooooohhhhhhhhhhh!!! That is really funny!!! I was talking about some "secondary" things until I got to the heart of the thread. Sorry, but I'll answer with some following posts. The Alex' habit writing huge messages is infectious.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Vrylakas!

You began some very interesting & speculative issue of Russian History. I tried to answer on it partially in tread Best General EVER? page 6 - about Ghenghis Khan story, but I can repeat it.

First thing is first: Novgorod won - firstly, but lost later..

All first Russians Princes "who began Russian History":
Rjurik (Erich), Oleg the Seer (Helgi), Igor (Ingvar), Olga the Saint (Helgi) - were Vikings by their names, customs, military traditions & common Law usage. When Toynbee tell us, that "beginning of Russian culture was pure Scandinavian" he knew & understood this issue pretty well. (If anybody tried to check Olga method of quelching Drevlians mutiny, he found that Pnincess used very common way & practice of Swedish & Denmark princes of that period.)
First "pure-Russian" Prince who preferred "local" customs & tradition was Prince Svyatoslav Igorevitch. Sad Irony of this statement is - Sviatoslav Igorevitch used not Slavonic, but Pechenegs - i.e. Indo-Iran by nature - customs & tradition. Slavonic leaders never used (till Sviatoslav) public declamation before their forces before battles, or send any offensive letters to enemy rulers, but this was usual military practice of Pecheneg leader. (We've got detail description of Sviatoslav & his clothes - it is description of "steppes warrior" not inhabitant of grassland river valleys that more appropriate for East Slavonic customs.
It seems, that influence "steppe" or Iranic culture was strongly superior in Russia of that times, then any Western or "pure Slavonic" culture influence. (It seems that aggresive international policy of Sviatoslav & need in Pecheneg cavalry as mercenary support was reason.) In any case - Bulgarian leaders (whose culture had the same Indo-Iranic roots) found Sviatoslav their "blood leader", but the same Bulgars never considered Slavonic inhabitants of Balkans as their "brothers"!
We got really many signs of heavy Bulgar (or Pecheneg, or Indo-Iran) culture influence in Kiev culture in Sviatoslav & his elder sons rulership, but his youngest son - Vladimir the Saint was teached by Viking military leader Sveneld & fall under strong Scandinavian influence. If you check war between Vladimir & his brothers, you will find that Vladimir as head of Novgorod military forces enter Kiev region & met strong military resistance from ALL local inhabitants who name him as USURPER. If you check names of Vladimir' comrades you will find that more the 4/5 of them had pure Scandinavian names, but names of Vladimir rivals were "pure Slavonic". Then we can make decision that Vladimir' attack was aggression of the same sort as aggression of Rurick against former slavonic princes Askold & Dir who were killed by Rurick in process. (Interesting thing - Slavonic leaders Ascold & Dir were never acknowledged as "Russian" leaders, when Rurick was - "Russian". Reason is - Rus is ancient name for Neman River. "Russland" is ancient region that have modern Liethuanian name - Jemaitia, from Baltic "Jamos" - "Low". In some sense former "Russland" is named today as "Niederland" .
In any case - Vladimir victory found strong support in Byzantium. Byzanthim preferred any prince in Kiev with some respect to the Law - to any "steppe" leader of Bulgarian origin. (It was times when Bulgarians were considered as strictly "bad guys" of Europe. They had so bad reputation that they were blamed in complete outlaw treats in politic till... Modern word "bugger" is derivative from "Bulgar" & Bulgars were blamed for this practice as well.) In any case most strong state of this region - Byzanthium preferred "Viking Prince" as Russian leader to any "bugger" in his place . Then Novgorod won.

It seems for this acknowledging of his Power as Great Prince of Kiev (instead of bitter resistance of local Slavonic population to Viking oppressors) Vladimir brought Orthodox Church in Russia (& Byzanthium Priests & Military Advisors as extra). Russia had got her Chrtistianization.
Most subtle thing in this process was - most Vladimir supporters were Viking Pagans & Novgorod was considered as main source of Paganism. Then Vladimir exiled most part of his Viking forces & "Christianised Novgorod by Fire & Sword". But...
Vladimir was usurper from common russian point of view (he was son of some "murom-slaverin". Murom was region of Finnis-Ungarian tribes, then most loyal supporters of Vladimir became north-east tribesmen of Finno-Ungarian origin with their famous Leader - Ilya Muromets (idealistic figure of "Russian Bogatyr") who was brother of Vladimir mother. From that time we got really weird picture - when strong Orthodoxy supporters were people of Finnish-Ungarian blood (from north-east of country), Pagans were - Slavonic majority (central part of country with west-south west) , Muslims had their Bulgarian (Indo-Iran) (East-south-east & south) roots & north-West region with strong Viking-Baltic influence had... strong inclination to Catholicism.
This was "powder barrel" situation - Vladimir death became spark to this powder barrel"!
Most important thing in this period were - personalities ov Vladimir heirs. This Prince tried to make as many alliances as possible & "had hundred wives". Each & every of these wives brought heirs for Vladimir & all of them became leaders of their compatriots. All, with one notable exception - Finnish-Ungarian tribes never had their Princes then Vladimir never seek any alliances with them.
It means that main part of Vladimir army of Orthodox Faith (& very warm & friendly relation with Byzantium), Finno-Ungarish origin with their Leader Ilya Murometz (he outlived his nephew) didn't have "their Heir" at all! They just abstain from any later bloodshading waiting for Victor, sworing their allegiance "to any winner, because our Honour is with any son of Vladimir blood".
This position had two major consequence - Byzantium from that momemt & ever bind her loyalty with North-East Russia Leaders, because saw them as "loyal supporters of any lawful deeds" & "most zealous supporters of Orthodox church" - this attitude of Byzantium never wavered to North-East political Leaders & they never lost their Orthodox beliefs due to fact that Christianization of Russia brought them to Power. This strong Link between Byzantium, Orthodoxy, North-East lands (modern Motherland for Russians) & local tribes of Finnish-Ungarian origin never dissolved in History... (If you check modern "folk" clothes of "Russian folk ensembles" - for Example "Beriozka" or Moiseev troup - you will see "kokoshniks", "spear-looking beads" on the girls & many other interesting things that you never find in any "Slavonic folk ensemble" of Europe, except... - "Finnish folk" & "Hungarian folk" troups! All these things are "trademarks" of "Finnish-Ungarian" culture & strong "birthspots" of Russian (or Great Russian) Culture in comparison with Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Serbian or Polish cultures. In some sense modern Russian (Great Russian) culture doesn't equal to former Russian (East Slavonic) Culture of Great Principality of Kiev times. (When you would realize that strong Orthodoxy is most feature merit of North-East Russia (modern Russia) from XI century, but other Russian lands (modern Ukraine & Byelorussia) remained as at most "pagan" countries till XIV century you will understand all "Uniates" stories about Ukraine - better . (Then I used to name Russian (Great Russian) as "harsh Orthodoxy" & used to comparise it only with "Zealous Catholicism" of Poland. There are things of one range, but "Uniated" Church of Ukrainians or "Catholic"/"Orthodox" Church of Byelorussians is "soft" in my language & belong to complete different things. It's resembles Magnet of some sort - you've got North Pole of Magnet, you've got South Pole of it - & some "grey zone" between . )

But - let's return to our topic. In really big variety of possible heirs of Vladimir there was one notable exception - grandson of Danish King Canute the Great - Jaroslav (the Wise). Why this exception was notable? Byzanthium had her grudge to any non-Christian sons of Vladimir & descendants of Christian kings with bad relationships with Byzanthium. Then heirs of Magyar, Bohemian, Polish & any other blood were dismissed. But Vikings (Normans) of that times were - different fish. They fought Catholics in South Italy, made "Varangian Guards" of Byzanthium Vasilevs" & recommend themselves good in fighting against Muslims. Then Byzanthium envoy nudged Ilya Muromets & Ilya' military force to help Jaroslav cause.
Just imagine this story: Jaroslav got helping from Danish Vikings of his granddad, Byzantium support & Finnish-Ungarian military forces of his father. His rivals were: Slavonic majority with helping of Bulgarian & Magyar nomad leaders, but - "God used be on side of grand batallions". Jaroslav armies went through Slavonic resistance as knife through butter! (Of course - all his rulership times was permanent subduing of local uprising against "occupants" ot three sorts around!) But we must state - Novgorod (as operational base of Danish forces of Jaroslav) won again!
Then - most interesting thing occured - Jaroslav was considered in Europe as grandson of Canute the Great & took in account as "Danish Prince". (Don't forget that one of his daughters became Queen of France, other - Queen of Hungary & famous Hasting of Hardrad (killed by Wilhel the Conqueror) was Jaroslav nephew. It created European belief of very high "European influence" of Russian affairs. Bringing of "Jaroslav Truth" (Law codex of Russia if that times) which was "Canute Truth" in disguise helped to this misunerstanding.

But grim truth was - Jaroslav was considered by Slavonic majority of Russia as "Viking usurper" & his Power was Military Power of his Army. & Jaroslav Military was in its core - not Viking (Danish) by blood, but Finnish-Ungarian. Another very important issue - Byzanthium attitude. Byzanthium reaction to fast intermixing in international Policy of Jaroslav with Europe (Catholic Europe!) was really bitter! If you check Russian Chronicles you will find that Byzanthium envoy from some moment began named as "trouble-maker" for Jaroslav gang, but still remaned praised from Russian military leaders as "Defender of Faith". You find some specific "cries" in Chronicles that blame Jaroslav crowd in "bad attitude" to "small peasants of Novgorod" by Finnish origin (you must keep in mind that Jarosolav considered modern Finland as Novgorodian lands & tried to conquer them with helping of Danish Knights, but russian military of finnish origin began (surprise, surprise!) blaming him for atrocities!).
It was time - when Novgorod became considering by Russian military as "evil city" & all Novgorod' inhabitants as "pagans", "schismatics" (i.e. Catholics from Orthodox point of view) & "hateful mutineers". It seems that Byzanthium envoys fed this attitude in North-East lands with great vigour.
Main (& grim) step in this direction became so-named "Vseslav war" when Russian military began fighting with army of Polotsk Principality - it was first time in Russian History when "Enemy" & "Catholics" became the same term. "Most foul deeds" of this war (from Great Russian point of view) became help to Polotsk from Novgorod & Danish officers of former Jaroslav Army. There were first "cleansing" of army ranks that finished in dividing of Russian Army of many warring factions that became main reason of Lubech Sobor that strenghten situation when "every Prince keep his own Province". I'm sure - that was "Death sentence" for Novgorod....

Reasoning is simple. Russia was considered by medieval politics as "Way from Varangians to Greeks". Try to realize simple fact - "Greeks" & "mid-part" of this way were "thicker then thieves" in their Orthodoxy ways. Yep, they must keep Kiev region by brute military forces, but - north part of this way was in Novgorod lands & Novgorod himself. Then - Byzanthium & North-East Russian leaders must overcome Novgorodian independence by force of - took very sever trade losses. Until Novgorod population had some support from the West - they kept some illusions, but after Willem the Conqueror killed Harold the Hardrad in Hasting field & Pope Innocent excommunicate Emperor Henrich (Jaroslav' son-in-law) - any help to Novgorod was considered in Europe as foghting against England, Normandy & Pope himself! Normandy & Bullion was start points for First Crusade - then anybody tried to help Novgorod was considered in Europe as "Jews" & "Muslims" simultaneously!
Try to get in "Jew" & "Muslim" skin in medieval Europe & you will see Novgorod' problems! By the way be aware about this half-naked big guy with red hood with eyes slits red leather apron - why he took this big torch & moves in your direction? Maybe he want to burn out your shackles - manacles, eh? .
Well, when Knights input from West dried completely, but input of Byzanthium Knights into Russian lands only grew - days on Novgorod were counted...
Novgorod was totally crippled in 40-s of XIII century after three big "cleansing" of this wretched " broken city by Alexander Nevsky forces. (Nevsky outlived Tartar invasion due to fact that his father was blood-relatives of Jebe & Alexander married all three younger sons on Ghenghis Khan grand & grand-granddaughters, executing his elder son Vasily (who opposed Mongol invasion) in process. From this moment Great Russian Princes of Vladimir (& Great Princes of Moscow later) began regularly "cleanses" of Novgorod on reason of "non-strict Orthodoxy of its inhabitants" till Ivan the Terrible invasion. When you would realize that "Russian military forces" consisted Tartar Cavalry because "Great Princes of Moscow" became "Ghenghis blood" you will understand - Novgorod hadn't any chance against cooperative onslaught from "Golden Horde" & "Muskovy". But they couldn't stop these "cleansings" due to trade importance of Novgorod...

It weren't only confessional or ethnic problem of Novgorod' decline, there were economical reasons as well...

"Who gains?" - was main question of Rome criminal Jurisprudency. Answer is - Every Big Power of Medieval times gained from these "cleansing" - Byzanthium had Confessional gains, Great Russia - Ethnic, Tartars - strenghtening of their allies in West (they depend from Russian infantry in civil fighting in Mid Asia), European - all-European solidarity in Crusades - & everybody their economical gains. "Way from Varangian to Greeks" must be profitable, then everybody who control 2/3 of this way was preferably to anybody then 1/3 holder .

Sincerely yours, Alex.

 

[Bifrost]

So, let's start...

I would like to mention, that as a student of physician form, I'll try to express everything logically. That is why I divided the possible historical scenarios on two large groups: 1) Novgorod did not join Moscowia in nearer centuries ( I think It is enough to examine the situation until... around 1600-1700 yr.); 2) The Novgorod lands joined Moscowia. The scenario group number two will also be divided on two smaller ones: what if Moscowia conquered Novgorod and what if Novgorod conquered Moscowia.
Every possible development path will be concidered in two parts - cultural and political/economical development.

So, I'll start.
1 What if Novgorod did not join Moscowia in nearer centuries.
1.1 In what case can it happen? A variety of versions are invented in my head, but none of them seem to be realistic; though it is absurd I am to suppose the following: The "rejoining" policy of Vasili I and Vasili II was not continued by the following csars , I mean Ivan III. That might be caused by inner wars In Russia, but I think this is not realistic, because the political situation during the Ivan III government was much more stabile as compared to situation during the Ivan IV government, for example.(I mean the powder cellar of oprichnina, and endless rushing between the house of Belski and the house of Glinski). The other cause might be the foreign Invasion, that was able to brake the "rejoining" policy for a while. It is hard to imagine, what exact country might invade Russia in this time, especially when you remember that this very perid of history was very successful to beat our enemies, I mean the mongols, certainly; but who knows whether Russia was able to enforce two war campaigns simultaneously, especially if some strong country joined mongols, or they had a bit more courage to continue war actions against Russia. The conclusion of 1.1 "in what case Novgorod didn't join moscow?" is: All the possible versions are rather doubtful, and braking the rejoining policy could be enforced by some historical mystery only, but everyone knows that history is often seems very strange, and the fact that I didn't find any reasonable cause does not mean that keeping independance was impossible for Novgorod.
1.2 What concequences could there be?
1.2.1 Political and economical domestic consequences for Novgorod:
1.2.1.1 The political system. To my mind Novgorod is one of the first Republics of Middle Ages, the republican system satisfied the majority of Novgorod People, and certainly it satisfied the merchants who in fact had great influence. I think the political system would stay as it was, maybe ther would be some changes, but not the radical ones. The republic system would be kept.
1.2.1.2 The political reforms and domestic policy. All in all the domestic policy would be of a burgeous type. As merchantry was the most powerful part of society, they would establish laws that could let them trade easier and would make trade more profitable. The thing I'm 100% sure about is that there would be no serfdom at all.
1.2.1.3 The agricultural development. Burgeous policy would influence agriculture very highly, because the major part of every midage country's economics was agriculture. The peasants owning lands would turn into landowners of a higher grade, or would be bankrupts, so there will appear the system of "landowner <---> farm labourer". The Novgorod unfertile lands would speed up the process of agricultural capitalization (i believe, it is understood why).
1.2.1.4 Handicraft development. It is very simple to guess that the handicraft development will follow the European scenario, so Novgorod could reach the system of manufactures much sooner than Russia did.
1.2.2 Cultural consequences for Novgorod. I think Novgorod will not become a Catholic country, it would be the country of many confessions. Different confessions made people think in different ways, made them develop their outlook to be keen on the problems of religion, and "Religion" meant "Culture", so in this view, Novgorod would be very progressive in the field of culture, maybe the renaissanse would start in Novgorod sooner that in Italy, who knows, but it is very, very possible. Just imagine the number of possible architectural and artistic schools there could appear on the base of uniting some parts of different cultures. Novgorod could easily be The birthplace of "Calwinism" or any other new confession adapted to the rapidly developing capitalism.
1.2.3 Foreign policy and trade. I think that foreign policy would be closely connected with trade, so I won't separate them. The Novgorod merchants would be well-known all around the world as merchants of exclusive goods. Novgorod's trading policy would be buing goods form Moscow and Selling them to the western countries, it will form a kind of a financial filter, will isolate moscow that would make it totally east-oriented. Novgorod Lands occupied one of the most profitable geopolitical places in the world, because except trading with Russia and Europe, Novgorod could trade with the Northern tribes and with Persia, using the "Path from Vikings to greeks" such trade could bring Novgorod great profit, because it would be the only state able to trade with such a great variety of countries, maybe Novgorod could play the part similar to Byzanthium's part in the world trade. And btw, I think if Novgorod wasn't conquered by Moscow, there would appear a town on the same place where St.Petersburg stands, I think it is understood why could it have been built. OK, but what is about possible Novgorod's war campaigns against nearer countries? I do not exclude them at all, because a lot of burgeous states had the period of invasion campaigns, supported by great amounts of the merchants' money, the brightest example - french directoria (unfortunately I don't know how it is spelled). But I think such war campaigns would have been possible against some savage northern tribes, but not against Moscow, at least in nearer future (a sentury after Ivan III).
And some words about consequences for Moscowia. All in all, i think that Moscow would have been holding the politics, identical to what it had in reality, but no longer than till XVI-XVII century. Why? Because of the total Isolation. Byzanthium empire collapsed, Lithuania is like a wall, surrounding Russian western borders, Novgorod would have successfully use Moscow's situation for its own profit, Moscow would have became economically and culturally isolated, it would have reoriented its political actions to east, but as a Orthodoxial state wouldn't have been able to find any allies there, so in XVII century Moscow lands would have lost its independance. I think, they would have been shared between Lithuania and Novgorod.
2 What if Novgorod and Moscowia joined each other?
First, I should mention, that we already know the scenario, where Moscow conquerres Novgorod, so I'll describe the possible scenario, where Novgorod conqueres Moscow.
2.1 In what case can it happen? My last phrases in #1 desribe such a situation. Novgorod should keep its independance for a while, and after the fast development of merchantry, as any other burgeous country, it would have needed some colonies, or just some new lands with a variety of resources (novgorod lands are not fertile at all and dont have enough ore and coal layers). The best way to solve that problem is to conquer Moscow, that had some fertile lands on the south border, and opened the way to the reachest Urals (I think Kazan state was not powerful enough to stand against Novgorod).
2.1 The consequences of such scenario.
2.1.1 Domestic consequences.
2.1.1.1 Political system. Novgorod government would have destroyed the monarcy in Moscow and establish there rebublican government. But the political system of Novgorod would have changed a lot too. I think that the best govt type for Novgorod state of that time with attached Moscow lands is the following: two houses - the house of merchantry and the house of regional representatives. The house of representatives would definetly have appeared if Novgorod conquered Moscow, because federal system would have been the best one for such a large country as Novgorod. Federal system allows to coordinate the interests of landowners and merchantry of different parts of the state, so that type of the government would have given Novgorod the opportunity to develop even faster and would have made the Novgorod state become northern and eastern Europe dominative country.
2.1.1.2 Political reforms. All the political reforms would have reminded the reforms of "Novgorod keeps independance" scenario, maybe they would have been enforces a bit slower because of the survivals of Orthodoxy, but I think the most part of reforms would have been reasonable. Yeah! No serfdom!
2.1.1.3 The agricultural development. The hardest question. What would have happened to landlords' lands? taken by new Novgorod government by force? It is too hard to invent anything, but I think that some capitalistic influence on the traditional Ortodoxial agriculture would have taken part there.
2.1.1.4 Handicraft development. The well - known fact is that handicraft development depends on urbanisation highly. Though Novgorod lands were not as urbanised as Moscow lands were, the development of handicraft was very and very high. Joining Moscow lands allowed the handicraft to reach a higher rate. The traditions of Moscow handicraft and Novgorod legislation would have been able to bring unimaginable results. So in the sphere of handicraft, and who knows, maybe industry, the scenario "Novgorod invades Moscow" could have shown us the capitalistic miracle.
2.1.2 Cultural consequences. With moscow lands joined, Novgorod could be the birthplace of some new religion, some kind of ortodoxial protestantism, the thing that never took place in reality , but the thing that ,according to numerous scientists, was able to make Russia one of the most developed countries. It is a very interesting question "What if there would have been a church refirmation in Russia?" but expressing my point of view will take much time, so I will answer by a couple of words: "that would be great!" and the only possible cause of enforsing reformation in Russia is being conquerred by merchant and capitalistic Novgorod. The possibility of such church reformation will approach the renaissance in Russia and will give it some special look, different from the look of the renaissance in western countries. It will combine the traditions of orthodoxy - the traditions of spirituality and self-sacrifice with the traditions of democracy, equality and friendship, it would have broght the new ideology and would have been able to change the world.
2.1.3 Foreign policy and trade. Though the countries' size would have been enlarged, I think It wouldn't have become the expansionist country. The foreign territorial policy would have followed the way the western countries followed. The siberia and Urals would have been the typical colonies, and would have get independance in XX century, as all the typical colonies did. All in all, the foreign policy would have differed much from the policy we had in Russian Empire or Moscowia. That great difference would have definetly made the Novgorod country more prosperous, and made it of a western-Europe country type.

The conclusion, short, but true: We would have better lost Moscowia to Novgorod.

 

[Bifrost]

Damned Subjunctive Mood!!!!!! I wish I was a native English-speaker. (See previous message)

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Bifrost
Damned Subjunctive Mood!!!!!! I wish I was a native English-speaker. (See previous message)

I don't see what you're so angry about. Your post was coherent, and I understood what you were saying. That's the important thing, isn't it?

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Bifrost!

You completely missed the point that Novgorod wasn't first Russian republic - it was some sort of "Chechnia of Russian origin". If you check so-named Ushkuyniki movement you've realized my comparison better. By the way - I repeat my initial statement - Novgorod trade & else was collapsed in end XIII - beginning of XIV century. No one wanted Novgorod in his role due to fact that his function completely go to Riga. Riga was most important trade rival of Novgorod & it was more successful rival due to simple fact that Riga was german city & Novgorod wasn't. By the way Great Princes of Muscovy preferred to make their trade treties in mid-XIV century with Order (Teutonic & Livonic later) - Novgorod was backward & completely forgotten in trade sense city to Dmitry Donskoy times & don't speak about Vasily 1 & II times! Just check trade current through Riga & Novgorod respectively in around 1400!
Complete other thing is - Riga uprising - if Novgorod keep his strenght in around 1200 year - things would be different, but Novgorod spine was completely broken by Andrey Bogolubsky & Alexander Nevsky just later. In 1250 Riga already have more tax revenue from transit trade then Novgorod - why all your speculations after this moment. Ricardo taught us - in concurention struggle survive only strongest. Riga hadn't any chance as mercantuile power in momemt of her appearance, but Novgorod harsh decline give her chance & she used it by 200%! That is that.

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. Yes, Moscow as Orthodoxy state hadn't any support in XV century from West countries, but Novgorod hadn't this support as Russian city in comparison with Deutsches Riga, then - what is your argument? Do you know German attitude to any Slave tribe or city in this time-period?