@@HistorysInfluence What if Tsar Kaloyan wasn't murdered during the Siege of Thessalonica, avoiding the later Bulgarian defeat at Philippopolis and eventually letting him conquering the Latin Empire?
I'm kinda disappointed by this series after this final episode. A lot of regions were attacked by Mongols such as Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Sultanate of Rum, Georgia, Egypt and Syria. Many of them were ravaged even though they weren't conquered and didn't become part of any of the khanates. Yet they either weren't covered in this series or were barely touched on. Like the Polish king was killed by the Mongols as far as I remember and they ravaged Poland. I think Mongols not existing would have a more direct influence on that. In addition, the sixth and seventh crusade, the rise of the Mamluks in Egypt, the rise of the Ottomans, the future of the Byzantines and even I argue, the age of exploration all were considerably impacted by the Mongols.
I see where you're coming from. I felt many of those regions felt too tangential, since I wanted to flesh out the regions I covered and not just have surface-level coverage of everything, and a video covering the remainders wouldn't have performed very well.
@@HistorysInfluence That's somewhat understandable, but I think with three episodes the remainders could've been covered in each episode superficially. Also a few of them, like the Ottoman empire not existing aren't really tangential. In any case, I'm gonna leave a long comment later on those regions that weren't covered I hope it would be interesting for everyone and start discussions of their own.
1:57 Honestly, that is very smart of you since borders of medieval states were not that well defined in comparison to the borders of modern states. This makes me wonder how accurate are the borders of medieval and ancient states in strategy games and where do the game designers get their sources of the borders of these states.
Thanks mate, and that's a good point. With the new Europa Universalis in development the fans have been giving extensive feedback on borders actually (usually from their home region).
But a strong argument against the Tartar Yoke can be made. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w_bEpKBd07w.htmlsi=0r8Hc1iiBWhgOPzI Especially as an origin to either Russian Authoritarianism or Russian Eastward facing attitudes. It's influence being only towards authoritarianism and being absent from more western states like Novgorod is also argued against to lesser extents. For example, while Novgorod paid tribute mainly, some princes were essentially Mongol candidates. And their institutions weren't much unlike what was in rest of that of the Kievan Rus' including it's "parliament" existing among the other Kievan Rus' which was respected by the Golden Horde and only later done away with in Moscow after Moscow started to grow in power. So a powerful Novgorodian prince could change things. 7:41 The idea that mongol taxation was more exploitative is in doubt. 9:31 there's pretty good argument for powerful nobility creating serfs (like Poland). And Russian Serfdom expanded most when the Tzar was weak like just after the Deluge.
Saw that video in my recs, but didn't want to alter my script. I should get around to watching it afterwards. Good counter-arguments you've provided in addition.
I was also going to comment this, but the Tatar yoke being an outdated and largely discredited historical theory needs to be mentioned. Great video by Noj Rants for bringing attention to it.
russian autocracy came from tsars trying to emulate the Byzantine Empire which was an autocratic state where very little of Rome’s republican institutions had survived.
russian states would still expand into siberia, for fur trading and due to population pressure, as russia proper will be overpopulated from the absence of devastating nomadic encursions, although i think eventually whatever state colonises siberia will eventually have to deal with an independence war, and this siberian russia will become a nation of its own, most likely even overpowering old russia, akin to britain and the us
Pretty much impossible, Siberia has no such agricultural resources to support a large population (even more so before modern agriculture), it was russian fur traders and local tribes pretty much before modern age of late 19th century when it finally was populated along with construction of railway to pacific and land reforms giving recently liberated peasants free land on the frontier
given that unlike America and Britain, Siberia would be connected by land, it would probably have closer ties with Russia and there would be less of a divide.
@Admin-gm3lc siberia has enough land to sustain a huge population, the ones that can actually sustain people are ranging from fine to really good in terms of agricultural capacity so i do not see a problem with that, besides, you can say the same about most of america in the year 1800 but those difficulties were solved by the technology that became available in that century, and im pretty sure siberia would by that time be developed as a state, since its closer and more available to russians than the american frontier for most of europe in 17th and 18th centuries
Would be plausible that the Rus might develop into an "Eastern HRE" type system where an honorary leader, chosen from one of the Rus states, would theoretically rule the whole region but as years go by the practical power of the Rus leader would be reduced up until it's just a prestige title that would eventually be abandoned. in such a case, I imagine that there would be a unification movement when nationalism develops, replacing the old Rus with a new Russian empire, but specifics are hard to predict beyond broad strokes, would really depend on the status of Byzantium, Poland, Lithuania, etc.
Novgorod reached West Siberia in 14th century and founded there Mangazea town. So if warlike Tatar states were absent the exploration of Siberia would pass centuries earlier. I estimate 1450s reaching of Baikal, 1500-1510s reaching of Sea of Okhotsk, 1540-60s discovering of Alaska, 1590-1620s joining of Hawaii, 1650-1700s joining of Tahiti and most of Polinesia, 1685 - Treaty with Spain and France for division of North American west of Missisipi/Great Lakes area, 1715 joining of New Zealand, 1735 - Patagonian war with Spain for control over Drake's strate, 1755 - Australian war with UK for division of Australia and Tasmania, 1760 - joining of Papua and Melanesia, 1765 - start of colonization of Antarctica, 1790 - building of Panama Channel.
7:18 russia freed itself from the tatar yoke in 1480, when the remains of the Golden Horde ceased to be a unified political entity, and its rulers were no longer obligated to pay tribute.
Something important to know, for all who interested in history and/or support Ukraine: Rus' ought not to be confused with modern “Russia”, which derives its name from the Rus' but historically is a completely different state, which almost all its existence was at war with the Rus'. Just like the Holy Roman Empire was actually Germany, “Russia” is actually Muscovy, despite their best attempts to convince everybody otherwise. Its name “Russia" received only in the 18th century, when Peter I simply changed Muscovy’s name into the “All Russian Empire” (Russia originates from Rosia, name used by the Greek Orthodox Clergy in regards to Rus') Under the reign of Cathrine II Muscovites where even punished for continuing to identify as Muscovites, and were forced to call themselves Russian. Lands that Russia (Muscovy) claims were part of the original Rus', but actually weren't, are Novgorod, Suzdal, and Ryazan, since in historical texts of XI-XII centuries they are mentioned as separate entities from Rus'. They can be considered parts of extended Rus', although their culture was distinct from main Rus'. In 1493, Muscovite duke Ivan III appointed himself to be the Great Ruler of All Rus'. No other kings acknowledged that. From that point on Muscovy started to make false claims on Rus' ownership. “Russia” is an offshoot of Ukraine and not the other way round, despite what Soviet and Russian (Muscovite) historians have been trying to say for years. A Slavicised Finnic, then later, Mongolized offshoot. Kyiv was a developed cultured capital when Moscow was just another swamp village. Moreover, in the Italian sources of the 15th century it is likewise mentioned, that Russia is bordered by Poland to the west, Lithuania and Livonia to the north, and *Muscovy* to the east, further proving that Russia historically speaking, is an exonym of Ukraine, that was stolen by Muscovy. Germany used to call itself the Holy Roman Empire, that didn’t mean they became the Romans, and all of a sudden had a right to claim whole of Italy and its history, but yet, that’s exactly what Russia (Muscovy) did in regards to Rus'-Ukraine, which is a horrible injustice!
Yeah, that's just awesome. Dude, you're talking about some kind of despotism that we inherited from the Horde based on the fact that "uga buga! look! The Mongols were cruel!" and this is despite the fact that the Mongols had a military democracy for a minute, where they literally elected khans. And lol, it's cool of course to cite Ivan the Fourth as proof, while forgetting about other great princes, who in terms of the level of this "despotism" were not much different from the conditional "enlightened" monarchs from your Western world, who would not mind chopping each other into cabbage left and right. As well as forgetting about how the boyars themselves treated the same Ivan the Fourth in childhood. You know, this is not the best indicator of the tyranny of a ruler, when in your early childhood, the boyars treated you not as a future ruler, but simply as some kind of little dog.
It's a very hard stereotype to get rid off especially since the Media propaganda is centered around portraying Russia as some kind of hopeless autocratic regime. Granted, the Soviet experiment and the prior refusal of the Russian Empire to reform didn't help much in its reputation. Nevertheless, no country is bound to be in some way or another, trends are noticeable but they can also always change if the conditions are right.
Деспотизм во власти проявлялся со времён князя Андрея Боголюбова, ближе к его среднему возрасту из за чего многие его соратники отрекались от него и в последствии он был жестоко убит в своих покоях хоть он и яростно сопротивлялся. С тех пор деспотизм малость спал но потомки Андрея помнили этот урок и просто стали хитрее и расчётливее в своих замыслах ещё учитывая тот факт что Владимирские а позже Московские князья всё ещё обязаны были считаться с мнением знати и своих родственников по старшей ветви Ярославлей из которой они происходили поскольку у нас всё ещё действовала лиственничная система при которой изберется не старший сын правителя как приемник на княжение а в целом старший член семьи, будь то Дядя или кто либо ещё из рода кто является самым старшим, но с женитьбой Ивана lll Великого на Софье Палеолог всё начало меняться. Этим браком на племяннице последнего Восточно Римского (Византийского) императора Константина XI Палеолога Иван lll при возвысил свой статус над всеми своими родственниками став защитником главным защитником православия в Европе и взял от Софьи фамильный герб Палеологов, золотой двуглавый орёл. Но для полного возвышения ему не хватало лишь статуса Великого князя всея Руси что бы окончательно избавится от от каких либо притязаний на престол со стороны своих родственников коих было не мало. Лишь после этого на Руси закрепился и начал в полной мере развиваться деспотизм обретший свой пик при Иване lV Грозном когда он провозгласил себя Царём (Цезарем) то-бишь императором на европейский манер, это одно и тоже, Пётр первый просто переименовал себя в официальных документах что бы его называли не на русский манер а на европейский а провозглашение империи стало формальность и без того существующей действительности. Так вот Провозгласив себя Царём, Иван IV окончательно возвысил себя над всеми остальными родственниками из династии Рюриковичей кои сравнялись по важности с обычной знатью и стали для царя не больше чем холопами на высоких постах но всё же родственниками. Он не расправился с ними а просто лишил их притязаний на престол даже если Линия Ивана прервется, то только Патриарх Московский и всея Руси и Земский собор (парламент где собираются представители всех сословий Русского царства) могли выбрать нового Царя что в итоге и было сделано после позже. В итоге из всего этого я хочу донести то что на Руси существовали влиятельные князья которые хотели больше власти но не всегда у них это получалось. Так же деспотизм пришёл к нам вероятно и из византийской культурой с её остатками в виде приехавшей Софьи Палеолог с её свитой которые начали по немногу менять облик традиций Московского управления и церемоний. От монголов я считаю что мы взяли с некоторые тактики и стиль ведения боя а от себя стимул объединить под себя все лист ближайшие соседние княжества под угрозой вторжения, повторения междоусобных войн что постоянно происходили на Руси и постоянно её ослабляли перед степными ордами и желания стать сильнее раде собственной независимости от золото-ардынского вассалитета и от кого бы то ни было ещё. Бля англо-говорящих. Приношу извинения сто не пишу для вас на английском для удобства прочтения, по этому попрошу вас перевести этот текст. Мне было удобнее изложить свои мысли на моём языке. Ели есть какие то непонимания то можем поговорить об этом и я с радостью обсужу эту тему.
Also the Rus' center of power was already shifting North along the Volga before the Mongols arrived. Vladimir was the seat of the Grand Prince already since 1157
You just repeated russian history whithout mongols. You underestimate the influence of the Mongols and Turks. Before the Mongols, the Russian principalities copied the Turkic ladder system of inheritance. Then they copied the Mongolian system of governance. There were many moments in Russian history when it could have been destroyed and it was saved only by the centralized, despotic system inherited from the Mongols. Without this, Rus' would have been a second Poland and most likely would have been torn apart by its neighbors - Poland, Lithuania, Sweden and the Ottomans. And in the south there was powerful turkic tribes Polovcy, Pechenegi. If they stay russia would not get access to black sea. Historians underestimate mongol influence, they destroyed turkic, arab, persian states, which were main western rivals. It gave west adventage, they started developing when all others were in ruins and in endless civil wars for next 500 years, started by different mongol princes.
5:08 The notion that when the Mongols came, the Rusyns, fled to Moscow, is preposterous, because that would mean they were running towards the enemy, as precisely from the area of Moscow is where Mongols came from, since they had captured the Zalesye / Grand Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal breakaway territories 2 years before attacking Rus'.
Borrowing some words and a few concepts from the Mongols doesn't transform a country into muh Asian civilization. All Asians always thought of them as different alien race, which is absolute truth
Тема, конечно, очень спекулятивная, но даже упоминая исторические факты, автор допустил множество ошибок. Во-первых, союз Литвы и Польши - это буквально продукт Монгольских завоеваний. Литовские племена часто были союзниками русских земель и к XIII веку по сути были культурно интегрированы в русскую сферу, а князья там говорили на древнерусском. Так что в случае, если бы монгольского нашествия не было, то Литва была бы таким же культурно-русским княжеством, что и какой-нибудь Полоцк, Галич, Владимир и т.д. Во-вторых, реформы Петра Великого были направлены на то, чтобы как раз прекратить культурно-технологическое отставание от Европы из-за монголо-татарского ига (ну и Смуты, разумеется. Но были бы Смута и Иван Грозный, если бы не монголы? 😅). Если бы не было Ига, то Русь не прерывала бы столь сильно и продолжительно культурных контактов с Центральной и Западной Европой. В-третьих, размышлять, была бы возможна коммунистическая революция это уже безумие какое-то. За следующие 800 лет могло бы произойти ВСЁ ЧТО УГОДНО 😂. Ну и да, типичный стереотип, что революция была предопределена "ужасающим" положением народа в Царской России. Настолько ужасающим, что во время Первой Мировой Войны Россия не имела дефицита продовольствия и инфляции, в отличае от какой-нибудь Франции и уж тем более Германии, где население ело одну брюкву. Ну и водка, конечно. Концентрация стереотипа. Водка вообще в общем употреблении в России появилась насколько я помню аж в веке XIX. До этого русские крестьяне пили слабоалкогольные напитки вроде Сбитня. Ну максимум что-то пивное. Да и по уровню употребления алкоголя в Европе мы занимали среднее место, если вообще не замыкали список с обратной стороны. Про русских-алкашей - это миф буквально последних 30 лет СССР. На самом деле неточностей больше, но самые бросающиеся в глаза я привёл. С любовью, ваш русский бот С:
I think the the rus states would eventually unite whether its through a civil war between the rus states or due to external pressure such as the ottoman empire and prussia. Furthermore, countries usually always expand to borders, so i think that the rus country would still expand into Siberia, though probably later than our current timeline. Novgorod had a unique political structure where the people picked who would rule them. this culture could have spread over to other rus regions leading to the formation of a federal republic of rus with early version of democracy where they pick the most powerful prince as the leader of the country. On this note, you should really make a video dedicated to Novgorod
Could see Rus unifying in 19th century when it was cool to unify. Rus stopping roughly at OB river base to Aral sea makes sense. (Yay, nor 'tard soviets to destroy a sea!) Could see russ just making a big Kazak vassal state to run central Siberia and Stans.
You didnt mention but ottomans would still take crimea as byzantines and seljuqs take before. After connecting with tatar people there is a high chace smilar vassalization would occur. Without strong russia ottomans would remain stronger longer. Maybe ottomans weaken southern slavs a lot and northern slavs take charge.
Seljuks and Byzantium never took Crimea, boso. Byzantium only had the south coast. Ottomania never forms, boso, the Kayı tribe went to Anatolia because of the Mongol conquests.
@@genovayork2468 south cost is not crimea itself? As far as i remember in the video he didnt remove all mongol empire idea just golden horde. Even if mongol empire didnt form. Turkmen people were looking for new home and seljuqs were already established themselves. Long story short some turkic beylik would take over anatolia and start expand inyo europe.
@@genovayork2468 kayı tribe is nothing. 200 years prior to ottomans. Without mongols weaken and devastate anatolia we would take constantinople around 1300s en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzachas
Many and grave mistakes. 1. Yuan ended in 1635. 2. If you consider Byzantium as Rome you should consider all successors as the predecessor. 3. Veche was an assembly. Not a class. Lmao. 4. Uzbekia ended in 1471. Lmao. 5. Poland was united before Casimir III. 6. Poland isn't in Eastern Europe. Lmao.
