Fate of Third Rome with a surviving Second Rome.
- Thread starter The Kiat
- Start date
Depends on the state of the Second Rome, but probably a continuation of Russia's position in the Byzantine Commonwealth.
In some sense that doesn't precisely translate into modern ideas of statehood and international relations, Rome (Byzantium) is superior and higher than the other states there.
In some sense that doesn't precisely translate into modern ideas of statehood and international relations, Rome (Byzantium) is superior and higher than the other states there.
Depending on when Byzantium is saved, Russia may well still end up being the largest and most powerful Orthodox nation in the world. Now, if we assume Manzikert is avoided, then it is pretty up in the air as to which country is more powerful in the modern world. If Byzantium manages to eventually recover and reintegrate Egypt and the Levant, then they will be on par with Russia for a very long time, possibly forever, and that's assuming Russia ends up with all the territory it had IOTL. In this scenario, Russia may wind up having a role in the Orthodox world similar to that played by the first Bulgarian Empire, namely as a less prestigious rival to Byzantium in the north that nevertheless rivals it in power. Russia will likely seek to develop an Orthodox culture that is distinct from Byzantium, and will almost certainly seek to become autocephalous, something I believe they will eventually succeed in, because I can't see Byzantium asserting its religious authority in Russia by force, and the longer that the Russian church is de facto autocephalous, the more likely it is to be recognized as such as part of some treaty or other.
If Byzantium is saved later, than Russia most likely (though not certainly, because of potential butterflies involving the Mongols being more or less destructive in Russia) is the most powerful Orthodox nation in the world, however I'm not sure they would change much in terms of their hierarchy in the Orthodox Church. Unless Byzantium is a total rump state (a good example being them in 1400) there probably won't be any talk of third Romes, but Russia might attempt to use such a state as an excuse to project itself into Anatolia, expecially if Byzantium is strong enough to aid them in doing so. Russia with a greater presence in the Middle East earlier could be an interesting side effect of such a relationship. Even so, there is a very good chance that the acknowledged head of the Orthodox church will remain the Patriarch of Constantinople, thanks to tradition and the other Orthodox nations not wanting a powerful Russia heading their church. Without the Ottomans controling the Patriarch the Russians will most likely seek to do so, and this could at some point lead to a Russian occupation of Constantinople, and will almost certainly lead to Russians meddling in Byzantine politics. Quite an interesting relationship actually.
If Byzantium is saved later, than Russia most likely (though not certainly, because of potential butterflies involving the Mongols being more or less destructive in Russia) is the most powerful Orthodox nation in the world, however I'm not sure they would change much in terms of their hierarchy in the Orthodox Church. Unless Byzantium is a total rump state (a good example being them in 1400) there probably won't be any talk of third Romes, but Russia might attempt to use such a state as an excuse to project itself into Anatolia, expecially if Byzantium is strong enough to aid them in doing so. Russia with a greater presence in the Middle East earlier could be an interesting side effect of such a relationship. Even so, there is a very good chance that the acknowledged head of the Orthodox church will remain the Patriarch of Constantinople, thanks to tradition and the other Orthodox nations not wanting a powerful Russia heading their church. Without the Ottomans controling the Patriarch the Russians will most likely seek to do so, and this could at some point lead to a Russian occupation of Constantinople, and will almost certainly lead to Russians meddling in Byzantine politics. Quite an interesting relationship actually.
Russia being willing to protect it won't matter until (looking at OTL Russia) the 17th century. At the earliest.
By that point, any state reduced to just Constantinople is going to have been conquered.
And Constantinople was held as somewhat holy in Orthodoxy, although that gets into the connection between the Empire, the Church, and God's plan for the cosmos.
Moscow was sold as a third Rome. That's right.
But as far as I understand it the idea was that Moscow would rule the empire as great as those of the first Rome and of the second Rome. So this idea was about political grandeur, it was not about religious superiority of Moscow in the Orthodox World.
The head of the Russian Orthodox church became a Patriarch instead of being Metropolitan (Bishop) before. But that never meant that the Russian Patriarch was higher than Constantinople Patriarch or any other Orthodox Patriarch.
This meant that Moscow Patriarch, the Russian Orthodox Church was independent of Constantinople Patriarch.
Moscow Patriarch never claimed that he was the head of the Orthodox World.
And more than that, the Russian Orthodox Church usually calls a Constantinople Patriarch - an 'ecumenical' Patriarch; that is an honorable title making him higher than a Moscow Patriarch. That is only status and has nothing to do with any practical affairs, but anyway.
In the 1990-s some parts of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Baltic countries of the former Soviet Union declared themselves independent of the Russian Patriarch; and they proclaimed that they consider the Constantinople Patriarch to be the head of the Orthodox Church and they would report directly to him. So even now the Russian Church remember that it was ruled from Constantinople and Russian Church is a part of the ecumenical, universal Orthodox Church the head of which is Patriarch of Constantinople.
So to some degree Constantinople is holy to all Orthodox people even now, even ruled by the Muslims.
So the situation would be similar with long-lived Byzantium Empire. Russia would be independent of Byzantium Empire politically, the Russian Church would be independent of Constantinople Patriarch.
But there would be great political, cultural and religious influence of Byzantium Empire over Russian Empire. No doubt. Even if Byzantium Empire would be a tiny insignificant state.
Interestingly, I was about to ask the same question as the OP. Then I found this thread through a search.
I find that assertion problematic because in a world where the Byzantine Empire survives, it is very much an open question whether or not a united Russian state exists in the first place.
Medieval Russia was divided between different power centers such as Kiev, Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal, later Moscow. If Byzantium never falls, there will be no concept of Russia being the "Third Rome" and probably no Russian tsardom (the word "tsar" is, after all, derived from "caesar"). Without such a unifying concept, it is doubtful that any of the Russian power centers can succeed in uniting all the Russian lands as Muscovy eventually did IOTL. Russia may well remain divided between different polities into the modern age.
What do the others think? In a world where the Byzantine Empire never falls and Russia never styles itself as the "Third Rome", will Russia unite or won't it?
I find that assertion problematic because in a world where the Byzantine Empire survives, it is very much an open question whether or not a united Russian state exists in the first place.
Medieval Russia was divided between different power centers such as Kiev, Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal, later Moscow. If Byzantium never falls, there will be no concept of Russia being the "Third Rome" and probably no Russian tsardom (the word "tsar" is, after all, derived from "caesar"). Without such a unifying concept, it is doubtful that any of the Russian power centers can succeed in uniting all the Russian lands as Muscovy eventually did IOTL. Russia may well remain divided between different polities into the modern age.
What do the others think? In a world where the Byzantine Empire never falls and Russia never styles itself as the "Third Rome", will Russia unite or won't it?
Last edited:
Depends on the situation in Russia. The claim to be ruler of all Rus/all the Russias is independent of whether or not Moscow is the Third Rome (see the long past days of Kievan Rus), and even taking the title tsar can be done in defiance of the Byzantine emperor - Bulgaria's rulers when that was independent proudly bore it, for example.
With all due respect you guys pay too much attention to the fact that the title 'tsar' is derived from 'Caesar'.
When Ivan the Terrible was crowned as "Tsar" the overwhelming majority of the Russians had forgotten the origin of this title long long time ago. I guess there were a few hundred highly educated people who knew that "tsar" meant "Caesar" and they were mostly preasts.
But what was the meaning of the world "tsar" for an ordinary Russian of that time before Ivan the Terrible was crowned as "tsar"?
Do you think that the Russians thought about Rome or Constantinople when they heard "tsar"?
I hate to disappoint you, but no.
When you said "tsar" - every Russian understood that you spoke about a Mongol/Tatar "tsar". And when I say "every" Russian I mean 99,999999999% of the Russian population.
That was the title which the Russians called the Mongol Khans for 300 years. First it was the "Tsar" of the Golden Horde, after it's disintegration there appeared Mongol tsars of Astrachan, of Kazan, of Crimea and so on.
Of course the title "tsar" was much higher than the title of "Grand Prince" which the Moscow Princes had.
So when Ivan the Terrible crowned himself as "tsar" it had nothing to do with imitating the First or the Second Rome.
Every Russian understood that from now on the Grand Prince of Moscow considers himself equal to the Mongol tsar of Astrachan, to the Mongol tsar of Kazan, to the Mongol tsar of Crimea and to any other Mongol tsar.
That was a foreign policy aspect of being called a "tsar".
For the home policy that meant that Ivan the Terrible expected from the Russians the same obedience to himself as the tsars of Golden Horde had had - which meant unquestioning obedience.
So the Russian Grand Prince being crowned as "tsar" is about being a successor to the "tsars" of the Mongol Golden Horde.
It is not about being a successor to the "Caesors" of the first/second Rome.
Last edited:
The concept of united Russia was extant well before the final fall of Constantinople, being present alongside Byzantium both during the days of the Kievan Rus' and the rise of Moscow (which began a little ways before 1453). If the PoD occurs during one of these periods, Russia is arguably stronger than Byzantium (definitely stronger during the rise of Moscow, arguably so during the Kievan Rus), and has near limitless potential for expansion into sparsely populated lands. Even if we set the PoD during the Mongol domination of Russia, Russian states still have a good deal more potential for expansion than do the Byzantines, so their becoming the most powerful Orthodox nation in the world after the year 1000 is, in my opinion, about as likely as not.
That, plus what Russian said, the title of Tsar and claim to being a Third Rome was of very little importance to Russian unification. By the time Ivan took the title of Tsar Russia in the sence of the homeland of the ethnic Russians was long since united under the grand prince, not in the name of a bygone empire, but in the name of realpolitic and standing against the threatening forces of Islam and the West.
@ Elfwine, Russian, Avitus:
You are right that the concept of uniting all Russian lands and the concept of Russia being the "Third Rome" are, of course, two separate issues and that maybe we should not place too much importance on the fact that "tsar" is derived from "caesar".
I stand by my fundamental point, though, that Russia unifying around the same time it did IOTL is not a historical inevitability. It might unify, or it might not. Whether it does probably has less to do with the fate of Byzantium, though, than with how the Mongol invasion and subsequent events play out. If the Mongol invasion and subsequent events unfold similarly to how they did IOTL, I think it is quite likely that one of the Russian states could through collaboration with and later rebellion against the Mongols become the power that unites Russia, as Muscovy did IOTL.
Assuming that Russia does unite, the interesting question is what happens next ITTL where the Byzantine Empire survives. While it is likely that an ever-expanding Russia will pretty soon surpass the Byzantines in terms of power and resources, Russia would not be the "Third Rome" in this scenario and I suspect that, in cultural and spiritual terms, Byzantium would still be regarded as the most important orthodox state. So Byzantium and Russia would have a very interesting relationship and rivalry ITTL.
You are right that the concept of uniting all Russian lands and the concept of Russia being the "Third Rome" are, of course, two separate issues and that maybe we should not place too much importance on the fact that "tsar" is derived from "caesar".
I stand by my fundamental point, though, that Russia unifying around the same time it did IOTL is not a historical inevitability. It might unify, or it might not. Whether it does probably has less to do with the fate of Byzantium, though, than with how the Mongol invasion and subsequent events play out. If the Mongol invasion and subsequent events unfold similarly to how they did IOTL, I think it is quite likely that one of the Russian states could through collaboration with and later rebellion against the Mongols become the power that unites Russia, as Muscovy did IOTL.
Assuming that Russia does unite, the interesting question is what happens next ITTL where the Byzantine Empire survives. While it is likely that an ever-expanding Russia will pretty soon surpass the Byzantines in terms of power and resources, Russia would not be the "Third Rome" in this scenario and I suspect that, in cultural and spiritual terms, Byzantium would still be regarded as the most important orthodox state. So Byzantium and Russia would have a very interesting relationship and rivalry ITTL.
This, I agree with. And I think how the individual states fare is going to be influenced by a surviving Byzantium - not directly, but I doubt a strong Byzantium would look at Halych-Volynia the same way one with no ability to influence even directly neighboring states would. That probably has consequences.
Not necessarily interfering with some state doing as Muscovy did OTL - but certainly ones relevant to the state of affairs as of the late 15th century.
My guess there is that it would be something akin to the US and Great Britain. The bigger and younger state not really wanting to admit how much it owes to the smaller, older state - but finding it to be something it has strong ties to nonetheless.
Not a perfect comparison, but something comparable if not identical seems right to me.
Which raises an interesting point. OTL Russia saw itself as the one bulwark of true (Orthodox) Christianity. That won't be the case with a surviving Second Rome. That would influence Russia in some significant ways compared to OTL.
You know, although I did not write it down in my post above, the analogy to Great Britain and the US is exactly what came to my mind as well. Sure it is imperfect, but if one does not take it too literally I think it is quite a good analogy.
IOTL, Russia fought a dozen major wars against the Turks from the 16th century to World War I. Even into modern times, some Tsars dreamed about re-taking Constantinople for Orthodox Christianity. In a timeline where Byzantium survives, the Russians would focus the resources that historically went into the power struggle with the Turks elsewhere.
While the Bulgars and Serbs are Slavs and have certain linguistic ties to Russia, they are much closer to the Byzantine sphere of influence and would very probably look to Byzantium, rather than Russia, as their role model in a world where Byzantium survives. So it is unlikely that we would see any of the meddling in the Balkans that Russia engaged in IOTL.
Byzantium had outposts and trade interests in the Crimea, so this is a region where a surviving Byzantium might very likely come into conflict with an expanding Russia.
In the Caucasus, Russian expansion would probably stop at the major mountain chain. Georgia and Armenia would remain under Byzantine influence and never enter the Russian sphere as they did IOTL. Azerbaijan would probably remain in the Iranian sphere.
All in all, I suspect that Russia ITTL would be more focused to the north and west, intensifying its conflicts with Sweden and Poland-Lithuania (assuming, of course, that these powers exist ITTL).
Last edited:
Well of course united Russia isn't inevitable. You will notice that the initial post of mine you quoted said "Depending on when Byzantium is saved", because there were definitely times when a united Orthodox Russia was the most likely outcome, but there were also times, especially during Mongol domination, when such an outcome was decidedly less likely. My point though, was that Russia has a very good chance, at least fifty fifty, of surpassing Byzantium in de facto power. Their access to vast resource rich regions to support industrialization and power projection gives them an edge that Byzantium, cut off from these regions by hostile powers, greater distance, and natural barriers, can't really match.
That said, the Britain and U.S. analogy is an interesting comparison. That said, Russia and Byzantium might wind up even closer, given their proximity and the likelihood of them having common enemies, to say nothing of the religious ties. I'm not sure if there really is an OTL relationship that can compare to this. Assuming a Russia with a similar territory to OTL, and a Byzantium with OTL Greece, Turkey, and perhaps Bulgaria, Russia will be the stronger nation, but not by so much as to dominate Byzantium. The power dynamic would be close to that of the U.S. and Britain, but not as they are now, as I assume Byzantium with those territories would be more comperable to Russia than Britain is with the U.S. today.