Varangian Kingdoms?

[Legolas]

I have been reading bits and pieces about the history of the Viking age. Mostly I am interested in the eastern (Varangian) section of the the Vikings rather than the western (Danelaw, Vinland, etc.), and one thing made me thinking. In OTL, the Scandinavians conquered the Finnish and many Rus tribes, founded Kievan Rus and managed large trade routes down the Volga and the Dniepr rivers even down to Constantinople. However, the Baltic tribes were relatively untouched, except for a few incursions (Apuolė 864 I know of, there were some others, but minor ones). In the latter part of the Viking era, it was even the Scandinavians who got raided by Curonic "vikings". All this time, the relations between the Baltic tribes (mostly the maritime ones, i.e. Curons, Prussians and Latgalians) and the Varangians (Swedes) were tense.

So my question is - if the Baltic tribes embraced the Viking lifestyle earlier, and united with the Swedish vikings in some way (maybe adopting the hierarchial structure and legal system), could this have been enough of a leverage for more Norse-descendent realms to form in Eastern Europe? Could this have improved the Scandinavian-Byzantine trade enough for the Viking realms to last longer? Could this have allowed a Norse-Baltic (or maybe predominantly Baltic) country to emerge 200 years earlier than Lithuania did OTL?

 

[Nikephoros]

I think that is a good possibility, but I don't see how the Swedes and the Baltic tribes would grow together. But I could see the Baltic tribes and the Swedes exchange information.

 

[rcduggan]

I don't think that more Vikings in the Baltic would allow Varangian states to survive.... as long as they expand south they are going to get assimilated into the much larger Slavic population.

The way to get a recognizably Varangian state in Russia would be for them to not expand south, and only stay in northern Russia (Gardariki). From 800-1000s there were only Finno-Ugric people there, not many Slavs. But if they take Kiev, they basically are doomed to assimilation.


But to answer your question about the Baltic, I think that the Curonians already did adopt the Viking style. They were pagans who conducted extensive raids on the surrounding peoples. So if they expand, there are some more "Varangians." But even if the Curonians adopt every aspect of Varangian culture, they will not be true Varangians, in the eyes of the Suiones, Geats, and Danes.

But the problem will still be that no matter how many Varangians there are, they are outnumbered by the Slavs. So 9 times out of 10 they will be assimilated.

 

[Legolas]

I don't think that more Vikings in the Baltic would allow Varangian states to survive.... as long as they expand south they are going to get assimilated into the much larger Slavic population.

The way to get a recognizably Varangian state in Russia would be for them to not expand south, and only stay in northern Russia (Gardariki). From 800-1000s there were only Finno-Ugric people there, not many Slavs. But if they take Kiev, they basically are doomed to assimilation.

I see. Would it be possible for some recognizable elements of Viking culture to remain in the Slavic countries? Or was the Byzantine culture too strong in those areas?

But to answer your question about the Baltic, I think that the Curonians already did adopt the Viking style. They were pagans who conducted extensive raids on the surrounding peoples. So if they expand, there are some more "Varangians." But even if the Curonians adopt every aspect of Varangian culture, they will not be true Varangians, in the eyes of the Suiones, Geats, and Danes.

Well, they did, but that came somewhat later than most of the Viking era. Besides, they raided lands across the Baltic sea, so Denmark and Sweden. This definintely weakened those countries, though I don't know to what extent. If, on the other hand, the Curons adopted maneouverable ships from the Varangians, they could move up the Nemunas and Daugava rivers and raid/trade/unite the other Baltic tribes.

I don't see how the Swedes and the Baltic tribes would grow together.

The Vikings were explorers and traders as well as warriors. So if they saw the Baltic tribes as trading partners rather than raiding targets (maybe some early contact and decisive Baltic victories? Plus the Swedes valueing amber much more), that could produce a constructive relationship.

 

[rcduggan]

I see. Would it be possible for some recognizable elements of Viking culture to remain in the Slavic countries? Or was the Byzantine culture too strong in those areas?

Yes, it is definitely possible. IIRC for centuries after the Varangians became "Slavicized" (beginning with Sviatoslav's reign in the 10th century), the Rus' would conduct Viking-style raids, and many aspects of Viking culture would stay for a long time. Some Russian vocabulary is from Old Norse, and Kievan Rus' dress sometimes was similar to Varangian. They also had similar ships (such as this one).
Another interesting tidbit I picked up: the rulers of Kievan Rus' used the title "Khagan" until the 13th century. Half a millennium after the Rus' Khaganate collapsed.

Well, they did, but that came somewhat later than most of the Viking era. Besides, they raided lands across the Baltic sea, so Denmark and Sweden. This definintely weakened those countries, though I don't know to what extent. If, on the other hand, the Curons adopted maneouverable ships from the Varangians, they could move up the Nemunas and Daugava rivers and raid/trade/unite the other Baltic tribes.

Other Vikings raided and warred with each other too. So Danes raided Suiones, Geats, and Norwegians, and vice-versa. That is definitely possible that the Curonians could have adopted those things earlier. It would be very interesting, a stronger state in the Baltics much earlier than in OTL. If the Teutonic Order still comes (in all probability, they won't), crusading in the Baltics would be much harder....

 

[Legolas]

It would be very interesting, a stronger state in the Baltics much earlier than in OTL. If the Teutonic Order still comes (in all probability, they won't), crusading in the Baltics would be much harder....

The whole concept of Northern Crusades might change dramatically. It may either become unnecessary, if the Baltic Viking state adtops Christianity in one form or another at around the same time as the other Vikings (either through Sweden or through Kiev); or it may become more of a "fight for survival" for Christianity, if a pagan state in Eastern Europe rises to power way earlier than the Mongols arrive. Though in all likelyhood, economic and cultural pressure from the Christian states might be enough to get that Baltic state to convert without any crusades.

Thanks for the information, by the way

 

[rcduggan]

The whole concept of Northern Crusades might change dramatically. It may either become unnecessary, if the Baltic Viking state adtops Christianity in one form or another at around the same time as the other Vikings (either through Sweden or through Kiev); or it may become more of a "fight for survival" for Christianity, if a pagan state in Eastern Europe rises to power way earlier than the Mongols arrive. Though in all likelyhood, economic and cultural pressure from the Christian states might be enough to get that Baltic state to convert without any crusades.

Thanks for the information, by the way

One problem with adopting Christianity: in many cases conversion meant the end of true Viking / Varangian lifestyle. Case in point: the Normans converted, and within a generation they had assimilated into the Frankish-Latin population. They still continued raids and whatnot, but it was not as wanton as the pagan Vikings, and more directed and coordinated. And the Danes: they converted around 1000. That was the time that raids on England stopped, and the kings of the Danes started seeking to become King of England.

So conversion, while it might prevent crusades (didn't really work for Lithuania post-1386), they would gradually lose their Varangian lifestyle. Not that that was what you were saying, but still.

Now that I think of it, a Catholic Curonian tribe might keep their warlike style, but this time concentrating its efforts to bring Christianity to the heathen Balts. Now there is a cool idea.

 

[CanadianGoose]

In OTL, the Scandinavians conquered the Finnish and many Rus tribes, founded Kievan Rus and managed large trade routes down the Volga and the Dniepr rivers even down to Constantinople.

They were heavily involved in Russian affairs yes, but not to Danelaw extent. For example, Russian has less than a dozen words which (some with some doubts) can be traced to Norse. In the same time, modern English has hunderds. This is IMHO heaviest blow against "Normanism" theories.

However, the Baltic tribes were relatively untouched, except for a few incursions (Apuolė 864 I know of, there were some others, but minor ones).

Nothing to plunder and land for possible settlement was lousy even by Scandinavian standards.

Could this have improved the Scandinavian-Byzantine trade enough for the Viking realms to last longer?

Trade thrived all the time pre-Mongols, and I don't see how a Norse-Baltic (or even predominantly Baltic) kingdom can alter reality of Mongols invading the East European Plain and reducing it to that much rubble (event which largely allowed creation of the Grand Duchy).

Could this have allowed a Norse-Baltic (or maybe predominantly Baltic) country to emerge 200 years earlier than Lithuania did OTL?

IMHO no.

I don't think that more Vikings in the Baltic would allow Varangian states to survive.... as long as they expand south they are going to get assimilated into the much larger Slavic population.

The way to get a recognizably Varangian state in Russia would be for them to not expand south, and only stay in northern Russia (Gardariki). From 800-1000s there were only Finno-Ugric people there, not many Slavs. But if they take Kiev, they basically are doomed to assimilation.

Wrong. Novgorod's population was majority Slavic (northeasternernmost offshot of the "prehistoric" Slavic migration, Slavs colonized territory of modern-day Belarus, Smolensk, Pskov and Novgorod regions before 800 AD). Finno-Ugric tribes were significant minority of Novgorod proper and majority North and East of it.

Some Russian vocabulary is from Old Norse, and Kievan Rus' dress sometimes was similar to Varangian. They also had similar ships (such as this one).

Very few Russian words are from Old Norse. Northern Slavic tribes virtually adopted Scandianvian infantry equipment (shield, helmet, chainmail), but this can be explained by trade as much as conquest (Northern Russia had very poor sources of iron and imported a lot of iron items from Sweden).

 

[abas]

The Vikings were explorers and traders as well as warriors. So if they saw the Baltic tribes as trading partners rather than raiding targets (maybe some early contact and decisive Baltic victories? Plus the Swedes valueing amber much more), that could produce a constructive relationship.

The Western Baltic tribes were more trading partners than raiding targets (this was more episodic). Acctually Western Balts were part of Scandinavian cultural area at least from the first century AD

 

[abas]

They were heavily involved in Russian affairs yes, but not to Danelaw extent. For example, Russian has less than a dozen words which (some with some doubts) can be traced to Norse. In the same time, modern English has hunderds. This is IMHO heaviest blow against "Normanism" theories.

This can be explained by similarity between Old English and Norse and there were less if any common settlers (peasants) in Russia.

 

[CanadianGoose]

This can be explained by similarity between Old English and Norse and there were less if any common settlers (peasants) in Russia.

I don't buy "similarity" argument. Germanic, Baltic and Ugro-Finnish languages are as distant as possible, but you would be hard-pressed to find a word in Latvian or Estonian dealing with trade or scientific matters which is not from German. Slavic and Turkic are not that related too, but there's plenty of word in Russian left since times of Mongol-Tartar Yoke (Mongols did not really settle in Russia proper). Speaking about "common settlers", Jewish settlers lived among Slavs for centuries. However, neither Polish nor Ukrainian or Belorussian borrowed from Yiddish significantly.

 

[arctic warrior]

I have been reading bits and pieces about the history of the Viking age. Mostly I am interested in the eastern (Varangian) section of the the Vikings rather than the western (Danelaw, Vinland, etc.), and one thing made me thinking. In OTL, the Scandinavians conquered the Finnish and many Rus tribes, founded Kievan Rus and managed large trade routes down the Volga and the Dniepr rivers even down to Constantinople. However, the Baltic tribes were relatively untouched, except for a few incursions (Apuolė 864 I know of, there were some others, but minor ones). In the latter part of the Viking era, it was even the Scandinavians who got raided by Curonic "vikings". All this time, the relations between the Baltic tribes (mostly the maritime ones, i.e. Curons, Prussians and Latgalians) and the Varangians (Swedes) were tense.

So my question is - if the Baltic tribes embraced the Viking lifestyle earlier, and united with the Swedish vikings in some way (maybe adopting the hierarchial structure and legal system), could this have been enough of a leverage for more Norse-descendent realms to form in Eastern Europe? Could this have improved the Scandinavian-Byzantine trade enough for the Viking realms to last longer? Could this have allowed a Norse-Baltic (or maybe predominantly Baltic) country to emerge 200 years earlier than Lithuania did OTL?

I don't think that more Vikings in the Baltic would allow Varangian states to survive.... as long as they expand south they are going to get assimilated into the much larger Slavic population.

The way to get a recognizably Varangian state in Russia would be for them to not expand south, and only stay in northern Russia (Gardariki). From 800-1000s there were only Finno-Ugric people there, not many Slavs. But if they take Kiev, they basically are doomed to assimilation.


But to answer your question about the Baltic, I think that the Curonians already did adopt the Viking style. They were pagans who conducted extensive raids on the surrounding peoples. So if they expand, there are some more "Varangians." But even if the Curonians adopt every aspect of Varangian culture, they will not be true Varangians, in the eyes of the Suiones, Geats, and Danes.

But the problem will still be that no matter how many Varangians there are, they are outnumbered by the Slavs. So 9 times out of 10 they will be assimilated.

The whole concept of Northern Crusades might change dramatically. It may either become unnecessary, if the Baltic Viking state adtops Christianity in one form or another at around the same time as the other Vikings (either through Sweden or through Kiev); or it may become more of a "fight for survival" for Christianity, if a pagan state in Eastern Europe rises to power way earlier than the Mongols arrive. Though in all likelyhood, economic and cultural pressure from the Christian states might be enough to get that Baltic state to convert without any crusades.

Thanks for the information, by the way

It seem to me you ask two questions:
1. Greater Scandinavian Empire in Eastern Europe
2. Balts becoming Vikings and establish greater empire
and a subquestion:
Crusades

1. The Scandinavians didn't conquer Finland until the 13. century. Novgorod was the early objective - Nestor legend and all that.
But both the West Götaland and Danish royal families had ties to Novgorod and Kiev. Our Valdemar the Great was actually a Kievian Vladimir!
But they got soaked up.
How to make that a stronger Scandinavian presence - keep the Danes out of Western Europe. We had a number of threads on that like Charlemagne not conqering the Saxons or the Western kingsdoms being stronger in their sea-wise defences.
That would give the Danish kings the incentive to go East instead of West. The Norwegians would probably still go into the North Atlantic.
So instead of the Great Heathen Army going to England it goes to the Baltic Shores.
That could make for some Danish Empire building with possibly a better chance of keeping it than some 4-500 years later! The Baltics and Novgorod that is.

2. The Balts and Wendts were Vikings. And a bad nuisance to Denmark at least in the 11. and 12. century as well as the Swedes.
Sticking to OTL but more Vikingism in the Baltics Denmark especially might be quite badly off. Might even go Wendish.
That would make for some difference - quite interesting.

Crusades:
In relation to 1 - then you'd get probably a Christian Orthodox or Catholic LARGE Denmark around the Baltic/Danish Lake.
Orthodox:
Frankish crusade at some point to bring it back into the fold.
Border warfare?
Catholic:
That would just beat the Franks to it wouldn't it?
Danish crusades in Eastern Europe. "Come spend the winter in Russia hunting heathens, orthodox and any other heresy!"

To 2 - much more for the Catholics to go at!

 

[Norman]

What if the Eastern Empire hadn't treated the Goths so harshly, instead letting a large group into the Empire but settling them far from Constantinople in the Balkans (present Macedonian area??).

Subsequently, the tradition develops that a Captain of the Varangians is awarded lands in the area to further ensure his loyalty to the Emperor and to keep them from developing too much power in the capital itself. I could see that these Captains would surround themselves with kinsmen and exiles from Scandanavia, forming a 'court' of North Germanic speakers.

 

[abas]

I don't buy "similarity" argument. Germanic, Baltic and Ugro-Finnish languages are as distant as possible, but you would be hard-pressed to find a word in Latvian or Estonian dealing with trade or scientific matters which is not from German. Slavic and Turkic are not that related too, but there's plenty of word in Russian left since times of Mongol-Tartar Yoke (Mongols did not really settle in Russia proper). Speaking about "common settlers", Jewish settlers lived among Slavs for centuries. However, neither Polish nor Ukrainian or Belorussian borrowed from Yiddish significantly.

You are referring to interactions among distant languages and borrowing words along with artefacts or concepts. The different thing happens when meet two closely related languages (one modern example would be interaction between Russian and Belorusian). Jews weren't "common settlers" in the sense I used. They lived separate life beside (not among) local people.