Would Russia and Turkey have the same rivalry as in otl with a shared religion

[walmart]

Say there is a shared religion between Turkey or a surviving Byzantine empire or what have you and Russia or some alt equivalent. Would both nations be doomed to be rivals over the Black Sea ?

The Bosporus is still going to be a strategic site for Russia due to the threat of bottling up Russia in the black sea. Even in otl, Russia did block both Greece and Bulgaria from gaining Istanbul. On the other hand with a shared religion, relations would be friendlier. So maybe the idea of Russia needing to own or control the Bosporus could be less prevalent .

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

The Ottomans wanted to control the whole Black Sea coast in order to project their power deep into Europe-- enough to inflict defeats on Poland and secure the west Ukrainians as vassals. One of their tools in doing this was Crimea, a Golden Horde remnant that trafficked in European slaves and war captives.

So long before Russia even has a square mile of Black Sea coast, never mind dreaming about the Bosporus, there are rationales for hostility between it and a Christian-Anatolian monopolist of the Black Sea. If the Anatolians want to use the sea in order to extend their control over lands Russia is interested in, or otherwise presents itself as domineering in its relationship with Russia, then hostility will endure despite a shared religion-- the Moscow Patriarchate doesn't really report to Constantinople.

The Tatars are the necessary third player in this scenario-- whether they settle/govern Crimea/southern Ukraine, whether they threaten Russia, and whether the Anatolians support or oppose that.

If Russia overwhelms a hostile Black Sea empire enough for the topic of conversation to shift to the Bosporus, that may depend on whether these states are allies or enemies within the European context, and how much independence the owner of the Bosporus has over its own policy-- if it has become a very weak state, Russia's enemies may be able to make demands of it.

 

[Elfwine]

The Rus OTL did see Constantinople (before there was a Russian patriarch and before the fall of the ERE for good) in a light that suggests relations are neither going to be wholly smooth nor implacably hostile. I suspect that would continue, but which way it goes at any given time really does depend on the general pattern of diplomacy and interests not wholly identical even when compatible.

A different Christian power really doesn't seem like it would mean warmer or colder just by being "a different power".

 

[carbon1923]

I think it depends on who unifies Russia. If it's Moscow I see everything going like OTL. A southern unifier would be more peaceful and aligned with Constantinople. If it's Novgorod who unifies Russia it could go either way, but I think they would lean towards peace.

 

[Atterdag]

Whether this entails a Muslim Russia or an Orthodox Turkey, sufficient to say that the butterflies are big enough that it will ensure it won't be 'the same' as in otl.

 

[Tibi088]

Whether this entails a Muslim Russia or an Orthodox Turkey, sufficient to say that the butterflies are big enough that it will ensure it won't be 'the same' as in otl.

But most likely very similar. Also if the same religion is orthdoxy it would probably add another layer to the rivalry as in who is the TOP leader of the religion.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

The Bosporus is still going to be a strategic site for Russia due to the threat of bottling up Russia in the black sea.

Not until the 19th century. Up until that point, Russia and Turkey's areas of interest wouldn't conflict with each other.

Even in otl, Russia did block both Greece and Bulgaria from gaining Istanbul.

The reason was that Russia needed to conquer Istanbul itself in order to fulfill the Reconquer Tsargrad mission.

Reconquer Tsargrad was a historical mission opened to Russia in the event that Constantinople came under non-Orthodox rule, which meant that whoever owned Constantinople automatically became Russia's enemy and couldn't be allied with, even if the two of them shared a mutual enemy. If Russia and Anatolia were both Orthodox or both Muslim, Reconquer Tsargrad simply wouldn't be an issue, for obvious reasons.

Without that religious difference, Russia and Anatolia can actually ally against their common enemy: the Catholics.
Whether Russia/Anatolia are Orthodox or Muslim, the Catholic powers are their #1 shared enemy. And a big one at that.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

But most likely very similar. Also if the same religion is orthdoxy it would probably add another layer to the rivalry as in who is the TOP leader of the religion.

Not really. Prior to 1453, there was no such dispute.

The Third Rome idea came about because Constantinople had accepted a deal to reconcile with Rome in an attempt to get Western aid to defeat the Turks, and then got steamrolled by the Turks anyway less than a year later. This left Orthodoxy bereft of its spiritual capital, and it seemed like this had happened because God was displeased with them for reconciling with the Latin heretics. This left Russia as the only remaining Orthodox power capable of assuming the leadership role after Constantinople fell, which is why Moscow became the de facto leading patriarchate from that point on.

Without that, the prerequisites for the Third Rome idea don't happen and the Patriarch of Constantinople remains the undisputed leader of the Orthodox world.

 

[WhatSantayanaSaid]

A common religion didn't stop the Spanish and French or English and French or French and Germans or Italians and French from tearing into each other continuously over claims or strategic lands. And having a theoretically common religious enemy in the Ottomans didn't make the French and Austrians/Spanish reconcile, as the Franco-Ottoman alliance shows. Or having the Pope in Rome being the undisputed religious leader either, as all the Papal attempts to end the 100 Years' War early or the Avignon Papacy would indicate.

IMO, intermarriage between the royal families probably increases the likelihood of conflict and rivalries due to succession shenanigans (if the Anatolian power is anything like the Eastern Roman Empire, there's going to be lots of coups and civil wars. Meanwhile, the Russians themselves had the Time of Troubles and various coups). And intermarriage increases in likelihood with a common religion and proximity. It probably won't be a purely antagonistic relationship like with OTL's Russian-Ottoman rivalry, but I don't think there's ever been two neighboring major kingdoms/empires that haven't feuded for at least a few centuries over strategic lands/waterways or succession even when they share the same denomination of the same religion.

 

[Elfwine]

I think it depends on who unifies Russia. If it's Moscow I see everything going like OTL. A southern unifier would be more peaceful and aligned with Constantinople. If it's Novgorod who unifies Russia it could go either way, but I think they would lean towards peace.

Why do you think a southern unifier would be more peaceful than Moscow (Moscow specifically, or should this be taken as counting Tver?)?

Without that religious difference, Russia and Anatolia can actually ally against their common enemy: the Catholics.
Whether Russia/Anatolia are Orthodox or Muslim, the Catholic powers are their #1 shared enemy. And a big one at that.

This raises a real question, though. Are "the Catholics", either collectively or as an individual power, a common enemy?

it probably matters at least somewhat to Russia what Poland('s pieces) is/are doing. I'd bet money that how Poland fits into Constantinople's diplomatic schemes is going to be a lot less straightforward than "Well, they are Catholics and the Russians are Orthodox, so we naturally favor the latter no matter how counter to our interests this is."

 

[Silver01]

if the ottomans took orthodox Christianity for some reason and pushed for the third Rome claim and russia did so as well and the alt ottomans wanted the same regions they controled in the otl yes there gonna be conflict , if the more content with its frontiers byzantine empire or the alt chirstian turks do not want to control the black sea aside from some portion of crimea relationships would be more peaceful .

 

[cra0422]

I think that geopolitics would eventually come into play with Russia wanting access to the Mediterranean Sea and Turkey controlling the Bosporus. Religious differences just give them another excuse to fight

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

This raises a real question, though. Are "the Catholics", either collectively or as an individual power, a common enemy?

If both powers are Muslim, then this is 100% true. Think of the Hapsburg coalitions against the Ottomans, which were created because of the fear that the Turks were going to conquer Europe and impose Islam. Add another vast nation into the Muslim camp and the coalition-building is going to be even more frenzied.

If both powers are Orthodox, it depends on how strong Byzantium is / how successful it is at reconquering the Balkans. It would also depend on how interested they are in the old Byzantine missions, Reconquer the Western Half and Subdue the Latin Heretics. If they were as successful as the Ottomans, they'd be viewed with much the same hostility. Austria would be their main enemy, which would automatically pull all the Hapsburg kingdoms into alignment against the Byzantines.

I'd bet money that how Poland fits into Constantinople's diplomatic schemes is going to be a lot less straightforward than "Well, they are Catholics and the Russians are Orthodox, so we naturally favor the latter no matter how counter to our interests this is."

As long as Poland holds central Ukraine, Russia and the Byzantines' interests don't conflict at all. Poland is a mutual enemy to some extent. They aided the Hapsburgs in their wars against the Ottomans IOTL, they had interests in Moldavia which probably wouldn't change ITTL, and they wouldn't like standing alone against two strong Orthodox powers on their flanks.

Until the era of religious wars ends, religion will be one of the key factors in alliances. The only time this broke down IOTL was when the French allied with the Turks and Protestants against the Catholic faction, because that Catholic faction was dominated by the Hapsburgs and the Hapsburgs were France's main enemy. I don't see what similar reason the Orthodox powers have for not cooperating.

 

[Elfwine]

Focusing only on these two specific parts because I think we are looking at two radically different things as far as how things went down OTL as far as any guide to how this timeline might go:

If both powers are Muslim, then this is 100% true. Think of the Hapsburg coalitions against the Ottomans, which were created because of the fear that the Turks were going to conquer Europe and impose Islam. Add another vast nation into the Muslim camp and the coalition-building is going to be even more frenzied.

If both powers are Muslim, we are looking at a radically different Europe than OTL in regards to so many things that "like OTL, but without its complications" feels misleading on the entire geopolitical basis for anything here. But most of Europe seems to have shrugged at the Golden Horde being Muslim as far as any frenzy for coalitions.

As long as Poland holds central Ukraine, Russia and the Byzantines' interests don't conflict at all. Poland is a mutual enemy to some extent. They aided the Hapsburgs in their wars against the Ottomans IOTL, they had interests in Moldavia which probably wouldn't change ITTL, and they wouldn't like standing alone against two strong Orthodox powers on their flanks.

But how is who owns central Ukraine is a major strategic concern to the Byzantines, assuming they're not otherwise hostile to the empire (and Poland-Lithuania seems to had interests away from Constantinople's)?

The Byzantines fought every sect of Christianity they bordered and allied with most of them at different times, but they never seem to have had any particularly "we're both Orthodox" uniting their interests and Georgia's (not to mention that the idea that mattered with Serbia or Bulgaria is impossible for me to picture). Frankly, I'd suspect them using Polish-Russian rivalry to their advantage given the usual practices of Byzantine diplomacy and aims of (re)conquest.

I can't think of any time "we share a religion" automatically meant alliance, especially between powers that simply don't share many common goals.

 

[WhatSantayanaSaid]

Until the era of religious wars ends, religion will be one of the key factors in alliances. The only time this broke down IOTL was when the French allied with the Turks and Protestants against the Catholic faction, because that Catholic faction was dominated by the Hapsburgs and the Hapsburgs were France's main enemy. I don't see what similar reason the Orthodox powers have for not cooperating.

Eh, interfaith alliances, sure. But interdenominationally speaking, there was Henry VIII's alliance with Charles V in the 1540s, despite the former having broken with Rome the previous decade and offending the latter with his treatment of Catherine of Aragon. Anglican England also allied with Catholic Portugal against Catholic Spain in the 1640s to end the Iberian Union. There's also Ivan Asen II (1200s) and his flirtations with the Catholics, marriage with the Hungarian king's daughter, and wars with and against the other Orthodox powers in the Balkans pointing to a less black and white picture of the religious relations of the Orthodox world prior to the end of religious wars.

As for not cooperating, a shared faith didn't do much to smooth over Bulgarian-Serbia-Byzantine relations at any point.

A cursory glance through the Kievan Rus' history also notes several raids against the Byzantines over the 900s-1000s, possibly over the Byzantine outposts on the northern Black Sea coast, so it's not like the Kievan Rus was entirely peaceful with the Byzantines.

There's also the question of if Pan-Slavism actually happens (well, nationalism emerging in a form we'd recognize given this level of divergence is questionable, but still not completely irrelevant, methinks) and how Orthodox powers would handle either a non-Slavic Orthodox power dominating Slavs (like Austria over the Italians) or two competing Orthodox Slavic powers competing to dominate the Slavic world. That's another potential flashpoint (along with Black Sea domination) that religion doesn't butterfly away.

 

[Booster Gold]

France and Austria were both Catholic
Netherlands and England both Protestant
Sweden and Denmark Protestant as well
Etc. Etc

This world is always more important than the next

 

[rfmcdonald]

I see no reason to believe a shared Eastern Orthodoxy would prevent different powers professing that faith from coming to blow. Look, on a smaller scale, at the history of the Orthodox Balkans.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

But most of Europe seems to have shrugged at the Golden Horde being Muslim as far as any frenzy for coalitions.

No, they didn't. They basically saw them as the remnants of the dreaded Mongol hordes which, thankfully, had retreated east and weren't pushing west anymore. Compare that to the Ottomans, who were winning every war they fought and looked like an unstoppable tide for a while. One was past its prime and confined to its location, the other was new and didn't show any signs of slowing its expansion.

But how who owns central Ukraine is a major strategic concern to the Byzantines, assuming they're not otherwise hostile to the empire (and Poland-Lithuania seems to had interests away from Constantinople's)?

For Russia, it's the southern frontier.
For Byzantium, it's the area just beyond the northern frontier (Crimea).

The Byzantines fought every sect of Christianity they bordered and allied with most of them at different times, but they never seem to have had any particularly "we're both Orthodox" uniting their interests

That line only works in situations where the Catholic-Orthodox split is present. Pre-1054, it doesn't exist.
It also doesn't exist on the eastern border, where there are no Catholics.

Where the Byzantines did have relations with the Catholic world, it varied between Teeth-Clenched Teamwork (ie. Crusades 1-3) and bitter rivalry (ie. the 4th Crusade and onward, relations with Hungary). They only cooperated with the Catholics for the 1st Crusade in the first place because they knew they couldn't push back the Seljuks alone, and their expectation was that the Crusaders would give them the Holy Land instead of taking it for themselves.

By the time of the Great Schism, the Byzantines' weakness also meant that they didn't present the same kind of coalition-forming threat as the Ottomans (expansionist, seemingly unstoppable, heading westward). If they recover their strength and decide to do Belisarius 2: Electric Boogaloo in Italy and the Balkans, they'll present the same kind of threat as the Ottomans did IOTL.

I can't think of any time "we share a religion" automatically meant alliance, especially between powers that simply don't share many common goals.

In the era of religious wars (ie. the 15th-17th centuries) that was pretty much a given, with few exceptions.

But interdenominationally speaking, there was Henry VIII's alliance with Charles V in the 1540s, despite the former having broken with Rome the previous decade and offending the latter with his treatment of Catherine of Aragon.

An alliance which didn't last long. As soon as France stopped being England's main problem, the alliance dissipated.
But for 16th and 17th century Europe as a whole, where the Catholic-Protestant division was omnipresent, religion determined the vast majority of alliances.

Anglican England also allied with Catholic Portugal against Catholic Spain in the 1640s to end the Iberian Union.

They supported the Portuguese rebellion for the exact same reason that the French supported the Turks and Protestants: the Hapsburgs were a big enough threat that any qualms about religion had to be thrown out.

As for not cooperating, a shared faith didn't do much to smooth over Bulgarian-Serbia-Byzantine relations at any point.

When everyone's the same religion and the nearest Catholics are in Hungary and northern Italy, religion doesn't serve as a useful political division.
Also, anything pre-1054 doesn't count because Orthodox and Catholic don't exist as political distinctions.

A cursory glance through the Kievan Rus' history also notes several raids against the Byzantines over the 900s-1000s, possibly over the Byzantine outposts on the northern Black Sea coast, so it's not like the Kievan Rus was entirely peaceful with the Byzantines.

See above. Wrong era. In fact, this doesn't just predate the religious wars. It predates the Orthodox-Catholic Schism.

There's also the question of if Pan-Slavism actually happens (well, nationalism emerging in a form we'd recognize given this level of divergence is questionable, but still not completely irrelevant, methinks) and how Orthodox powers would handle either a non-Slavic Orthodox power dominating Slavs (like Austria over the Italians) or two competing Orthodox Slavic powers competing to dominate the Slavic world. That's another potential flashpoint (along with Black Sea domination) that religion doesn't butterfly away.

That's there, but that's for the era of nationalist wars (ie. the 19th century).

France and Austria were both Catholic

I already mentioned this.

Netherlands and England both Protestant

The Anglo-Dutch Wars only started toward the tail-end of the European religious wars, and that rivalry took a back seat when the French became the bigger problem again.

Sweden and Denmark Protestant as well

That had to do with the Vasa overthrow of Danish rule in the 16th century.
They also didn't form a long-lasting alliance with the Catholic powers over this, despite fighting several wars with Sweden. Only in one (the Second Northern War) did they cooperate.

 

[Elfwine]

No, they didn't. They basically saw them as the remnants of the dreaded Mongol hordes which, thankfully, had retreated east and weren't pushing west anymore. Compare that to the Ottomans, who were winning every war they fought and looked like an unstoppable tide for a while. One was past its prime and confined to its location, the other was new and didn't show any signs of slowing its expansion.

It wasn't considered grounds for frenzied coalitions while it was in its prime either, though.

For Russia, it's the southern frontier.
For Byzantium, it's the area just beyond the northern frontier (Crimea).

Which makes it at least one of the important frontiers to Russia, but how does this make it important to the Byzantines when their foothold on the southern Crimean peninsula is just that - a foothold?

I hesitate to call it minor given diplomacy with and watching steppe powers (although much of that is pre-1054 examples), but I wouldn't call this compatibly important - certainly not grounds to ally with a 16th century Russia because of how important it is.

That line only works in situations where the Catholic-Orthodox split is present. Pre-1054, it doesn't exist.
It also doesn't exist on the eastern border, where there are no Catholics.

Where the Byzantines did have relations with the Catholic world, it varied between Teeth-Clenched Teamwork (ie. Crusades 1-3) and bitter rivalry (ie. the 4th Crusade and onward, relations with Hungary). They only cooperated with the Catholics for the 1st Crusade in the first place because they knew they couldn't push back the Seljuks alone, and their expectation was that the Crusaders would give them the Holy Land instead of taking it for themselves.

It's not about the Catholic-Orthodox split alone. The Byzantines fought fellow Orthodox powers and Christian realms not Orthodox or Catholic too. Unless you're counting the Armenians as one of those two over a point of theology or politics I'm overlooking.

It's not exactly like no Great Schism would make Alexius and his successors not see Antioch as rightly part of the empire, or make "what might be vitally important to the Kingdom of Jerusalem is a 'one of many concerns' for Constantinople." an easy basis for falling out.

There is a lot more than religion going on here, even ignoring interactions other than the crusades or rivalry over control of the Balkans with Hungary. And that before highlighting that Catholic kingdoms were so willing to fight each other throughout this period (1054 to 1453 or so, as far as where you put the era of religious wars picking up - comments on that below), so that this would not be true here would definitely be astonishing.

By the time of the Great Schism, the Byzantines' weakness also meant that they didn't present the same kind of coalition-forming threat as the Ottomans (expansionist, seemingly unstoppable, heading westward). If they recover their strength and decide to do Belisarius 2: Electric Boogaloo in Italy and the Balkans, they'll present the same kind of threat as the Ottomans did IOTL.

I would be very surprised if most of West or Central Europe paid even lip service to caring if the Byzantines take Naples, whereas at least professing to see the Ottomans as "enemies of Christendom" was more politic than saying that who rules Naples doesn't make a fig's worth of difference to most of Europe. No way to tell for sure with alternate history, but I frankly don't see any basis for it to be "the same kind of threat" except to those who probably think Poland-Lithuania not being fanatically pro-CounterReformation is basically the same thing as full blown Calvinist.

In the era of religious wars (ie. the 15th-17th centuries) that was pretty much a given, with few exceptions.

You might not see many alliances with "heretics", but that's a far cry from "We are both Protestant, therefore we are allies despite that our goals do nothing to suggest we have common interests." and even further from that among Catholic rivals.

They also didn't form a long-lasting alliance with the Catholic powers over this, despite fighting several wars with Sweden. Only in one (the Second Northern War) did they cooperate.

For clarity's sake, what would you list as an example of a "long-lasting" alliance in this period between any two powers? Twenty years? Ten? The full duration of a war?

 

[dcharles]

Since much of the rivalry OTL was based around religion, they won't have the same rivalry, but they are still two states with competing interests.