We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hello, and welcome to the third installment of Tinto Flavour, the happy Fridays in which we look at the flavour content of the super secret Project Caesar! This week we will be traveling to the cold north, where the Sovereign Lord Republic of Velikiy Novgorod lies beside Lake Ilmen:
"Originally founded by Slav and Norse people as Holmgård, the 'new city' of Novgorod became the main political and economic center in the north of the lands inhabited by the Russian people. Fiercely independent, the Novgorodian council elects its Prince among neighboring rulers, although the true power is held by its people, who thrive thanks to the commercial routes linking the rich inland resource-gathering outposts with the Baltic and White Seas.
However, in recent decades, the war with Sweden has been almost a constant, nowadays halted after the creation of the buffer state of Oreshek. Meanwhile, to the south, Muscovy has become a dominant power, with the backing of the Golden Horde. The proud inhabitants of Novgorod may have to face difficult decisions at these crossroads."
Grand Prince Ivan Rurikovich I ‘Kalita’ of Muscovy is the Prince elected by the Council of Novgorod. As usual, please consider the UI, 2D and 3D art as WIP.
And here are the lands of Veliky Novgorod:
Today with a different camera angle!
This is the starting situation of Novgorod:
Pskov and Oreshek, the two first shown in the subject list, are vassals. The other subjects are pop-based tributaries; we need some work to make them visible on this screen. Besides that, Muscovy and the other countries with a similar color share a PU with Novgorod throughout their ruler, Ivan I.
Let’s now take a look at Novgorod itself. The first thing is the country's government type, which is a Republic. As per that, and Novgorod’s main culture belonging to the Russian culture group, two different things get unlocked. The first is a major government reform, the Veche Republic:
The second is this Age of Traditions advance:
This in turn unlocks the Veche Selection, a succession law that allows your country to select the ruler among neighboring countries:
You might have noticed that Estates are important and powerful in the governance of Novgorod. This is also reflected in the unique privileges it starts with, with 3 unique privileges for Nobility:
And one for Burghers:
There are also some unique policies. The first is for the Legal Code law:
And the second is for the Administrative System Law:
Novgorod also has some unique works of art, such as:
This will reappear later in this Tinto Flavour, keep an eye on it!
And a type of work of art that is unique to Orthodox and Miaphysite countries, the Icon:
Speaking of Orthodoxy, there’s some Orthodox-related stuff that I’m just going to tease, as we will talk in detail about this in a future Tinto Talks, like this Law available to all Orthodox countries:
Patriarchates, a concept that you will either love or hate as an Orthodox country!
Now let’s move into taking a look at some of the unique advances that are available to Novgorod:
The last one unlocks another unique government reform, after it has been researched during the Age of Renaissance:
Finally, let’s take a look at some of the events that Novgorod may get. The first appears early in the campaign, after an event that triggers to Sweden:
Shall we debate with Swedish about theology, or just forward them for a Byzantine debate?
Another one that may trigger early on is this one:
These Swedes are troublemakers!
This is an event you will get to expand the Cathedral of St. Sophia, with an option to start constructing a building on top of the WoA:
This is another event that you can get after 1400:
That will unlock a new government reform, that will replace the Veche Republic as your main government reform:
…And much more content will be available for Novgorod, but that’s all for today! I hope you enjoyed today’s Tinto Flavour, next week we will be taking a look at Mali, the land of Mansa Musa! Cheers!
Using this opportunity (since we're discussing Novgorod), I would like to explain why I believe Novgorod should definitely be considered part of the Tatar Yoke IO. As we know, Novgorod was not devastated by Batu Khan. Based on this, one might hastily conclude that Novgorod did not fall under the Golden Horde's control. I would like to prove that this is not the case. I will rely on the monograph "Essays on the History of Medieval Novgorod" (2008) by Yanin V. L.
[Очерки истории средневекового Новгорода (2008). Янин В. Л.]
A bit about the author:
Valentin Lavrentyevich Yanin (1929-2020) was a Soviet and Russian historian and archaeologist, who served as the head of the Novgorod Archaeological Expedition (1962-2020) and the Department of Archaeology at Moscow State University (1978-2016). He became a Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1966 and a full Academician in 1990. Yanin received his doctorate in Historical Sciences in 1963, became a professor in 1965, and published extensive works on medieval Russian history, focusing particularly on Novgorod through archaeological and historical research.
Most of my arguments are taken from the chapters:
Novgorod during the time of Alexander Nevsky [Новгород во времена Александра Невского]
Strengthening of boyar power in the second half of the 13th century [Укрепление боярской власти во второй половине XIII века]
Novgorod's defense system after the Mongol invasion [Система обороны Новгорода после монгольского нашествия]
I won't translate the quotes to English since most of them use Old Slavic language. But I will provide the general content in English for each quote.
Establishment of Tribute
The Golden Horde's first attempt to impose tribute on Novgorod occurred in 1257. Although this attempt was unsuccessful (Novgorodians managed to buy their way out with gifts), just two years later, in 1259, the second attempt was successful. Under pressure from the Horde's envoys Berkay and Kasachik, despite serious internal resistance ("there was great turmoil in Novgorod"), the city agreed to a census and began paying tribute:
В 1257 г. к новгородцам приходит весть о намерении татар возложить на них ордынскую дань: «прииде весть из Руси зла, яко хотять татарове тамгы и десятины на Новегороде; и смятошася люди черес все лето». По-видимому, в нежелании принять татарские требования новгородцы были поддержаны сыном Александра Невского, а также воеводой Александром.
Когда «тои же зимы приехаша послы татарьскыи с Олександром, а Василии побеже в Пльсков; и почаша просити послы десятины, тамгы, и не яшася новгородьци про то, даша дары цесареви, и отпустиша я с миромь, а князь Олександр выгна сына своего из Пльскова и посла в Низ, а Александра и дружину его казни: овому носа урезаша, а иному очи выимаша, кто Василья на зло повел». По этому поводу летописец замечает: «Всяк бо зло дея, зле да погибнеть».
В 1259 г. была предпринята еще одна попытка, на этот раз удавшаяся. Появление татарских послов было теперь предварено привезенной Михаилом Пинещиничем «из Низу» лживой вестью: «аже не имется по число, то уже полкы на Низовьскои земли». «Тои же зимы приехаша оканьнии татарове сыроядцы Беркаи и Касачик с женами своими, и инех много; и бысть мятежь велик в Новегороде, и по волости много зла учиниша, беручи туску оканьним татаром». Опасаясь физической расправы, послы потребовали у Александра охраны и пригрозили отъездом; «но чернь не хотеша дати числа». «Тогда издвоишася люди: кто добрых, тот по святои Софьи и по правои вере; и створиша супор, вятшии велятся ити меншим по числу. И хоте оканьнии побежати, гонимы Святымь Духомь; и умыслиша свет зол, како ударити на город на ону сторону, а друзии озеромь на сю сторону; и възбрани им видимо сила Христова, и не смеша». Новгород оказался на грани восстания, однако «заутра съеха князь с Городища, и оканьнии татарове с нимь; и злых [в Комиссионном списке: злыи их] светомь яшася по число: творяху бо бояре собе легко, а меншим зло. И почаша ездити оканьнии по улицам, пишюче домы христьянскыя: зане навел Бог за грехы наша ис пустыня звери дивия ясти силных плъти и пити кровь боярьскую; и отъехаша оканьнии, вземше число, а князь Олександр поеха после, посадив сына своего Дмитрия на столе».
Further Confirmations of Tribute Payment
A notable case occurred in 1269 during an anti-princely struggle. When Novgorodians attempted to expel Prince Yaroslav Yaroslavovich, he complained to the Golden Horde, claiming that Novgorod supposedly wanted to stop paying tribute. Only the diplomatic intervention of Kostroma Prince Vasily Yaroslavovich prevented a punitive campaign by Mengu-Timur's troops against the city.
В этой обстановке Ярослав обращается за помощью к татарам, клеветнически обвинив Новгород в отказе платить дань Золотой Орде. Только вмешательство костромского князя Василия Ярославича предотвратило поход на Новгород войск Менгу-Тимура. Ярослав Ярославич продолжает настаивать на своем полном согласии с требованиями новгородцев, которые в ответ формулируют главный принцип тех взаимоотношений с князем, к которому они стремятся: «Княже, сдумал еси на святую Софею; и ты поиди, дажь изомрем честно за святую Софею; у нас князя нету, нъ Бог и правда и святая Софея, а тебе не хощем».
Political Dependence
It's particularly important to note that Novgorod's dependence wasn't limited to just the economic sphere. After entering the Golden Horde's sphere of influence, Novgorod's political system became closely tied to the Horde's authority. Key evidence of this is the fact that Novgorodians began inviting princes who received the yarlyk (permission) for grand princedom from the khan.
В том же году политическая ситуация резко меняется, когда Дмитрий вновь получает у Ногая ярлык на великое княжение. Андрей Александрович спешит в Торжок, куда им вызван посадник Семен Михайлович «со всеми стареишими», и здесь заключается крестоцелование, «како Андрею не съступитися Новагорода, а новгородцом не искати иного князя; живот ли, смерть ли, новгородцом с Андреем».
За все время своего второго княжения князь Андрей был в Новгороде только два раза: в 1294 г. в связи с вокняжением и в 1301 г. в связи с походом новгородцев на только что построенный шведами Венец. Его приглашение в Новгород в 1294 г. произошло после получения ярлыка на великое княжение. В Новгороде от его имени правит его сын и наместник Борис Андреевич, упомянутый в летописи под 1299 г.
Внешний ход событий 1272 г. как будто возвращает нас в те времена, когда не существовало признания великокняжеского суверенитета, а приглашение князя осуществлялось по принципу «вольности в князьях». Однако в действительности борьба 1272 г. полностью основывается на принятии великокняжеского суверенитета как основы новгородского княжения. И Дмитрий, и Василий были законными наследниками власти умершего Ярослава.
A particularly telling case occurred in 1353 after the death of Semyon the Proud, when Novgorodians sent envoys to the Horde, asking them to give the yarlyk for grand princedom to the Prince of Suzdal. When the khan ignored this request and gave the yarlyk to Prince Ivan the Fair, it was he who became the Novgorod prince.
После смерти Семена Гордого в 1353 г. «послаша новгородци свои посол Смена Судокова ко цесарю в Орду, прося великого княжениа Костянтину князю Суздальскому; и не послуша их цесарь и дашеть Ивану князю Ивановичю великое княжение. И пребыша без мира новгородци с великим князем полтора года, нь зла не бысть никакого же».
Nevertheless, it should be noted that there were cases when Novgorodians supported a prince who had not yet received a yarlyk, was only a pretender to the yarlyk, or had already lost the yarlyk. Our author understands and takes this into account. But having a yarlyk for grand princedom was certainly of key importance in the election of a Novgorod prince. And when conducting their politics, Novgorodians had to base their decisions on this fact. This once again points to their dependence on the Golden Horde and the khan, whom the Novgorodians called tsar.
Политика посадничества в этот период руководствуется идеей поддержания великокняжеского суверенитета над Новгородом. Однако было бы неверно представлять новгородскую правящую верхушку той поры неким смотрителем за правильностью работы механизма, автоматически сменяющего новгородских князей по мере утраты ими великокняжеского ярлыка. Напротив, мы видели, что всякий раз возникает готовность боярства пойти на сделку с князем. В 1280–1281 гг. новгородцы некоторое время поддерживают Дмитрия, уже потерявшего великое княжение. В 1283 г. они даже целуют крест Андрею сохранить ему верность при любом повороте событий. Эта готовность идти на сделку с князем в тот момент, когда он особенно нуждается в новгородской поддержке, весьма знаменательна и говорит о существовании у новгородского боярства особых целей, которые связываются с намерением иметь на столе князя, обязанного своим положением Новгороду.
Author's TLDR
From the chapter "Instead of Conclusion. History of Novgorod in the Briefest Essay" [Вместо заключения. История Новгорода в самом сжатом очерке ]:
What does this mean for the Project Caesar
At minimum, Novgorod must definitely be included in the Tatar Yoke IO. Additionally, we could introduce some gameplay mechanics for Novgorod. That at the start of the game, the prince who receives the great yarlyk for princedom from the khan (Grand Prince in Tatar Yoke IO) automatically becomes the Prince of Novgorod. However, Novgorod could later, through its own efforts, return to the system of choosing princes. As it happened historically.
Or the Grand Prince in Tatar Yoke IO could simply have additional weight when being elected to the Novgorod throne. And other pretenders would have to invest significant effort to outweigh this passive bonus.
P.S.
Ludi et Historia in his video said that he does not believe that Novgorod should fully join the Tatar Yoke IO, because then it would join the other Russian principalities in the war against the Golden Horde for liberation from tribute, which would make the process quite simple.
In this regard, I just wanted to note that Yanin V. L. believes that in reality Novgorod participated in the Battle of Kulikovo together with other Russian principalities. As proof, he says:
Политика поддержки Дмитрия Ивановича продолжается и в 1380 г., когда новгородцы настояли на поездке владыки Алексея в Москву, где Дмитрий «к Новугороду крест целовал на всеи старине новгородчкои и на старых грамотах». Существует давняя историографическая уверенность в неучастии новгородцев в битве на Куликовом поле. Между тем в синодике новгородской Борисоглебской церкви записано поминание о жителях Новгорода, погибших на Дону при великом князе Дмитрии Ивановиче. Известно также, что на следующий год после победы над Мамаем в Новгороде была заложена, а в 1382 г. окончена строительством каменная церковь святого Дмитрия на Славкове улице.
This information is also taken from the chapter:
Novgorod's defense system after the Mongol invasion [Система обороны Новгорода после монгольского нашествия]
For this reason and all the reasons above, it seems to me that the inclusion of Novgorod in the Tatar Yoke IO is quite justified. And other gameplay mechanics should ensure the stability of this international organization, and the impossibility for the Russian principalities to declare war for liberation from tribute too early.
Tribute Does Not Equal Subjugation: Novgorod’s payment of tribute to the Mongols does not equate to full integration into the "Tatar Yoke" system. Unlike other Rus’ territories, Novgorod avoided Mongol administrative or military presence, demonstrating its relative independence.
Halperin, Charles J. Russia and the Golden Horde (1985). Halperin stresses that tribute payments were pragmatic and did not necessarily imply subjugation.
Hanseatic League Connections: Novgorod’s trade with the Hanseatic League and its relative political independence suggest that it was not "controlled" by the Horde in the same way as other principalities.
Birnbaum, Henrik. Lord Novgorod the Great: Essays in the History and Culture of a Medieval City-State (1981). Birnbaum highlights Novgorod’s international trade and unique status.
Soviet Historiography’s Bias: Yanin’s works, while valuable, were produced during a period of Soviet historiography that often emphasized the unity of Rus’ lands under external domination (e.g., Mongol or Polish influence) to reinforce the idea of a historically unified Russian state.
Source: Yanin, Valentin L. Очерки истории средневекового Новгорода ("Essays on the History of Medieval Novgorod," 2008). Yanin’s interpretations have been criticized for downplaying Novgorod’s distinctiveness and autonomy, aligning with narratives favoring Moscow's historical dominance.
Alternative Interpretations: More recent Western historians like Charles Halperin and Janet Martin challenge the notion that Novgorod's tribute payments signify inclusion in the Tatar Yoke, emphasizing its unique status.
"Novgorod's defense system after the Mongol invasion"
This phrase implies that Novgorod’s defense system was shaped in response to a direct Mongol invasion. However, Novgorod was not invaded or devastated by the Mongols, as Batu Khan’s campaigns in the 1230s and 1240s targeted southern and eastern Rus’, avoiding Novgorod due to its location and negotiations.
Novgorod’s defensive strategies were primarily a result of its need to protect itself against other regional powers (e.g., Sweden, the Teutonic Order) and internal boyar conflicts, rather than Mongol threats.
Framing Novgorod’s defenses as a reaction to the Mongols aligns with narratives that overstate Mongol influence across all Rus’ lands, minimizing Novgorod’s autonomy and unique circumstances.
Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980-1584 (1995): Novgorod's avoidance of Mongol invasions was due to its geography and strategic payment of tribute.
Charles Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde (1985): Emphasizes that Novgorod was not militarily impacted by the Mongols, distinguishing it from other Rus’ regions.
Reliance on Yanin’s Chapters
"Novgorod during the time of Alexander Nevsky"
"Strengthening of boyar power in the second half of the 13th century"
Yanin’s interpretation of Alexander Nevsky’s role and Novgorod’s boyar power often reflects Soviet-era historiography, which emphasizes the integration of Novgorod into a broader "Rus’ unity" narrative. These interpretations downplay the unique characteristics of Novgorod’s governance and its independence from Mongol administrative control.
Alexander Nevsky’s mediation between Novgorod and the Mongols does not indicate that Novgorod was directly subordinated to the Golden Horde. Instead, Nevsky's actions were pragmatic attempts to balance Novgorod’s autonomy with external threats.
Emphasizing Alexander Nevsky’s role in negotiating with the Mongols and strengthening boyar power subtly aligns Novgorod with the broader "Rus’ under Mongol rule" narrative, preparing the ground for later Muscovite claims to Novgorod’s territory.
Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980-1584 (1995): Nevsky’s dealings with the Mongols were strategic, and Novgorod retained significant autonomy.
Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde (1985): Alexander Nevsky’s actions were not indicative of Mongol political control over Novgorod.
"Most of my arguments are taken from the chapters..."
The exclusive reliance on Yanin’s works reflects a limited perspective. Yanin, while a respected historian, often wrote within the constraints of Soviet historiography, which promoted a narrative of unity among Rus’ territories. His interpretations sometimes blur the distinctiveness of Novgorod as an autonomous city-state.
Soviet-era narratives frequently downplayed the independence of Novgorod and other non-Muscovite Rus’ regions to create a cohesive "Russian history" that justified Moscow’s dominance.
Modern Western historians like Halperin and Ostrowski emphasize Novgorod’s unique political and economic independence during the Mongol period.
"I won't translate the quotes to English since most of them use Old Slavic language."
Failing to translate Old Slavic quotes makes it difficult to critically evaluate the evidence being presented. This lack of transparency can obscure selective interpretations or biases in the source material.
Omitting translations aligns with a narrative that privileges certain historiographical interpretations (in this case, Yanin’s) without opening them to broader scrutiny.
Transparent historiography demands that evidence be accessible and verifiable by other scholars, regardless of linguistic barriers.
"The Golden Horde's first attempt to impose tribute on Novgorod occurred in 1257."
While it's accurate that the Golden Horde sought to impose tribute on Novgorod around 1257, the term "impose" may misrepresent the nature of the interaction. Historical records indicate that Novgorod managed to avoid direct subjugation by negotiating and offering gifts, demonstrating its political autonomy and diplomatic agency.
According to Britannica, during the 13th century, Novgorod's leaders "easily found an accommodation with the invading Mongols," indicating a negotiated relationship rather than outright imposition. Encyclopedia Britannica
"В 1259 г. была предпринята еще одна попытка, на этот раз удавшаяся. Появление татарских послов было теперь предварено привезенной Михаилом Пинещиничем «из Низу» лживой вестью: «аже не имется по число, то уже полкы на Низовьскои земли». «Тои же зимы приехаша оканьнии татарове сыроядцы Беркаи и Касачик с женами своими, и инех много; и бысть мятежь велик в Новегороде, и по волости много зла учиниша, беручи туску оканьним татаром». Опасаясь физической расправы, послы потребовали у Александра охраны и пригрозили отъездом; «но чернь не хотеша дати числа». «Тогда издвоишася люди: кто добрых, тот по святои Софьи и по правои вере; и створиша супор, вятшии велятся ити меншим по числу. И хоте оканьнии побежати, гонимы Святымь Духомь; и умыслиша свет зол, како ударити на город на ону сторону, а друзии озеромь на сю сторону; и възбрани им видимо сила Христова, и не смеша». Новгород оказался на грани восстания, однако «заутра съеха князь с Городища, и оканьнии татарове с нимь; и злых [в Комиссионном списке: злыи их] светомь яшася по число: творяху бо бояре собе легко, а меншим зло. И почаша ездити оканьнии по улицам, пишюче домы христьянскыя: зане навел Бог за грехы наша ис пустыня звери дивия ясти силных плъти и пити кровь боярьскую; и отъехаша оканьнии, вземше число, а князь Олександр поеха после, посадив сына своего Дмитрия на столе»" (This is literally modern Russianc language, not as it is said, Old Slavic language)
This statement suggests that Novgorod succumbed to Mongol pressure in 1259, agreeing to a census and tribute. While it's true that a census occurred and tribute was arranged, the context is essential:
The tribute was a strategic decision by Novgorod to maintain its autonomy and avoid potential conflict, rather than a sign of complete submission.
The process involved significant internal debate and resistance within Novgorod, reflecting its semi-independent status.
The World History Encyclopedia notes that many Russian princes, including those in regions like Novgorod, "were able to rule with a high degree of autonomy after the invasion," suggesting that tribute payments did not equate to direct Mongol control. World History Encyclopedia
"Only the diplomatic intervention of Kostroma Prince Vasily Yaroslavovich prevented a punitive campaign by Mengu-Timur's troops against the city."
The assertion that Prince Vasily Yaroslavovich's diplomacy averted a punitive expedition by Khan Mengu-Timur against Novgorod is not well-documented in primary historical sources. This claim may be an extrapolation or misinterpretation of events.
While internal conflicts and external threats were common during this period, specific details about Prince Vasily's intervention to prevent a Mongol attack on Novgorod are scarce. The available historical records do not provide concrete evidence supporting this particular incident.
Labeling Novgorod's relationship with the Golden Horde as "political dependence" oversimplifies the complex dynamics of the time. While Novgorod did pay tribute to the Horde, it maintained a significant degree of autonomy in its internal affairs.
Novgorod was never conquered by the Mongols during their invasion of Rus'. The city managed to avoid direct Mongol rule and retained its political structures, such as the veche (assembly), allowing it to govern its internal matters independently. Wikipedia
"In the synodicon of the Novgorod Borisoglebsk Church, there is a commemoration of the residents of Novgorod who perished on the Don under Grand Prince Dmitry Ivanovich."
While the synodicon may commemorate individuals from Novgorod, this does not necessarily indicate organized participation by Novgorod in the Battle of Kulikovo. The absence of Novgorodians in primary battle accounts supports this view. Battle of Kulikovo (1380) | Description & Significance - Britannica
"The following year after the victory over Mamai, a stone church of St. Demetrius was laid in Novgorod on Slavkova Street, and in 1382 it was completed."
The construction of a church dedicated to St. Demetrius in Novgorod does not directly imply participation in the Battle of Kulikovo. Such dedications were common and often reflected broader religious or cultural influences rather than specific military alliances or actions. Novgorod Republic - Wikipedia
Svyatoslav was the Grand Prince of Kyiv AND Novgorod, not just Kjiv. As for Rurik, I don't think we know if he had his own coat of arms. The closest thing I can give you is the coat of arms of Old Ladoga, the original capital of Old Rus' which is what Svyatoslav's coat of arms is based of.
Sviatoslav I of Kyiv ruled from 945 until his death in 972. While he conducted military campaigns and had influence over various regions, the concept of a unified "Grand Prince" title encompassing both Kyiv and Novgorod is anachronistic. The political structures of the time were complex, and titles did not correspond directly to later centralized notions of rulership. Sviatoslav I - Wikipedia
Trident is displayed in the game not as coat of arms of Ivan Kalita himself but as coat of arms of whole Rurikid dynasty which is not limited to Novgorod or Muscovy for that matter. As Rus' princes had only personal coats of arms and didn't have one to represent the whole dynasty, variation of trident (which was common type among their coats of arms) is used instead as symbol of whole Rurikovich house. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_the_Rurikids
The trident was not a universal symbol for the entire Rurikid dynasty. It was primarily used by specific rulers, notably Volodymyr the Great, and was not representative of all Rurikid princes. Symbols of the Rurikids - Wikipedia
Hm, I think I see where you went wrong.
Ruthenia = latinized name for Rus.
Russia = graecized name for Rus.
Ruthenia = Russia = Rus
2 exonyms, 1 endonym. The rule of thumb is to use English exonyms instead of local endonyms for high-level concepts. Germany, not Deutschland. Sweden, not Sverige. Manchuria, not whatever-locals-ask-for. And conequently, the corresponding adjective in flavour text is Russian.
While "Ruthenia" is the Latinized form and "Russia" the Graecized form of "Rus," the terms have been used to refer to different regions and political entities over time. "Ruthenia" often referred to western parts of the Rus' territories, while "Russia" became associated with the northeastern regions, particularly Muscovy.
Equating "Ruthenia," "Russia," and "Rus" oversimplifies the complex historical and political distinctions between these entities. Over time, these terms came to represent different regions, cultures, and political structures within Eastern Europe. Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia - Wikipedia
I am from Novgorod, thank you very much! The Great Novgorod is a unique state of the Eastern Europe in the Medieval ages. Despite its despotic neighbors like Moscow or Tver, the Great Novgorod was a republic. It's interesting, that after the fall of Novgorod in 1478, the russians had political freedom only in 1917 (from february to october) and then only in 1991 (up to approximately 2020-s). So, the Great Novgorod is very interesting to play. Thank you!
To be fair, Novgorod was just as despotic as the other Russian principalities, if not more so, despite being a republic.
Their boyars held most of the power over the country and they raided, waged wars on, sacked and pillaged their neighbours like every powerful country in this time period.
Saying that Novgorod was somehow better or more enlightened just because of being a republic is, unfortunately, nothing more than a myth.
Will there be any remarks regarding difficulty of playing a country (for the first 100 years maybe) in the country selection screen? Or anything to indicate a playstyle that a country is really suited to? Like 'conquest' (or general 'warfare', might call it 'map painting'), 'trading', 'naval dominance' or 'playing tall'?
We generally know these things if we're history buffs or long-time fans, but not everyone will playing the game will know everything.
You really seem to want give many options for playing, which I am very happy about and I think it would be a good way to showcase that
Tribute Does Not Equal Subjugation: Novgorod’s payment of tribute to the Mongols does not equate to full integration into the "Tatar Yoke" system. Unlike other Rus’ territories, Novgorod avoided Mongol administrative or military presence, demonstrating its relative independence.
What do you mean by administrative or military presence? What we call the Tatar Yoke was actually a vassal dependence. The Russian principalities were vassals of the Golden Horde. They would go to pay homage to the khan, pay him tribute (tax), and confirm their right to rule with the khan as their suzerain. But they ruled their principalities independently and had their own armies. There were no Mongol garrisons or Mongol governors, etc. in the Russian principalities.
Therefore, we derive the dependence of the Russian principalities on the Golden Horde from the facts that the Mongols conducted censuses in the principalities, the principalities paid tribute, and they had to receive permission to rule from the khan in the form of a yarlyk. In my text, I show that a census was conducted in Novgorod, that Novgorod, despite its unwillingness, paid tribute, and that the prince of Novgorod was usually the one who received a yarlyk from the khan. That is, all three points are fulfilled.
Hanseatic League Connections: Novgorod’s trade with the Hanseatic League and its relative political independence suggest that it was not "controlled" by the Horde in the same way as other principalities.
Soviet Historiography’s Bias: Yanin’s works, while valuable, were produced during a period of Soviet historiography that often emphasized the unity of Rus’ lands under external domination (e.g., Mongol or Polish influence) to reinforce the idea of a historically unified Russian state.
These are just speculations, not based on anything. V. L. Yanin dedicated his life to the study of medieval Novgorod and made a colossal contribution to historical science. To dismiss all this, citing some kind of bias without evidence, is pointless psychobabble.
Source: Yanin, Valentin L. Очерки истории средневекового Новгорода ("Essays on the History of Medieval Novgorod," 2008). Yanin’s interpretations have been criticized for downplaying Novgorod’s distinctiveness and autonomy, aligning with narratives favoring Moscow's historical dominance.
Where is this criticism? It seems to me that your entire post was written by a neural network, after you asked it to criticize my post. Yanin's entire book is dedicated to Novgorod's distinctiveness. Only a neural network could have produced a text that criticizes this book for downplaying Novgorod's distinctiveness...
To be honest, I don't even want to respond further, because I'm 100% sure that I'm arguing with a neural network that was given a very specific request. But I'll still continue.
Alternative Interpretations: More recent Western historians like Charles Halperin and Janet Martin challenge the notion that Novgorod's tribute payments signify inclusion in the Tatar Yoke, emphasizing its unique status.
"Novgorod's defense system after the Mongol invasion"
This phrase implies that Novgorod’s defense system was shaped in response to a direct Mongol invasion. However, Novgorod was not invaded or devastated by the Mongols, as Batu Khan’s campaigns in the 1230s and 1240s targeted southern and eastern Rus’, avoiding Novgorod due to its location and negotiations.
Again, this is a response from a neural network. This is not a phrase, but a chapter title. Novgorod was indeed not devastated by Batu. V. L. Yanin knows this, it is discussed in the book, and it is also indicated in my post. But since the neural network has not read the book, and thinks that the chapter title is an argument, then...
Novgorod’s defensive strategies were primarily a result of its need to protect itself against other regional powers (e.g., Sweden, the Teutonic Order) and internal boyar conflicts, rather than Mongol threats.
Framing Novgorod’s defenses as a reaction to the Mongols aligns with narratives that overstate Mongol influence across all Rus’ lands, minimizing Novgorod’s autonomy and unique circumstances.
The neural network does not understand that the chapter covers the period after Batu's invasion, and the title only indicates the historical framework. And none of what the neural network listed is contained in the chapter.
V. L. Yanin analyzes in detail how Novgorod managed to avoid devastation during Batu's invasion. Believe me, "strategic payment of tribute", whatever that might mean, has nothing to do with it here. It's a pity the neural network doesn't know this.
Charles Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde (1985): Emphasizes that Novgorod was not militarily impacted by the Mongols, distinguishing it from other Rus’ regions.
"Strengthening of boyar power in the second half of the 13th century"
Yanin’s interpretation of Alexander Nevsky’s role and Novgorod’s boyar power often reflects Soviet-era historiography, which emphasizes the integration of Novgorod into a broader "Rus’ unity" narrative. These interpretations downplay the unique characteristics of Novgorod’s governance and its independence from Mongol administrative control.
Alexander Nevsky’s mediation between Novgorod and the Mongols does not indicate that Novgorod was directly subordinated to the Golden Horde. Instead, Nevsky's actions were pragmatic attempts to balance Novgorod’s autonomy with external threats.
Emphasizing Alexander Nevsky’s role in negotiating with the Mongols and strengthening boyar power subtly aligns Novgorod with the broader "Rus’ under Mongol rule" narrative, preparing the ground for later Muscovite claims to Novgorod’s territory.
Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980-1584 (1995): Nevsky’s dealings with the Mongols were strategic, and Novgorod retained significant autonomy.
Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde (1985): Alexander Nevsky’s actions were not indicative of Mongol political control over Novgorod.
Let's just tell the neural network what these mysterious actions of Alexander Nevsky were. They consisted in the fact that Nevsky let the Mongols into Novgorod, allowed them to conduct a census of the population, and obliged Novgorod to pay tribute, despite the city's resistance. But yes, of course, this in no way affected Novgorod's independence...
The exclusive reliance on Yanin’s works reflects a limited perspective. Yanin, while a respected historian, often wrote within the constraints of Soviet historiography, which promoted a narrative of unity among Rus’ territories. His interpretations sometimes blur the distinctiveness of Novgorod as an autonomous city-state.
Soviet-era narratives frequently downplayed the independence of Novgorod and other non-Muscovite Rus’ regions to create a cohesive "Russian history" that justified Moscow’s dominance.
Modern Western historians like Halperin and Ostrowski emphasize Novgorod’s unique political and economic independence during the Mongol period.
Failing to translate Old Slavic quotes makes it difficult to critically evaluate the evidence being presented. This lack of transparency can obscure selective interpretations or biases in the source material.
Omitting translations aligns with a narrative that privileges certain historiographical interpretations (in this case, Yanin’s) without opening them to broader scrutiny.
Transparent historiography demands that evidence be accessible and verifiable by other scholars, regardless of linguistic barriers.
While it's accurate that the Golden Horde sought to impose tribute on Novgorod around 1257, the term "impose" may misrepresent the nature of the interaction. Historical records indicate that Novgorod managed to avoid direct subjugation by negotiating and offering gifts, demonstrating its political autonomy and diplomatic agency.
This is just ridiculous. I understand that you fed this to the neuronet to get "serious" refutations of my position, only because it seems to you that my position must be disproven at all costs. But you could have read what the neuronet wrote for you, to say the least. It literally disputes my paragraph in which I say that in 1257 Novgorod managed to avoid the imposition of tribute by buying it off with gifts, with words that Novgorod managed to buy it off with gifts... This is a shame.
This statement suggests that Novgorod succumbed to Mongol pressure in 1259, agreeing to a census and tribute. While it's true that a census occurred and tribute was arranged, the context is essential:
The tribute was a strategic decision by Novgorod to maintain its autonomy and avoid potential conflict, rather than a sign of complete submission.
The process involved significant internal debate and resistance within Novgorod, reflecting its semi-independent status.
The World History Encyclopedia notes that many Russian princes, including those in regions like Novgorod, "were able to rule with a high degree of autonomy after the invasion," suggesting that tribute payments did not equate to direct Mongol control. World History Encyclopedia
The assertion that Prince Vasily Yaroslavovich's diplomacy averted a punitive expedition by Khan Mengu-Timur against Novgorod is not well-documented in primary historical sources. This claim may be an extrapolation or misinterpretation of events.
It's a pity the neural network doesn't know that these events are detailed in the First Novgorod Chronicle... Here is the full quote in Old Slavonic:
И быша новгородци 17 печални; а Ярославъ нача полкы копити на Новъгород, и бѣ послалъ къ цесарю татарьскому 18 Ратибора, помоци 18 прося 19 на Новъгород. И се 20 учювъ 20 князь Василии Ярославлиць 21, присла послы в Новъгород, рекъ тако: «кланяюся святѣи Софѣи 22, и мужемъ новгородцомъ 23; слышалъ есмь, аже 24 идет Ярославъ 21 на Новъград 25 съ всею силою своею, и 26 Дмитрии с переяславци, и Глѣбъ съ смолняны; и жал ми своея 27 отцины 28»; а самъ поѣха 29 в Татары, поимя съсобою 30 Петрилу Рычага и Михаилу Пинещиница 31, и возврати 32 татарьскую 33 рать, рекъ тако цесарю: «новгородци 34 прави, а Ярославъ виноватъ». Уже бо бяше 35 цесарь 35 отпустил рать на Новгород 36 по Ратиборову лживому 37 слову, рече бо 38 Ратиборъ цесарю: «новгородци 39 тебе не слушают 40; мы дани тобѣ 41 прошалѣ 42, и они нас выгнали, а иных избилѣ 43, а Ярослава беществовалѣ 44».
For those interested, it says that the Tatar tsar was already gathering troops, having heard that Novgorod wanted to stop paying tribute. Therefore, Prince Vasily Yaroslavovich went to him to convince him that this was not the case, and that the Novgorodians did not intend to stop paying tribute.
While internal conflicts and external threats were common during this period, specific details about Prince Vasily's intervention to prevent a Mongol attack on Novgorod are scarce. The available historical records do not provide concrete evidence supporting this particular incident.
Well, well. Next time you should feed the neural network the entire text of the book, and preferably the text of all the sources on which the book is based. Not to embarrass yourself.
Labeling Novgorod's relationship with the Golden Horde as "political dependence" oversimplifies the complex dynamics of the time. While Novgorod did pay tribute to the Horde, it maintained a significant degree of autonomy in its internal affairs.
Novgorod was never conquered by the Mongols during their invasion of Rus'. The city managed to avoid direct Mongol rule and retained its political structures, such as the veche (assembly), allowing it to govern its internal matters independently. Wikipedia
While the synodicon may commemorate individuals from Novgorod, this does not necessarily indicate organized participation by Novgorod in the Battle of Kulikovo. The absence of Novgorodians in primary battle accounts supports this view. Battle of Kulikovo (1380) | Description & Significance - Britannica
The construction of a church dedicated to St. Demetrius in Novgorod does not directly imply participation in the Battle of Kulikovo. Such dedications were common and often reflected broader religious or cultural influences rather than specific military alliances or actions. Novgorod Republic - Wikipedia
Oh, well, since archaeological and chronicle data are not considered evidence, I don't know what we're even doing here then.
***
I don't know why it was so important for you to refute my position. Despite the fact that you have no idea about this historical period, have not studied it, and have not read about it. But at the same time, you have a firm position on how everything really was so that you go and ask the neuronet for refutations. It seems to me that you should think about where these beliefs and convictions in your head come from, existing without any confirmation and evidence. And perhaps you should contemplate delving into the period yourself in order to somehow substantiate your positions. But please save yourself the embarrassment in the future.
TLDR
@Yamtom fed my post to the neural network, and it, not being familiar with the sources I rely on, produced a bunch of incoherent text.
While we are at V.L. Yanin - let's get rid of the silly notion that the Veche was anything but the oligarchic tool of municipal control.
It certainly gives no power to Peasants.
It is a council of local patricians and their clientele. So it gives power to Nobles, correct, but power to Burghers is a stretch - depending on definition of "Burghers".
To be fair, Novgorod was just as despotic as the other Russian principalities, if not more so, despite being a republic.
Their boyars held most of the power over the country and they raided, waged wars on, sacked and pillaged their neighbours like every powerful country in this time period.
Saying that Novgorod was somehow better or more enlightened just because of being a republic is, unfortunately, nothing more than a myth.
Except with peasant representation they the 800k can prosper too, not just the 1500 nobles and another 4000 burgeoise with rights or another similar amount of top clergy with their hands in the patriarchs/patriarchy coffers.
Has there been any discussions on what game-play effects there are from appointing a foreign prince as ruler? Presumably it results in improved mutual relations, but does it provide the participating states with any ability to influence each other's actions, and does it provide the opportunity (or risk) of more lasting ties developing? Hopefully it isn't anything as simplistic as an EUIV-style personal union getting formed each election...
The devs have explained, though I don't remember where, that while missions exist, they are trying to avoid what they became in EU4. I got the sense that missions were going to be somewhat similar to Imperator, not based on tags, instead on your culture, etc. EU4 suffered from mission trees being arcady and railroady, so it's understandable they are trying to avoid them.
That makes sense. Personally, I like the sense of direction and structure missions offer. Whilst I also enjoy how they rewarded focusing on a particular element of my empire - whether thats through changing and then raising the price of a provincial trade good or adding a building ahead of time for development or granting claims or special units for military.
That said I trust in the team to overhaul the system, integrating laws, advances, estate behaviours, events and flavour content to hopefully produce something richer and perhaps more dynamic.
I do think eschewing them entirely, or some similar system would be regretable however. I know a lot of experienced players can make their own goals but for newer players, or players that may be experienced by are new to a particular nation I think the mission system did give a sense of direction.
I do wonder if some sort of dynamic mission sysem could be possible based on player actions. For example, if I generate enough claims in an area that my tag or culture group historically conquered I could generate a mission that reduce coring cost or AE should I conquer them. Or if I invest in a certain province by building production buildings to produce a certain good at a certain level for a certain amount of time I get a mission that makes the province renowed for producing that good at quality, perhaps effecting local production efficiency or price. To simulate how certain parts of the world became famed for certain goods.
isn't that the same word? IIRC the е in Совет is palatalised, so the word used to be transcribed into latin as "sovet" but the same word is just transcribed as "soviet" now as per modern conventions? That said, calling it a misspelling would be prescriptivist af
Every 1,000 nobles gives +50 estate power to their estate, while 1,000 peasants merely give +0.05 estate power as default. Then these are modified locally in every location, as mentioned above, and then in the entire country by laws, reforms and most notably the privileges that you have given the estates.
isn't that the same word? IIRC the е in Совет is palatalised, so the word used to be transcribed into latin as "sovet" but the same word is just transcribed as "soviet" now as per modern conventions? That said, calling it a misspelling would be prescriptivist af
I think it would depend on the rate of change of the values. As these are things that have an equilibrium point (the second value) and the current state it might be that the change has a tendency of being small ( < 0.1% ) so they are using the hundredths to make the ticking visible. At most I would reduce to the tenths.
Respectfully Disagree. I'm very rarely actively looking at this screen to get the rate of change. Additionally, having to do the substraction in my head to figure out how many basis points the satisfaction increased isn't the way to go imo. Having the number be simple so you can see at a glace where you're at, and hovering over to get the rate written down along with the precise number is better.
Shouldn't Oreshek be significantly larger? Going by Wikipedia, so it might be wrong , but it seems Narimantas (and later his son Patrikas) ruled almost the entire Votian fifth (shown on the map), most notably also the locations of Ladoga and Koporiye.
I drew and example new border for the vassal state
