Could Russia, with a POD after 1600, get a bigger slice of western North America than it did IOTL - one that stretches from, say, Alaska to northern California? I realize the difficulties with this WI are considerable, given the country's vast territory and the fact Siberia is already much closer to home. Could a Treaty of Nerchinsk that is more favourable to the Russians, one that, for example, establishes the Amur river rather than the Stanovoy Range as the border between them and the Qing, help?
A bigger Russian presence in North America?
- Thread starter Vinization
- Start date
I think you're going to have to wank-Russia somehow while also having the Spanish, French and British screwed. The closer to 1600 the better at that. From my read of Russian history their authoritarianism held back their human and capital development massively. You'd have to get several Czars in a row who would go along with devolving power and modernizing along with an even bigger push for Eastward expansion. Also like I said you'd need to screw Western Europe while you were at it. Maybe this wanked Russia is able to align with atl-wanked Prussia and after a large European war part of the concessions from the British are their claims to the West Coast of North America or something.
Edit: A word.
Edit: A word.
If you want a single POD that has wide ranging changes, either have Baranov, the first governor of Russian Alaska, removed from office and replaced with a naval officer with similar ideas of expansion or alternatively, the Shareholders of the Russian American Company for some early losses, force Baranov to refrain from meddling in the affairs of his naval officers possibly by appointing a naval board of to oversee the RAC navy. (or something similar) This would at first not change much but with five to ten years, the RAC's navy would be much more efficient and less prone to the near constant shipping catastrophes, just as seen OTL when Baranov was removed from office.
This would over time make the colony much much more profitable, which would allow it to expand much quicker, though this is a relatively late change to the timeline ie 1800-1805 the consequences could be dramatic.
For a much more singular event that would simply upswing the entire colonial adventure, have the ship the Feniks (Pheonix 1794) make it back to Alaska instead of crashing in almost unknowable accident that set back the colony by maybe ten years. With the extra people and funds, Baranov speculated that he would set up a new settlement further south, I would say the new settlement would be near the Queen Charlotte Islands. A new settlement would mean more profits, more profits means more people etc. We could see the Russians actually colonizing deeper south even further than Fort Ross, but more likely it would just be larger and larger settlements of Russians in Alaska. Also, could have led to a more effective takeover of Hawaii by Baranov's agents.
Another POD is that in 1823, Alexander I could have authorized the settlement of Northern California with freed Serfs. This idea had been brought up to the royal court and circled around for a year before it was rejected and at the time it wasn't unreasonable.
Anyways that's three ways that Russia could have had a much bigger influence and settlements in America. If all three were coupled together well that could lead to some Russia-Wank in the pacific.
This would over time make the colony much much more profitable, which would allow it to expand much quicker, though this is a relatively late change to the timeline ie 1800-1805 the consequences could be dramatic.
For a much more singular event that would simply upswing the entire colonial adventure, have the ship the Feniks (Pheonix 1794) make it back to Alaska instead of crashing in almost unknowable accident that set back the colony by maybe ten years. With the extra people and funds, Baranov speculated that he would set up a new settlement further south, I would say the new settlement would be near the Queen Charlotte Islands. A new settlement would mean more profits, more profits means more people etc. We could see the Russians actually colonizing deeper south even further than Fort Ross, but more likely it would just be larger and larger settlements of Russians in Alaska. Also, could have led to a more effective takeover of Hawaii by Baranov's agents.
Another POD is that in 1823, Alexander I could have authorized the settlement of Northern California with freed Serfs. This idea had been brought up to the royal court and circled around for a year before it was rejected and at the time it wasn't unreasonable.
Anyways that's three ways that Russia could have had a much bigger influence and settlements in America. If all three were coupled together well that could lead to some Russia-Wank in the pacific.
The problem is that Alaska is just so dang far from the Russian heartland. Why settle in Alaska when you could settle in Siberia? Unless you somehow get Russia to have colonies on the American East Coast, maybe through conquering Scandinavia (which would be an interesting question in its own right).
Another potential territory could be Hawaii, considering the Russian involvement there. In a perfect world for Russia, Hawaii would likely be a puppet state. I don't think Russia would annex it.
Have the Far East somehow gain independence. Now you've got a "Russia" that actually cares about having Pacific colonies.
I think this is viable, but I'm not sure Baranov would have accepted not adding Hawaii as a colony. Honestly just having someone more competent as an agent in the take over Hawaii instead of Georg Shaffer probably would have ended with a Russian Hawaii, or at least a Hawaii in Russia's sphere.
What If the Tzar assigns the Alaskan colony to a particularly troublesome second son of a Russian Baron or Count? The primary goal being to transport this embarrassing "remittance man" as far as possible from Moscow.
There was always enough lumber and fish to support a larger colony.
This high-strung young man over-steps his instructions to build a profitable colony in Alaska and starts trading for food, leather, etc. with British and Spanish colonists farther down the West Coast of North America. The biggest limitation is the long sailing distance to the next port. Canada really only has 3.5 deep water ports along our entire Pacific Coast (Prince Rupert, Bella Coola, Squamish and Vancouver). The USA only has: Puget Sound, the Columbia River, San Francisco Bay, the (artificial) port of Los Angeles and San Diego Bay. They seem a long way away when you sail from Alaska, but probably not so far away compared with Russian ports.
It would help if the new colony discovers gold near the border with the Yukon and starts buying luxury goods from China.
Perhaps, but I'd question how "Russian" such a colony would end up being. Remember, they're effectively cut off from Moscow and half a planet away; Alaska'd basically end up being an Anglophone colony with a Russian royal family.
Well, I wasn't expecting this thread to be suddenly dug up, but since it's up and running again...
I repeat the question raised in the OP: could a Treaty of Nerchinsk whose terms are more favorable to Moscow (say the Qing have trouble in the south and are unable to kick the Russians out of the Amur basin) lead to a bigger Russian population in the Far East, and thus more potential colonists to North America?
I repeat the question raised in the OP: could a Treaty of Nerchinsk whose terms are more favorable to Moscow (say the Qing have trouble in the south and are unable to kick the Russians out of the Amur basin) lead to a bigger Russian population in the Far East, and thus more potential colonists to North America?
These are two distinctively different questions:
1. It could result in a bigger Russian population in the Far East.
2. It would not be big enough to make any noticeable difference in the terms of the American colonies.
In #1 you are talking about the extra hundreds or very few thousands even if simply because the Eastern Siberia from which these people had been moving (on their own or by the government’s orders) was underpopulated. So, you’d have to start not with Nerchinsk treaty but with the much earlier trend of the noticeable numbers of people moving to the East of Ural. Which, in turn, is a very low probability taking into an account that population of the Tsardom was quite low (substantial population growth of the Russian Empire started only by the end of the XIX century), number of the people capable of moving (aka, personally free and those on the state service) very limited, the communications between European Russia and even Western Siberia extremely limited, most convenient routes being held by not too friendly Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Dzungars. etc. Even the Amur (providing all other obstacles gone) was of a limited use until the age of steam: getting up the river without the steamships was almost completely impossible.
#2 as linked to #1 is simple: there would not be enough of a demographic pressure for these settlers to try to cross the Atlantic in the noticeable numbers and, until the very end of the XVIII century, not enough ships available on the Russian Pacific coast to carry the noticeable numbers of people across the Atlantic to the areas well to the South of Alaska. Look at the Russian Okhotsk flotilla of the XVIII century: few small ships capable of sailing to Kamchatka and from here to Alaska. The Ross Colony had been founded at the time when the Russians already had been doing the circumnavigation and, even with the suitable ships available, its population remained minuscule.
Is there anyway Russia can establish a small colony early that doubles on its own every generation for 2-3 centuries to become significant without much support? Quebec and South Africa were founded by pretty small groups that bred like rabbits.
I will say they had sufficient ships at least by 1790, the issue was never primarily the ships but the lack of quality crews/captains and the meddling of Governor Baranov. Though I will say the Governor also wasn't keen on spending what he needed to on good ships resulting in more than a few being rather poor quality. Still due to mostly crew issues(the crews weren't trained) they lost a ship almost every eighteen months for nearly forty years.
So even having better ships wouldn't be enough because they'd end up destroyed by their untrained, low morale and often newly made crews
Edit: I don't think I made it clear enough, I mostly agree with you.
You know what looking at the Treaty, maybe, being able to increase the fur trade significantly by reducing the amount of time to travel. From 2 years down to 5 months well... That would make the colony much much more valuable, and all you have to do is grant Russian traders access to Canton.
So actually dealing with the the Treaty of Kyatkha, would be the goal. Though I'm not sure that would increase the pop in the far East it would definitely increase the RAC's bottom line making it easier for them to attract more people and quality of life.
Treaty of Kyakhta (1727) - Wikipedia
Which “ships” are you talking about? Of course, Russia did have the Baltic and Black Sea fleets but the big ships would be pretty much useless on the Pacific coast with its absent infrastructure and close to zero access to the materials needed for keeping them functional. The development of the flotilla was complicated by the low-developed woodworking industry, the lack of iron and weapons industry in the region. This is why the Okhotsk flotilla of the mid-/late-XVIII had brigantine, sloop, couple galliots, and few even smaller ships built (AFAIK) locally. In the early-/mid-XIX its size grew but with the addition of the small ships: Okhotsk wharf could not build the big ones. Even the ships coming from the Baltic fleet were of the same types with the exception of a single frigate under command of then captain of the 2nd rank, M. Lazarev. Other prominent (later) commanders were Kotzebue, Lütke and Wrangel so it was hardly an issue of incompetence. 😉
The first circumnavigation had been made on the ships purchased in Britain by the captains who spent few years serving in the RN.
To start with, Baranov never was a “governor”, he was a chief administrator of the RAC, which was a private enterprise. If anything, he was conductive to establishing a wharf on which, under the direction of a British sea captain working for the RAC, a sea-going sailing ship was built at Resurrection Bay. He could not “meddle” in the business of the Okhotsk Military flotilla because he was a civilian operating from Alaska (fort Novoarchangelsk) and flotilla was subordinated to the Navy and based on Okhotsk.
The RAC’s ships were pretty much irrelevant to the discussed issue: they were small ships dedicated to the trading operations and could not/would not carry any serious numbers of the settlers. OTL settlements in Alaska and California were more or less their limit. Not to mention, as I already said, that the numbers of volunteers were quite low and the company did not have an access to the state resources (Cossacks and state peasants) which later had been used to populate the Southern Far East.
As far as Okhotsk/Siberian flotilla was involved, it was for years conducting research of the Northern Pacific and carried troops and supplies for the Russian Far East ports. So hardly its captains and crews had been inexperienced. However, it also suffered regular losses: between 1760 and 1790 it lost 4 ships. Should not be a big surprise: the ships had been small and Pacific is not some kind of a peaceful pond. 😂 Laperouse lost his whole expedition and he was quite experienced sailor.
See above. There were sailors familiar with the region and operating in it since at least 1730. However, there were no adequate resources to increase the naval presence to a meaningful degree until the circumnavigation became more or less routine and the ships and their crews started coming from the Baltic. Well, getting back to the initial point, these ships (from Krusenstern to Nevelskoy) had been rather small and would not be able to support sizable resettlements even if this was their task.
Thanks. 🤗
While I agree with all of your points concerning Russia's limitations, and particularly the impossibility of establishing a mass settler colony in North America, I think you overestimate the difficulty of expanding Russia's fur-trading presence in the Pacific Northwest.
There was an extreme lack of European and American presence in the area right through the end of the Napoleonic period and with some better management and more resources Russia could have filled this void. There's no reason Russian or Russian chartered ships couldn't have performed the coastal trade in the same way that American and British ships did in the following couple of decades. Russia's bases in the area were indeed pretty basic, but at least they existed, which is more than one can say of any American or British ports.
Could Russia have maintained its pretensions in the region after 1815? That's a harder question, but I would say yes. Would Britain or the United States really go to war with Russia in, say, 1818 if Russian military vessels took police action against foreign "interloping" traders on the Alaskan coast? I don't think so. As for California, Spain never settled further north than San Francisco and Mexico basically ignored Southern California in its first years of independence, so there's nothing to prevent the establishment of trading settlements as far south as the future gold area.
Well, during the Napoleonic wars Russia was a little bit busy on its western and southern borders (Persian war of 1804-1813) ending up with the huge financial problems and human losses. OTOH, transporting anything to the Pacific cost was not only a long story but also very expensive. Even providing food for the settlers on both sides of the Pacific was extremely complicated.
Now, as far as the fur trading was involved, Russia got pretty much everything: Siberia, Kamchatka and Alaska with the islands. AFAIK, this was pretty much all in the terms of fur animals.
Coastal trade with what and where? RAC was about the furs and they had been bought from the natives on both sides of the Pacific. The only other trade was getting food supplies and trade with China (furs for tea, silver, etc.). The only base outside Alaska was Fort Ross founded with an idea to produce food for Alaska but this did not really work out.
Errrr… Russia maintained its territories on the American coast well after 1815 so I’m not sure which “pretensions” are you talking about. Expansion on that side never was an agenda and could not be because even providing Eastern Siberia-Far East with the extra population and needed supplies was a huge problem.
This was not a problem because, AFAIK, at least the American traders were selling goods to RAC (including the furs they got from the natives). As for Britain, Russia was at that time the biggest supplier of the strategic materials that Britain needed even after the Napoleonic wars so it would hardly make sense for either side to start a major military confrontation over a trifle.
Short answer: no resources of any kind (settlers, ships, finances).
Everyone was busy and occupied. That was why the Pacific was so wide open for anyone who would decide to prioritize even a little bit of resource to the area. Had Russia, say, sent a frigate and a couple of small cargo ships out to the Pacific every year or at least every other year it would have been decisive in the face of such low interest from everyone else. Nothing would have prevented this until the war with Britain started at the end of 1807, it wouldn't have cost an inordinate amount, and it's not as if the Baltic Fleet was being terribly active or useful at home anyway.
The food supply was such a problem was because it was going via Okhotsk. Sending it via naval circumnavigation was drastically cheaper, although OTL inefficiencies were such that it was even cheaper to let Yankees do the circumnavigation and buy the foodstuffs from them.
The problem was they weren't buying all the furs. American and British vessels were sailing up the coast of Alaska and trading directly with the natives. To make matters worse, they sometimes traded firearms to tribes hostile to the Russians in return for the fur. This was the reason for Alexander's Ukase of 1821.
Ukase of 1821 - Wikipedia
The pretensions being those of the 1821 ukase, or more generally any territories TTL expanded into during the years of war and confusion, or for that matter Paul's claim to everything extending to 51 degrees latitude. OTL most of this was surrendered in negotiation with Britain and the US.
This is certainly the way the Russians must have wanted the Americans to act, but ensuring it would require maritime policing, and claims in that regard caused consternation in Washington and London and were soon abandoned. The fur trading, btw, went the other direction. The Americans would buy furs from the RAC for sale in Canton, since Russian vessels were not allowed in that port.
No resources to challenge a competing European power? Agreed. Sufficient resources for the Tlingit and other local tribes and to police noncombatant merchant vessels, however.