AHC: A Russian capital that is not Moscow/St. Petersburg

It makes sense post 1900 as a response to the idea of the Russian invasion trauma. Move the political center as far away from foreign borders as possible to keep the state functioning in case of another Napoleon/Wilhelm/Hitler. Yekaterinburg would be a good option as it's incredibly far away from Western routes of invasion while still being accessible.

WAY after the potential POD (circa 1700s) though.
 
The only reasonable POD for a capital move after the move to St Petersburg seems to be post WW1 or 2 with the Soviets trying to build a capital away from the border or to shrug off the vestiges of Tsarist oppression. I could absolutely see a capital built in the 1950s as a prestige project, myself. A giant concrete city as a monument of midcentury Brutalist architecture would be fascinating. It's only in the 20th century that you'd be freed from the whole transportation/communication issue as well.

That is for another board, though this POD was simply "after 1700".

1700-1900 you'd have to contend with a Russia whose population was HEAVILY justified to the western side of their country. To travel between places you had only a few roads that may be a muddy mess depending on the time of year. River travel was common, particularly for shipping goods, but rivers don't always go where you want them and they are prone to changing course in sometimes large ways. In the US the Mississippi has tried to change where it's mouth is several times in the last 200 years. It's only human engineering of the land that has stopped it. Timbuktu was a victim of rivers changing course, iirc. A town where you shipped mail may after one major flood find itself on a disconnected oxbow lake a mile from the main course of the river, for example. This makes preindustrial travel/communication/trade more tricky and much slower.

The only POD that would make sense to abandon Moscow or St Petersburg is a change in the rivers that made them feasible.
 
I wonder if Russia gained control of Persia, would it be justifiable to build a new capital in the Volga delta, to improve communications across the Caspian or for symbolic reasons? Especially if you combine it with a tsar who has an irrational dislike of St. Petersburg.
 
I wonder if Russia gained control of Persia, would it be justifiable to build a new capital in the Volga delta, to improve communications across the Caspian or for symbolic reasons? Especially if you combine it with a tsar who has an irrational dislike of St. Petersburg.

Let's assume that St. Petersburg was never constructed because we have the very opposite outcome that we have in OTL: Sweden remains strong in the Baltics and the Ottomans fall apart. Let's also say that the Turkish Straits are opened and divided between Neo-Byzantines and a Neo-Ottomans (a more than plausible outcome IMHO). IF Peter or some other Russian tsar wants to construct a new capital to open Russia to new markets, the best option is Volgograd.

It's the closest large city from OTL Don-Volga Canal, the Don is the one of best connections between Russia and the Black Sea and the Volga is the best connection between Russia and the Caspian. In addition, it's located in a very fertile otherwise "empty" land. IMHO Volgograd would certainly be the best location for a more oriental-focused Russia.
 
Top