AHC/Question: Biggest plausible Russia?

[Elfwine]

I think they would if the Mongolians so annihilated the Muslim world that the Byzantine Empire is able to survive longer and provides greater support before finally succumbing to either a Turkic invasion, internal problems, or maybe a war with some European power. Basically my premise is that the Southern Rus could have an earlier and better head start at becoming the space filling empire that OTL Russia became by default if they aren't pillaged by the Mongolians (and giving them additional friendly butterflies).

So, what Genghis needs to do is basically wipe out anything between the Oxus and the Bosporus that isn't Christian. Central Asia OTL would look like the kid glove treatment. ?

And even with an earlier start, how are they bringing all the Russian principalities together? Kindly butterflies or not, that's a big project.

Here is something worth a read http://groups.google.com/group/soc....author:jussi+vladimir-suzdal#21c60e6156368f74 (Faeelin showed it to me in response to something or other in regards to a less-Mongol broken Rus, so it applies to this situation as well).

 

[HunterX]

Russia winning WWI early and implementing Sazonovs Plan means OTL Soviet borders plus all of East Prussia, Oder-Neisse western border, more of Armenia, possibly Czechia, Slovakia, East Thrace, Dardanelles. Also no Russo-Japanese War means Russia keeps Manchuria.

I don't see any outcome of WWI that could possibly result in an Oder-Neisse western border for Russia or a Russian Czechia and Slovakia.

 

[Snake Featherston]

A sixth of the planet would do for most any society in the world. The only thing Russia might have been a bit more successful at would be to get a warm-water port somewhere, somehow and even then historically Russia *did* actually conquer a sixth of the planet. If OTL is a Brit-wank surely occupying a full sixth of the planet overland is over-qualification for a Russia-wank. Depending on how things go Russia might keep Alaska in a number of ATLs so it'd be the only European power to retain territory in the Americas after a certain point. Well, aside from the UK and Canada.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

If OTL is a Brit-wank surely occupying a full sixth of the planet overland is over-qualification for a Russia-wank.

It's not a wank if most of your territory is (almost) unpopulated and of lesser value.

Depending on how things go Russia might keep Alaska in a number of ATLs so it'd be the only European power to retain territory in the Americas after a certain point. Well, aside from the UK and Canada.

What are your reasons for ignoring France's more populous territories in the Americas?

 

[Elfwine]

It's not a wank if most of your territory is (almost) unpopulated and of lesser value.

Its still a lot of territory to occupy. And more valuable than Germania, which every Rome-wanker on the board wants to add to the Empire somehow.

 

[Snake Featherston]

What are your reasons for ignoring France's more populous territories in the Americas?

Which would those be? Caribbean islands? I'm referring to Russia keeping Alaska as a colony in the same sense the UK retained Canada into the 20th Century. This would be after all the other colonies, including the USA, have overthrown the distant trans-Atlantic theoretical rulers of those colonies. For that matter Russia took a lot of unpopulated territory of little value, yes. But what does Canada have in the way of population or value to the UK at the height of the empire beyond simple space?

 

[lloyd007]

So, what Genghis needs to do is basically wipe out anything between the Oxus and the Bosporus that isn't Christian. Central Asia OTL would look like the kid glove treatment. ?

And even with an earlier start, how are they bringing all the Russian principalities together? Kindly butterflies or not, that's a big project.

Here is something worth a read http://groups.google.com/group/soc....author:jussi+vladimir-suzdal#21c60e6156368f74 (Faeelin showed it to me in response to something or other in regards to a less-Mongol broken Rus, so it applies to this situation as well).

Well, it's not like I've done much extensive research on the subject... I'm going more off the Underpants Gnome logic of

Step 1: Mongolians wreck everything in Asia east of the Volga...
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Big Russia!

 

[Mirza Khan]

Yes and the Czarist borders + Tuva, Bukovina, East Galizia and Zarkarpaty is maximum Russia.

That plus Manchuria, Sinkaing, and maybe some more bits of Afghanistan, Iran, and western Turkey. But none of these are likely to be really useful too it (except, as an outside possibility, Manchuria if it can be filled with a significant number of Russians)

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

For that matter Russia took a lot of unpopulated territory of little value, yes. But what does Canada have in the way of population or value to the UK at the height of the empire beyond simple space?

Not very much, just like Siberia and the Old Russian Far East to Russia proper.
Post-1783 British North America was unimportant compared to Britain's long-lasting naval supremacy or the British-ruled India, the true reasons why OTL was a British wank.

 

[I Blame Communism]

I don't see any outcome of WWI that could possibly result in an Oder-Neisse western border for Russia or a Russian Czechia and Slovakia.

Yeah, that's out of the blue. Sazonov's plan was for a mostly ethnographic border including Polish areas in Russian Poland, but he was loath to annex even Slavic-speaking parts of East Prussia because he thought its symbolic value to the Germans was greater than any practical value it could have for Russia. The extreme claim was that of the generals, who were in favour of taking Prussia up to the Vistula: Sazonov was against that.

And there was some uncertain spraffle about either an Austro-Hungarian-Bohemian monarchy in which the Slavic element was to speak for Russia and move it from German to Russian orbit, or a Czechoslovak kingdom under a spare Romanov, but I've never heard about any plans for annexation.

 

[Socrates]

I don't think people are being imaginative enough. It's not out of the question for Russia to have several good Enlightened rulers in a row, who manage to abolish serfdom, consolidate internal reforms, and industrialise early. Under a best case scenario, an industrialised Russia with such a large loyal population could get very colonial hungry. It's not impossible for such a state to grab Iran and Turkey. It would be unpleasant and we'd likely see ongoing insurrection, but its not ASB.

 

[Elfwine]

I don't think people are being imaginative enough. It's not out of the question for Russia to have several good Enlightened rulers in a row, who manage to abolish serfdom, consolidate internal reforms, and industrialise early. Under a best case scenario, an industrialised Russia with such a large loyal population could get very colonial hungry. It's not impossible for such a state to grab Iran and Turkey. It would be unpleasant and we'd likely see ongoing insurrection, but its not ASB.

Yes, it is out of the question.

Several good enlightened rulers in a row? Barely possible.

Abolishment of serfdom? Is going to be over the objections of the serf owners and be a problem needing to be worked out.

Consolidating internal reforms? Is a huge, huge project for something the scale of Russia.

Industrialize early? How? Russia has no middle class/burgher class to speak of, for starters.

I'm not saying OTL is the best possible outcome, but anything based on "After the wise and benevolent rule of _____, things peacefully passed to his successor _______, who would lead the _____ to even greater heights. _____'s heir, ______, would lead the ______ even further still." is in that category of not technically ASB but practically impossible.

People underestimate how difficult governing is.

 

[January First-of-May]

POD: Semyon Dezhnyov (the Cape Dezhnev guy) actually discovers Alaska (all the way back in 1649, or maybe 1650) and reports that to the relevant authorities (and - maybe the most ASB part here - the authorities actually take notice). The land is colonized next to immediately instead of, er, about a century later like IOTL.
Russia gets (first dibs on) pretty much every place in the Pacific Northwest that isn't colored (or is colored brown, duh) on this map, and on several that are (like most of the Missouri basin, and bits of California).
Coincidentally, the story I made for the "Russian East Coast Colony" thread is pretty much the same thing except more Russowank-ish (and thus more implausible): its 1619 POD involving bigger Pomor expansion allowed me to mention Russians meeting HBC agents all the way back in the 1670s (the colony ended up being OTL Labrador - but by then the Russians pretty much owned the West Coast).

 

[Socrates]

Several good enlightened rulers in a row? Barely possible.

Is it really so hard to imagine you could get three good rulers in a row? Rome famously had five. It's very unlikely, I give you. But "barely possible" please.

Abolishment of serfdom? Is going to be over the objections of the serf owners and be a problem needing to be worked out.

Right, but its doable. We can have a POD of hundreds of years before this events needs to happen, so by the time it happens it isn't OTL Russia we're working with. Plenty of European states developed where the monarch was much more powerful at the expense of the nobility. If that happens in Russia, you later can have a monarch who can abolish serfdom much more easily. Do this in the early 18th Century, along with other positive reforms, and you can have a reasonable middle class develop by the mid 19th Century. Even if it's half as industrialised as, say, France, that would make it many times more powerful in its colonial adventures to the South.

 

[MSZ]

I don't see any outcome of WWI that could possibly result in an Oder-Neisse western border for Russia or a Russian Czechia and Slovakia.

Based my thought on this map:

Since Hungary is unlikely to last anyway, I didn't think Russia moving up the Tatras and to the Danube would be a far fetched scenario. Nor for Tzarist forces to capture Czechia, if the A-H had collapsed anyway

 

[Elfwine]

Is it really so hard to imagine you could get three good rulers in a row? Rome famously had five. It's very unlikely, I give you. But "barely possible" please.

"Its theoretically possible, and you can even find some examples, but the odds are so poor its not even funny."

So yes, "barely possible".

The main reason I'm skeptical is that its not enough for these rulers to be good in an ordinary sort of way. You need three rulers who consistently push Russia forward without derailment and distraction.

What's your standard of good ruler though? Philip II is a fairly good example of a good ruler...for the 12th century. But he's probably not good enough to be a model of the kind of ruler you want here.

Right, but its doable. We can have a POD of hundreds of years before this events needs to happen, so by the time it happens it isn't OTL Russia we're working with. Plenty of European states developed where the monarch was much more powerful at the expense of the nobility. If that happens in Russia, you later can have a monarch who can abolish serfdom much more easily. Do this in the early 18th Century, along with other positive reforms, and you can have a reasonable middle class develop by the mid 19th Century. Even if it's half as industrialised as, say, France, that would make it many times more powerful in its colonial adventures to the South.

The monarch was powerful in Russia. Abolishing serfdom with fiat is still going to be...problematic.

And I think for a reasonable middle class by the mid 19th century, we need part of that really early POD helping things along - freeing the serfs doesn't make them burghers, that takes more. Like there being much opportunity for such a middle class/townsmen group.

Not impossible, just pointing out that this has to be well on its way.

 

[RGB]

The monarch was powerful in Russia. Abolishing serfdom with fiat is still going to be...problematic.

And I think for a reasonable middle class by the mid 19th century, we need part of that really early POD helping things along - freeing the serfs doesn't make them burghers, that takes more. Like there being much opportunity for such a middle class/townsmen group.

Not impossible, just pointing out that this has to be well on its way.

A couple of things about serfdom in Russia:

1. It arrived quite late and gradually
2. The Great Nobles were less of an obstacle than the poorer gentry to removing it
3. It was not customary in Siberia nor most of the North, nor among the Cossacks.

So really, the best way to go about it is...

1. Abolish it pre-Peter; he eliminated boyardom, and service gentry, and introduced Russian nobility as a unified class, bringing in many, many new people into direct benefit from serfdom. He also reformed the army in the German way, making it reliant on serfdom for recruitment (unlike the Muscovite army that preceded it, which relied on salaried militia, service people, and military settlers).

2. Since it arrived gradually, start removing it gradually. Since most concepts that justified serfdom were no longer comprehensible in 18th c. post-Peter Russia, abolishing it on those terms is HARD. On the other hand, Muscovite-style 18th c. Russia could easily remove the old restrictions one at a time with proper precedent.

3. Allow Great Nobles to gain more power, relative to the service class, and encourage them to go into manufacturing. Alexei's Russia showed every sign of that possibility, Peter put a firm stop to all that.

4. Re-chart the lands (there were still unresolved boundaries between nobles in the 17th and 18th c. Russia being big and empty) to allow more Free Settlements and Cossack establishments. The more it encroaches into the traditional agricultural regions, the better.

That's my thoughts on it, anyway.

 

[Elfwine]

A couple of things about serfdom in Russia:

1. It arrived quite late and gradually
2. The Great Nobles were less of an obstacle than the poorer gentry to removing it
3. It was not customary in Siberia nor most of the North, nor among the Cossacks.

So really, the best way to go about it is...

1. Abolish it pre-Peter; he eliminated boyardom, and service gentry, and introduced Russian nobility as a unified class, bringing in many, many new people into direct benefit from serfdom. He also reformed the army in the German way, making it reliant on serfdom for recruitment (unlike the Muscovite army that preceded it, which relied on salaried militia, service people, and military settlers).

How is it reliant on serfdom for recruitment? Or to put it another way, more serfdom than Germany (picked as a place that doesn't see most of its population as serfs in the 19th century)

2. Since it arrived gradually, start removing it gradually. Since most concepts that justified serfdom were no longer comprehensible in 18th c. post-Peter Russia, abolishing it on those terms is HARD. On the other hand, Muscovite-style 18th c. Russia could easily remove the old restrictions one at a time with proper precedent.

3. Allow Great Nobles to gain more power, relative to the service class, and encourage them to go into manufacturing. Alexei's Russia showed every sign of that possibility, Peter put a firm stop to all that.

The bold part is something I'm really not sure on. I'm far from an expert on Russian history, but it sounds counter to the usual history. Which might not be a bad thing, but that always needs some firm back up.

 

[RGB]

How is it reliant on serfdom for recruitment? Or to put it another way, more serfdom than Germany (picked as a place that doesn't see most of its population as serfs in the 19th century)

Started out as less, ended up as more.

But to put things in perspective. The army took you in FOR LIFE (then 25 years, then 20). When you left, you were mourned as if dead.

Soldier duty was a terrible burden on Russia, and really hated, both by the Russian peasants who gave up their men forever, and the Ukrainian farmers who had to feed and quarter them. The Petrine-style army is probably THE institution most responsible for the rise in Ukrainian consciousness, I am not even joking.

So who would willingly go for 25 years into standing army (especially Russia's famously indomitable and hardy infantry that the army relied on and generals sacrificed freely?). Well, as it turns out, few people. Cossacks went home and owned land. Guards were well-off men to start with, and the soldiers at least got barracks in the cities. But Cossacks and Guards didn't win wars. Infantry did.

So the infantry was mostly conscripted from among the core central regions, with most men being serfs selected by their owners (troublemakers, not valuable enough, sheer spite, etc.). So yes, it relied on serfdom a fair bit.

It was a brutal system. The later cantonements that replaced it were a 19th c. system that relied on organization 18th c. could not achieve.

The bold part is something I'm really not sure on. I'm far from an expert on Russian history, but it sounds counter to the usual history. Which might not be a bad thing, but that always needs some firm back up.

To be honest, neither am I completely sure of this thing. Russia's traditional historiography tends to blame the corrupt fat boyar rather than the hardy pomeschik who eats gruel with his three serfs on campaign, but:

1. There were MORE gentry than boyars, so paying them off or convincing them is HARDER.
2. They were MORE reliant on the serfs for livelihood, and they could NOT absorb even a year or two of financial losses. This is not a class that can develop industry or business, or lose their unpaid workforce.

After (and partly under) Alexei, great houses accumulated a lot more wealth and power, and some of the great men were pretty promising in their ideas. Peter made all the nobles dependent on the state for money (that or taking foreign pensions), and nationalized/re-instituted all strategic industries. His successors' nobles then spent THEIR money to get access to those state resources. Too much centralisation, not enough assets, in short. I really do suspect a bit of decentralization wouldn't have hurt, but there was never an opportunity for that to develop.

I've thought a fair bit about it, and these are powerful arguments. There's some nice statistics showing the % of ownership by great and small owners somewhere, and the small owners are pretty dominant, overall. That seems to me that they are the class that needs to be tackled first, not the great nobles.

This could be wrong, but, at the very least it's something to consider.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Is it really so hard to imagine you could get three good rulers in a row? Rome famously had five. It's very unlikely, I give you. But "barely possible" please.

Note that the Five Good Emperors were good only relative to what came before and after them. They were good because they were a temporary but effective break in the system, ordinarily dependent on civil war and who could beat up who in a war to determine who was Emperor. More problematically the most philosophical of the Five Good Emperors set in motion the end of the whole system by being the first to have a biological son whereupon the whole thing collapsed. It's possible for three good rulers in a row, the problem comes with the fourth.