Part 1 - The Alaskan Gold Rush of 1867

For most of the 19th century, the Russian Empire had been in decline. An old-fashioned, conservative absolutist monarchy with a vast colonial empire spanning both Europe and Asia, it suffered from political instability, a harsh, repressive government, and a backward and uneducated peasantry.

All true except for the "conservative" part. Reign of Alexander II (a liberal ;) who was not "repressive" literally to a suicidal degree) was a period of economic and financial depression, to a great degree due to the trade liberalization: low import taxes were killing Russian industry (only by 1877 the government finally recognized the problem and increased taxes on import) and even growing grain price (grew almost 2 times between 1861 and 1880) could not remedy the situation. The only exception was explosive growth of the railroads but because they were heavily subsidized by the state, it was adding to the deficit. Foreign loans started during his reign and had been done in the most ruinous fashion possible. Situation changed only during the reign of Alexander III (a conservative ;)).
http://wikiredia.ru/wiki/Экономика_России_при_Александре_II


In addition, Alaska, the Russian Empire's only remaining overseas colony,

If you are talking about 1866, there are still Russian settlements in California.

The "only remaining" does not mean too much because Russia never was too much into the overseas possessions and the territories governed by RAC were the only overseas colonies Russia ever had. But if one considers colonization of the territories close to the Russian border, then Caucasus was just conquered (and there will be further expansions) and Central Asia was in a process of being conquered.

seemed more of a burden than a benefit, as it was difficult to navigate, extremely underpopulated, and constantly under threat of British invasion through Canada (at least, the Russian Imperial government was constantly worrying about British invasion, the Brits actually had no interest in Alaska for the most part). It had many natural resources, but the Russians were largely unaware of the vast reserves of gold, oil, coal, and other resources that lay at their fingertips in Alaska. At least, they were until 1866...

Their primary interest was sea otter and other fur animals and one of the main customers was China, which was reasonably close. However, by the mid-XIX the "production" was on a steady decline and the territory was losing economic sense. Oil, as you understand, was not in anybody list of the serious interests at that time and carrying coal from Alaska to the Russian mainland did not make economic sense.

On July 7th, 1866, Russian colonist Ivan Aleksandrovich Prerovsky* stumbled upon gold in an unnamed creek in the Alaskan wilderness. Little is known of Ivan, but that he lived on an isolated plot of land with a wife and no children. Although he lived far from the capitol of Russian America, Novo Archangelsk, he felt obligated to personally share the news of his discovery with the colonial governor of Russian America, Dmitry Petrovich Maksutov.

News of this discovery quickly spread through Russian America and into Russia, despite a distinct lack of infrastructure and small population. The news reached Saint Petersburg in early 1867, just as the Tsar was beginning to consider selling the territory and making it some other nation's problem. It is unknown whether the empire would have actually sold Alaska, but it has been an interesting, if under-explored, point of speculation by Russians and Americans alike.

The resulting boom caused migration on a previously unseen scale, as Russians of every class and occupation flocked to Alaska to strike it rich in the icy wasteland. Though the trip was hard, and many died, the colonist population of Alaska multiplied dramatically, from a few hundred to more than a hundred thousand, mostly composed of newly-emancipated serfs.

Very interesting except for almost complete absence of a practical sense for Russia. Starting from 1830, there was already a gold rush in Siberia. It started in Tomsk gubernia and then expanded to Eniseisk gubernia and in 1843 in Trans Baikal region. Gold was found in Ural Montians, Altai, etc. In 1861 there were 459 registered gold digging companies employing 30,269 people. 1125 licences for gold extraction had been issued (this does not include the "wild" gold diggers). These areas had been much easier to exploit and supply than Alaska (closer to the settled areas, communication by the rivers and existing roads) and there was, indeed, creation of the supporting infrastructure and growth of population: by 1838 population of Eniseisk gubernia was 102,843 and volume of the food and forage trade grew from 350,000 rubles in 1830 to 5,000,000 in the late 1850 (in 1859 over 32,000,000 kg of bread had been sold to the gold mines of Eniseisk gubernia). Nothing on even remotely similar scale was possible for Alaska so the "mass migration" is out of question. At beast you can expect Russian population growing to a thousand or couple thousands. Perhaps, with the gold being discovered, asking price could go up somewhat.

Even as far as Siberia is involved, the mass migration started only after 1906 with a state program supporting resettlement (free land grants, credits, free transportation, etc.) and construction of the Trans-Siberian railroad .

 
Last edited:
I'm always interested in Tls about Russian Alaska and I'm really curious about the path you will have it heading.

I have a few issues with the assumptions of your story, but I could not word it better than @alexmilman. Especially the quantitave figures seem a little bit off. Apart from logistic issues and simply (as Alex pointed out) missing practical sense, supporting such a large non-indigenous population would have to rely quite a bit on food imports, I would assume.

As a reference, currently I'm also planing a TL about the subject and I would argue that keeping the region ethnically Russian-dominated is hard, if not unfeasible. Nitpicking aside - interesting project and I will certainly be watching it.

If someone would like to comment on my planned concept(@alexmilman ?):
Planned primary POD is the survival of Nikolai Rezanov (died 1807 iOTL after falling of his horse) and the implementation of his plan for Spanish-Russian collaboration on the American West Coast. Emigration from Russia is encouraged (gonna have to find a creative solution for that; maybe the Russian-American kinda buys out serfs and transports them to Alaska and/ or Cascadia.), while the fur trade with China is relocated to the Sea much earlier, jump starting naval development in Russian America (especially given that governor Baranov was pretty close to a British shipbuilder at his disposal at the time). Long term intention is to generate a trading-oriented state. As this state is severly underpopulated, it will pull also immigrants from China and other Asian countries. (Also the Russian plans in Hawai succeed).

Prime Issue I see is the economic irrelevance of Alaska for Russian interests (dwindling fur production that already began under Baranovs rule) and the travel distance for Russian immigrants. Also - how will the Brits react, how will Alaska react to the Mexican independence and what Happens when the US comes knocking?
 
Last edited:
As a reference, currently I'm also planing a TL about the subject and I would argue that keeping the region ethnically Russian-dominated is hard, if not unfeasible. Nitpicking aside - interesting project and I will certainly be watching it.

I'm by no means an expert on that issue but here are my 2c worth. As far as I can see, Russian problem with Alaska was two-fold:

1st, there was nothing really attractive there except for the furs of the sea animals which were mostly coming from the outlying islands (hence no reason to settle deep inland).

2nd, due to the obvious climate-related problems Alaska could not produce enough food to feed even the existing tiny population. When Rezanov (whom you mentioned in your post) arrived into Novo-Archangelsk the settlers had been dying from starvation because supplies had to be carried across all Siberia and then shipped across the Sea of Okhotsk (as a result, a big part of them had been rotten well before the arrival). One should keep in mind that in 1806/07 Russian-Chinese border still was one established in the late XVII, which was limited possibility of a food production reasonably close to the Russian Pacific Coast. Just to get a general idea, nowadays, Russian Primorsky Kraj is not too much into the grain production but it produces considerable amounts of the soybeans, rice, beans, corn, meat and vegetables
http://ab-centre.ru/page/selskoe-hozyaystvo-primorskogo-kraya . Khabarowsky Kraj (to the North of it) produces grain, corn, soybeans, vegetables, etc.
http://ab-centre.ru/page/selskoe-hozyaystvo-habarovskogo-kraya
However, none of these areas was within the Russian Empire by the early XIX: Russian center on the Pacific was in Okhotsk, well to the North from a productive agricultural zone.

Rezanov came with a seemingly productive idea of establishing Russian settlement in California to make it an agricultural supply base for Alaska. Of course, the area belonged to Spain (and his marriage proposal to the daughter of SF governor was probably a diplomatic move) but Spanish presence there was quite weak and they would probably not be able to prevent a bigger than in OTL Russian settlement. However, IMHO, site of Fort Ross practically excluded its development into something noticeably bigger: Bodega Bay is shallow (not a problem initially) and the site was initially chosen because there were plenty of otters but they had been exterminated within few years.

250px-Wpdms_usgs_photo_bodega_harbor.jpg

But we are still dancing around the critical question "why to bother?". All these territories belonged to the Russian American Company. The company was, formally, private but the Hell, as always, was in the details. Why Rezanov (ober-secretary of the Senate) got involved is clear: by his 1st marriage he inherited estates of his wive's father, Shelikhov, in Alaska and his North-Eastern Company had been transformed into the Russian American Company on Rezanov's request. RAC had very important shareholders including Emperor, Empress Dowager and various members of the imperial family, which allowed to count upon state's sponsorship even when the company ceased to be profitable (not a big surprise because within 2 decades its administration was transferred from the merchants to the naval officers and decade later the merchants completely disappear from the company). By 1866 selling RAC's possessions was considered as a way to at least somewhat alleviate a financial crisis in Russia. Fort Ross existed until 1841 by that time Mexico was independent for quite a few decades. By that time settlement included 3 ranches but an agreement between RAC and Hudson Bay Company guaranteed food supplies to Alaska at the fixed prices which made maintenance of the Fort Ross meaningless. Government of Mexico and Hudson Bay Company refused to buy it so it was sold to Johann Augustus Sutter (as I understand, gold was found in a different part of his estates).

So, IMO, the key issue is not how to put more people into these territories but how to make these territories profitable to a degree allowing to keep them or how to avoid situation that led to their sale.

Honestly, I don't see any realistic developments which would "make a losing enterprise into a profitable one without making any changes".

Even a much earlier than in OTL Russian expansion into the Pacific coast (and local food production with a surplus allowing supply of Alaska) does not look like an answer unless we are going to accept a little bit ASBish scenario of the much earlier (by 2 - 3 decades at least) Russian industrial development allowing construction of Transsiberian Railroad by the 1850's, much earlier "readjustment" of the Russian-Chinese border into its present state and a serious development of the Russian Far East (with its own metallurgy, ship-building industry, etc.) by the 1860's.

As a prerequisite this requires a completely different Nicholas I because one of the OTL was a major impediment to the earlier industrial development and his prolonged reign basically run Russia into the ground economically. So if we have alt-Nicholas I who:

(a) Conducts Serfdom Reform in the 1820's.
(b) Introduces general "economic liberalization" (meaning a much lesser state control over economy and absence of the Kankrin-style regulations which were killing the small businesses) while paying a great attention to the development of the railroads (but with Witte-like regulations) and metallurgy. This should be accompanies by the meaningful tariff system cutting the foreign pressure upon the developing Russian industries.
(c) Sticks to the reasonably "harmless" foreign policy: minimal intervention into the European affairs (especially in 1848, stay away from Hungary ), not pressing the Ottomans too much (aka, no Crimean War) but aggressively expanding at the Chinese expense (aka, earlier occupation of what's now Russian Far East) and in the Central Asia. The Brits still would be unhappy but there is no framework producing international anti-Russian coalition like one which led to the Crimean War.

Plus, while I'm not "recommending" replacement of Alexander II with an alternative figure possessing some brains (or at least intelligent enough to chose the right people to listen to), there would be a need of a complete change of his foreign trade policies (low import tariffs had been killing Russian economy), and domestic economic policies (during the reign of Alexander III Witte managed to make the railroads profitable just by the smart regulations) as well to keep Russia out of a financial crisis which led to the Alaska sale.

The basic idea is that by the 1860's Russia has a reasonably stable and developed economy and there is no crisis which prompted the sale of Alaska. It also implies that by that time Russian infrastructure on the Far East is capable of supporting the Alaska settlement based on the local produce and that the region has a reasonably developed industry allowing to build and support the steam-based naval presence (both merchant and military).

Of course, Alaska would still remain an economic burden but with everything else going differently it could make sense as a geopolitical factor (Russian naval control of the region or whatever) until the new considerations like oil kick in. But in OTL Russia all of the above was absent so the "why" is not to be seen.
 
Last edited:
@alexmilman
Regarding the food supply in Alaska:
Fish everywhere- that should be the easiest part.

Then, there is large amounts of land comparable to (northern) European Russia in climate and soil. I don't know what kind of population density you could sustain farming in, say, the Kenai and the Mat-Su valley, but 19th century Finland should be a good comparison. SE Alaska (Sitka et al.) should be comparable to central Norway, but has a much larger and more warlike native population to deal with.

They might also import Sami/Karelians to teach the natives in central AK to herd reindeer. I know there have been several abortive schemes to attempt reindeer herding there.
 
@alexmilman
Regarding the food supply in Alaska:
Fish everywhere- that should be the easiest part.

Obviously, the fish diet was not enough to support the OTL settlers (probably smoked salmon and caviar proved to be too aristocratic food ;)).

Then, there is large amounts of land comparable to (northern) European Russia in climate and soil.

Big chunk of the Northern European Russia is not exactly agricultural land but, pointless comparisons aside, as of now: "only about 880,000 acres are farmed in Alaska, and most of its 500 farms are clustered northeast of Anchorage. Greenhouse and nursery crops are the fastest-growing agricultural segment in the Last Frontier State, with other important commodities including hay, dairy, potatoes, and cattle and calves. Alaska farmers also produce reindeer, wool, antlers, velvet, bison and yak, among others." https://www.farmflavor.com/alaska-agriculture/

Not very encouraging for the early XIX century Russian peasants who did not have any experience with the greenhouse/nursery agriculture and the area seems to be rather limited. Notice that grain, the main staple of the Russian diet of that time, is absent.

However, this is rather irrelevant as far as the main question, WHY BOTHER, is concerned.

I don't know what kind of population density you could sustain farming in, say, the Kenai and the Mat-Su valley, but 19th century Finland should be a good comparison. SE Alaska (Sitka et al.) should be comparable to central Norway, but has a much larger and more warlike native population to deal with.

People in Citka (New Archangelsk) had been dying due to the food shortages, hence the need to supply them either from the Russian Pacific Coast or from California or by contract with Hudson Bay Company. Unless we are assuming that these settlers had been a bunch of the masochistic nincompoops starving themselves to death just for fun of it (or to cause problems to other people) we can probably safely ignore the assumptions regarding similarities with Finland, Norway or New Guinea. :winkytongue:


They might also import Sami/Karelians to teach the natives in central AK to herd reindeer. I know there have been several abortive schemes to attempt reindeer herding there.

FYI, there would be no need to go all the way to Karelia for the reindeer: they are easily available in Siberia just across the Bering Strait (from which the first batch 171 was brought into Alaska in 1892 together with their herders; much more had been bought in the following years). You can easily find the details on Wiki under "Chukchi people".

Not sure why the schemes were "abortive": as of now there are more than 30,000 of them in Alaska http://reindeer.salrm.uaf.edu/about_reindeer/history.php

I repeat the main question: why bother if the area did not make any economic sense other than a hunting area for the sea mammals?
 
Obviously, the fish diet was not enough to support the OTL settlers (probably smoked salmon and caviar proved to be too aristocratic food ;)).



Big chunk of the Northern European Russia is not exactly agricultural land but, pointless comparisons aside, as of now: "only about 880,000 acres are farmed in Alaska, and most of its 500 farms are clustered northeast of Anchorage. Greenhouse and nursery crops are the fastest-growing agricultural segment in the Last Frontier State, with other important commodities including hay, dairy, potatoes, and cattle and calves. Alaska farmers also produce reindeer, wool, antlers, velvet, bison and yak, among others." https://www.farmflavor.com/alaska-agriculture/

Not very encouraging for the early XIX century Russian peasants who did not have any experience with the greenhouse/nursery agriculture and the area seems to be rather limited. Notice that grain, the main staple of the Russian diet of that time, is absent.

However, this is rather irrelevant as far as the main question, WHY BOTHER, is concerned.



People in Citka (New Archangelsk) had been dying due to the food shortages, hence the need to supply them either from the Russian Pacific Coast or from California or by contract with Hudson Bay Company. Unless we are assuming that these settlers had been a bunch of the masochistic nincompoops starving themselves to death just for fun of it (or to cause problems to other people) we can probably safely ignore the assumptions regarding similarities with Finland, Norway or New Guinea. :winkytongue:




FYI, there would be no need to go all the way to Karelia for the reindeer: they are easily available in Siberia just across the Bering Strait (from which the first batch 171 was brought into Alaska in 1892 together with their herders; much more had been bought in the following years). You can easily find the details on Wiki under "Chukchi people".

Not sure why the schemes were "abortive": as of now there are more than 30,000 of them in Alaska http://reindeer.salrm.uaf.edu/about_reindeer/history.php

I repeat the main question: why bother if the area did not make any economic sense other than a hunting area for the sea mammals?
As far as I can tell, your logic is that it's an impossible ATL because they failed at doing it OTL, and you assert that it wouldn't be profitable. That doesn't cut the mustard.

Alaska has areas much more -locally- hospitable than just about all of Siberia. Literally, the soil and climate could make productive farms in 19th century, as there were such in Finland, Russia, Norway, fricking Iceland, etc. at even worse climate and soil conditions.

OTL, you have a few local Russians performing administration on resource extraction (pelts, the grunt work almost all by natives) and missionary work. With a larger scale of settlement, due to gold mining or what have you, local farming may become profitable, or at least costing less than shipping it all in. If the Tsar (or whatever minister) gets it in his bonnet to secure Alaska against other claims with bodies, startup money could even be invested to get things going (transport costs, initial supplies).

The area is settle-able, and its very distance from outside supply makes local provisioning smarter.
 
As far as I can tell, your logic is that it's an impossible ATL because they failed at doing it OTL, and you assert that it wouldn't be profitable. That doesn't cut the mustard.

My argument is that unless there is some valid reason for maintaining these possessions (which formally were not a part of the Russian Empire), scenarios involving the major investments, mass resettlement, etc. do not make practical sense. So far you did not provide such a reason which makes the rest of your arguments (mostly speculative, as far as I can tell) rather irrelevant.


Alaska has areas much more -locally- hospitable than just about all of Siberia.

Silly argument: most of Siberia (in a vernacular meaning of the term) was and still is uninhabitable and all projects involving "artificial" creation of the settlements in that part are related to extraction of the valuable minerals (and usually backed up by the modern transportation and technology).

Literally, the soil and climate could make productive farms in 19th century, as there were such in Finland, Russia, Norway, fricking Iceland, etc. at even worse climate and soil conditions.

I strongly suspect that you don't have a clue about specifics of agriculture in these areas (neither do I) but why would somebody bother if an inhabitable part of Siberia was still underpopulated and Russian Pacific underdeveloped? Or why would anybody bother with dumping money into Alaska before Russian-Chinese border was modified to include the "inhabitable" areas? Border by Amur was established only in 1858 and furter expanded in 1860. Populating this area and creating infrastructure including port facilities was a much higher priority than supporting settlement in Alaska (in expectation that eventually the gold will be found there).

OTL, you have a few local Russians performing administration on resource extraction (pelts, the grunt work almost all by natives) and missionary work. With a larger scale of settlement, due to gold mining or what have you, local farming may become profitable, or at least costing less than shipping it all in.

It does not look like even now Alaska is self-sustainable in the terms of agriculture and the grain has to be shipped from elsewhere and the grain was the main consumption staple. Then goes catch-22 part of your schema: there was no need for any significant farming prior to the ATL gold boom but growth of population due to such a boom would be restricted by the absence of supplies. Farms could not be created and start producing food overnight and in this specific case every agricultural implement and each and every animal would have to be brought there by ship from elsewhere and this "elsewhere" would not be Russia: there was nothing yet on the Russian Pacific coast in the terms of the "surplus" peasants and livestock (established center in Okhotsk relied upon the supplies brought from Russia). Those moving from the inhabited parts of Siberia (not too many, to start with) had been settling along the road. Merchant fleet on the Russian Pacific coast was only in the process of development. So how the Russian government was going to solve such a problem?


If the Tsar (or whatever minister) gets it in his bonnet to secure Alaska against other claims with bodies, startup money could even be invested to get things going (transport costs, initial supplies).

The area is settle-able, and its very distance from outside supply makes local provisioning smarter.

All this is a pure fantasy within framework of the Russian empire circa 1860's. Fur business ceased to be profitable long ago, gold extraction in the Central Alaska would require communications and supporting supply logistic which Russia could not afford at that time and, anyway, there was already well-developed and expanding gold mining industry in Siberia. The government was in a midst of a financial crisis and desperately needed money for really urgent projects (railways, military reform, etc.). Alaska was just something hanging on state's budget without producing any noticeable return.
 
Last edited:
Hey, so I'm really sorry that this TL turned out so shitty in the first post. I really need more practice writing TLs. I'm going to put this one on temporary hiatus for a little while, but part 2 might eventually come out once I've done my fucking research (I thought I did for this one, turns out I'm a fucking idiot) and know how to actually competently write a TL. Really sorry guys.
 
Hey, so I'm really sorry that this TL turned out so shitty in the first post. I really need more practice writing TLs. I'm going to put this one on temporary hiatus for a little while, but part 2 might eventually come out once I've done my fucking research (I thought I did for this one, turns out I'm a fucking idiot) and know how to actually competently write a TL. Really sorry guys.

I disagree: it turned quite interesting even if not exactly the same way you expected. Without it I'd probably never bother to figure out up to which degree economic situation in Russia was shitty during the reign of Alexander II (I knew that it was bad but not how bad was it) so you have my sincere gratitude.

But the whole idea looks a little bit as catch 22 situation: if Russian population in Alaska in 1860's is big (meaning that there is some valid economic reason, much more serious than the local gold rush) then it is highly unlikely that Russia would cede/sell it to the US (the main reason being an attempt to cut the expenses and to get at least some money) but if the population is small it is rather difficult to figure out how it turns into the big numbers after the purchase prior to the Russian Revolution and RCW. :teary:
 
I strongly suspect that you don't have a clue about specifics of agriculture in these areas (neither do I)
I appreciate that you are willing to admit you don't know what you're talking about regarding the potential food situation.

You should not assert I am similarly ignorant, however.
qLOk0gi.jpg


ntkHrcW.jpg



ChXDKET.jpg

NjjnMIH.png


DhKfxMa.png

Excusue what I said earlier: the area around Novosibirsk is good for agriculture, but past there things get weak.

The chief problem with SE Alaska isn't the climate, but the rockiness. Nonetheless, river valleys and gardens are productive there.

Hardy crops like oats, barley and potatoes are viable to points far into the interior.

I also think you discount fish too much. This isn't a wasteland like Greenland; tens of thousands of natives can't all be wrong.

but why would somebody bother if an inhabitable part of Siberia was still underpopulated and Russian Pacific underdeveloped?
The eternal hunger for more clay. Prestige. Gold. Power.
 
I appreciate that you are willing to admit you don't know what you're talking about regarding the potential food situation.

You should not assert I am similarly ignorant, however.
qLOk0gi.jpg


ntkHrcW.jpg



ChXDKET.jpg

NjjnMIH.png


DhKfxMa.png

Excusue what I said earlier: the area around Novosibirsk is good for agriculture, but past there things get weak.

The chief problem with SE Alaska isn't the climate, but the rockiness. Nonetheless, river valleys and gardens are productive there.

Hardy crops like oats, barley and potatoes are viable to points far into the interior.

I also think you discount fish too much. This isn't a wasteland like Greenland; tens of thousands of natives can't all be wrong.


The eternal hunger for more clay. Prestige. Gold. Power.

The maps (most of which are irrelevant to the case) mean little if you do not understand substance of the issue: there is not too much of an agriculture in Alaska even now outside Anchorage (I already produced data) and they do not produce grain. For the real life Russian settlers this would make area unsuitable for life (as was the case): they needed bread. And, contrary to your theories about fish and gardens, they were dying from the food shortages.

And as I can see you can’t come with a single real reason for thr Russian government of 1860s to waste effort on populating Alaska and for the peasants to move there. Which makes the rest of your “argument” pretty much meaningless.
 
The maps (most of which are irrelevant to the case) mean little if you do not understand substance of the issue: there is not too much of an agriculture in Alaska even now outside Anchorage (I already produced data) and they do not produce grain.
The present-day ag production is actually the irrelevant data; this is restricted by government land tenure and the existence of food easily transported from the continental US. IE much of the land is locked up as of present, and it is uneconomic to produce given easier shipping from Seattle. What the maps show is most of the relevant variables outside soil type.

For the real life Russian settlers this would make area unsuitable for life (as was the case): they needed bread. And, contrary to your theories about fish and gardens, they were dying from the food shortages.

And as I can see you can’t come with a single real reason for thr Russian government of 1860s to waste effort on populating Alaska and for the peasants to move there. Which makes the rest of your “argument” pretty much meaningless.
Nobody actually needs bread. This demonstrates inflexibility on your part. Plenty of people starved from not being prepared, being stupid or unable to act flexibly. PLENTY. The natives, at much higher numbers around them, weren't starving.

This is alternate history. Not it-didn't-happen-in-real-life-so-it-can't-ever-happen history. You've already admitted you don't know anything about agriculture in Alaska. Why not let this one go?
 
Nobody actually needs bread. This demonstrates inflexibility on your part. Plenty of people starved from not being prepared, being stupid or unable to act flexibly. PLENTY. The natives, at much higher numbers around them, weren't starving.

This is completely irrelevant because even in ATL we are talking about the Russian settlers of the mid-XIX, not some abstract creatures. It is not an issue of my inflexibility but your disregard of the known cultural and historic facts. It is not even an issue of the natives and their diet: Russian settlers had been dying from starvation until a reliable supply was established from the outside sources.

Your ideas about what they could do to provide for themselves are simply irrelevant. They are even more irrelevant due to the fact that there would be neither reason nor way to considerably increase Russian population of Alaska in the 1860s without getting ASBs involved.

This is alternate history.

Alternative history requires motivations and the basic facts based on which things could develop in a different way. You can't produce any motivations and you clearly lacking the basic knowledge about the Russian empire of the 1860's because if you did you'd understand that the whole idea is unrealistic.
 
This is completely irrelevant because even in ATL we are talking about the Russian settlers of the mid-XIX, not some abstract creatures. It is not an issue of my inflexibility but your disregard of the known cultural and historic facts. It is not even an issue of the natives and their diet: Russian settlers had been dying from starvation until a reliable supply was established from the outside sources.

Your ideas about what they could do to provide for themselves are simply irrelevant. They are even more irrelevant due to the fact that there would be neither reason nor way to considerably increase Russian population of Alaska in the 1860s without getting ASBs involved.



Alternative history requires motivations and the basic facts based on which things could develop in a different way. You can't produce any motivations and you clearly lacking the basic knowledge about the Russian empire of the 1860's because if you did you'd understand that the whole idea is unrealistic.
You are not actually acknowledging the words I'm putting on the screen, or responding with more than assertions. It's no longer productive to interact with you.
 
You are not actually acknowledging the words I'm putting on the screen, or responding with more than assertions. It's no longer productive to interact with you.

You did not "interact", just keep repeating the "words" which are not applicable to the realities of Russia circa 1860's and as such pretty much meaningless.
 
Last edited:
You did not "interact", just keep repeating the "words" which are not applicable to the realities of Russia circa 1860's and as such pretty much meaningless.
Russian settlers ATL do not need to be as Russian settlers OTL. The Alaska Russian Settler culture could also adapt.
 
Top