Chinese siberia

[Nugax]

But the Lake Baikal area is decent land, perfectly worthwhile. The Chinese may not have the means to do it, but the Manchus, Mongols did.

Manchuria and Mongolia are not so different from Siberia in climate. The Manchu led Qing empire therefore did posses the technological ability to colonize. I also disagree that the Siberian rivers would prove disadvantages, as they all run from south to north, making colonization from the south easier than from the west. As far as fur goes, the Chinese were big buyers of Russian fur. Many Russian Siberian towns existed only to trade with the Chinese.

The physical barriers are considerable however. Napoleon said of the three barriers, mountains, rivers, and deserts that make natural national borders, mountains make minor obstacles while deserts are the most problematic. The Ural mountains was Russia's barrier to overcome, while the Gobi desert was in China's way to Siberia.

Historically the Ming was not in the least bit interested in Siberia. It's the Manchus that were expansionist and prized fur. However by the time the Manchus were in a position to expand north the Russians were already firmly entrenched and it wasn't worth the effort to dislodge them just for the fur trade. The Treaty of Nurchinsk was the result of Manchu-Russian border conflicts and resulted in mutual accomodation.

Not really, the mixed forests of the Amur basin are very different to West or Central Siberia and work better with different agricultural patterns. Plus the Manchus never even got round to using the Amur basin significantly.

Also regarding the Gobi desert and the rivers? What the heck? You do realise the Gobit desert is bounded by the Altai mountains in the north - a massively more formidable barrier than the Urals, and that the Navigable portions of the great rivers are (suprisingly) near their mouths rather than the raging currents they are in the mountains, making it much easier to spread out from the north to the south and east.

Also, the "thin habitable strip" may appear that way if you look at a population map, but there is a "chicken and egg" situation there. The population is thicker along the Trans-Siberian rail line because the Trans-Siberian rail line is there. If it weren't, I'm not sure many Russian colonists would have preferred to move there.

Distance isn't necessarily a barrier to political control, nor is proximity a benefit - as you've pointed out, it's much more practicable to control Siberia from Moscow than it is from Beijing. The Golden Horde is a pretty impressive demonstration, if a bit of a backwards one.

One mountain range is way more of a barrier than several thousand miles of steppe.

I missed this earlier - sure one mountain range is more of a barrier than steppe! This is why I think its unlikely that the Chinese will reach across two - both larger than the Urals!

Also again the thin habitable strip is very much geography based - the forest-steppe is a much better environment for farming and construction, and you saw the majority of russian settlement there long before railroads were invented even when the fur trapping grounds were further north.

 

[RGB]

Yes, Siberia is pretty useless up until the 20th century, the main reason that Russia expanded in that direction was as a pride thing.

It was also a large revenue source; furs were collected through yasak, the Cossacks weren't paid all that much, and then they were sold at a good markup, through government agents.

That said, to DEVELOP it was a huge drain; even really early west Siberia required grain shipments from the Volga almost immediately after colonization, and troops to garrison all those forts.

The relatively comparative development of today's Asiatic Russia to European Russia is in large part a Soviet phenomenon, as is the population growth.

However none of that means that China has any real chance to compete successfully for Siberia, nor can be reasonably expected to have much interest in it.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I think if the precedent situation would be like what the map in the link below shows, it can maybe somewhat doable, under a Mongol Dynasty (Pardon me, tormsen) :

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=3344211&postcount=121

 

[Tocomocho]

First, the map is ridiculous.

Second, Kangxi did actuall clash with the Russians in the 1680s and consider a full-scale campaign in what was then the tiny strip of land controlled by Russia. So you could have the situation spiralling out of control and the Chinese marching on Okhotsk and expelling all Russians east of the Baikal, thus ending with a Qing-dominated eastern Siberia by default. Of course, this would mean little to nothing in terms of Chinese control of settlement, pretty much like Sakhalin IOTL. But it would have its impact in Russia and America since Russia is now cut-off the Pacific and Alaska.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

1) First, the map is ridiculous.

2) Second, Kangxi did actuall clash with the Russians in the 1680s and consider a full-scale campaign in what was then the tiny strip of land controlled by Russia. So you could have the situation spiralling out of control and the Chinese marching on Okhotsk and expelling all Russians east of the Baikal, thus ending with a Qing-dominated eastern Siberia by default. Of course, this would mean little to nothing in terms of Chinese control of settlement, pretty much like Sakhalin IOTL. But it would have its impact in Russia and America since Russia is now cut-off the Pacific and Alaska.

1) Look deeper, good sir....

2) This one sounds interesting enough and indeed more likely than my suggestion.

 

[RGB]

So you could have the situation spiralling out of control and the Chinese marching on Okhotsk and expelling all Russians east of the Baikal

All I can say is, good luck to the Chinese. The little forts along the Amur already required very large expeditions, moving all the way to Okhotsk would probably cost more than the Qing were willing to spend.

But it would have its impact in Russia and America since Russia is now cut-off the Pacific and Alaska.

It would very likely remove the Alaska colonization and other Pacific-related adventures, but most of Russian trade with China happened through Kiakhta, overland. There's little practical impact on Russia if they get to keep Irkutsk and Yakutsk - they still get most of the yasak and the Chinese trade. Maybe they get even stronger Cossack hosts formed along the Qing border, incorporating Dzungars and whoever else survives the Qing slaughters in central Asia if the Qing are outwardly hostile.

Come the 1850s if the Qing stay their OTL course, the Russians can take the Far East anyway (this time from sheer Imperial pride); the Amur is a really sensible border, and how much further than that they push will depend on how much the other Europeans hurt the Qing.