Colonialism over Russia, aka an idea I'm simply already to deeply in love with....

Old Airman

Banned
OK, I'll start with the original idea, i.e. Netherlanders being colonial masters. The POD might be a lot later than you think, around Times of Troubles (early 1600s). Russian Tsardom was extremely weak at this point, with the dynasty considered natural lords of the land (Muskovite Rurikids) dying out and no one with obvious claim to replace them (there was no shortage of cadet lines, but without the heir apparent, and they were generally weaker than most powerful Boyar cliques). OTL it all ended with election of Romanovs (heads of most powerful Boyar group), who ruled over a country in deep trouble, with empty coffers and not enough taxpayers to fill them. This brought about the scheme to LEND part of the country to Netherlanders to exploit it's riches (most of all, forests and iron deposits), with Dutch paying gold in advance to Russian government and then recovering their expenses (and making profits) through export of iron and forest products. Basically, tax-farming scheme. IOTL the scheme didn't go through, although it had been absolutely crucial for founding of main Russian armoury to this day, Tula iron works (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Vinius). Now, different small events might be butterflied IATL to see this scheme being fully implemented. Russian court will depend on Dutch money more and more, becoming their proxy by late 1600s. Even better, make Second Opolchenie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnoe_Opolcheniye) lose to Poles and prevent reunification. This scheme might see one of regional rulers (in Northern Russia, most likely) to turn to Dutch for money and support... Then, even if Russia eventually reunifies (which IS likely), nobody would kill a money-making enterprise and new rulers will need Dutch more than ever.

How about a non-expansive Russia leaving most of what we know as Asian Russia to the devices of the various Steppe Turks, and then the Qing do to the Siber Khanate and Tatars what they did to the Dzungars OTL.
Unlikely if there's a big Central Russian state controlling Kama mouth from 1550s on (Kama-Chusovaya route being the main highway to Siberia). However, you can try to introduce numerous PODs preventing Russian control over Kama (I don't think it would be easy to create Russia fractured enough for it not being able to produce 2000-3000 strong explorer force, and that's how many Cossacks it took IOTL to establish Russian control over Siberia).

I think for any western European outsiders that would like to bother themselves to give a go for this, would most likely do it on mercantile interest, and this will only happen with the region being TOTALLY deprived from any coherent polity capable of being an effective supplier of Russian goods (mainly fur) for western Europe.....
Siberia is not as hopelessly inaccessible as you think. IOTL Russian tsars closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangazeya exactly due to fears of direct Western access to Siberian furs, without paying into Russian coffers first. With weak/fractured/failed Russia, you might see quite thriving European fur trade in Siberia by mid- to late-1600.

If I may be permitted to broaden the discussion a little, something that interests me is Russia passing the 18th century without any *Peter the Great, that is, no radical reforms of society (entrenching personal serfdom, breaking the power of the church, table of ranks and service nobility, all that jazz), just natural development, and much less dramatic expansion if any.
Reforms DID happen IOTL before Peter (most of wartime Russian army had been "soldier" regiments by late 1600 as opposed to infamous Streltsy), and PLC became a Russian puppet (OK, may be "junior partner" might be better definition, but no Polish king after Sobieski was elected without Russian approval) before Peter grew up. So it would not be fair to say that Peter singlehandedly pulled Russia into modernity, although "Ottomanization" is definitely possible without him (just not certain).

After all, when it was most stagnated (end of Nicholas I's reign), Russia was considered an "Asiatic power" by the victors of the Crimean War or at least Britain
"The wogs begin at Calais", right? :) Although I have to say that some American atlases printed after 2000 (this is not a typo, two-freaking-thousand AD) still consider Kaliningrad as being "Asia" and Georgia as being "Europe" :) :) :)

I could imagine a situation where Russia doesn't unite under Muscovy but stays a patchwork of principalities and khanates.
Yes, different rules of the game within the Golden Horde could bring it easily. OTL raise of Muskovy had been largely caused by Tartar's desire to have main tribute collector, who would do the plundering and then bring gold to them. Muscovite, Suzdal, Tver etc. princes fought for the right to collect on behalf of Tartar and Muskovy won. Would the Horde decide to collect the tribute directly, it would leave a quilt of small city-states by the time gunpowder and advances in farming made nomad-dominated empires vulnerable (I, in all fairness, don't see the Horde surviving past 1600).

One difference may be that these colonial powers may try to put some of their royal offspring as princes on local thrones, either having them convert to Orthodoxy or trying to convert their clients to Catholicism or Protestantism.
Don't count on conversion of the population. Mongols pretty much killed the idea in it's cradle by granting special status to clergy and thus making the Church de-facto symbol of Russianness for an ordinary person. However, Greek Catholic church might make some gains ITTL.
 
OK Then, even if Russia eventually reunifies (which IS likely), nobody would kill a money-making enterprise and new rulers will need Dutch more than ever.

Well, from that point onward, it could be anyone, right? A united Russia would certainly try to diversify its sources of investment. So I think a fractured Russia would be essential for the Dutch to kep control, but a fractured Russia would at the same time give openings to other powers. So we'd need a really good reason why no stronger contender would oust the Dutch.

Unlikely if there's a big Central Russian state controlling Kama mouth from 1550s on (Kama-Chusovaya route being the main highway to Siberia). However, you can try to introduce numerous PODs preventing Russian control over Kama (I don't think it would be easy to create Russia fractured enough for it not being able to produce 2000-3000 strong explorer force, and that's how many Cossacks it took IOTL to establish Russian control over Siberia).

Except if those Russian states would be in a constant state of war, so any of them would see attacking their neighbour with these troups as a better use than sending them off into the wilderness.


Yes, different rules of the game within the Golden Horde could bring it easily. OTL raise of Muskovy had been largely caused by Tartar's desire to have main tribute collector, who would do the plundering and then bring gold to them. Muscovite, Suzdal, Tver etc. princes fought for the right to collect on behalf of Tartar and Muskovy won. Would the Horde decide to collect the tribute directly, it would leave a quilt of small city-states by the time gunpowder and advances in farming made nomad-dominated empires vulnerable (I, in all fairness, don't see the Horde surviving past 1600).


Yes, these are good points; I also don't see effective Horde rule over Russia at that point, although one could imagine some kind of formal suzerainty or local Khans and Princes deriving their legitimacy from the Khan.


Don't count on conversion of the population. Mongols pretty much killed the idea in it's cradle by granting special status to clergy and thus making the Church de-facto symbol of Russianness for an ordinary person. However, Greek Catholic church might make some gains ITTL.
Good point as well. Protestantism and perhaps Catholicism may be more successful among the non-Russian peoples of the North and Siberia, depending on who gains control of those areas.
 
Top