Could Central Asia become part of the British empire?

How could the Khanate of Khiva, the Khanate of Kokand, and the Emirate of Bukhara evade Russian advances in the 1840s? Why didn't the British make more aggressive moves in Central Asia in OTL? With the possibilities of more aggressive British policies, and the success of Arthur Connolly's mission to try to unite the the Central Asian nations and make them more open to Britain, how feasible is it for Central Asian territories to become British protectorates?
 
How could the Khanate of Khiva, the Khanate of Kokand, and the Emirate of Bukhara evade Russian advances in the 1840s? Why didn't the British make more aggressive moves in Central Asia in OTL? With the possibilities of more aggressive British policies, and the success of Arthur Connolly's mission to try to unite the the Central Asian nations and make them more open to Britain, how feasible is it for Central Asian territories to become British protectorates?

Well...in my admittedly unlearned opinion, the problem is that there aren't any secure LOCs from India to Central Asia, while there are secure LOCs from Moscow to Central Asia. The Afghanistan expeditions were all dismal failures, so the British couldn't have hoped to maintain contact with the Central Asian khanates effectively, not compared to the Russians. So I have to rate the idea of it becoming British as low, quite low.
 
It's possible, but it would almost be Russia's to lose rather than Britain's to gain. It would require the Russians to be pretty massively unsuccessful in their drives southeast from the Caspian, which is possible but not hugely likely. A British military conquest is possible, but some areas such as Afghanistan would be virtually impossible to hold, so it would probably have to be done by the pen in those areas. In this case, it would require Russia to be very aggressive, forcing some of the states into the British pocket, giving them the platform to then subdue some of the others militarily. Problem is, the Central Asian states were often so fiercely independent that they would go down fighting rather than seek aid off a foreign power. Perhaps if the Russians fail to invade a few times (while at the same time never throwing questions on their ability, as that would just be a morale booster for the khanates) and then try to make progress by a series of systematic massacre/genocides? Perhaps if the Cossacks get out of control?

I don't know. It's not an entirely likely situation, and would require some massive good luck for the British, and bad luck for the Russians.
 
If the British had a more extensive presence in Persia this would be much easier. Northeast Persia and most of Central Asia were historically a continuum, and having the one would give a natural and even vaguely legitimate platform for attaining the other.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Perhaps if the Russians fail to invade a few times (while at the same time never throwing questions on their ability, as that would just be a morale booster for the khanates) and then try to make progress by a series of systematic massacre/genocides?
The Tsars did that IOTL and it didn't seem to hamper them all that much.
 
The Tsars did that IOTL and it didn't seem to hamper them all that much.

Uh, please? Can you provide the exact instances of this? Systematic and all.

Not that I'm saying everyone was happy tree friends or anything, but I'd really like to know what you're talking about. It might cover some of my gaps in understanding.
 
Uh, please? Can you provide the exact instances of this? Systematic and all.

Not that I'm saying everyone was happy tree friends or anything, but I'd really like to know what you're talking about. It might cover some of my gaps in understanding.

There were systematic massacres in 1916 and during the revolution, and some of the sacks of cities during conquest weren't very nice, but in general, the Russians treated their "colonial" areas much, much, much, much, much, much, much better than any of the other powers. Much. I would actually rate the Russians the "best" imperial power by a wide margin.
 
There were systematic massacres in 1916 and during the revolution, and some of the sacks of cities during conquest weren't very nice, but in general, the Russians treated their "colonial" areas much, much, much, much, much, much, much better than any of the other powers. Much. I would actually rate the Russians the "best" imperial power by a wide margin.

Interesting. Any idea just why that was?

Perhaps just a symptom of running such a huge and varied state? Not that the colonies weren't isolated, but that they were about as isolated as anything else in the country.
 
Perhaps just a symptom of running such a huge and varied state? Not that the colonies weren't isolated, but that they were about as isolated as anything else in the country.

Actually, sometimes the reverse. The government was often powerless to do anything about local abuses. There's some nasty history with the Chukchi, for example, parts of Kamchatka, early Alaska and Aleutians under Lebedev-Lastochkin and co. Fur yasak often depended upon taking of the amanats (hostages) for the men to work. The taxmen often cheated the trappers. There were still large amounts of death. The Russians chased the Daurs right out of the Amur valley via massacres when they ran out of grain and wanted to impose a grain tax. They fought serious wars with the Tlingits. It all fails to measure up to Australia alone, but it was still very terrible.

That said, the law itself was on occasion pretty kind. "Inorodtsy" had special tax status and often better protection under the law than the Russians themselves - on paper. There were few forced conversions and no attempts to stop communal living until the USSR happened. Inorodtsy enrolling in the army automatically became equivalent in rank to cossacks or streltsi (relatively privileged); those of rank in the tribe became equivalent with Russian gentry.

However, when the voivode wasn't able to protect himself against his own men (provided he wasn't a corrupt bastard to start with), it is really no surprise he wasn't going to do much when his men slaughtered the locals. Granted, Russian "locals" were tougher opposition than almost anything the Europeans faced in the Americas, so it wasn't always one-sided.
 
I have to admit I know bugger all of Russian colonialism in Central Asia, but it does sound quite interesting. Might pop the library - I think Dave left my local open :cool:SATIRE!!!:cool:

Sticking to the OP, ignoring Russia's ability to power project into the region, the main problem and demotivator is Afghanistan.

The First Anglo-Afghan War put off British expeditions into the region for almost thirty years.

More indirectly, it would be interesting to see Britain send major aid to the Khanates in Central Asia, in attempt to create a whole bunch of Afghan style buffers. Yet again the problem is, Kabul is in the way.

Also in many ways the FAAW put Britain slightly at ease over the Great Game. Having experienced the meatgrinder that is Afghanistan, they were at least confident enough that any Russian march on Dehli would have one major roadblock.

The Russians had no such doubts, but until 1979 weren't given a wake-up call.
 
Interesting. Any idea just why that was?

Perhaps just a symptom of running such a huge and varied state? Not that the colonies weren't isolated, but that they were about as isolated as anything else in the country.

Russian colonists in Siberia, especially earlier ones, were about as bad as bad can get to the natives - but that wasn't state policy, and where the government could, it was interested in ending cruel abuse.

As for Central Asia, I guess the Russians just had a lot more exposure to Islam and other religions and were much more comfortable with multi-sectarian universalism than the Western Powers. The Tsarist regime encouraged Islam in Central Asia and institutionalized it, allowing it to modernize with Russia. If not for Communism, Central Asia would likely be a source of Islamic modernist intellectualism today. It's the only place conquered by a colonial power where there was any Islamic modernism, and vigorous enough to have an impact on Ottoman modernist thinking.

The Tsars encouraged non-Orthodox subjects to view them as the protectors of all faiths. Only the Ottomans had a similar philosophy, and were less effective with it than the Russians.
 
As for Central Asia, I guess the Russians just had a lot more exposure to Islam and other religions and were much more comfortable with multi-sectarian universalism than the Western Powers. The Tsarist regime encouraged Islam in Central Asia and institutionalized it, allowing it to modernize with Russia. If not for Communism, Central Asia would likely be a source of Islamic modernist intellectualism today. It's the only place conquered by a colonial power where there was any Islamic modernism, and vigorous enough to have an impact on Ottoman modernist thinking.

Now that is fascinating. Do you have any recommendations for further reading on the subject (in English)? There's a really good TL hiding in there for someone with knowledge of the region. A British base in Persia would allow access to the west Asia 'stans in the 19th Century by way of the Caspian and perhaps allow them to fend off the Communists in the 1920s. Wish I knew more about that region and that era.
 
Top