Crimean war - Imperial Russia doing better

[ivanotter]

All,

I am busy reading Montefiore's 'The Romanovs'. Very interesting.

Also the Hibbert's 'The destruction of Lord Raglan'.

It is all fascinating although I do know very little about this part of British-Russian conflict.

All of that said, it comes across as though the Russians had plenty of options and possibilities in doing far better. With a bit of determination, there weight of Russian infantry should have made far better headway at both Alma, but surely at Inkerman.

The Russian artillery seems to be up to standard, but the cavalry and infantry seem to be less than 'useless'.

We do have the problem with the Russian soldiers being in essence serfs and peasants without any real training.

We have antiquated equipment (although Russia had also ordered the new Minnie riffle).

But …. why couldn't they have done better?

And that leads into the real good WHAT IF....

IF Alma had been a near destruction of the Allied forces?
IF Inkerman had wiped out the British and French forces (or at least close to)?

Would Russia have been the dominant factor in Europe? Over-taking Bismarck's Germany?
Would the British and French alliance have cracked?
What would Britain have been doing with a near-total loss of British forces?

The ghosts rising would of course be:

Kabul
Indian Mutiny
Boer War (Majuba, Jameson's raid and the 1899 - 1902 affair)

French-British competition in colony race would surely be different.

PS: I have tried to search to find something here, but … nothing

Ivan

 

[alexmilman]

All,

I am busy reading Montefiore's 'The Romanovs'. Very interesting.

Also the Hibbert's 'The destruction of Lord Raglan'.

It is all fascinating although I do know very little about this part of British-Russian conflict.

All of that said, it comes across as though the Russians had plenty of options and possibilities in doing far better. With a bit of determination, there weight of Russian infantry should have made far better headway at both Alma, but surely at Inkerman.

The Russian artillery seems to be up to standard, but the cavalry and infantry seem to be less than 'useless'.

We do have the problem with the Russian soldiers being in essence serfs and peasants without any real training.

We have antiquated equipment (although Russia had also ordered the new Minnie riffle).

But …. why couldn't they have done better?

And that leads into the real good WHAT IF....

IF Alma had been a near destruction of the Allied forces?
IF Inkerman had wiped out the British and French forces (or at least close to)?

Would Russia have been the dominant factor in Europe? Over-taking Bismarck's Germany?
Would the British and French alliance have cracked?
What would Britain have been doing with a near-total loss of British forces?

The ghosts rising would of course be:

Kabul
Indian Mutiny
Boer War (Majuba, Jameson's raid and the 1899 - 1902 affair)

French-British competition in colony race would surely be different.

PS: I have tried to search to find something here, but … nothing

Ivan

Funny as it may sound, strategically, they did better than they expected. At that time Russian strategic paradigm was based upon ability to fight two European powers and, in the case of war with Austria and Prussia, it was expected that the Russian armies would be forced to evacuate the Western governorships. In the CW Russia faced two major active opponents, France and Britain, with Austria threatening an attack (so most of the Russian troops had been staying on the Danube) and the Ottomans amounting to the theater on the Caucasus. Plus the Sardinians. Contrary to the expectations, territorial losses in Europe had been close to zero even without any serious operational retreat: the “battlefield loss of a territory” amounted to the half of Sevastopol and few token losses here and there. On the acquisition side, the CW resulted in abandoning of the Nerchinsk Treaty, establishing border with China on Amur and completely changed strategic situation on the Russian Pacific coast. So the CW ended with a serious net gain ().

When the war started Russia did not havea) an adequate military industry, (b) money to keep its army properly equipped, fed and trained, (c) railroads (getting supplies to the troops in the Crimea was a nightmare), (d) modern means of communications (news from the Crimea had been delivered by the couriers). OTOH, it had a level of corruption very high even by the Russian standards. The richest people in the army were commanders of the reserve battalions (they had been in charge of the regimental property) and the officials dealing with the suppliers.

Could the Russian troops perform better tactically? Yes, they could but for this you need to change military system enforced by Nicholas: due to a chronic absence of the funds the soldiers had been passing through the rigorous training ... in a parade ground marching. Firing drill (to cut the cost) amounted to 3 or 5 shots annually. Presumably this had to be compensated by a vigorous bayonet charge but stress upon parade ground drill pretty much killed effectiveness of that tactics as well: everything was substituted with what Paskevich called “acrobatics”. Then goes Nicholas’ itch of regulating: everything in Russia, from architecture of the churches to the battle field formations had been carefully documented and enforced. The generals and officers could not demonstrate any initiative (and most of them did not learn how), hence the bad performance in the encounters you mentioned. Compare this with the defense of Sevastopol (keep in mind that at the start of the siege the land side did not have any fortifications, they had been built when the siege was going on) due to the fact that situation did not fit into any prescribed scenario and heavy involvement of the naval personnel (which simply was not familiar with the army regulations) it was heavy into the improvisations and personal initiative; eventually, Southern side of the city was taken due to the overwhelming advantages of the besiegers but compare this with the relative easiness of their victories in the field.

So, have an army better prepared to the war and you can get the field victories. Would this be strategically better for Russia? It depends. The frustrated allies could provide Austria with a greater stimulus for declaring the war on Russia and this would be really bad not because Austrians were so good but because scope of the war would grow stretching Russian limited resources even further.

Russia as a dominant factor in Europe was a problem which more or less triggered the CW: Nicholas behaved as if it really was dominant even if Russian economy was moving from bad to worse and simply was not adequate fir the needs of a modern war (“Russia is neither agricultural nor manufacturing country; it is a military state whose only purpose is to keep the rest of the world trembling”; how far can you get with this attitude?) pretty much everybody wanted to cut him down to size. Any serious success of his would only increase the efforts of his opponents.

 

[ivanotter]

That is another way of looking at it. Is it also a matter of 'management bandwidth'. Russia had a lot of things going:

- Russian America (Alaska and California)
- Settlement of the Southern borders (incursion, occupation conquest)
- China?
- Settlement of Siberia
- Revolutionary sentiments spilling into Russia?

If we assume that Britain's real interest would be to balance the continental powers, not allowing anyone to dominate the chessboard, then Britain had a singular interest in keeping Russia down - which the CW was after all about

It puts France into a different position.

The emerging Germany with Bismarck might have been an unknown at that stage.

I still have this notion that if the Russian armies had just kept walking, they would have swamped any opposition. Never mind shooting anybody.

Would the 'import' of Germans (Baltic or real Germans) have made a difference.

 

[alexmilman]

That is another way of looking at it. Is it also a matter of 'management bandwidth'. Russia had a lot of things going:

- Russian America (Alaska and California)
- Settlement of the Southern borders (incursion, occupation conquest)
- China?
- Settlement of Siberia
- Revolutionary sentiments spilling into Russia?

If we assume that Britain's real interest would be to balance the continental powers, not allowing anyone to dominate the chessboard, then Britain had a singular interest in keeping Russia down - which the CW was after all about

It puts France into a different position.

The emerging Germany with Bismarck might have been an unknown at that stage.

I still have this notion that if the Russian armies had just kept walking, they would have swamped any opposition. Never mind shooting anybody.

Would the 'import' of Germans (Baltic or real Germans) have made a difference.

Russian America was not going anywhere. Population of these territories was minuscule and their economic value was negligible. Actually, Alaska (or rather RAC) was getting subsidies. With the borders established by Nerchinsk it was impossible to do anything substantial on both sides of the Pacific coast.

China: trade with China was going on but until the CW and a threat of the British expansion into the region most of the Russian ministers were against and revision of the border. Actually, they were against it all the way: Muraviev’s expedition and the following revision of the border and increasing settlement on the Pacific coast had been done on his initiative supported only by Nicholas.

Settlement of Siberia easier said then done because of the bad communications and shortage of the people who can legally resettle (most of the Russian peasants were serfs).

British interests were numerous and one of them was expansionism (conflicting with th3 Russian expansionism). Probably conflict with France was avoidable if Nicholas had more tact and realistic assessment of the situation. Germany had a long way to go before unification so you are talking Prussia.

An idea of just marching into the enemy’s fire is, of course, interesting and actually this approach was tried during the CW and proved to be not a good idea. Not to mention that in the Crimea the allies had a numeric advantage.

Not sure from where and to where you are proposing to “import” the Baltic Germans: they already had been Russian subjects. And Totleben was seemingly the only person on both sides who clearly knew what he is doing.

 

[TerenceofGod]

In the Long Run militarily losing in the CW was actually good for Russia. If she did not feel the weight of her unpreparedness it would have translated to a disastrous conflict later down the line, since they can win such contests with inadequacies. Overall Russia losing militarily is good.

 

[M79]

Scenario for consideration:

*Chernakovs build their steam locomotice on schedule but Nicholas I takes a military interest and decides to invest more readily in the steel and railway industries.

*Russian completion of the St Petersburg - Moscow railway in 1845, connecting to Warsaw in 1847, Tula in 1848, and Ufa in 1850 as part of a more wodeapread plan to help industrialize the country.

*Nicholas I abolishes serfdom shortly before the Crimean war breaks out with the upper classes checked (only just) by the newly wealthy industrial class dependent on the crown for their markets

*Voronezh is linked to the system in 1850 as the line grows towards Kharkhov and Kiev, this permits use of the Don as a one-way river ferry from rail lines linking parts of the rest of European Russia

*Russians acquire a Second Model Colt Ring Lever Rifle along with Patterson and Walker pistols which 'inspire' near-perfect copies

*Telegraphy is embraced by Nicholas I who sees its military applications alomost immediately with state-subsidized lines followings the nascent railways

*Russia still loses the Crimean War but hits harder and more often

 

[alexmilman]

Scenario for consideration:

*Chernakovs build their steam locomotice on schedule

Just out of a pure curiosity, who were these "Chernakovs" and how they are getting into the picture?

The 1st Russian locomotive had been built by father and son Cherepanov in 1833 and the 2nd in 1835. The locomotives for the railroad St-Petersburg - Tsarskoe Selo (1838) had been ordered abroad but the locomotives for the railroad St-Peteresburg - Moscow had been built by Alexandrovsky factory in 1845.

but Nicholas I takes a military interest and decides to invest more readily in the steel and railway industries.

The 1st passengers of the 1st railroad had been soldiers but Nicholas was not too much into the railroad development because it proved to be very expensive (and he had serious problem with the Russian finances) and (AFAIK), funny as it may sound, the bad roads had been considered something of a strategic asset which would make invasion of Russia difficult: scenario under consideration was a joined Austrian - Prussian attack on Russia, the OTL scenario was not even considered with a resulting absence of the land-side fortifications for Sevastopol and generally weak coastal defenses on the Black and Azov seas.

As for the fast development of the heavy industry, there you may have a problem: the local private capital was inadequate for the investments required and government also was routinely short of money so making serious changes would require few decades.

*Russian completion of the St Petersburg - Moscow railway in 1845, connecting to Warsaw in 1847, Tula in 1848, and Ufa in 1850 as part of a more wodeapread plan to help industrialize the country.

And where to get the money?

*Nicholas I abolishes serfdom shortly before the Crimean war breaks out with the upper classes checked (only just) by the newly wealthy industrial class dependent on the crown for their markets

Creation of the "wealthy industrial class" in OTL took few decades after serfdom was abolished. Period following emancipation of the serfs was a big mess with a general economic downturn for the nobility and the peasants so if there is a serious war during this period, Russia is fundamentally screwed with or without the railroads.

*Voronezh is linked to the system in 1850 as the line grows towards Kharkhov and Kiev, this permits use of the Don as a one-way river ferry from rail lines linking parts of the rest of European Russia

This is all very nice and sensible but you need money, money and more money and Russia of Nicholas I was notoriously short of that commodity. In OTL, Company of the Russian Railroads had been created in 1857 by Shtiglitz banking house with the participation of the French and British banks, which was hardly possible shortly before the CW. This leaves only the internal loans guaranteed by the state to the railroad construction companies but creation of such companies would require a completely different NI with the PoDs going back to at least early 1830s and butterflying away the CW (which was a byproduct of NI being who he was; even a simple politeness would make the French participation highly unlikely). Also, practically all money from selling Alaska (10,972,238 rubles out of 11,362,481) had been spent on purchasing equipment for the railroads. Who would purchase it in the 1840s?

It would also require a serious change of NI's attitude toward the railroad construction and "capitalism" in general.

*Russians acquire a Second Model Colt Ring Lever Rifle along with Patterson and Walker pistols which 'inspire' near-perfect copies

Russian army of that period amounted to more than a 1 million. Between 1838 and 1841 only 500 of the 2nd model rifles were produced. Hardly an adequate number for making any noticeable difference even if all of them bought by Russia. Then, in the US the reviewing "board of officers advocated equipping select trained men in each company with Colt's rifle, fearing universal employment may cause damage to the guns because of their delicate construction." In other words, it would be absolutely unsuitable for the massive use in the Russian army.

Anyway, a large-scale production within Russia of that time would be quite problematic due to an absence of the needed manufacturing facilities. The OTL problem was not due to the ignorance of the innovations but due to the inability to implement these innovations (practical maximum was retrofitting the flintlocks with the capsule mechanism).

*Telegraphy is embraced by Nicholas I who sees its military applications alomost immediately with state-subsidized lines followings the nascent railways

Seemingly obvious and reasonable but the same problem as with everything else: no technical ability to produce and no money to purchase the equipment.

*Russia still loses the Crimean War but hits harder and more often

The CW was not inevitable and with NI being so different from OTL version, it most probably would not happen.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

I wonder what impact would victory in CW have on future reforms-especially abolition of serfdom, revolutionary movements and situation in Poland (CW was seen as sign of weakness of Russian Empire and anothef successfull French and British intervention against Russia was expected by Polish rebels in 1863).

 

[alexmilman]

I wonder what impact would victory in CW have on future reforms-especially abolition of serfdom, revolutionary movements and situation in Poland (CW was seen as sign of weakness of Russian Empire and anothef successfull French and British intervention against Russia was expected by Polish rebels in 1863).

Russian victory in the CW was practically impossible because, at the very best, they would be able to repel the invasion into their territory (Crimea) and achieve some success against the Ottomans. But they could not expand the war anywhere where it could hurt Britain and France. The worst case scenario for them would be disorderly leaving the Crimea with some losses but they still would have a complete control of the seas and financial resources to continue for as long as they see fit.

Absence of a clear defeat in the CW (providing NI dies on schedule) should not change too much in any of the areas you mentioned including the Polish expectations.

 

[M79]

Just out of a pure curiosity, who were these "Chernakovs" and how they are getting into the picture?

I think we're talking about the same people, guess I misspelled it.

The 1st Russian locomotive had been built by father and son Cherepanov in 1833 and the 2nd in 1835. The locomotives for the railroad St-Petersburg - Tsarskoe Selo (1838) had been ordered abroad but the locomotives for the railroad St-Peteresburg - Moscow had been built by Alexandrovsky factory in 1845.

Hence starting development of a much larger railway system years earlier. To build railways, steel becomes necessary, probably starting at Tula. Given that OTL the Russians had less than 600 miles of railway in 1855 and Warsaw linked to Vienna years before connections to the rest of Russia this would be of military significance, especially to a martial-minded Emperor with an engineering background.

The 1st passengers of the 1st railroad had been soldiers but Nicholas was not too much into the railroad development because it proved to be very expensive (and he had serious problem with the Russian finances) and (AFAIK), funny as it may sound, the bad roads had been considered something of a strategic asset which would make invasion of Russia difficult: scenario under consideration was a joined Austrian - Prussian attack on Russia, the OTL scenario was not even considered with a resulting absence of the land-side fortifications for Sevastopol and generally weak coastal defenses on the Black and Azov seas.

As for the fast development of the heavy industry, there you may have a problem: the local private capital was inadequate for the investments required and government also was routinely short of money so making serious changes would require few decades.

If the main rail lines still develop at a 5ft gauge and don't go all the way to the borders, you still have road travel for some of the distance.

And where to get the money?

He had a brilliant minister of finance in von Cancrin, diamond finds in the 1820s and an extensive survey as part of that could be followed up with more reforms and resource development/exploitation.

Creation of the "wealthy industrial class" in OTL took few decades after serfdom was abolished. Period following emancipation of the serfs was a big mess with a general economic downturn for the nobility and the peasants so if there is a serious war during this period, Russia is fundamentally screwed with or without the railroads.

Nicholas toyed with abolishing serfdom earlier in his reign, and if industrial expansion begins earlier they have more time to lay additional groundwork and recover from transition.

It would also require a serious change of NI's attitude toward the railroad construction and "capitalism" in general.

Hence the military auspices.

Anyway, a large-scale production within Russia of that time would be quite problematic due to an absence of the needed manufacturing facilities. The OTL problem was not due to the ignorance of the innovations but due to the inability to implement these innovations (practical maximum was retrofitting the flintlocks with the capsule mechanism).

You might already know what they achieved with Colt revolvers in the 1850s...if not please consider reading about it.

The CW was not inevitable and with NI being so different from OTL version, it most probably would not happen.

If the OP is making the Russians do better in the Crimean War, then the scenario probably needs a Crimean War.

 

[alexmilman]

I think we're talking about the same people, guess I misspelled it.



Hence starting development of a much larger railway system years earlier. To build railways, steel becomes necessary, probably starting at Tula. Given that OTL the Russians had less than 600 miles of railway in 1855 and Warsaw linked to Vienna years before connections to the rest of Russia this would be of military significance, especially to a martial-minded Emperor with an engineering background.



If the main rail lines still develop at a 5ft gauge and don't go all the way to the borders, you still have road travel for some of the distance.



He had a brilliant minister of finance in von Cancrin, diamond finds in the 1820s and an extensive survey as part of that could be followed up with more reforms and resource development/exploitation.



Nicholas toyed with abolishing serfdom earlier in his reign, and if industrial expansion begins earlier they have more time to lay additional groundwork and recover from transition.



Hence the military auspices.



You might already know what they achieved with Colt revolvers in the 1850s...if not please consider reading about it.



If the OP is making the Russians do better in the Crimean War, then the scenario probably needs a Crimean War.

What you are saying is reasonable but it would require a seriously different set of the personalities.

To start from the middle, Kankrin (in OTL) was strongly against the railroads construction considering it a huge waste of money. Nicholas himself did not understand their potential strategic value and his ideas regarding the modern war had been rather ... err ... confused, to put it mildly. His main area of interest was a parade ground drill and he seriously believed in the bayonet charges as the main tactical tool (actually, under his governance even that tool seriously deteriorated due to the introduction of some complicated set of the rules instead of the simpler and efficient existing system).

As far as the increasing steel production and general economic development are involved, real Nicholas did not have either interest or the knowledge needed for having the process started. The government did not have money and the private enterprises were hard to start both due to the shortage of a private capital (and absence of the credit institutions) and the administrative obstacles (including the need of bribing pretty much every bureaucratist involved).

Nicholas, indeed, toyed with an idea of abolishing serfdom but, contrary to the artificially created reputation of a strong-willed ruler, he was (as had been demonstrated on more than one occasion) a rather indecisive person and simply did not see the way out of a problem. To quote: “serfdom is an evil but its abolishment will be even greater evil”. Rather ironically, the task was performed by his rather weak son (never underestimate weaklings’ ability to make tough decisions ) who opted for a reasonably bad for everybody decision instead of procrastination forever looking for an ideal one. Earlier abolishment of a serfdom would be definitely beneficial allowing earlier industrialization but do not expect miracles happening immediately: progress would require decades and (foreign) capital. O

I know about the Colt revolvers but they were not the main weapons of the US infantry and could not serve as a replacement to the rifles. Neither would Colt rifle serve the purpose due to its complexity: Russian army needed a simple and reliable infantry weapon.

 

[dunHozzie]

If we start at the Nappy wars, stay out of most of them (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) and using that time for reforms, both military, financially (banks) and nationally. Then start the emancipation on it’s success in the defense of the motherland and the 6th.

Use the by then established state banks and link yourself to the British to build capital. Fuel the British expansion with wood, coal and steel (hopefully, I don’t know how self sufficient they were), investing in your own infrastructure in parallel. Make sure proper tools, equipement and additives get to the farmers to make them more effective.

Then have the Russian ruler (don’t really care if Alex or Nicky makes it) fall in love with the steam locomotive in at a demonstration the 21st of February in 1804, realizing its potential. The rising competitiveness alienates the Brits a bit, leading to the rivalry that starts the Crimean war. Have that go better then OTL, but not flawlessly, fostering a need for qualified continuous improvement people, both for the military and the growing industry. Create standardized education with a lot of Russian propaganda- kinda like the us system - fostering nationalism. The rising wealth of the burghers increases pressure on the nobility and starts a move to the British system. Do a deal with the Brits not to pressure India, and stay the duck out of European politics and focus on internal enablement and Manchuria.

It basically requires a SI or ASB though.

 

[alexmilman]

If we start at the Nappy wars, stay out of most of them (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) and using that time for reforms, both military, financially (banks) and nationally. Then start the emancipation on it’s success in the defense of the motherland and the 6th.

Use the by then established state banks and link yourself to the British to build capital. Fuel the British expansion with wood, coal and steel (hopefully, I don’t know how self sufficient they were), investing in your own infrastructure in parallel. Make sure proper tools, equipement and additives get to the farmers to make them more effective.

Then have the Russian ruler (don’t really care if Alex or Nicky makes it) fall in love with the steam locomotive in at a demonstration the 21st of February in 1804, realizing its potential. The rising competitiveness alienates the Brits a bit, leading to the rivalry that starts the Crimean war. Have that go better then OTL, but not flawlessly, fostering a need for qualified continuous improvement people, both for the military and the growing industry. Create standardized education with a lot of Russian propaganda- kinda like the us system - fostering nationalism. The rising wealth of the burghers increases pressure on the nobility and starts a move to the British system. Do a deal with the Brits not to pressure India, and stay the duck out of European politics and focus on internal enablement and Manchuria.

It basically requires a SI or ASB though.

Yes, as most of the logical ideas, it would be impractical. To quote from Fieldmarshal Munnich, “Russia has an advantage of being governed directly by the God because otherwise it is impossible to imagine how such state can exist.”

To start with an international aspect, if Russia did not participate in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th coalitions these coalitions pretty much would not happen as something meaningful and then there would be no 1812 with the following events.

As far as the reforms were involved, the military ones had been happening on a regular basis but the social and economic reforms had been a different story. In the late XVIII - early XIX push for emancipation of the serfs simply was not there (during the reign of CII merchants had been asking for the right to have serfs considering them more reliable than the hired hands) because serf-based estates still were profitable and “industrialization” was not deemed necessary (actually, this was the case even during the reign of AII - the only area of development were the railroads). An emperor could sign a bill but such an action may result in a sharp deterioration of his health. In the 1860s situation became seriously different both socially and economically; probably emancipation could happen couple decades earlier with a completely different NI.

Regarding the banks, fundamental difference was in the fact that Britain was a “merchant nation” (IIRC, this or similar term was used by Charles II when he tried to explain to Louis XIV difference of the national interests) and Russia was not. The merchant/industrialist class was not numerous so the British or French style banks would be almost useless in the early XIX. The first state banks in OTL were created mostly to lend money to the landowners (with their estates as a collateral), in other words, to help nobility with having cash: money received from selling the production of their estates often were not covering expenses related to buying the imported goods needed for maintaining a life style required by a noble status. Hence goes your idea of Russian economy flourishing by selling the raw materials to Britain. Actually, Russia was selling as much as Britain was ready to buy but with the growth of the British industry and development of the colonies British consumption was not growing (if it was growing) as fast as the Russian needs for the manufactured goods. The only way out of this situation was a sharp reduction of the imports to give a chance to the local production to grow without a foreign competition. AFAIK, this happened twice: 1st, when Russia joined the CS (sharp growth of the domestic manufacturing but dangerous grumbling from a nobility) and 2nd when Witte put the high tariffs on the imports thus stimulating foreign investments into the Russian economy. By that time social situation in Russia was quite different from one of the first half of the XIX century.

The steam engine in the 1804 would belong to the “curiosity” category in Russia: not only the technology and industrial capacities for building the railroads on a noticeable scale were absent but there was not even an interest in using it in the industrial purposes: serf-based production was cheaper especially when augmented by the water power. And Russia was not too much into the production of the manufactured goods: its rather extensive iron industry was selling iron in pegs to Britain: this was done by the private enterprises and they were interested mostly in their own ROI, not in a long term interests of the country.

Now, as far as not being at odds with Britain, “not to pressure India” meant “stay away from the whole Central Asia”, which was not a realistic demand.

However, your idea of minimizing involvement into the European affairs and concentrating in the Eastern direction is quite solid: border with China could be revised few decades earlier and the same goes for a general economic development in an absence of the expensive European wars which brought little besides prestige and trouble (getting Poland was a terrible idea).

 

[longsword14]

Now, as far as not being at odds with Britain, “not to pressure India” meant “stay away from the whole Central Asia”, which was not a realistic demand.

British viceroys had an obsession with Russian meddling across Central Asia that was strangely strong.

 

[alexmilman]

British viceroys had an obsession with Russian meddling across Central Asia that was strangely strong.

It was strong but it was not really strange. It had two main components:

1st, with geography of the region not being quite clear to both sides and with real allocation of the Russian resources being rather unclear to the Brits despite the intensive spying (*).

2nd, the Brits actually wanted to get into the CA markets and were seriously pissed off when the Russians blocked these attempts (in the areas of the CA which they eventually annexed they were much better positioned logistically and also had serious trade interests (they needed markets for selling Russian goods and after the ACW they needed their own cotton production).

The rest was more or less boiling down to finding a mutually acceptable border of the zones of influence.

_______________
(*) it seems that the British “explorers” who traveled across the region to Russia and ended up being greeted and feted by the Russians when they arrived back home had been saying what the public was expected to hear: the Russians are gett8ng dangerously close to India and blahblahblah. With what the Russians would invade India if their forces in the CA were only marginally adequate for the OTL conquests (and even these conquests took decades)?

 

[dunHozzie]

Yes, as most of the logical ideas, it would be impractical. To quote from Fieldmarshal Munnich, “Russia has an advantage of being governed directly by the God because otherwise it is impossible to imagine how such state can exist.”

Hence the ASB / SI ;-)

To start with an international aspect, if Russia did not participate in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th coalitions these coalitions pretty much would not happen as something meaningful and then there would be no 1812 with the following events.

I respectfully disagree. While the Russian contributions where significant, the 2nd would have been fought anyway. Russia had nothing to gain in Italy. The 3rd might have been smaller without Russia, but the French would have gone after the British anyway and HRE / Austria could not just take the French taking German lands. The 4th is about the same thing as the 3rd. Granted, it makes sense for Russia to try to curb France there, so maybe the 4th does make sense. Still, supplying so many troops might be a bridge to far: I’d go for a smaller contribution and link up with Prussia.

As far as the reforms were involved, the military ones had been happening on a regular basis but the social and economic reforms had been a different story. In the late XVIII - early XIX push for emancipation of the serfs simply was not there (during the reign of CII merchants had been asking for the right to have serfs considering them more reliable than the hired hands) because serf-based estates still were profitable and “industrialization” was not deemed necessary (actually, this was the case even during the reign of AII - the only area of development were the railroads). An emperor could sign a bill but such an action may result in a sharp deterioration of his health. In the 1860s situation became seriously different both socially and economically; probably emancipation could happen couple decades earlier with a completely different NI.

That’s all I’m asking for: by having a visionary push for industrialization earlier a need for better, more qualified, trained class could have been build. Then you can slowly (Tis still Russia) move towards better education and emancipation.

Regarding the banks, fundamental difference was in the fact that Britain was a “merchant nation” (IIRC, this or similar term was used by Charles II when he tried to explain to Louis XIV difference of the national interests) and Russia was not. The merchant/industrialist class was not numerous so the British or French style banks would be almost useless in the early XIX. The first state banks in OTL were created mostly to lend money to the landowners (with their estates as a collateral), in other words, to help nobility with having cash: money received from selling the production of their estates often were not covering expenses related to buying the imported goods needed for maintaining a life style required by a noble status. Hence goes your idea of Russian economy flourishing by selling the raw materials to Britain. Actually, Russia was selling as much as Britain was ready to buy but with the growth of the British industry and development of the colonies British consumption was not growing (if it was growing) as fast as the Russian needs for the manufactured goods. The only way out of this situation was a sharp reduction of the imports to give a chance to the local production to grow without a foreign competition. AFAIK, this happened twice: 1st, when Russia joined the CS (sharp growth of the domestic manufacturing but dangerous grumbling from a nobility) and 2nd when Witte put the high tariffs on the imports thus stimulating foreign investments into the Russian economy. By that time social situation in Russia was quite different from one of the first half of the XIX century.

OTL I very much agree to your remarks. I just see potential to change that. With a domestic Bank / Loan system for farming implements, military equipment, iron/steel production etc a manufacturing industry can be created and made self sufficient. Perhaps you need foreign investment and traders to build a class, but I’m not expecting a cheat code / Stalin force. I think someone that had our knowledge (again, hence SI / ASB) could start the journey earlier.

The steam engine in the 1804 would belong to the “curiosity” category in Russia: not only the technology and industrial capacities for building the railroads on a noticeable scale were absent but there was not even an interest in using it in the industrial purposes: serf-based production was cheaper especially when augmented by the water power. And Russia was not too much into the production of the manufactured goods: its rather extensive iron industry was selling iron in pegs to Britain: this was done by the private enterprises and they were interested mostly in their own ROI, not in a long term interests of the country.

So there was a small base to grow. Even better. I think a railway to move those pegs and sell to Britain and one to move both coal and ore to the factories are in the interest of the private enterprises. It’s what built British rail investments too.

Now, as far as not being at odds with Britain, “not to pressure India” meant “stay away from the whole Central Asia”, which was not a realistic demand.

I can see that. Perhaps an agreement can be made on the back of dropping the CS?

However, your idea of minimizing involvement into the European affairs and concentrating in the Eastern direction is quite solid: border with China could be revised few decades earlier and the same goes for a general economic development in an absence of the expensive European wars which brought little besides prestige and trouble (getting Poland was a terrible idea).

At least there is one that sticks ;-)

 

[alexmilman]

Hence the ASB / SI ;-)



I respectfully disagree. While the Russian contributions where significant, the 2nd would have been fought anyway. Russia had nothing to gain in Italy.

It did not have anything to gain in the Holland either so absurdity was not an argument for not going to war(the 7YW also did not make any sense for Russia).

But Austria was very seriously relying upon the Russian help and even asked for the Russian general to serve as a commander of the joined force. The Brits did not went that far but they had been looking for the suckers to beef up their numbers. IMO, without Paul jumping into the bandwagon the 2nd coalition easily may not happen: Austria was not sure in its ability to kick the French out of Italy on its own and even if the Brits decide to carry out their Holland expedition alone, this would be no meaningful coalition. Or, if we accept your scenario, it would be absolutely pathetic. In OTL the Brits failed with the Russian expeditionary force so on their own they'd have even less chances. The Austrians had previous experience of winning under Suvorov's command and losing on their own against the Ottomans, hence their request. I have very serious doubts that on their own they would be able to defeat Moreau (Archduke Charles operating on a different theater) and, even if they managed to win on a battlefield, they would do what Suvorov did not let them to do until all French armies in Italy had been destroyed, start sieges.

The 3rd might have been smaller without Russia, but the French would have gone after the British anyway and HRE / Austria could not just take the French taking German lands.

AFAIK, it was Alexander who pushed Austria into coalition: after repeatedly getting a bloody nose the Austrians had reasonable doubts that on their own they'd achieve a different result.

The 4th is about the same thing as the 3rd.

Prussians had been promised Russian help and without it the whole campaign would last few weeks if the war happened. Again, for all practical purposes this would be just a Franco-Prussian war.

Granted, it makes sense for Russia to try to curb France there, so maybe the 4th does make sense. Still, supplying so many troops might be a bridge to far: I’d go for a smaller contribution and link up with Prussia.

By the time Russia could "link" with it Prussian army was thoroughly defeated and most of the territory occupied. The only potential reason for Russia to get involved was Polish question but even then, as long as Russia is at peace, it could be contained domestically and Nappy probably would contain it on his side as he pretty much did in OTL.

And if Russia and France are allies (assuming that Paul survives the coup and does not change his mind) then neither Austria nor Prussia are going to risk to start war with France while having Russia at the rear.

That’s all I’m asking for: by having a visionary push for industrialization earlier a need for better, more qualified, trained class could have been build. Then you can slowly (Tis still Russia) move towards better education and emancipation.

Russian history of the "visionaries" was either scary (Ivan IV and Peter I ended up with a loss of at least 20% of the population and destroyed economy) or short (Peter III) so the best proven course was a minimal state's involvement into the economy and minimal military activities. Notice that industrialization seriously picked up during the reign of AIII who was not a visionary at all.

However, your sequence of the events is all wrong: serious industrialization was not possible without emancipation (not necessarily in OTL form) and the same goes for the education: how can you enforce state-controlled education of a private property?

OTL I very much agree to your remarks. I just see potential to change that. With a domestic Bank / Loan system for farming implements, military equipment, iron/steel production etc a manufacturing industry can be created and made self sufficient. Perhaps you need foreign investment and traders to build a class, but I’m not expecting a cheat code / Stalin force. I think someone that had our knowledge (again, hence SI / ASB) could start the journey earlier.

Besides what I wrote above, bank requires money and you can't resolve economic problems by just keeping printing the paper money. State-run banks existed since 1754 and the 1st commercial (state-run) bank started functioning in 1818 but by the late 1850s government could not return the investments and they ended up as a state debt and the bank was reorganized into the State Bank of the Russian Empire. The private banks did not play a significant role until emancipation: in 1857 there were only 21 of them in the whole empire. Emancipation did give a boost to the commercial development (even in the government of AII generally tended to mishandle almost everything it touched including the economy): in 1864—1872 there were 33 new private commercial banks and 11 land banks (all based upon share ownership).

So there was a small base to grow. Even better. I think a railway to move those pegs and sell to Britain and one to move both coal and ore to the factories are in the interest of the private enterprises. It’s what built British rail investments too.

This course was tried during the reign of AII and proved to be a complete failure and was reversed by Witte: high export tariffs on the natural products and high import tariffs on the manufactured goods forced foreign investments into the Russian economy. You can say that to a certain degree this was a British model (of which you are seemingly very fond ): the 1st step is to kill a foreign competition to the domestic production and then to build your industry.

 

[M79]

Commendations to all for the civility in the thread...

 

[A Repentant Heretic]

Commendations to all for the civility in the thread...

I mean, it isn't really a controversial subject unless someone starts to talk about 'mysterious oriental minds and despotism' as an explanation.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

However, your sequence of the events is all wrong: serious industrialization was not possible without emancipation (not necessarily in OTL form) and the same goes for the education: how can you enforce state-controlled education of a private property?

Easily. Baltic Landesstaat had general ability to read (though not write!) by emancipation.
Landowners had obligations to pay taxes and have established churches on their estates (IIRC Russia did not have advowsons like Baltic Landesstaat either). Enforcing an obligation for every village to have not just a priest but also a sexton/schoolmaster and for all children to be not just baptized into Establishment but also taught to read the catechism would be within the bounds of feasibility.
Logistics and desirability are another matter.

A major weakness for Russia between 1807 and 1874 was lack of reserves.
How could Russia have acquired reserves earlier?