How late can European Russia break up?
- Thread starter Socrates
- Start date
Not all of the population ofEuropean Russia are actually ethnically Russian (the majority of course is), their are dozens of indiginous groups, and quite a few of them number in the hundreds of thousands and a few in the low millions, not to mention the remnants of the other European ethnic groups that have lived in Russia for along time (Ukrainians, Germans etc.).
Sorry to sidetrack, just felt a need to point that out.
Can it really not collapse some time after, say, 1700? It seemed a pretty weak state with a feudal society at times...
I appreciate that, but that maybe takes you from 110 million to 100-105 million, i.e. not a big change in things.
A weak state with a feudal society yes, but one with little in the way of regional "nationalism" to my knowledge, with few cities likely to feel up to the job of becoming a new capital, a Boyar class rapidly becoming eclipsed by the power of the court, and so on. In the south I admit there are groups like the Cossacks and the Zaporzhiyies (I can't remember how to spell that, sorry) who could break off as they were already autonomous, but I just don't see a revival of any northern states as plausible. I could be wrong but I see it as like England, really. England could be weakened and become fragile to the point of shattering, but (with the dubious exception of Cornwall) wouldn't fragment into smaller countries because everyone in England associates with England, and while regional loyalty exists, to suggest to, say, a Geordie or a Manc or Brummie that their city should declare independence or could in any way become its own country would be met with a burst of laughter and the question "are you being serious?"
I Blame Communism
Banned
Yeah, within Great Russia you had a pretty homogenous society and identity and no real rival bases of power except perhaps the Cossacks, who were indifferent to questions of sovereignty as long as they were allowed to keep cossacking, so even when the state was weak (and it was plenty weak during the time of troubles, for instance) people's didn't mobilise to break it up.
Russian Empire in Europe is another story, but I don't presume that's what you ment.
Russian Empire in Europe is another story, but I don't presume that's what you ment.
Although debates never stop was Ivan the Terrible overall genius or a madman you could maybe split it in half during the Oprichnina. He took the best part of the country ( most fertile and tax revenue wise ) and other was for the nobles to have. If some of them simply aren't that frightened of him as in RL and start a civil war that PLC wholeheartedly supports and ends up with a decades long division.
Actually, it would take it from 110 million to something like 82.5 million roughly.
Russians only make up 79.8% of Russia's population overall, and if we substract the roughly 40 million people in Siberia (of which the vast majority are Russian and Russo-Ukrainian.), they only make up something like 75% of the population.
My point here being that because Russia is'nt a Heterogenous state you could break parts of it off pretty late into history, though their would still be a 'core Russia'.
No Mongol invasion? Perhaps none of the Rurikid principalities would be able to dominate the others.
Other possibility: Some kind of screwed up version of the Russian Civil War that result in warlordism.
Other possibility: Some kind of screwed up version of the Russian Civil War that result in warlordism.
I stand corrected. It would seem the Tatars, Bashkirs and Cossacks were the main groups that could potentially revolt. How late do you mean by "pretty late"?
The most likely would be during the time between the collapse of the Russian Empire and the consolidation of the Soviet Union, generally 1916-1925 or if the Soviet Union collapsed violently (IE hardliner coup and civil war).
In the latter case, depending on how long and brutal the war is, you could end up with anything from a few more border republics to a scaled up (in terms of size) version of Balkanization, with 'Russia' being comprised only of the core, majority Russian areas of European Russia and Siberia (though in such a scenario it may go independent as well).
Here is a map of the ethnic groups in Russia pre-WWI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russia_ethnic.JPG
How much Balkanisation is plausible in the 18th/19th centuries? Belarus, Ukraine obviously became separated in OTL. Perhaps the Tatars take the Russian caucusus and Crimea? What impact do you think the Muslims just West of the Urals might have?
I Blame Communism
Banned
Just because there's a language doesn't mean there's either potential or desire for some sort of state. Gaeldom, for all that us Lowlanders have abused it, has never tried to be state. Tatars, say, once had a state, and the Circassians might never have been conquered, but quite a bit of that figure is diasporas and little northern and Uralic peoples.
The Cossacks, by the way, never bothered about independence much except during the exceptional case of the Ukrainian revolt, when the Cossacks were really just the spark and leadership for a society that was socially and religiously ready to go off. Even during the civil war, the Don and Kuban were more "so, we're not going to obey orders from Bolshevik Moscow, which probably means we're sovereign or something, I guess" than unfurling flags and organising elections. The other hosts (well, part of them) resisted the Reds, but in those places there were never enough Cossacks to talk about independence. Even the Don was only half-Cossack by the end.
Nations in the sense of an ethnic nation is going to be slightly tough. The Russian identity was fairly malleable through much of its history, so while it is possible to speak of being Russian from the time of the Kievan Rus, it is not that easy to see who exactly that includes. Given no unification, a Novogorodian may well be regarded as something rather unlike a Muscovite by the late 1600s, despite both being "Russians" from an outside perspective. Which you consider their nation is a matter of priorities. The same goes for other dialect groups which, unlike Byelorussian and Ukrainian, were not dignified with the title of language.
As to different states, I think the Civil War is the last good opportunity. WWII is unlikely, given how certain Hitler was to lose that one. And I would exclude the post-1991 breakup because that could well have resulted in more nibbles (Chechnya, Dagestan), but I don't think that's what you mean.
As to different states, I think the Civil War is the last good opportunity. WWII is unlikely, given how certain Hitler was to lose that one. And I would exclude the post-1991 breakup because that could well have resulted in more nibbles (Chechnya, Dagestan), but I don't think that's what you mean.
I'd say no later then the troubles in the first years of the 17th century, and even then is likely too late. Maybe a successful general revolt against Ivan the Terrible can break and abort the empire, restoring Novgorod, Kiev, Vladimir-Suzdal' and the Cossack hosts as independent players, also saving (for some time) the eastern khanates.
I'm not saying Russia was/is like Belgium, ready to fall apart at the tip of a hat, but rather the existance of those groups makes it easier for parts of it to break away.