Maximum Russian Dominance in 1800s?

Onyx

Banned
The point in this thread is how far could Russia go in its borders and colonies. Maybe this is a wank, idk.
I am not saying that they should be in the USA, Western Europe, or India or a complete wank of the entire world. I mean how far would there borders gone to if things went in there way? Would they expand far into Bulgaria? Persia? Central Asia? And into Eastern borders of Austro-Hungary?

Proper time I'd like to see Russian dominance is when they win the Crimean War and see how far they would've gone.

Bonus Points for colonies too.

...Yeah I think this is Russian wank topic :p
 
The trouble is how far do they want to.
Norrthern China and Central Asia is all rather crap. To own those lands is a net drain on your country rather than a gain.
Rather than seeing it in terms of pure land though lets see it in terms of what they would have thought was important- Europe....
Hmm...
The trouble here is you've Romania in the way of Russia and other slavs who they could attempt to bring into Russia proper rather than just allying.

OTL itself was rather Russia wankish. As a simple answer pending discussion I'd say about what they had. They could perhaps gain more in their sphere of influence (in particular Korea) with better performance but actually part of Russia? Not too much other than fragments of Poland if we assume a war against the Prussians or Austrians.
 
The biggest fathimable Russia wank would be:

-The eating up of the tribal Kingdoms in central Asia before the British do.

-Not selling Alaska and hitting the gold, and later the oil.This would make them very rich.Powerful enough to extend there claims over the British-American disputed Oregon territory.

-Later, after a shortlived war, Russia would gain control of Oregon.They could later sign trade deals with the U.S and become allies.Without expansion in the North to worry about the U.S would focus fighting the Mexicans and annex more lands then OTL.

-Russia supports Napolean III's claim over the holy land, therefore the Crimean war becomes Turkey and Sardinia vs.Russia.A sound defeat of the Turks results in Russia gaining exclusive rights to the Black Sea and all of the Crimean.

-The Russo-Turkish war, instead of simply freeing the Balkans, makes each of the states either annexed by Russia or puppet states.

-The surrounding of China by Russian land and the large ammount of strict Russian Orthodox missionaries across China begins an earlier form of the boxer rebellion.Britian, Portugal, Japan, and Russia all end the war by taking swabs out China and dividing the rest between a warlord state and a tattered Kingdom.

-Russias claims in Manchuria and Mongolia are disputed by Japan.It starts the first Russo Japanese war and, after a suprise Russian victory, cements Russian claims across China and the far east.Giving them full control of Manchuria and Korea, along with all of Sakhalin.

-A large sphere of Influence is blanketed across northern Persia.

Thats about as much as I can think that Russia could do...At that point they would be so spread out it would be really hard to have any more territorial advances.And this is saying that they will win EVERY WAR no matter what there up against.

The map is really JUST the expansions of Russia, the U.S, and some British expansion.

MAJOR russia wank.png
 
The point in this thread is how far could Russia go in its borders and colonies. Maybe this is a wank, idk.
I am not saying that they should be in the USA, Western Europe, or India or a complete wank of the entire world. I mean how far would there borders gone to if things went in there way? Would they expand far into Bulgaria? Persia? Central Asia? And into Eastern borders of Austro-Hungary?

Russia had a long winning streak up to the Crimean War, so there really aren't that many fields for expansion. Bits and pieces of Poland: Poznan could have ended up in the Congress Kingdom, and it's not impossible for Russia to keep Tarnopol, perhaps come by Krakow somewhere. If Austria lost a war or broke up, the Russians could get all Galicia. But there were surprisingly few times when Austria and Russia actually contemplated war: for all that they differed, Poland brought them together.

The Russians could avoid selling Alaska, although personally I remain dubious about its long-term prospects: at the very lest, I expect to see lots of Americans and Canadians around the place. Starting from 1800, I think there's still time for a much bigger Russian presence in the Pacific, but RGB would be more qualified to talk about that.

Certainly the Russians could have a pretty tight economic control of Machuria, and a friendly Korean government. Also a hostage government in Persia. That's all I can really think of.

Proper time I'd like to see Russian dominance is when they win the Crimean War and see how far they would've gone.

The Russians could have not lost the Crimean War, but winning wasn't on the cards. But as far as the Russians were concerned, they were fighting a defensive war. Occupying Romania is a pretty weird way to defend something, but as far as the Russians were concerned, they needed to have the pre-eminent power at the straits, and were only trying to restore a situation (Ottoman hostage-government) that had briefly existed in the 1830s. There ambitions were extremely ill-defined. Nicholas I, of course, said that he wouldn't have started the war if he had read the relevant treaties...

Bonus Points for colonies too.

In the latter 19th century, the Russians showed some interest in setting up a coaling station in East Africa, around Djibouti sort of place, and using it to funnel guns and advisors to the Empire of Abbysinia. It's questionable how long it could survive in the face of deep suspicion from Britain, but it's a fun idea.
 
A lot of these proposed fields of expansion don't take much account of the logistics. It looks awfully neat to annex Mongolia, but until the Transibberian it's a gazillion miles from Petersburg and only a jillion from Beijing, and further there's nothing in it (as soon as the Transiberian put it nearer to Petersburg, it dropped into the Russian sphere and remained there for as long as sphere-politics lasted: control does not mean annexation, and one must realise that after the Chinese revolution the Russians did all but control Mongolia with rare interruptions). Similarly, it seems logical to send Xinjiang the way of other Turkic Central Asian countries, but there's big mountains in the way, and the geography doesn't start changing until the 20th century.

As for Alaska, I have to wonder what will happen when they discover that gold. Even after the abolition of serfdom, Russia only gradually developed mobile labour, so by the 1890s I doubt there's much but Orthodox missionaries, ice-choppers, and extra-security Katorga. With vast spaces of Russia still being filled up (to go to Alaska implies going to the Far East, which is itself a wild frontier needing exploitation) and growing cities... might it not just be the same people as OTL, Americans?
 
-The eating up of the tribal Kingdoms in central Asia before the British do.

They already got everything up to the mountain-lines, which in the 19th century are basically impassable for real power-projection. If Britain couldn't keep hold of Afghanistan, Russia certainly can't keep hold of Baluchistan.

-Not selling Alaska and hitting the gold, and later the oil.This would make them very rich.Powerful enough to extend there claims over the British-American disputed Oregon territory.

I've voiced my Alaska doubts, but one thing's for sure: the Oregon issue had vanished by the time Alaska became economically worthwhile.

-Later, after a shortlived war, Russia would gain control of Oregon.They could later sign trade deals with the U.S and become allies.Without expansion in the North to worry about the U.S would focus fighting the Mexicans and annex more lands then OTL.

The Americans proved quite capable of expanding everywhere at once. What's to stop settlers going to Oregon?

-Russia supports Napolean III's claim over the holy land, therefore the Crimean war becomes Turkey and Sardinia vs.Russia.A sound defeat of the Turks results in Russia gaining exclusive rights to the Black Sea and all of the Crimean.

Cutting a deal with France at the expense of everyone else would have been th e best choice for Russia, but it would also certainly have averted the war. Sardinian involvement in particular was notable for an all but unrivalled lack of actual interest: it was a very cunning and very bizarre get-out-of-jail free card devised by Cavour.
 
By the time they discover and able to capitalize on the gold in Alaska, it will be too late exert any power in Oregon in the face of the British and the USA.
 
There's a lot of flexibility that Russia has regards the Pacific in the late 1700s and early 1800s; Rezanov living, the government actually practicing gratuitous imperialism, Baranov getting in on the Hawaii business (although he was a smart guy, so maybe he didn't really want to fight with Kamehameha). The Fort Ross colony getting permission to start importing peasants could have also really help.

If all goes really really Russia's way, Sonoma could feed Alaska, Alaska could ship to China through Hawaii, the government could be too stubborn to sell it until GOLD GOLD GOLD.

Then they'd have to deal with the Americans coming in numbers to their GOLD GOLD GOLD. This could lead to a Texas/California situation. If Russia's motivated enough?

But I have a hard time seeing how they would be.
 
Top