North American Front in Crimean War

The frontier between Russian Alaska and British Canada becomes a front in the Crimean War.

The brits grab it, no problemo. The Brits have a way bigger pacific fleet, and Alaska isn't high on any list of priorities in Russia.
 
British take Alaska. Probably all that's needed was to divert the failed Anglo-French invasion of Petropavlovsk to Alaska. It would be interesting if Russia gets really pissed off and keeps on fighting for one more year. The British really wanted to keep fighting anyways. Then the Indian Mutiny breaks out and it really does become WWI.

What's the POD, earlier discovery of gold?
 
Last edited:
And then with more soldiers running around, the Alaskan Gold Rush might happen earlier. But if the Russians know the British want to take it, the Russians already there might be on the alert, butterflies flap their wings and voila! It's the Russians who discover the gold and start the Gold Rush! :)
 
POD Anytime From 1853-56

I am leaving it open as to which side launches an offensive on the Alaska - Canada border. Gold was not discovered in Alaska until the 1890s, unless I am mistaken.
 
Does anyone know why the British didn't seize it? It seems like a natural course of action.

A gentleman's agreement not to include it as a front in the war. Besides, the HBC were already the Economic force on the coast and had substantial commercial interests with the RAC providing their supplies. That privileged position would have been damaged and lost to New England commercial interests if War would have broken out in that theatre.

of course if seized it then they would have got it anyway, of course then they would have had the expense of the upkeep as well. This way the RAC ( and the Tsar's gov't at this point) still have to pay the freight for Alaska's upkeep staight to Br. commercial interests. Eventually the Tsar is going to have to sell to them at a bargain basement price at some point. Obviously they didn't consider how annoyed the Russians would be about selling to Britain in the immediate aftermath of the CrW.
 
Monroe Doctrine Maybe?

That was the "gentleman's agreement".

Perhaps Russia eventually sold Alaska to the U.S. as a counterweight against the British Empire.
 
Russia sold Alaska to America precisely because they did not want it to fall into British hands. US and Russia had very warm relations at the time. I believe it was Mark Twain who called Russia "the distant friend."

I wonder what effect the discovery of gold in Alaska during the war would have had on Russian resolve to keep fighting. I'm not exactly sure how much money we're talking about, but surely it would make the cost of the war seem easier to handle.
 
For what its worth, it doesn't have to be the Klondike Gold that gets found first. There was quite a gold strike in the vicinity of Nome. Granted it was on the beaches, but if some bit of that got back to Russia, it would've been quite interesting, and wouldn't have required any major ASB type stuff. The gold just washed up on the beach. From a book I recall, prospectors were given a 10 foot wide claim, and did well for about a year.
 
Regardless of the gold rushes, it would be a naval affair, with seizure of the territory by marines occupying Sitka/Novo-Arkhangelsk. The 'border' between British North America (no 'Canada' as yet) was only sketchily defined, and barely explored much less a place for armies to tromp through. It wasn't even directly British territory, but belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company.

Besdies, at the time of the Purchase, there were only about 2,500 Russians in the whole territory, mostly trappers and merchants. Not any sort of sizeable military presence.

I imagine the British did not bother to take Alaska during the war because they had more than enough desolate, uesless Arctic territory on the continent - remember the Americans were reluctant to buy it 20 years later. The attack on Petropavlovsk was more to deny the Russians any Pacific access - a much bigger blow than occupying the remote, failed-as-a-mercantile-operation colony across the Bering.

It would have been interesting if the war had gone a little better for the British, and especially if they had managed to secure the Asia-Pacific coast of Russia if in the peace they had swapped Kamchatka for Alaska. A minor bargaining favour for the British, but they may take it as a concession so as to 'complete' their BNA territory...
 
The Monroe doctrine only applies to European invasions of independent states, not fighting over each other's colonies, and in any case the US in the 1850's was hardly in any position to actually enforce the doctrine.

Wasn't it the British that actually enforced it? :confused::rolleyes:;):D

So that France and Spain wouldn't have any ideas... :p
 
Wasn't it the British that actually enforced it? :confused::rolleyes:;):D

So that France and Spain wouldn't have any ideas... :p

Generally they were the ones enforcing it, yes. However, while they were usually firm on not allowing reconquest of lost territory they did tend to be fairly tolerant of Europeans meddling in the American state's internal affairs, especially when trade was involved, and certainly did plenty of that themselves as well.

In any case, the fact that the US relied on Britain to actually enforce the Monroe Doctrine only makes it even more difficult to claim that the British were constrained from invading Alaska by said doctrine.
 

bard32

Banned
WI Benedict Arnold didn't betray the United States?

What if Benedict Arnold didn't betray the United States? What if he remained
loyal and became Secretary of War in George Washington's administration?
 
Top