Russia versus China - 18th century

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
After the Manchus forced a territorial settlement on Russia with the battle of Albazin and treaty of Nerchinsk, and then the two states followed this us with the Treaty of Kiakhta in the 1740s, both sides generally saw themselves as "having a good thing going" and tended to have a remarkably peaceful relationship, with no other territorial expansion at the others expense until 1858-1860 (Russian gains were also made with more diplomatic finesse and less Chinese bitterness than the contemporary opening of treaty ports), and no big bilateral crisis until the Ili crisis of the 1870s.

There were good reasons for this - both powers were overwhelmingly focused on things other than a mutual rivalry, and in these circumstances, diplomatic accomodation proved workable.

...But tensions did exist, war was possible at times, and it is interesting to speculate how the Russians and Chinese would have stacked up against one another during the reign of Qianlong (1735-1799)

---I see two main scenarios for this, an earlier one based on Manchu aggression, and a later one based on Russian aggression. I welcome tweaks for making a conflict more realistic, and thoughts on the sides' relative military capabilities and performance, and their possible diplomatic and strategic objectives against one another.

Scenario A) Qianlong determines on a campaign to reduce Russian power and chastise the Russians, in the tensions brought on by China's demands for the return of the body of Dzhungar chieftain Amursana (the campaign against Amursana was what in OTL resulted in the Qing Dynasty's conquest of Xinjiang and Tibet), and Russia's refusal to return the body.

Tensions were fairly high starting from 1758 for the next few years. In OTL, the Qing threatened to cut off trade and besieged the Russian Orthodox monks authorized to reside in Beijing.


The Qing had finished several victorious campaigns and extended their territories and crushed vestigial Mongol resistance. They had built up a skill set for war on the steppes that allowed them to win.

If they are sufficiently angry at the Russians they should be able to mount an offensive gravely threatening Russian territories in eastern and southern Siberia.

Qing territorial objectives, if Qianlong gets greedy, could include seizure of the Buriat Mongols' lands, the silver-mining ditrict around Nerchinsk, and a band of the fur-rich forest country north of Manchuria.

At this time, the Russians are busy with the 7 Years War. Qianlong could conduct his war on an entirely independent basis, but the British could conceivably take an interest in the campaign.

Fighting the Russians would probably at least reveal they were stronger than in the 1680s. It may or may not be sufficiently disturbing for the Chinese to become interesting in cooperating with the British in terms of purchasing certain types of arms and renting naval assistance. Frederick in Prussia would be incapable of reacting to the situation except simply to pray that Chinese attacks divert Russian forces from Europe. The seed would be planted over the long run in Prussian thinking of the potential of China as an ally. If a true coalition war develops, Qianlong long may try, and succeed, in having French missionaries and traders ousted from Vietnam. In the long run, this might divert French colonial interests offshore to Okinawa and Taiwan in the nineteenth century.

Scenario B) - Catherine the great gets the wild idea of recovering territory (and glory) on the Amur, and gambles to establish a trading empire along the lines of the emerging British Raj in northeastern Asia. The occassion or provocation she can seize upon was the the Qing's solicitation of Catherine's vassals, the Torghut Mongols, to migrate from the Volga back to Mongolia/Dzungaria in 1771.

Russian Chinese cooperation was built in OTL on a degree of expectation that the two sides would return each other's fugitives, but the Qing dynasty as part of its strategy of in-gathering the Mongols essentially stole potential taxpayers and soldiers from Catherine, so this could be used as justification for a conflict in the 1770s if Russia chooses on.

The near-term territorial objectives would be focused on seizing the Amur and more of the Pacific coast to support Russian trade in the Far East and North America. From 1774 onward, there is a break in the wars with the Turks, and Suvorov could be available for service against the Manchu banner armies. How would he do militarily?

At this point in time, 1775 and the years after, Russia has a fairly peaceful environment in the west, and China has no one in Europe likely interested in becoming a coalition partner, as the Atlantic powers are abosrboed in the American revolutionary and colonial wars. Actually, the Turks and Persians might be most interested in allying, but they may or may not be capable of getting involved at this point.

Thoughts on A or B or other takes on the same overall theme of the post?
 
Well, before I really get into it, the Dzungar chief's body thing (I don't know anything about this, just saying) sounds kinda like a provocation. As in, the Russians WANT China to attack them, so they don't look like an aggressor. But anyway...

About the 7 years war, how does the Qing emperor know its happening? Also, in regards to the French in Annam, I always get the impression that the Chinese emperors never really realised the kind of threat these were, so I don't think they'd do anything.

But in regards to the Chinese assault into Russia, I see them having some early success, before freezing their asses off en masse. And once the Russians are at peace with Prussia, the Chinese are in for a world of hurt.

Now for scenario B. I think Suvorov would do well against the Chinese (he never lost to modern European armies, can't see him losing to the Chinese), although it will definitely be hard supplying enough ammunition to fight the Qing. Oh well, Suvorov always liked the bayonets... :p

The Russians may take some of the Amur and Mongolia or Manchuria, but they won't be able to take vast swathes. They would definitely have many victories, but few decisive, and if China has anything, its numbers.

On an end note, I doubt the Turks or Persians could effectively cultivate an alliance with the Qing emperor. Too many cultural differences, and too hard to communicate. China is very isolationist, and Qing expansion was only in areas considered "Chinese".
 
After the Manchus forced a territorial settlement on Russia with the battle of Albazin and treaty of Nerchinsk, and then the two states followed this us with the Treaty of Kiakhta in the 1740s, both sides generally saw themselves as "having a good thing going" and tended to have a remarkably peaceful relationship, with no other territorial expansion at the others expense until 1858-1860 (Russian gains were also made with more diplomatic finesse and less Chinese bitterness than the contemporary opening of treaty ports), and no big bilateral crisis until the Ili crisis of the 1870s.

There were good reasons for this - both powers were overwhelmingly focused on things other than a mutual rivalry, and in these circumstances, diplomatic accomodation proved workable.

One of the things I always found interesting was that the Qing treated the Russians as equals in a way they never did the other European powers. I suppose it was because they had a better grasp of the empire's size.

If they are sufficiently angry at the Russians they should be able to mount an offensive gravely threatening Russian territories in eastern and southern Siberia.

Qing territorial objectives, if Qianlong gets greedy, could include seizure of the Buriat Mongols' lands, the silver-mining ditrict around Nerchinsk, and a band of the fur-rich forest country north of Manchuria.

How were the Russians faring against steppe armies in this period? Peter the Great's offensives against the Crimean tatars were disasters, but by Catherine's time the Russians could pull it off.

I suspect the Qing will have better logistics, but they had trouble seizing Russian forts in the 1680s, no?
 
How were the Russians faring against steppe armies in this period? Peter the Great's offensives against the Crimean tatars were disasters, but by Catherine's time the Russians could pull it off.

They weren't having any large campaigns in central Asia, mostly using a strategy of forts as focal points for tax collection and anti-raid activity.

Suvorov's first great victories came against the Turks, where he used square formations to devastating lopsided effect against Tatar and Turkish cavalry. Russian cavalry (even provincial regiments) could probably hold their own against the Qing whereas the Turks generally outclassed them. Russian artillery was also top-notch, numerous and with its own engineer corps. I'm not worried about the Elizabethan army facing the Qing at all.

What I AM worried about from Russia's side is logistics. They were very primitive, and armies were very large. The forts, roads and portages were good enough for reliable communication but an army moving through would completely clog it. Russia would need to plan for this years in advance to pull it off properly. If they managed to somehow sustainably maintain 30-40K army in the east with all the supplies, they'd be able to fend off any Qing army but a cohesive army that large that far seems a tall order.

Not totally convinced they could do it. They might need local allies, the Dzungars for example, but the window for that being available strategy is really somewhat narrow.
 
Last edited:
Suvorov's first great victories came against the Turks, where he used square formations to devastating lopsided effect against Tatar and Turkish cavalry. Russian cavalry (even provincial regiments) could probably hold their own against the Qing whereas the Turks generally outclassed them.

What makes you think that Russian cavalry was superior to Qing?

I agree Russian artillery was better, I'm just not sure how it gets there. the Qing logistics were pretty amazing; look at how far west their armies campaigned.
 
What makes you think that Russian cavalry was superior to Qing?

I agree Russian artillery was better, I'm just not sure how it gets there. the Qing logistics were pretty amazing; look at how far west their armies campaigned.

I agree on the logistics part, the Russians had guns in the East, but no artillery arm as such. Not sure about how to magically get the Danube Army to Manchuria, basically.

Regarding cavalry: firearms and regular training. The Russian regulars may have been meh riders and maybe even meh swordsmen but they were generally fairly well-organised, came with their own tools to dig in if need be, and could hold positions once they took them. They also had good understanding about how to interact with their infantry. Basically, like any other Western cavalry.

Cossacks/Kalmycks/Bashkirs may complicate the picture but then just assume =< Qing.

Russian cav was generally not as good one-on-one as the say, Persians or Turks that they faced but in every war (1760s to 1820s) they had much better unit coherence over long campaigns, and you rarely hear about them getting smashed up by a stubborn square or an unfinished earthwork, unlike their counterparts.
 
Top