What would her development since Peter the Great look like without it? Since she historically doesn't need or care for naval power projection what would it mean for her to almost utterly abstain from investing in naval projects from petrine times onward ? More money for the land armies never hurts anyone..
Russia without the navy ?
- Thread starter Grumpy young Man
- Start date
Well, I don't see them winning against Sweden without a navy
It would also be more difficult against the Ottomans
Don't forget not having a navy not only removes your ability to power project, but also prevents you from stopping your enemy doing the same
And if the more money for the land armies goes on quantity not quality it won't necessarily be a useful improvement anyway
So, what DOES it mean? Hmmm, it might result in a desire to keep Courland autonomous since it DOES have a naval tradition, and the Tsar/Empress of the time would soon come to realise that Russia's not having a navy is a handicap...
My problem is remembering where all the 18th dates fit together
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse? If, at some point, Russia loses its Baltic coastline, it'll be nearly landlocked in any case. It'll have ports in the arctic, likly at the mouths of the great rivers, but thy'll only be useful part of the year. And it'll have the Black Sea coastlline, but a very limited ability to get out of there.
If Sweden and whomever they are flailing against in the Baltic has strong naval forces there, Russia could find retaking and holding Baltic areas very difficult. As they will not be able to have a navy to help. Russia may start looking south instead. Or try to take some of Northen Norway, for ice-free ports.
If Sweden and whomever they are flailing against in the Baltic has strong naval forces there, Russia could find retaking and holding Baltic areas very difficult. As they will not be able to have a navy to help. Russia may start looking south instead. Or try to take some of Northen Norway, for ice-free ports.
Essential
Any Great Power needs a navy. Without one, you can't even prevent people from bombarding your cities, or at a mimimum, landing raiding parties on your shores to blow things up, if the cities are protected by shore guns. You can get away with coast defence ships only. You also need one real seagoing battleship to represent your nation at various functions, and to be taken seriously as a great power. It would be humiliating for Russia to show up with an overaged cruiser for something like a coronation, and Argentina shows up with a modern batleship.
Any Great Power needs a navy. Without one, you can't even prevent people from bombarding your cities, or at a mimimum, landing raiding parties on your shores to blow things up, if the cities are protected by shore guns. You can get away with coast defence ships only. You also need one real seagoing battleship to represent your nation at various functions, and to be taken seriously as a great power. It would be humiliating for Russia to show up with an overaged cruiser for something like a coronation, and Argentina shows up with a modern batleship.
"Virtually no Russian Navy" is obviously a stretch, but either a Jeune Ecole Navy or else one limited to a Baltic squadron of small battleships and the odd torpedo boat would seem plausible.
One knock-on effect would be weaker steel and steam engine building industries. Although 19th cent. Russian warships were at times limited or problematic (the cruiser General Admiral, for ex.), naval contracts were a massive stimulus that some shipyards and suppliers depended on. So perhaps slightly slower overall industrialization, esp. for St. Petersburg.
One knock-on effect would be weaker steel and steam engine building industries. Although 19th cent. Russian warships were at times limited or problematic (the cruiser General Admiral, for ex.), naval contracts were a massive stimulus that some shipyards and suppliers depended on. So perhaps slightly slower overall industrialization, esp. for St. Petersburg.
Well, by the end of the century, Russia's pretty much forfeited control of its Far East territories to a rapidly industrializing Japan.
Well, the OP is talking about from Peter The Great onwards, so I think projecting consequences into the later 19th century is a little too much of a reach. If Russia cannot defeat Sweden, then everything is going to change, even if Sweden's uber-gains are reversed. Without being able to defeat Sweden, its unlikely Poland is going to get partitioned, and Russia is going to be focused far more on the South - there it can defeat the hetmanate, and the Tatars, and challenge the Ottomans, but its going to have difficulty projecting its power without a fleet.
If we assume that events go somewhat similarly in the rest of the world (that Russia, Sweden, Poland etc don't have knock-on consequences for the Seven Years War and various other conflicts), then some analogue of the French Revolution breaking out, but with Poland still in existence, and Sweden still a power to be reckoned with is going to change the dynamics of the revolutionary wars. Maybe revolution will spread to Poland? Potentially Russia is in a far worse position to intervene - maybe no Suvaroff, and almost certainly no Anglo-Russian landing in Holland, because Russia has no fleet.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
If we assume that events go somewhat similarly in the rest of the world (that Russia, Sweden, Poland etc don't have knock-on consequences for the Seven Years War and various other conflicts), then some analogue of the French Revolution breaking out, but with Poland still in existence, and Sweden still a power to be reckoned with is going to change the dynamics of the revolutionary wars. Maybe revolution will spread to Poland? Potentially Russia is in a far worse position to intervene - maybe no Suvaroff, and almost certainly no Anglo-Russian landing in Holland, because Russia has no fleet.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf