Have you ever read Cloud Atlas? Its a novel but gives a vivid picture of how vibrant Pacific trade was, and IIRC Honolulu was at the hub of this
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Russian Pacific
- Thread starter The Kiat
- Start date
Have you ever read Cloud Atlas? Its a novel but gives a vivid picture of how vibrant Pacific trade was, and IIRC Honolulu was at the hub of this
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Max Sinister
Banned
In my Chaos TL, Russia is stronger in North Atlantis / America. Thanks to the facts that Siberia is independent and better developed, and with a bigger population base; also, they conquered Korea and Hokkaido / Ezo. They face a different problem, however: They start to settle America from the west, so they soon face the Rockies, or deserts, or both. That's a handicap. Would Russian settlers east of the Rockies declare their independence? Like members of some Orthodox sect?
And: How would the Russians do in the jungles of Hawaii, or the Andes of the Inca? Hard to tell - OTOH these areas aren't much like England or Castille either.
And: How would the Russians do in the jungles of Hawaii, or the Andes of the Inca? Hard to tell - OTOH these areas aren't much like England or Castille either.
Number 1 is easily solved; the Tsar can start exiling people to the Far East instead of Siberia. Put it in his head that there's gold on them there coasts. If the Soviets were around a century earlier (no, I'm not even considering this preposterous idea), it would be even easier to develop/settle the land.
No, I haven't, but I'll certainly see if I can find a copy; if you recommend it it's worth reading in my estimation.
I am aware of just how much trade was being conducted in the area, although the specifics would depend on just what period we're talking about. The OP isn't quite clear on just when this occurs, hint, hint.
Unless the Russo-Pacific Empire is fully integrated into this trade it's going to have trouble maintaining a large enough population to remain viable. Fortunately that isn't hard to do; both Siberia and Alaska have abundant natural resources to exploit, such as furs, timber, and minerals.
Not going to happen; those people are needed just as much in Siberia, and it's cheaper to send them there than all the way to the Pacific. What we need is a gold rush or equivalent event. Send some fool to the Yukon for some reason and have him stumble on the gold there ...
While it wouldn't in all likelihood have been decisive, Petersburg repeatedly vetoed attempts at buying up serfs to use as settlers, both in the Far East, but also in the Fort Ross colony.
You keep mentioning 1904. That's obviously a very different question since while by then the Russians could clearly maintain considerable force on the Pacific, there were no more easy pickings for a really profitable base there, except what they already had overland in Siberia. If they'd have hung on to Alaska, well that's about equivalent to their options in Siberia (Alaska has oil? Gold? Guess what, so does Siberia!) and hanging on there is again a POD long before 1904. It seems to me what you'd want would be either a much earlier POD as your choice of forum indicates, where the capabilities of the steam dreadnoughts of 1904 and what logistic support they could provide overland in their eastern ports by then are irrelevant, or you are asking the much tougher question of how well could they muscle in on the existing hegemonies of the Pacific in the early 20th century.
Or possibly a mid-to-late 19th century question, WI instead of selling Alaska (which they did OTL because they wanted money fast because they didn't have a lot of it) they invested a lot more (that they didn't think would be cost-effective OTL) in reinforcing their bases in the Maritime province and Alaska and went a-Viking for warmer acquisitions to the south, before it was all pre-empted by strong European powers? Say they decided to beat Japan to the punch in Taiwan or capitalize on Spanish troubles in the Philippines?
Again, it would be very costly to develop their North Pacific holdings to sustain such efforts. I'm not sure if Juneau or Sitka can in any sense qualify as winter open-water ports, I rather doubt it. So again their problem is either to secure something more suitable along the north Asian coast (and somehow supply it overland, or even develop it into a working shipyard) thus running straight into trouble with not only Japan but the British, neither of whom would want them pre-empting Korea or Chinese ports, and all that as a clear preliminary to challenging these same powers and yet others in the more tropical zones of the Pacific, not to mention the USA that would be feeling its oats around this post-Civil War era. Or send an expedition clear around the world from the Baltic or Black Sea, through the gauntlet of all their enemies and allies of potential enemies, right past Spain either way (a likely target of their ambitions). Well before 1900 at least the prevailing standard would not be steamships and so they wouldn't face the problems their Black Fleet did in getting coal on the way, but they'd be that much slower and sailing past all sorts of choke points. Such as around the Cape of Good Hope past British squadrons, or risking their life and limb across the straits of South America where the British also were swarming, or past Singapore not to mention the entire Indian Ocean just waiting for the British to intercept them there...
Basically if you can see a way the British might favor such an enterprise instead of opposing it, maybe then they'd only be facing the sheer daunting cost of sending enough of an expedition to win something worth winning and holding by such roundabout ways, so far out of communication with their capital. But I don't see it.
If they can beef up their holdings on the Northwest Pacific enough to launch such expeditions, they'd probably prefer to concentrate on using such good logistics to take more of North China and/or Korea overland instead. And while I can think of some warm Pacific targets they might then want to go after--Hawaii, Taiwan, the Philippines--all would be hotly contested by other powers with more established power in the region--Britain foremost, but also Japan and the USA, and the longer they delay the more solid their claims get.
Trying to go for it earlier, you get the objections others have raised. 1904 just doesn't seem relevant, except as a demonstration that even then Russian power on the high seas in the Pacific was marginal and second-rate, however strong they might have been in European waters. It's just so difficult to project sufficient logistics overland to support such adventures from a Pacific base or to send it the long way round without having first acquired strong bases farther west.
Hmn, maybe if the Russians early on took and held the South American straits, being better able to endure the climate there than anyone else but say Norwegians? But the British were keen on keeping that passage open for themselves from quite early on; again we'd want an unlikely and long-lasting Anglo-Russian alliance.
Or if you like, totally ignore the question of the advantage their holdings on the Siberian coast give them initially, and ask whether the Russians could have been players in the Atlantic-based age of sail conquests on the high seas, getting bases like the South American passage or South Africa--the latter would then require yet more acquisitions in the Indian Ocean to secure a route to the Pacific, whereas straight out from Tierra Del Fuego to Pacific plums is a long open ocean passage. But maybe the Russians get these the same way England, France, the Dutch got theirs? They are still likely to lose out to Britain in the long run, but maybe they can first acquire something worth hanging on to in the southern Pacific and then switch over to keeping contact via the Siberian ports?
I guess then they would hang on to Alaska even if it were unprofitable in itself, to shield their Siberian bases and access to their valuable Pacific colony.
So, focus on the 16th and early 17th century and ask how plausible was a strong Russian Atlantic navy and how much Russia had in the way of colonizing potential, and how likely they were to get the alliance of one of the major maritime powers of that period. Say, they help the Dutch sustain themselves (but I think OTL they tended to ally with France in this time frame) or team up with the French to collectively hold the balance against Britain, and knowing they are reaching the North Pacific overland let themselves be steered by the French into taking their chances on finding or grabbing something in the Pacific via the South American/Antarctic straits. Or somehow throw their lot in with the British and are awarded a shot at these prizes?
Ah, yes the Siberian gold mines, the coldest place on Earth this side of Antarctica. Going to have to wait until technology is developed that can allow the miners to function without freezing solid. What's the summer temperature; about ten degrees above freezing? Yeah, I know, Alaska's not a whole lot better.
To more tightly define the "window," I don't think the Russians had any serious presence on any seas until toward the end of the reign of Peter the Great, so that's mid-18th century. And that was St. Petersburg on the Baltic, they'd have to run a gauntlet of Swedish, Danish, and British power unless they had the alliance of Britain, whereas I think they'd have been most likely to be French allies. I don't know when they could plausibly develop their northern (Murmansk, Archangel) ports to come round Norway and through British power in the North Sea. The Black Sea--I don't think they had anything on its shores until late in this same period and they'd have the Ottomans to get past; they never did secure the passage from there into the Med though they certainly did manage to force their way through on occasion. If they managed to do better there they'd probably bog down duelling the British in the eastern Med; going on from there to get past Spain or taking Egypt to secure a passage into the Indian Ocean that way (having to either build the Suez canal or build a whole new fleet on the Red Sea) seems most unlikely and would result in their first focusing on more Middle Eastern holdings that would bog them down.
So it seems rather impossible to me unless you can have a scenario where the French in alliance with them are strong enough to open up the passage past Denmark. And then what? If they can get into the Pacific from the south early enough they might find Hawaii and keep it secret, build up there and, motivated by this holding, develop their Siberian ports enough to keep that passage open; from there maybe move in on Taiwan and eventually perhaps the Philippines while further securing their northern holdings. But expanding Alaska southward would mean sharper and sharper collisions with both Britain and the USA not to mention Spain/Mexico.
That's the best I can do and that first step, opening up a passage from the Baltic, seems a lulu to me. But I don't see a more vigorous development of the Siberian ports as a first step as being reasonable either; OTL it's pretty amazing they managed what they did there and as I say more success in that direction would seem likelier to result in conquests in the north Chinese sphere and possibly Japan instead. With what seapower they have based there being focused on defense rather than farther ventures southward.
So it seems rather impossible to me unless you can have a scenario where the French in alliance with them are strong enough to open up the passage past Denmark. And then what? If they can get into the Pacific from the south early enough they might find Hawaii and keep it secret, build up there and, motivated by this holding, develop their Siberian ports enough to keep that passage open; from there maybe move in on Taiwan and eventually perhaps the Philippines while further securing their northern holdings. But expanding Alaska southward would mean sharper and sharper collisions with both Britain and the USA not to mention Spain/Mexico.
That's the best I can do and that first step, opening up a passage from the Baltic, seems a lulu to me. But I don't see a more vigorous development of the Siberian ports as a first step as being reasonable either; OTL it's pretty amazing they managed what they did there and as I say more success in that direction would seem likelier to result in conquests in the north Chinese sphere and possibly Japan instead. With what seapower they have based there being focused on defense rather than farther ventures southward.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Come to think of it, I was actually working on a TL where Russia does get the Philippines. However, in order for Russia to actually get a colony in the Pacific, I had to make sure it was completely isolated in Europe. Which means a stronger, more powerful Swedish Empire and a Poland that is united with Hungary. I still have to redo the entire thread in order to make it work, considering that I could get some of the things I've written from one of my ASB threads and move it back into the other thread. Of course, I had someone who did a map for me. Realistically, Russia does have to develop its naval capabilities a hell lot faster, and I mean Petrine-style fast. A Russia looking towards the Pacific would have butterflied several conflicts like the Russo-Turkish Wars that resulted in the Balkans falling into Russia's sphere. In the end, I also had a crazy idea about Russia trying its luck on conquering parts or all of Australia.
Ok, let's see how this works. I expect it to be torn to pieces and nitpicked to death.
1) Pacific Trade
Russian presence in the northern Pacific dates back to the Second Kamchatka Expedition, with the first landings in Alaska taking place in 1741. Fur trappers followed afterwards. Rather than doing the work of capturing the abundant marine life, the Russians forced the small native populations to do all the work for them. Along with enslavement, the Russians brought new diseases that reduced the Aleut population. Early colonies were not as profitable as other European ventures in the Arctic, but the Russians refused to give up their holdings. In 1799, the Russian-American Company was formed. In exchange for a monopoly on the Alaskan fur trade, the Tsar desired an expansion of the colony.
The Russian-American Company expanded southward and eastward, down the Canadian coast. In 1807, they penetrated the Columbia River. In the following year, the Company established Fort Ross just north of Drake’s Bay, in Spanish California. This brought them into conflict with Spain, who could do little to stop the Russians. In the years following the establishment of Fort Ross, Spain found itself in war against Napoleon, as was as against its colonial possessions. When Mexico gained independence, it could do little against Fort Ross. The colonists came from Russia’s various nationalities, and thrived until 1831, when Mexico ejected the two thousand colonists from their soil.
Further in the Pacific, the Russian-American Company signed an agreement with the Kingdom of Kauai. The Kauaians thought they gained an ally, and the Russians a new subject. Along with whaling and sealing stations, which were also established on Midway and Wake, the island supported a mildly profitable Sandalwood trade. The trees had little value to the Russians, but the Chinese produced incense from Sandalwood. Fur from Alaska and wood from Kauai soon found its way into Chinese markets. Increases in Pacific trade prompted the Russian Empire to establish a stronger naval presence in the Pacific.
The Russian Navy looked for a place to establish themselves in the Far East. The largest obstacle for the Navy, as well as the Russian-American Company, was to have a year-round port. The Russian Far East had ports, all were closed during the winter. The long standing dream of a warm water port prompted the Russians to first look at China. China was too large to conquer, and proved unwilling to negotiate for a large Russian military presence in their borders. The Manchu Dynasty did not object much to Russian ships resupplying, as well as offloading valuable goods. Other year-round harbors existed in the region. When China would not make a deal, the Russians looked eastward at the isolated Kingdom of Nihon, especially the sparsely populated island of Hokkaido.
1) Pacific Trade
Russian presence in the northern Pacific dates back to the Second Kamchatka Expedition, with the first landings in Alaska taking place in 1741. Fur trappers followed afterwards. Rather than doing the work of capturing the abundant marine life, the Russians forced the small native populations to do all the work for them. Along with enslavement, the Russians brought new diseases that reduced the Aleut population. Early colonies were not as profitable as other European ventures in the Arctic, but the Russians refused to give up their holdings. In 1799, the Russian-American Company was formed. In exchange for a monopoly on the Alaskan fur trade, the Tsar desired an expansion of the colony.
The Russian-American Company expanded southward and eastward, down the Canadian coast. In 1807, they penetrated the Columbia River. In the following year, the Company established Fort Ross just north of Drake’s Bay, in Spanish California. This brought them into conflict with Spain, who could do little to stop the Russians. In the years following the establishment of Fort Ross, Spain found itself in war against Napoleon, as was as against its colonial possessions. When Mexico gained independence, it could do little against Fort Ross. The colonists came from Russia’s various nationalities, and thrived until 1831, when Mexico ejected the two thousand colonists from their soil.
Further in the Pacific, the Russian-American Company signed an agreement with the Kingdom of Kauai. The Kauaians thought they gained an ally, and the Russians a new subject. Along with whaling and sealing stations, which were also established on Midway and Wake, the island supported a mildly profitable Sandalwood trade. The trees had little value to the Russians, but the Chinese produced incense from Sandalwood. Fur from Alaska and wood from Kauai soon found its way into Chinese markets. Increases in Pacific trade prompted the Russian Empire to establish a stronger naval presence in the Pacific.
The Russian Navy looked for a place to establish themselves in the Far East. The largest obstacle for the Navy, as well as the Russian-American Company, was to have a year-round port. The Russian Far East had ports, all were closed during the winter. The long standing dream of a warm water port prompted the Russians to first look at China. China was too large to conquer, and proved unwilling to negotiate for a large Russian military presence in their borders. The Manchu Dynasty did not object much to Russian ships resupplying, as well as offloading valuable goods. Other year-round harbors existed in the region. When China would not make a deal, the Russians looked eastward at the isolated Kingdom of Nihon, especially the sparsely populated island of Hokkaido.
I don't see it happening. Russia had the huge expanses of Siberia and Alaska to worry about, not to mention Central Asia. Why go into the Pacific, a place where the Russian Navy could get thoroughly trashed by the British, Japanese, and Americans?
You mean by the British and maybe the Americans. The Japanese won't be an issue in this project. As for why: why not? This is an offshoot of the Hawaii Partitioned project, where the Russians had a protectorate (later outright colony) over Kauai. If they already had Siberia, then why bother going to Alaska?
Russia had great problems with protecting and keeping its' Far East coast. It is a naked truth, the Russian-Japanesse war proved that fact.
You must realise that Russian roads are not roads, they are disaster.
Even nowdays if you went by car from central Russia to the Far East - that would be achievement to be proud of, some act of bravery. And we are speaking about doing it in summer
.
The zar who got rid of Alaska was a very sober and clear-sighted polititian. It was like having a fat cow fastened to a stick feeding on a deserted seaside. It was an invitation to steal it, provocation pure and simple.
So, I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings but talks about Russian Pacific is ASB. Actually I couldnot think of any possible POD to change it even in 15-18 centuries AD.
You see, in 1917-1920 there was a separatist 'Russian Far-Eastern republic' over there. And russians are not very keen on splitting up by their nature, you know. But tHE Far East is too far away from mother Russia.
So it was overextended as it was. It was too dangerous to stretch the Empire even further
You must realise that Russian roads are not roads, they are disaster.
Even nowdays if you went by car from central Russia to the Far East - that would be achievement to be proud of, some act of bravery. And we are speaking about doing it in summer
. The zar who got rid of Alaska was a very sober and clear-sighted polititian. It was like having a fat cow fastened to a stick feeding on a deserted seaside. It was an invitation to steal it, provocation pure and simple.
So, I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings but talks about Russian Pacific is ASB. Actually I couldnot think of any possible POD to change it even in 15-18 centuries AD.
You see, in 1917-1920 there was a separatist 'Russian Far-Eastern republic' over there. And russians are not very keen on splitting up by their nature, you know. But tHE Far East is too far away from mother Russia.
So it was overextended as it was. It was too dangerous to stretch the Empire even further
This whole Russian Pacific thing sprang off from the Hawaii Partitioned thing, with the Russian-American Company, and later the Russian government, taking control of the Kingdom of Kauai. I'm just musing how that, and a stronger hold in North America, could affect the Russian Far East.
Besides, even though Russia had all that empty land, they still nickled-and-dimed the Ottomans, Poles, Central Asians, tried to do it with China, to death. I've always had the impression that Tsarist Russia wouldn't even be satisfied with the whole planet. So I think they would try to gobble up Hokkaido if they could.
Oh, and I know about the Russian roads (or lack there of). I remember a journal/book written by a bloke who crossed Russia. He had real fun trying to get from the Pacific just to Yakutsk.
This Kauai thing seems a bit dramatized to me. It was just a funny incident. Someone got quite unrealistic in the process, I guess.
That's it. It's human nature.
If you had been a Russian zar in that time would you have gobbled Hokkaido?
I guess you wouldn't. Because that would have been unwise.
And the Russian zar was not that unwise.
To get something that you couldn't protect and keep is a bit dumb ain't it?
Actually, I would want it. Whether I could hold it or not was another matter. The reason I would want it, aside from the year-round port, when I look at a map, Hokkaido looks like a potential chokehold on Russian ports on the Pacific Coast. Anyone with bases there could sail out and intercept ships. That, along with the Kurils, could really put a cramp on access to the sea. After the 20th Century, bombers could fly out from there and really cause mayhem. If you can't take the island outright, then controlling Japan as a puppet or vassal would be the next best thing in securing that frontier. At least until the Romanovs are overthrown (by the Republicans or the Reds or whomever).
I'm just looking at it from a strategic standpoint. And, what you control can't hurt you (much).
Ironically, the fact that its bloody difficult to get there by road would be a great reason to increase the sail fleet there. It could then be like the East India Company, sending out ships and getting them back. It would not be too onerous to use this route to boost settlement (people were used to having to stay aboard ship for ever to get anywhere, just read Wolseley's memoirs) and for constant replenishment of ships of the line. The Pacific scientific voyages had to come from the Baltic originally, so it would just be an extension of that.
Its also not inconsequential that the major straits, islands and rivers in this area are all named after admirals and the commanders of naval expeditions.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Its also not inconsequential that the major straits, islands and rivers in this area are all named after admirals and the commanders of naval expeditions.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf