The ''Not too Great'' Game...

Throughout 19th century, British Empire and Russian Empire conflicted each other in the so called ''Great Game''...
Both empires tried to expand their spheres of influence and dominate Middle East, Central Asia, and China, largely due to waning powers of Ottomans, Safavids, and Qing dynasty.
But WI instead of bloodied each other, they just divided Asia into their respective domains through treaty/alliance, and then spend their energies somewhere else...?
Would this possible? And what would be the consequences?
Discuss please...
 
I think the problem would be twofold

1. Trusting the other, since trade for instance will be seen as carrying influence, but are merchants going to be banned from trading with native powers under the sphere of the other?

2. Getting the native powers to toe the line. If they DON'T keep the agreements, you have to send in troops and this will be seen as potentially aggressive by the other great power, as it moves them into what in Star Trek terms would be the Neutral Zone

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The game out in such comparative backwaters as Balochistan and Khiva happened because Britain and Russia didn't trust each-other in Europe, because of the Eastern Question and the straits. For the better part of the 19th century, Anglo-Russian conflict looked like a sure thing to bet on - in the Near East, then Central Asia, then the Far East.

Then along came Tirpitz with his fleet, and before long they did almost exactly what you describe. It helped, of course, that several of the outstanding issues had already been resolved (Afghanistan had a defined border and was firmly under British influence; Japan had resolved the Far Eastern business by itself; the straits were no longer very relevant); and as Grey Wolf says, it's very hard to set limits on the very informal imperialism of teh region if either side thinks they can get away with infringements. Whenever the German threat wasn't in the headlines, someone was trying to diddle the other party in Persia (this is the subject of George V's last peacetime letter to Nicholas II, actually).

But leaving aside the issue of whether anyone will abide to it, the way to bring about such an agreement is to have someone ealier be what Germany was: a clear threat to both power's interests. An earlier Germany, maybe? I also feel Anglo-Russian strategic partnership would be quite strong in a Napoleonic Victory world.
 
So we need an early POD to make Britain and Russia becoming close allies, huh...?
Then they can peacefully divide Asia, so they can focus their attention to other places...
Britain to Africa and Indonesia, maybe? Russia to Scandinavia and Japan?
 
Alright, I have found a POD for this scenario: Anglo-Russian joint invasion of Netherlands at 1799.
From what I read, the invasion (which in OTL had been a failure) was a turning point for Anglo-Russian relationship, after which both Britain and Russia start growing suspicion toward each other, and lead to Russian planned invasion to India and the Crimean War.
So with a succesful invasion to Netherlands, maybe we could get Britain and Russia as a close allies.
How that sounds?
 
The game out in such comparative backwaters as Balochistan and Khiva happened because Britain and Russia didn't trust each-other in Europe, because of the Eastern Question and the straits. For the better part of the 19th century, Anglo-Russian conflict looked like a sure thing to bet on - in the Near East, then Central Asia, then the Far East.

Then along came Tirpitz with his fleet, and before long they did almost exactly what you describe. It helped, of course, that several of the outstanding issues had already been resolved (Afghanistan had a defined border and was firmly under British influence; Japan had resolved the Far Eastern business by itself; the straits were no longer very relevant); and as Grey Wolf says, it's very hard to set limits on the very informal imperialism of teh region if either side thinks they can get away with infringements. Whenever the German threat wasn't in the headlines, someone was trying to diddle the other party in Persia (this is the subject of George V's last peacetime letter to Nicholas II, actually).

But leaving aside the issue of whether anyone will abide to it, the way to bring about such an agreement is to have someone ealier be what Germany was: a clear threat to both power's interests. An earlier Germany, maybe? I also feel Anglo-Russian strategic partnership would be quite strong in a Napoleonic Victory world.

hmmm Tirpitz, ever thought about which effect admiral Fisher had in the German Empire?
Well the German Empire wouldn't necessarily be a threat, but as newcomer Great Power they were a threat for the Status Quo. And just like Italy, because of their division in the past the had mixed feelings about their neighbours.

Regarding the main question, it will be hard negotiations, Russia just as France and the German Empire was suspicious that Britain didn't keep the best part for themselves. Furthermore all three Great Powers were annoyed by the fact, that the British, which controlled a quarter of the world, wanted even more in what they considered as their sphere of influence.
This was one of the reasons for 'the Great Game', Russia considered this region as a part of their sphere of influence, where they didn't like the presence of the British Empire.
 
Alright, I have found a POD for this scenario: Anglo-Russian joint invasion of Netherlands at 1799.
From what I read, the invasion (which in OTL had been a failure) was a turning point for Anglo-Russian relationship, after which both Britain and Russia start growing suspicion toward each other, and lead to Russian planned invasion to India and the Crimean War.
So with a succesful invasion to Netherlands, maybe we could get Britain and Russia as a close allies.
How that sounds?

Intermarriage in the monarchy is always good too.

What would happen to the Netherlands? Become part of Britain?
 
Intermarriage in the monarchy is always good too.

What would happen to the Netherlands? Become part of Britain?

Nope. Removal of French Republican Government, and restoration either of the Dutch Republic, or an earlier creation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The British wouldn't want the Dutch to have a fleet the French could capture though. Russia would want neutral fleets to balance British naval dominance...

Here we go again.

Could Britain accept a Russian fleet of some size as a compromise?
 
Alright, I have found a POD for this scenario: Anglo-Russian joint invasion of Netherlands at 1799.
From what I read, the invasion (which in OTL had been a failure) was a turning point for Anglo-Russian relationship, after which both Britain and Russia start growing suspicion toward each other, and lead to Russian planned invasion to India and the Crimean War.
So with a succesful invasion to Netherlands, maybe we could get Britain and Russia as a close allies.
How that sounds?

I always found that a fascinating bit of historical curio - the Russians invading Holland!

But it would change recorded history since that date as the butterflies would be immense.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Is there a way Britain can come to Russia's rescue during the Napoleonic Wars at all? Seems like a likely time for a long-term alliance to shape up, considering they were on the same side.
 
I always found that a fascinating bit of historical curio - the Russians invading Holland!

But it would change recorded history since that date as the butterflies would be immense.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The Russians even had bordering territory!

After prince Friedrich August, who had supported the English in the American Revolutionary War for financial reasons, died in 1793, Anhalt-Zerbst perished and its territories were split. Jever was then given to Catherine II of Russia, formerly Princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst and Friedrich August's sole surviving sibling. It remained Russian until Napoleon's armies occupied it in 1807.

Jever
 
Top