Was Tsarist Russia a Space Filling Empire?

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Since the 18th century, the whole territory west of the Ural mountains and north of China are, on maps, represented as possession of the Russian Empire, though very little Russians and many still "free" native tribes populated the area. In fact, the Tsar hadn't control about most of his claims in east.

So the question is: why do we criticize Space Filling Empires on AH maps when one of the most important nations of history was nothing more than a ... Space Filling Empire?

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

...though very little Russians and many still "free" native tribes populated the area. In fact, the Tsar hadn't control about most of his claims in east.

Ask the Chukchi people about that.
Living on eastern edge of the Eurasian continent and determinated opposition did not save them from subjugation in the first half of the 17th century.
No-one west of Chukotka did avoid it either.

 

[Remitonov]

Because real life doesn't have to make sense. We tend to criticize Space Filling Empires because of how implausible any such nation forming would be, given insanely hard it would be to hold on to such great landmasses and diverse populatons. The ones that succeeded IOTL are the ones that usually managed to displace and massacre the natives so much that loyal settlers and assimilated natives now form the overwhelming majority.

In Russia's case, it just happened to find a lot of empty space, with natives so sparsely scattered they pose little threat. It helped that very few others have access this far north, and that those that do, whether it was the Turkic or Mongolic tribes of Central Asia and Siberia or the obsolete Qing Chinese, weren't able to stop them. The same could be said for China (which simply subsumed any previously non-Han group with Chinese culture), United States, Canada etc.

India, of course, is one key exception, due to its mass of languages and to an extent, religions (Hinduism is still the overriding majority, though). But British colonialism lumping the entire region together did help to fuse it into a single nation, albeit one that ultimately had to cut out the Muslim portions that now form Pakistan and later, Bangladesh.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Because real life doesn't have to make sense. We tend to criticize Space Filling Empires because of how implausible any such nation forming would be, given insanely hard it would be to hold on to such great landmasses and diverse populatons.

Though, there were quite many of these Empires:
- Alexander's Empire and the Seleucids'
- Rome
- The Arab Empire
- The Mongol Empire
- British Empire
- The other colonial empires (France, Spain, Belgium to some extent)

 

[Remitonov]

Though, there were quite many of these Empires:
- Alexander's Empire and the Seleucids'
- Rome
- The Arab Empire
- The Mongol Empire
- British Empire
- The other colonial empires (France, Spain, Belgium to some extent)

True, true. Of course, none of them are frankly possible without excessive use of force.

 

[Lalli]

Though, there were quite many of these Empires:
- Alexander's Empire and the Seleucids'
- Rome
- The Arab Empire
- The Mongol Empire
- British Empire
- The other colonial empires (France, Spain, Belgium to some extent)

Alexander's Empire collapsed soon after Alexander the Great's death.

Rome expanded slowsly and there was much pretty sparsely populated and underdeveloped areas. And Rome faced much troubles.

Same thing as Roman Empire. And religion was uniting factor. And it didn't last very long.

Mongol Empire begun collapse already during Genghis Khan's grandsons. And even so long it kept united with brutal force.

Brits were technologically more advanced. And they kept things with diplomacy in some areas.

Spanish Empire was able expand pretty much only because natives couldn't stand with their diseases. And Spaniards were too technologically more advanced.

 

[zoomar]

So the question is: why do we criticize Space Filling Empires on AH maps when one of the most important nations of history was nothing more than a ... Space Filling Empire?

Because the other developed nations of the west recognized and (in general)respected these claims. In just the same way that the US, British/Canadian, French, Russian, and Spanish "space filling empires" in the Americas were recognized. The fact that these areas may not have been subdued or physically taken from their indigenous inhabitants is frankly irrelevant when empires deal with each other. The borders of empires is defined by what other empires will accept, not whether or not they are actually controlled.

And why do people criticize space filling empires on AH maps? That's what most empires are.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Because real life doesn't have to make sense. We tend to criticize Space Filling Empires because of how implausible any such nation forming would be, given insanely hard it would be to hold on to such great landmasses and diverse populatons. The ones that succeeded IOTL are the ones that usually managed to displace and massacre the natives so much that loyal settlers and assimilated natives now form the overwhelming majority.

In Russia's case, it just happened to find a lot of empty space, with natives so sparsely scattered they pose little threat. It helped that very few others have access this far north, and that those that do, whether it was the Turkic or Mongolic tribes of Central Asia and Siberia or the obsolete Qing Chinese, weren't able to stop them. The same could be said for China (which simply subsumed any previously non-Han group with Chinese culture), United States, Canada etc.

India, of course, is one key exception, due to its mass of languages and to an extent, religions (Hinduism is still the overriding majority, though). But British colonialism lumping the entire region together did help to fuse it into a single nation, albeit one that ultimately had to cut out the Muslim portions that now form Pakistan and later, Bangladesh.

Also space filling empires are often done out of laziness. It's less an in depth look at how an empire can form and more "I don't know anything about African history. I'll just make a Zulu Empire controlling everything south of the Congo and have the Egyptians control everything to the north. That'll be good enough."

 

[Minchandre]

It's also worth noting that while lots of Siberia wasn't ever under "full Russian control", the Tsars did plant settlements going across (especially when they started building the Transsiberian railroad), and they did go out of their ways to make sure that the locals knew who's land they were in. They also pushed out at the borders, and in general did more than simply paint the land on a map.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Because real life doesn't have to make sense. We tend to criticize Space Filling Empires because of how implausible any such nation forming would be, given insanely hard it would be to hold on to such great landmasses and diverse populatons. The ones that succeeded IOTL are the ones that usually managed to displace and massacre the natives so much that loyal settlers and assimilated natives now form the overwhelming majority.

In Russia's case, it just happened to find a lot of empty space, with natives so sparsely scattered they pose little threat. It helped that very few others have access this far north, and that those that do, whether it was the Turkic or Mongolic tribes of Central Asia and Siberia or the obsolete Qing Chinese, weren't able to stop them. The same could be said for China (which simply subsumed any previously non-Han group with Chinese culture), United States, Canada etc.

India, of course, is one key exception, due to its mass of languages and to an extent, religions (Hinduism is still the overriding majority, though). But British colonialism lumping the entire region together did help to fuse it into a single nation, albeit one that ultimately had to cut out the Muslim portions that now form Pakistan and later, Bangladesh.

Alexander's Empire collapsed soon after Alexander the Great's death.

Rome expanded slowsly and there was much pretty sparsely populated and underdeveloped areas. And Rome faced much troubles.

Same thing as Roman Empire. And religion was uniting factor. And it didn't last very long.

Mongol Empire begun collapse already during Genghis Khan's grandsons. And even so long it kept united with brutal force.

Brits were technologically more advanced. And they kept things with diplomacy in some areas.

Spanish Empire was able expand pretty much only because natives couldn't stand with their diseases. And Spaniards were too technologically more advanced.

Also space filling empires are often done out of laziness. It's less an in depth look at how an empire can form and more "I don't know anything about African history. I'll just make a Zulu Empire controlling everything south of the Congo and have the Egyptians control everything to the north. That'll be good enough."

Agreed on all counts.

Russia was an exception that proves the rule; Space Filling Empires that are stable enough to last a century or more are rare. Not to mention that Russia's circumstances cannot be duplicated in the aforementioned example of Africa, or Southeast Asia, or South America after Spanish Rule. Those are very different.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Because the other developed nations of the west recognized and (in general)respected these claims. In just the same way that the US, British/Canadian, French, Russian, and Spanish "space filling empires" in the Americas were recognized. The fact that these areas may not have been subdued or physically taken from their indigenous inhabitants is frankly irrelevant when empires deal with each other. The borders of empires is defined by what other empires will accept, not whether or not they are actually controlled.

And why do people criticize space filling empires on AH maps? That's what most empires are.

Look at the posts above and immediately below yours; most Empires have nuance and context; Space-Filling-Empires don't. They're basically no more than 'this group controls this large area not because of a superior military/economy/logistics/terrain/bureaucracy, but because I say so'.

 

[Tanc49]

Regarding the very large size of the Russian Empire, I read a couple times it worked with relatively little force precisely because Russia was somehow backward.
Whereas French Empire (for example) wanted to set up a formal administration and acculturate (one would have said "civilise" back then) the colonised, Russia was quite happy with a fealty bond. For example, the khanates of the Upper Oxus which were conquered once and then kept in a state of subordination through fealty.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Look at the posts above and immediately below yours; most Empires have nuance and context; Space-Filling-Empires don't. They're basically no more than 'this group controls this large area not because of a superior military/economy/logistics/terrain/bureaucracy, but because I say so'.

I think a good comparison would be Decades of Darkness (where most of the world is in one giant empire or another) vs. the Randomid Caliphate that often appears, particularly in FH works.

DoD's empires:

Have a significant backstory (basically the entire TL is how we got to having only a few superstates)

Suffer setbacks and have uprisings against them

Take a good period of time to form

Are fleshed out in terms of style of government, politics, culture, etc.

the Randomid Caliphate:

Doesn't have a significant backstory, to the point where in the worst cases it emerges almost entirely off screen.

Never suffers setbacks or has uprisings. It's like the minute people become Randomidians they become 100% loyal.

Form fairly quickly, in the worst cases taking only a few years to conquer the Mideast Blitzkrieg style.

Are generic Muslim theocracies that are often basically the Taliban if they had control over the entire Mideast.

The former is one of the best TLs on this site, while the latter is a cliché that is often mocked. It's not hard to see why.

 

[Youngmarshall]

It's like everything you just need to show your work.

 

[Falecius]

I think a good comparison would be Decades of Darkness (where most of the world is in one giant empire or another) vs. the Randomid Caliphate that often appears, particularly in FH works.

DoD's empires:

Have a significant backstory (basically the entire TL is how we got to having only a few superstates)

Suffer setbacks and have uprisings against them

Take a good period of time to form

Are fleshed out in terms of style of government, politics, culture, etc.

the Randomid Caliphate:

Doesn't have a significant backstory, to the point where in the worst cases it emerges almost entirely off screen.

Never suffers setbacks or has uprisings. It's like the minute people become Randomidians they become 100% loyal.

Form fairly quickly, in the worst cases taking only a few years to conquer the Mideast Blitzkrieg style.

Are generic Muslim theocracies that are often basically the Taliban if they had control over the entire Mideast.

The former is one of the best TLs on this site, while the latter is a cliché that is often mocked. It's not hard to see why.

"Randomid Caliphate" is too good a quote not to use at some time.

 

[Napoleon IV]

"Randomid Caliphate" is too good a quote not to use at some time.

You can thank Thande for that phrase.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

What are the chances that the 'defenders' of Space Filling Empires aren't going to read the counterarguments?

Sorry for being rude, just a little pissed off that there's even a defense of the concept.

 

[Lateknight]

"Randomid Caliphate" is too good a quote not to use at some time.

It was more fun to use before the Islamic state was declared.

 

[Falecius]

It was more fun to use before the Islamic state was declared.

Very True.

 

[rvbomally]

It was more fun to use before the Islamic state was declared.

I wanted to make this point. ISIS is a real life Randomid Caliphate. Just about the only criteria it doesn't meet are covering the entire Middle East and suffering from no resistance within its territories.

I actually do think that space-filling empires can be justified, so long as the core of that empire is sufficiently determined, brutal when it needs to be but not when it doesn't, and can present sufficient justification for its existence towards its core populace.