What if Russia tried to conquer Anatolian Turkey instead of Central Asian Turks?

The Russian Empire in our timeline conquered central Asian Turkish peoples as part of their empire building. What if they decided to conquer Anatolian Turks, who had more natural resources and farmland, instead?
 
The Russian Empire in our timeline conquered central Asian Turkish peoples as part of their empire building. What if they decided to conquer Anatolian Turks, who had more natural resources and farmland, instead?

That's kind of unlikely since by the time the Russians were powerful enough to expand, the Anatolian Turks were a major power themselves (the Ottoman Empire). The central Asian Turks were simply a lot less unified, less advanced, and had fewer allies, making them significantly easier to conquer. The Ottomans were on equal-ish footing with the Russians, the central Asian states were not.
 
The Russian Empire in our timeline conquered central Asian Turkish peoples as part of their empire building. What if they decided to conquer Anatolian Turks, who had more natural resources and farmland, instead?
To do this Russia had to “pacify” Caucasus or at least Western part of it. And by the time this was accomplished whatever the Ottoman Empire possessed in the terms of the natural resources and farmland in Anatolia was rather unimportant from the Russian perspective. Conquest of the CA had been backed by the following main considerations:
1. Market for the Russian manufactured goods
2. Cotton production (mostly in Uzbekistan) - after the ACW a need of at least some independent source (for the explosives production) became obvious
3. Stop raids on the Russian territory

Then, again, by the time conquest of Anatolia became a technical possibility, there were always European powers opposing such a thing.
 
Conquering Constantinople and, even more extravagantly, reviving the Byzantine Empire had been foreign policy goals of the Tsars for centuries. The desire was there - implementation was the issue.
 
Last edited:
I mean, the central Asian Turks were also mighty. Tamerlane, for example.

Very true, but Tamerlane was working from a mostly unified Chaghatai Khanate, which he took over on unofficial terms before starting his conquests. Even then, people resented him for not being a descendant of Chinggis (despite being very Chinggis-like in his lifestyle). At that time, the Turco-Mongol war package of highly mobile archer-cavalry and siege equipment making some use of gunpowder was also highly effective against neighbors.

His sons were the first to start breaking that structure down, with Persia and Central Asia collapsing into a series of states that were too busy fighting each other in Transoxiana while more dynamic powers (the Safavids, the Mughals) picked up the peripheries.

The Shaybanid dynasty (which was descended from Chinggis) took over after that, asserting its right to rule based on both its storied heritage and on the mess which Timur's descendants had made of everything. Their "Bukhara Khanate" very loosely unified Central Asia from Khorezm to Ferghana for a time, but Khiva and Kokand both split off. The remaining Bukharan lands (corresponding mostly to east Uzbekistan, south Kazakhstan, north Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) then underwent a period of drought, social tension, and finally revolution in the 1700s, which displaced its Chinggisid dynasty for the family of an cleric who claimed he would rule in a more Islamic manner. Thus the Bukhara emirate was born, but sometime later it lost Balkh to the Afghans.

What I mean to say is that while the Central Asia during the era of Russian expansion was not such an isolated backwater as was previously believed, it had seen better days. The states inhabiting the region were individually quite small, ethnic tensions were beginning to crop up in each (the Khivan elite had a difficult time restraining its Turkmens), and their Asian neighbors easily pushed them around even before the Russians came knocking. Moreover, the skilled soldiers and administrators remaining in each decided to seek their fortunes elsewhere-- why else would Yakub Beg of Andijan decide infiltrating Xinjiang and launching a rebellion against the Qing was the best use of his time?

Meanwhile, the Ottoman state is in another league, compared to the central Asians. It had held together a state encompassing most of the Middle East all through the 1700s, and while they start suffering noticeably in the 1800s (losing provinces north and south) their hold on Anatolia didn't waver. Their military modernization efforts, while difficult and increasingly unsuccessful as the 1800s wore on, made impressive strides. Plus, when you're messing with the Ottomans, you're messing with Western Europe-- the OE sits astride too many important naval routes to be abandoned to the Russians, and the British and French went to war in Crimea to prove this point. By contrast, landlocked Central Asia is less strategically important to Russia's rivals. Only Britain really has an interest in it, and they're just trying to make sure Russia doesn't use it as a route to invade India.

As a target, Central Asia is militarily easier, diplomatically easier... and the farming's not bad. North Kazakhstan isn't too different in geography or climate from South Russia, that's why so many Russians still live there. The urban life's not bad either, Tashkent's Russian population was big enough to support a majority-Russian "Tashkent Soviet" through most of the Russian Civil War.
 
Last edited:
Conquering Constantinople and, even more extravagantly, reviving the Byzantine Empire had been a foreign policy goals of the Tsars for centuries. The desire was there - implementation was the issue.

It practically never was much more than vague military fantasies. The 1st time the goal of taking Constantinople had been formulated in 1735 by fieldmarshal Munnich as a final part of the 3 years plan of the coming war. Needless to say that he did not even cross the Danube. The 1st Ottoman war of Catherine II included Russian naval operations on the Med and Aegean but conquest of Constantinople was not a goal. The idea was revived by Potemkin (and put into writing by Bezborodko) as a best case scenario for the next war. Of course, for a while Catherine was excited with the idea but from allocation of the resources it is quite clear that the main priority was to remove the Ottomans from Northern coast of the Black Sea.

In 1828 and 1878 Russian troops reached Adrianople (and in 1878 came even closer) but at that point the peace talks started in both cases so hardly conquest of Constantinople was a political goal (not to be confused with a purely military goal as a way to force the Ottomans to start peace talks). So the closest case was probably WWI when the allies seemingly agreed to grant the Straits to Russia.
 
Meanwhile, the Ottoman state is in another league, compared to the central Asians. It had held together a state encompassing most of the Middle East all through the 1700s, and while they start suffering noticeably in the 1800s (losing provinces north and south) their hold on Anatolia didn't waver. Their military modernization efforts, while difficult and increasingly successful as the 1800s wore on, made impressive strides. Plus, when you're messing with the Ottomans, you're messing with Western Europe-- the OE sits astride too many important naval routes to be abandoned to the Russians, and the British and French went to war in Crimea to prove this point. By contrast, landlocked Central Asia is less strategically important to Russia's rivals. Only Britain really has an interest in it, and they're just trying to make sure Russia doesn't use it as a route to invade India.

As a target, Central Asia is militarily easier, diplomatically easier... and the farming's not bad. North Kazakhstan isn't too different in geography or climate from South Russia, that's why so many Russians still live there. The urban life's not bad either, Tashkent's Russian population was big enough to support a majority-Russian "Tashkent Soviet" through most of the Russian Civil War.

Ottoman Anatolia was also useful to Russia as a place to send the deported Circassians.
 
Low ranking people primarily drove much of Russian spread to the east. The Russian government often was a bystander and a benefactor.
 
Top