WI/AHC: A Wanked Russian Empire
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
They could intervene in Kashgaria - long-term this might well end with Russia taking all of what we know as Sinkiang, and maybe depending on events in Tibet and the response of the British, Kokonor.
Persia of course is always going to be vulnerable too
Later, of course Russia was in Manchuria, and vied for dominance over Korea (which it lost to Japan)
Persia of course is always going to be vulnerable too
Later, of course Russia was in Manchuria, and vied for dominance over Korea (which it lost to Japan)
Sweden never takes Narva/the Ingermanland from Russia, giving the Empire a "Window to the West" much earlier. Russia is able to therefore project power in the West much earlier and enter into favorable alliances earlier also, thus enabling them to crush the PLC much earlier (Probably around c. 1700 in the time period of the Great Northern War) and have plenty of time to stabilize their control of the region before Napoleon's conquests ignite nationalism in the modern sense across Europe. However, the incorporation of Polish serfs--accustomed to much more liberty than their Muscovite counterparts--and resulting unrest as well as earlier exposure to the Enlightenment forces/enables an 18th century tsar(ina) to liberalize much more than IOTL Ekaterina II, in turn letting the Russian economy modernize much more quickly in the 19th century.
Talking of Sweden, there was a period in the later 18th century when there was a real fear there that Russia intended to annex them by stealth, as they indeed did to Poland
Michael of Russia was the first Russian Tsar of the House of Romanov, having been coronated on 22 July 1613.
So we have 303 years, 7 months, 21 days, until 15 March 1917, OTL date of thr forced abdication of Nicholas II of Russia.
Tsar Change:
- Son born to Peter I and Catherine I
- An alternative husband for Anna Petrovna of Russia, producing a different line of Ramanov instead of Holstein-Gottorp
- No assassination of Paul I
- 13 March 1881, the assassination of liberal reforming Tsar Alexander II
War Change:
- Victory at the Smolensk War (1632–1634)
- Victory at the War of the Third Coalition (1803–1806)
- Victory at the War of the Fourth Coalition (1806–1807)
- Victory or no the Crimean War (1853–1856)
- Victory or no Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
- No political defeat to any 3 of the Bashkir Rebellion (1662–1664) (1704–1711) (1735–1740)
So we have 303 years, 7 months, 21 days, until 15 March 1917, OTL date of thr forced abdication of Nicholas II of Russia.
Tsar Change:
- Son born to Peter I and Catherine I
- An alternative husband for Anna Petrovna of Russia, producing a different line of Ramanov instead of Holstein-Gottorp
- No assassination of Paul I
- 13 March 1881, the assassination of liberal reforming Tsar Alexander II
War Change:
- Victory at the Smolensk War (1632–1634)
- Victory at the War of the Third Coalition (1803–1806)
- Victory at the War of the Fourth Coalition (1806–1807)
- Victory or no the Crimean War (1853–1856)
- Victory or no Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
- No political defeat to any 3 of the Bashkir Rebellion (1662–1664) (1704–1711) (1735–1740)
Butterflies would make that list pointless since winning in one would make anything afterwards unlikely to happen as it did historicallly
I listed this as you could pick one and change one, similar to my list regarding the tsar change.
Just helping anyone else who is more willing to work out the butterflies to write a massive Russian Wank
Taking into an account that even few reigns after that "window" was open in OTL all cargo to and from Russia had been carried by the foreign ships, the main practical meaning of not losing Narva is that Tsardom of Moscow is not paying the custom dues to Sweden (export/import was going through Swedish-held Baltic ports). Due to the obvious fact that Sweden was economically interested in that arrangement and that the trade route through the White Sea ports (Kholmogory and then Arkhangelsk) was going on since the time of Ivan IV, a notion of the isolated Russian state is just one of the historic legends not supported by any facts.
Not that an absence of the ports prevented extensive contacts with "the West". There were numerous foreigners on the service of Ivan III, Ivan IV and the early Romanov tsars. Even before Peter I was born the Tsardom had a Western model troops trained and commanded by the foreign officers. At the beginning of his reign Peter traveled across Western Europe (and there are extensive records of him and his companions behaving like swine in the Netherlands and England
).Ditto for the diplomatic contacts: besides obvious relations with its neighbors, Russia joined anti-Ottoman coalition in the Great Ottoman War.
Sorry, but realistic projection of power started only during the 7YW or, optimistically, during the War of the Polish Succession. In both cases possession of the Baltic ports was not a critically important factor comparing to the land power.
The 1st important naval expedition happened only during the 1st Ottoman War of Catherine II.
Actually, since the Russian-Polish War of 1654 - 67 the PLC (the part of it that was not conquered during that war) ceased to be a danger to the Russian state and after it was diplomatically forced to give up Kiev forever in exchange for the Russian participation in the anti-Ottoman war there was very little the Russian rulers wanted from it in the terms of a territory. As for the political influence, August of Saxony had been chosen with the help of the Russian diplomatic pressure (and financial backing) and by the end of the GNW the PLC started descending into a position of the Russian vassal state with Russia getting pretty much a free hand in Courland (formally, vassal of the PLC), defining PLC's succession and pretty much dictating the PLC internal policy. How exactly earlier possession of Narva would result in the earlier "schedule"? If "crushing" the PLC means "partitioning" (in the OTL prior to the 1st Partition it was as "crushed" politically as any formally independent state could be), the 1st Partition was actually a political defeat for Catherine II: parts of the Russian vassal state went to other Great Powers.
Now, what ARE the "favorable alliances"? There was a limited number of the potentially meaningful European partners and alliances with most of them were hardly "favorable" for Russia. What was "favorable" for Russia in being involved in the 7YW? Great expenses, big losses and the only potential gain would be Eastern Prussia which Russian empire did not need and which it was hoping to exchange for Courland in which it was already doing pretty much whatever it wanted: the Duke of Courland was sitting in an exile in Yaroslavl very happy that he was permitted to leave Siberia and even happier that he was not executed by quartering (according to the sentence of 1741) while the Duchy, with a graceful permission from St-Petersburg, was administered by his son.
As an ally against the Ottomans Austria proved to be rather a handicap during the wars of the XVIII century.
Prussia was an ally but the profit from this alliance was zero.
Close to the end of the XVIII there was Russian-French rapprochement but the main profitability for Russia was official cessation of the French military help to the Ottomans (some of the French specialists in fortification and artillery still had been operating there unofficially) but militarily it was of a lesser significance than "self-inflicted wound" of having Potemkin as a commander-in-chief just because he wanted to get Order of St. George 1st class (with all his merits as a reformer, etc. as a high-ranking military commander he was a complete nincompoop).
Almost only "favorable" European alliance was with on with Britain, Russian main (and almost only) direct trade partner in the XVIII century. Besides having (by the reign of Catherine II) a positive trade balance with Britain, Russia was able to send a naval expedition to the Mediterranean using the British ports for repairs, getting supplies and even buying the new ships and the British naval officers for service in the Russian navy. Of course, during the Revolutionary-Napoleonic Wars the benefits turned into a huge disadvantage.
So which favorable alliances do you have in mind?
I don't even know where to start.
An idea of the "stabilization" of the PLC is a very interesting one but (a) occupation of its whole territory by the Russian empire is hardly ever considered, (b) as was demonstrated by the experience of the Russian-held "Kingdom of Poland", it was close to impossible to achieve "stabilization" in the terms of turning the population into the loyal Russian subjects (a noticeable part of it would still hope for the independence), (c) "stabilization" of the PLC without partitions/occupation would most probably mean anti-Russian arrangement even if just due to the existing perceptions and history of the vassal relations.
I'm not sure how exactly the serfs in the PLC had been enjoying any noticeable degree of a liberty: in a country where the serf-owners were not seriously restricted by any laws and did not pay too much of attention to what was passing for PLC's government, the rights of the serfs were not guaranteed by anything. An idea that the serfs unrest in the PLC is going to result in abandoning serfdom in Russia circa XVIII is plain silly, just as an idea that the Polish serfs were somehow exposed to the ideas of Enlightenment. If anything, Catherine II was as "enlightened" as it goes but after assembling a Grand Commission she easily found out that even merchants were in a support of the serfdom (providing they are also allowed to use serf labor) and ended up with "if I abolish the serfdom I'm going to be killed by the nobles before the peasants will come to save me".
Early and decisive Entente victory in WWI. The Russian Empire makes territorial gains against the German, Austro-Hungarian and especially Ottoman Empires, but even more importantly, it doesn't lose millions of people to the later stages of that war, the Russian Revolution and Civil War, communist persecutions and various failed policies that led to horrendous famines, and WWII.
By 2018, Russia has a population well in excess of half a billion people, even if it still eventually loses some peripheral areas like Poland and Finland.
By 2018, Russia has a population well in excess of half a billion people, even if it still eventually loses some peripheral areas like Poland and Finland.
"Wanked" as what? A greater territory (where), a faster economic development, lesser social tensions?
How this would improve anything? He can grow to be just as an empty head as his sister Elizabeth.
Again, how some other German family would be noticeably better?
Now, this could be an improvement especially if he removes his implicated sons, Alexander and Constantine, from the line of succession. OTOH, then we are talking about the earlier start of the reign of Nicholas I (brrrrrrr.......). But no Russian participation in the anti-Napoleonic coalitions could produce some improvements.
How about having it around 1876? Emancipation of the serfs is done, the military reform started and the idiotic war with the Ottomans still can be avoided.
Actually, defeat in that war had been helpful because it demonstrated the weak sides of the newly created "western model" and allowed to improve things before the next war.
How exactly in each of these cases and what would Russian empire gain?
QUOTE="Jonathan, post: 17453304, member: 75931"]
- Victory or no the Crimean War (1853–1856) [/QUOTE]
Not very realistic but interesting idea. What such a victory would amount to and what would be a potential gain?
QUOTE="Jonathan, post: 17453304, member: 75931"]
- Victory or no Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) [/QUOTE]
Quite possible and definitely beneficial.
- No political defeat to any 3 of the Bashkir Rebellion (1662–1664) (1704–1711) (1735–1740)[/QUOTE]
Not sure about "political defeat" in the last one but absence of these rebellions could move forward time of the general conquest of the Central Asia.
He could. Or he could be a new "Great" person, that led to liberal and military reforms, the possibilities are endless.
Why does it have to be a German family.
Anne was suggested to be proposed a marriage to grandson of Louis XIV of Franceand Madame de Montespan, Louis Duke of Orleans.
Could a house of Orléans- Romanov see a strong tie to French military, french colonies in America, Alaska to New France?
Would Nicholas I be different in this time line, being raised by Paul I
Bringing it forward is an interesting idea.
Fair enough, didn't know this, I was basing the victory only on the count of keeping population numbers up. Maybe having a heavier migration of European to Russia during this time could help.
Not having to fight against Napoleon, wasting resources and lose of lives. There is also the ramifications of losing having on individuals moral. Tiny butterflies could affect hundreds.
If the British and French stay out of this regional war or having an event cause the war to turn sour on the allied side
Quite possible and definitely beneficial.
The last one wasnt a political defeat, having the rebels force demands but it was still a waste of military personnel that could be send else where.
Each of these events has a far reaching affect than just that time and space. With a father coming home from a battle not taking place, his son will feel less hatred to the Tsar.
To go back to my prior post, just avoiding the Russian Empire's collapse at the end of WWI, the rise of the Soviet Union, all of the attendant famines and persecutions, and WWII would give Russia a much, much higher population than today. An early and decisive Entente victory in WWI would do the trick, but honestly, a world with an early and decisive Central Powers victory in that war would probably lead to a Russia that's much better off by 2018 than is the case for OTL.
I don't see how you can wank Russia any further if you are going with the Romanov's and beyond. Considering from 1558 to till 1584 you had the Livonian War which went nowhere, repression and mass killings, and Moscow getting sacked, and from 1598 until Michael Romanov's Coronation, the Time of Troubles. Since Russia is past perhaps what could be called one of it's lowest points.
Russia still has control over the Don and Volga, Siberia is a place to expand into, but Serfdom looks to be a problem down the line.
Russia still has control over the Don and Volga, Siberia is a place to expand into, but Serfdom looks to be a problem down the line.
Let's put the fundamental things straight:
1st, after Peter's death Russia simply could not afford one more "Great" like him: country lost anywhere between 20 and 25% of the population, military budget was up to 90% of the state income, economy was in shambles due to the constant and incompetent government's meddling and the list can be continued.
2nd, Any suggestion that Peter I had any remote link to the liberalism is absurd. As Pushkin put it, "his laws had been written with a knout".
3rd, Peter's military reforms were disastrous in the terms of expense/result ratio. Not that he really introduced something truly new, there were more than 50 Western style regiments in the army of his father and the number probably grew during the reign of his brother. Peter's "innovations" mostly amounted to the introduction of the uniforms which were absolutely unsuitable for the Russian climate and adopting the worst tactical methods out of the available list. Death rate from the natural causes was terrible and mass deaths from malnutrition and bad living conditions had been starting even before the recruits were arriving to their units (quite often they had been marched there in chains to prevent desertion).
It does not but (a) Peter was looking exclusively for the German marriages of his children and (b) list of the options was not too big.
The French marriage was suggested for Elizabeth as well but an idea did not work out by a number of reasons. Among other things, France was a traditional ally of the Ottomans and Swedes and then there was, of course, an issue of religion, conversion into Catholicism was not acceptable for the Russian side, and status, as a grandson of a king Louis was just Serene Highness while daughter of an emperor was Imperial Highness. Then, why are you going to assume that marriage to the French candidate was going to produce any miracles in Russia? In OTL he was quite unimpressive figure.
Most probably no.
Why is it assumed that all problems could be resolved by "a heavier migration of European to Russia"? To start with, Russia of that time was (population wise) predominantly European and migration from the Western Europe was more or less dictated by the economic and military needs. An idea that a Westerner possesses some superior knowledge just by a virtue of being a Westerner had been pushed through by Peter I but within few decades after his death it was openly mocked as preposterous.
What would make sense is not to fight in these coalitions at all. This would surely save hundreds thousands of lives and for keep the "individuals moral" high there were always Ottomans, Persia and Sweden.
How about:
(a) The 1st three Romanov Tsars having a good health.
(b) Peter dying early (or being killed while a child) while his elder step-brother, Ivan V, living longer (being healthier) and having the male children, not just the daughters?
This would allow a more natural development, instead of the crazy and ruinous Peter's reforms. If we just stick to (b) then a prolonged and uncontested regency of Princess Sophia would continue through the reign of Ivan V, which means that Vasily Golitsin is de-facto "Prime Minister" who is trying to push through a number of the important reforms like abolition of serfdom, the promotion of religious toleration, and the development of industrial enterprises (natural development, unlike those enforced by Peter). No extreme cruelty associated with Peter's reign and probably no drastic loss of the population. Anyway, if at least limited abolition of serfdom happens (let's say it is rolled back to one of pre-Godunov's time) that the early natural industrialization of Russia becomes possible because there is a pool of free people available for hiring. In OTL Peter's "reforms" in the industrialization area were based upon slave labor force and managed to screw up general mentality up to such a degree that by the time of Catherine II even the merchants (potential "capitalists"
) could not imagine an alternative to the serf/slave-based labor force. Not to mention that most of the enterprises ended up in the hands of nobility (the only people who could have "labor force") - mostly people with a limited competence in business and economy. Hence a delayed creation of the credit institutions, absence of interest in the renovations, absence of a private initiative (unless it involved an opportunity to suck from the state's treasury) and a limited interest in production of the consumer goods. Modernization of the Russian army would continue but, again, in a more natural way which takes into an account specifics of the Russian climate and culture. The OTL conquests would most probably happen but with a country better prepared and as such less costly.
Economy would be better oriented toward the internal markets (instead of importing the manufacturing products) and to those of the Asia. Which would mean a lesser dependency from Britain as a trade partner (with the money
).