WI/AHC: A Wanked Russian Empire

(a) The 1st three Romanov Tsars having a good health.
My favorite here is a combination of Feodor III not having horse riding accident in 1674 AND Agafia Grushetskaya's health being swapped with her sister Anne (who managed 3 healthy sons).
That means less of Golytzine's nose sticking in stuff he was not meant to, cause sometimes he was almost just as bad as the opposing party (though hard to top Naryshkins as THE idiots of the era). Probably better Amur War outcome among other stuff (my other pet knockoff).
 
What about a Danish-Russian Union, Peter I original planned to marry one of his daughters to the Danish crown prince, instead she married the Duke of Gottorp and became mother of Peter III. The only reason the Danish marriage didn't happen was because the Danish Royal family wasn't pragmatic enough, but honestly if the queen dies earlier than in OTL, the King would be more likely to accept such a offer. Such a union would be likely to conquer Sweden or simply gain the crown through peaceful means (the Danish King was a potential candidate to the Swrdish crown). This would result in Russia completely controlling the Baltic Sea and having full access to the Atlantic. There's of course a religious problem, but as long as the Russian Czar doesn't try to remove the Lutheran state churches in the Nordic Countries, a compromise should becablecto be reached.
 
@Jürgen A Russia thats bogged down in Scandinavia and Central Europe would have no strength to expand elsewhere, however. I imagine the Ottomans would be a persistent threat in Ukraine and the Caucasus.
 
Frankly I suspect that giving Russia control of another territory or winning another war are not actually that useful for producing a greater Russian empire. Russia won loads of wars. It was (and is) the largest nation in the world. Its population utterly dwarfed that of its European competitors by the late 19th and early 20th century even if it has much declined in relative terms since. And yet Russia punched well below its weight, with a relatively small economy which was dominated by foreign industry (Germany) or foreign finance (France and Britain). Its international influence is small, and almost always has been except for the Communist era - and then the costs of that influence proved to be too much for the Soviet Union to bear. Currently it is in full free fall for the most part: even in the former Soviet sphere the number of people learning Russia is dropping precipitously. Its scientific base has under performed, even when it was the largest in the world under the USSR. Its political system has only had a brief trend of international attractiveness in the Communist times, which again proved unsustainable.

What Russia needs is not more land nor more wars won. It needs peace, internal prosperity, good government, international respect and legitimacy. Simply presupposing a liberal and democratic reformist government to power is lazy, but something like that is very much what Russia would require, focusing internally and guarding the immense territorial gains that it made during the 18th and early 19th centuries.
 
What Russia needs is not more land nor more wars won. It needs peace, internal prosperity, good government, international respect and legitimacy. Simply presupposing a liberal and democratic reformist government to power is lazy, but something like that is very much what Russia would require, focusing internally and guarding the immense territorial gains that it made during the 18th and early 19th centuries.
Historically, Russia has expanded until it could not afford to expand any further, and then it collapsed. But that is the nature of Eurasian great powers. More land=more security. That's why Russia is so huge. There are no real natural borders Russia could attain to be entirely safe from the outside. And let's face it - Russia's historical enemies have not been known for leniency.

As a result, Russia has always been forced to invest in defense at the expense of everything else. The United States used this to its advantage perfectly in the Cold War.
 
My favorite here is a combination of Feodor III not having horse riding accident in 1674 AND Agafia Grushetskaya's health being swapped with her sister Anne (who managed 3 healthy sons).
That means less of Golytzine's nose sticking in stuff he was not meant to, cause sometimes he was almost just as bad as the opposing party (though hard to top Naryshkins as THE idiots of the era). Probably better Amur War outcome among other stuff (my other pet knockoff).

Well, personally I like Vasily Golistin, at least in theory (;)). He was instrumental in abolishing "mestnichestwo" and had some potentially good ideas (his ability to realize them even with a sympathetic ruler is anybody's guess): if the earlier emancipation of the serfs did happen, the butterflies are endless. And within a very short time Naryshkins managed to roll back most of the achievements of the last two reigns. Yes, rather hard to beat. :)

Of course, it can be argued that getting Kiev did not worth joining the anti-Ottoman war, especially when Tsardom was not prepared for it and that making Vasily commander-in-chief was not a good idea in general (but at that time and place Sophia did not have too many options). Well, making Potemkin commander-in-chief also was a terrible idea and Catherine did not even have an excuse of being pressured politically (unless his "I want St. George 1st class!" could pass as such ;)). Anyway, an idea of trying to attack the Crimea directly was strategically more sound than Peter's dances around Azov and nobody was making too much fuss about Munnich's failure to subdue the Khanate few decades later. Speaking of which, the strategic goal of the Golitsin's campaigns had been achieved: the Crimeans had been bottled within the peninsula instead of participating in campaigns against the PLC and Hapsburgs.

As for the Amur War, it can be different but this would mean a noticeably greater Russian military presence in the area. Anyway, the trade deal was reasonably satisfactory and removed one more potential theater of war which Russia hardly could afford at that time: even in the mid-XIX it was faster to reach Russian Pacific coast by sailing around Africa or across Atlantic and Pacific than by traveling on land. In ...er... "due time" the border was adjusted but by that time there were at least some Russian settlers in the nearby areas.
 
The Golitsin project is mentioned in some places, but whether this was a real thing or an urban/historical legend is not proven IIRC. At best it was moving from serfdom to tenant institution, and with conquests in the South/in Wild Field there is little he can do.
That said, in foreign policy he was just as capable as anyone, so stable Feodorine reign with him as a chancellor but without "Mazarin" factor is a net good.

Re. Amur War, I think and will think that with slightly better arrangement better borders (read: right to navigate Amur, which would help A LOT with settlements such as Okhotsk, since you now can transport bread from Baikal region by Amur) is possible.
 
The Golitsin project is mentioned in some places, but whether this was a real thing or an urban/historical legend is not proven IIRC. At best it was moving from serfdom to tenant institution, and with conquests in the South/in Wild Field there is little he can do.

IIRC (and don't quote me on that ;)) this project was more or less along the lines of substituting "pomestie" given for service with a regular salary. Formally, this land (unlike "votchina" size of which had been small) belonged to the state and could be taken back without any need of an excuse. What Peter did was to make it (don't remember if he did this formally but it does not matter) permanent as a compensation for a life-long mandatory military service. Now, if the nobility is a service class (as it meant to be) then, in theory, government can compensate service with an adequate regular salary leaving the nobles with a minimal amount of land in their possession and converting all peasants into the "state peasants" (which in OTL lived on the state-owned lands). And from that point all other steps are possible including them being free for hire as a labor force.

Of course, it is an open question where the government is going to get money necessary to pay the nobility: with no gold and silver found, yet, and with the limited exports both Tsardom and the early Russian empire had been rather short of cash (as in coin ) and, short of the greatly increasing exports and foreign trade even the state peasants paying taxes directly to the state are not a solution: they need to get cash somewhere. I don't think that the idea of the state bank and paper money would be practical in the late XVII but how about the early XVIII? Peter III proposed this idea during his short reign and Catherine II implemented it.

That said, in foreign policy he was just as capable as anyone, so stable Feodorine reign with him as a chancellor but without "Mazarin" factor is a net good.

It seems that the bed part is somewhat overplayed by his enemies but, AFAIK, the 1st hand reports from under Sophia's bed are not easily available. ;)

Re. Amur War, I think and will think that with slightly better arrangement better borders (read: right to navigate Amur, which would help A LOT with settlements such as Okhotsk, since you now can transport bread from Baikal region by Amur) is possible.

I'm not arguing against the principle. Just saying that at this time even the area near Baikal did not have enough settlers to support a significant military effort while the Chinese side brought there considerable numbers of troops.
 
both Tsardom and the early Russian empire had been rather short of cash (as in coin ) and, short of the greatly increasing exports and foreign trade even the state peasants paying taxes directly to the state are not a solution: they need to get cash somewhere.
That's why Baikal region, with its silver and gold mines, is an important thing.
http://fai.org.ru/forum/topic/34112-amurskaya-voyna-1680-1689/
A three-page discussion with the link to other discussion on topic.
 
@Jürgen A Russia thats bogged down in Scandinavia and Central Europe would have no strength to expand elsewhere, however. I imagine the Ottomans would be a persistent threat in Ukraine and the Caucasus.

The point is that gaining the Nordic countries in this manner, wouldn't make them bog around to any greater extent than they already did in OTL. As long as it was left a personal union the area would run itself, and give better access to trade and West European know-how. Of course if the Czar decides some kind of Russification policy, it will likely end up a anchor around the neck of Russia, but the most likely case are that local Stadtholders run Denmark-Norway (and maybe Sweden) for the Czar, and the local elite end up pretty much like the Baltic Germans, being recruited to the army and central administration, moving to Russia to set up business etc.

Of course a interesting element would be if Russia gained control over the Nordic countries in this manner, would be if Russia instead of pan-Slavism looked toward their shared "Viking" ancestry.
 
That's why Baikal region, with its silver and gold mines, is an important thing.
http://fai.org.ru/forum/topic/34112-amurskaya-voyna-1680-1689/
A three-page discussion with the link to other discussion on topic.

Very interesting discussion but, as far as gold mines are involved, isn't this time line a little bit too early? In the early XVIII even the gold of Ural was not known and Peter sent that insane expedition into the Central Asia on the rumors that there is gold somewhere in the area of Aral Sea.

But let's assume that information became available and was properly digested and reacted upon. Then, if this is a top priority, the adequate military resources should be sent into the area (preferably backed up by the settlers but the friendly locals also would do for a while) prior to all that mess started by the Cossacks. Manchu government could have greater numbers but these numbers never were above 10,000 (which was a lot against 300 - 500 on the Russian side), judging by some descriptions of their fighting methods and by the time it took to besiege Albazin (BTW, as you can see, configuration of its fortifications is quite "western" there would be no need in 1:1 parity. Of course, in the OTL the Chinese used "psychological pressure" by sending troops into the area but let's not forget the personality factor. Feodor Golovin clearly had very flexible backbone managing to stay on a good side of both Sophia and Peter but his adequacy for the positions he held under both regime is a big question mark and so is his personal bravery. His greatest naval "adventure" was to lead some galleys to Azov (AFAIK, no heroics during the campaign) but Peter made him admiral-general (well, the 1st one, Lefort, did not have even that). He was made the 1st Russian fieldmarshal without any record of the generalship and fled from Narva with Peter, which probably was the reason for becoming the 1st Russian count (title given by emperor Leopold on Peter's request) after which he never held a military command. As a head of the Russian diplomacy he takes questionable credit for the arrangement which led to the GNW. So, it seems that at Nerchinsk he simply freaked out. Fortunately for him, Sophia's government just wanted any peace on that border.


300px-Albasin2.jpg


BTW, by the time of the 2nd siege of Albazin there were, seemingly, numerous settlements around it (with an adequate amount of grain being produced).

To make the long story short, going this direction would be possible with a serious commitment perhaps even at the expense of other projects.
 
The Baikal region mines were discovered as early as 1670ies.

Also, Feodor did sent troops to Albazin under command of Sheremetev Sr. (whose military commander record is much better than that of Golovin, so he won't piss his pants at "skillful military display") - these troops were recalled by Sophia after Feodor's OTL death as they marched beyond Kazan. In long-living Feodor's world Sheremetev instead of Golovin would be heading the negotiations, and given that discovery of Baikal gold was reported to him back when he was Voivode of Tobolsk in 1676, he would have the stimulus to make the peace with China as profitable as possible, given the importance of the coin for the country.
 
Crazy as this might sound, I actually think a Russia-Wank would be a highly likely result of an enduring Napoleonic Europe, at least if it’s based on the understanding of Tilsit.

Oh sure, France will be the bigger winner in the short term, but even with all the plausible economic benefits of a victory, they’re still going to demographically grow at a slower rate than Russia. And with British influence curbed in continental Europe and Russia getting a free hand in the east (Prussia, the Balkans, what have you), the latter is in a very good position to fill the vacuum of French decline; combine that with the strong possibility of Alexander’s liberal reforms going better (due to no 1812 invasion), and the Ottomans being more vulnerable in general, and things are really looking good for the motherland.
 
Basically, how would you achieve and what would be the implications of a wanked Russian Empire? POD is after the coronation of the first Romanov Tsar.
Preventing German unification might significantly help in regards to this since Germany was arguably the most powerful rival that Russia had in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (until 1945 in our TL). If Germany isn't unified and the U.S. remains isolationist, then Russia's sheer population should ensure that it will be the most powerful country in the world once it finishes industrializing.
 
A window to the West early on and a Germany screw in the 18th century could get it done. Russia becomes a steamroller of sorts. France is probably allied with Britain sooner, so I don't think Russia can take over Europe. But they hold onto Alaska, Poland, East Prussia, Finland and perhaps Sweden, Constantinople and the Dardenelles.

Russia would have a huge ex pat community, because even with industrialization I dont think they will support high GDP per capita, at least compared to US.
 
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)

Russia sat on Sinkiang for a good chunk of the 19th century but accepted payment for leaving instead of annexation.
 
I’d say a Russian British friendship would be enough. If they can balance out the French and the Germans, Manchuria could go to Russia and the rest stays British. Add some modernization efforts and some enlightenment from the Brits to the Russians and presto: Britannia to rule the waves, Russia the land

Edit: forgot the Darnelles. Well have Constantinople go Russian, the other shore British. The east goes Greek the rest Turkish
 
Crazy as this might sound, I actually think a Russia-Wank would be a highly likely result of an enduring Napoleonic Europe, at least if it’s based on the understanding of Tilsit.

Personally, I think that this is not crazy at all. Statistics of the Russian manufacturing during period between Tilsit and 1812 seems to be quite impressive. Price of the bread fall down and an absence of the explosive growth of the military expenses (IIRC, something in the range of 400 - 500% by 1812) and huge human losses during the campaigns of 1812 - 14 would be quite beneficial. Also one has to keep in mind that as soon as Napoleonic danger was over the grateful Brits introduced the corn laws to protect their domestic grain production from the Russian imports.

Oh sure, France will be the bigger winner in the short term, but even with all the plausible economic benefits of a victory, they’re still going to demographically grow at a slower rate than Russia. And with British influence curbed in continental Europe and Russia getting a free hand in the east (Prussia, the Balkans, what have you), the latter is in a very good position to fill the vacuum of French decline; combine that with the strong possibility of Alexander’s liberal reforms going better (due to no 1812 invasion), and the Ottomans being more vulnerable in general, and things are really looking good for the motherland.

You don't even need French decline: France was not suppressing the Russian domestic production.
 
Top