WI : Ivan Petlin’s letter was translated?

The first unofficial Russian embassy, which was sent to Peking on September 1, 1618, was headed by the Tomsk Cossack Ivan Petlin and had as members two Buddhist lamas of Mongolian origin, was well as two Buryats – Kyzylov and Mundov. Thus, the first direct Russian-Chinese negotiations were held in Mongolian and Turkic. Ivan Petlin’s expedition became, in fact, the only relatively successful attempt to establish direct relations with the Chinese empire itself, which was then under the control of the Ming dynasty. We say the attempt was “relatively successful” because there were still problems with written documents. Although the parties understood one another at the talks, the message sent by the Chinese Emperor Wanli (1553-1620) and brought to Tomsk lay untranslated for nearly sixty years! Only in 1675, was Spafary, who had been sent to Peking as an ambassador, able to find a man in Tobolsk who could translate the general meaning of the letters. In the letter, the Chinese emperor proposed that Basil Shuisky open “green” bilateral trade between the two countries. This step was important given that China remained entirely closed to Europeans at the time...

Sources :
- https://russkiymir.ru/en/magazines/article/144506/
- https://akarlin.com/2014/05/a-very-brief-history-of-chinese-russian-relations/

In OTL, Tsar Alexis sent Baykov to the court of the Shunzhi Emperor to negotiate a treaty establishing regular trade between Moscow and Beijing in 1654. It failed as Baykov refused to kowtow and didn’t understand the Chinese tributary system. The first sino-russian treaty was signed in 1689 (treaty of Nerchinsk), after the Russian defeat of Albazino.

As a result, Russia and China only regulated their diplomatic and trade relations with the treaty of Kyakhta on 23 August 1727, which established the northern border of Mongolia (what was then part of the Qing-Russian border and opened the caravan trade from Kyakhta (Russian furs for Chinese tea) by Nikolai Spathari. It allowed for the establishment of what was in effect a Russian diplomatic presence in Beijing in the form of an ecclesiastical settlement there. Russia thereby became only the second European state after the Vatican to achieve a presence in Beijing. It did so moreover more than a century before any of the other European powers.

The POD is quite easy. Let’s imagine that this letter was translated into Russian or perhaps latin thanks to Matteo Ricci who arrived in 1601. This translated latter would improve the future diplomatic missions. The next envoys could use this letter to get an easier access to the Emperor or better understand the tributary system.

ITTL, instead of begging for trade, a direct access to the Emperor or at least to the Mongol Yamen (蒙古衙門), the Qing "Foreign department" will help the resolution of the future Amur disputes that will occur in 1640’s. The quicker establishment of sino-Russian relations, around 1630, could also lead to an higher interest in China and "Chinese studies"/orientalism in Russia during early 1700’s.

I can imagine Russian czars being curious about the Imperial bureaucracy of China and its meritocracy, or even copy parts of this complicated administration. Chinese military system would also suit Russia with cossacks acting similarly to banners. Porcelain, tea and Chinese aesthetics would enter Europe through Russia. Could Russia become more Chinese than European?

What do you think?
 

In OTL, Tsar Alexis sent Baykov to the court of the Shunzhi Emperor to negotiate a treaty establishing regular trade between Moscow and Beijing in 1654. It failed as Baykov refused to kowtow and didn’t understand the Chinese tributary system. The first sino-russian treaty was signed in 1689 (treaty of Nerchinsk), after the Russian defeat of Albazino.

As a result, Russia and China only regulated their diplomatic and trade relations with the treaty of Kyakhta on 23 August 1727, which established the northern border of Mongolia (what was then part of the Qing-Russian border and opened the caravan trade from Kyakhta (Russian furs for Chinese tea) by Nikolai Spathari. It allowed for the establishment of what was in effect a Russian diplomatic presence in Beijing in the form of an ecclesiastical settlement there. Russia thereby became only the second European state after the Vatican to achieve a presence in Beijing. It did so moreover more than a century before any of the other European powers.

The POD is quite easy. Let’s imagine that this letter was translated into Russian or perhaps latin thanks to Matteo Ricci who arrived in 1601. This translated latter would improve the future diplomatic missions. The next envoys could use this letter to get an easier access to the Emperor or better understand the tributary system.

ITTL, instead of begging for trade, a direct access to the Emperor or at least to the Mongol Yamen (蒙古衙門), the Qing "Foreign department" will help the resolution of the future Amur disputes that will occur in 1640’s. The quicker establishment of sino-Russian relations, around 1630, could also lead to an higher interest in China and "Chinese studies"/orientalism in Russia during early 1700’s.

I can imagine Russian czars being curious about the Imperial bureaucracy of China and its meritocracy, or even copy parts of this complicated administration. Chinese military system would also suit Russia with cossacks acting similarly to banners. Porcelain, tea and Chinese aesthetics would enter Europe through Russia. Could Russia become more Chinese than European?

What do you think?

To start with, the very idea of the Tzar and his government accepting the premise that Tsardom is anybody’s tributary and that Tsar’s ambassador is behaving as a subordinate figure is out of question. Simply would not happen by definition. Was not happening with HRE and othe Western contacts.

2nd, while trade with the luxury items was important for both sides it was not critical for any of them: tea did not become a common drink in Russia until well into the XVIII and Chinese could get furs elsewhere.

“Chinese studies” is a catchy modern term but the main interest was in the “Western studies” which started happening in the XVII century when the Russian military backwardness became a cause for the defeats in wars with PLC and Sweden. China was pretty much useless by that time as a source of the advanced military technology or military specialists. The Cossacks were Russian irregulars limited both in the numbers and usefulness and since the time of Michael Romanov the stress was on creation the Western-style regular troops.

As for the Chinese administration, its system was incompatible with the Russian system of mestnichestvo and soon after it was finally abolished by Fedor II, ideas of the administrative structures also had been coming from the Western direction.
 
2nd, while trade with the luxury items was important for both sides it was not critical for any of them: tea did not become a common drink in Russia until well into the XVIII and Chinese could get furs elsewhere.

So just as an aside, "Chinese tea for Russian furs" is a serious oversimplification of the Kyakhta trade. It's more like "Chinese tea and some other stuff for manufactured goods and livestock products" - from the 17th to the 19th c. Russia exported live cows and horses, leather and leather products, iron goods and textiles etc. The fur trade at Kyakhata wasn't as important as the RAC fur trade through Canton.

The Cossacks were Russian irregulars limited both in the numbers and usefulness and since the time of Michael Romanov the stress was on creation the Western-style regular troops.

Cossacks in Siberia were a crazy mix of things and people, but in the 17th c. at least they're mostly descendants of the European cossacks (Don and Ural). Siberian peoples and new settlers in Russian service (sluzhiliye), western POWs as militas (litva) and regular town streltsy are at that point still separate. By the end of the 17th c. most of that is rolled into cossacks (including foreign officers), by 19th c. into the line hosts.

In the 17th c. they did fine against Dzungars and others even in limited numbers, though. The Qing military had nothing much to teach them.
 
THE importance of Kyakhta trade and the like for TL is not in what is traded for what, the important thing is that Russia is buying Chinese goods, including luxury segment ones, for manufactured goods and livestock products and NOT for bullion like some Western powers did (opium trade was invented PRECISELY to compensate for having to pay in hard precious metal cash). That's some serious dealer potential.
Other than this, China is not much of interest, unless Russian government wants to act as a dealer with Western powers.
 
So just as an aside, "Chinese tea for Russian furs" is a serious oversimplification of the Kyakhta trade. It's more like "Chinese tea and some other stuff for manufactured goods and livestock products" - from the 17th to the 19th c. Russia exported live cows and horses, leather and leather products, iron goods and textiles etc. The fur trade at Kyakhata wasn't as important as the RAC fur trade through Canton.



Cossacks in Siberia were a crazy mix of things and people, but in the 17th c. at least they're mostly descendants of the European cossacks (Don and Ural). Siberian peoples and new settlers in Russian service (sluzhiliye), western POWs as militas (litva) and regular town streltsy are at that point still separate. By the end of the 17th c. most of that is rolled into cossacks (including foreign officers), by 19th c. into the line hosts.

In the 17th c. they did fine against Dzungars and others even in limited numbers, though. The Qing military had nothing much to teach them.
Quite agree (and I know that list of the traded items is incomplete) but as far as the Cossacks are involved I was answering to the statement that Russian military system, specifically Cossacks, could benefit from adopting the banner system. Not sure what would be advantages to start with (and the Cossacks had their “armies” organization anyway) and clearly that experience was not what the Russians had been looking for even in the 1630s, not to mention XVIII century.
 
THE importance of Kyakhta trade and the like for TL is not in what is traded for what, the important thing is that Russia is buying Chinese goods, including luxury segment ones, for manufactured goods and livestock products and NOT for bullion like some Western powers did (opium trade was invented PRECISELY to compensate for having to pay in hard precious metal cash). That's some serious dealer potential.
Other than this, China is not much of interest, unless Russian government wants to act as a dealer with Western powers.

IIRC, Russia, besides the luxury goods, was getting gold from China.
 
So, once we get past kow-towing requirement, we are looking on some serious cash as a dealer country.

Yes, but the "kow-towing requirement" was extremely serious for Tsardom as a matter of prestige and prestige was all important. Even in the 1740 a mistake in a written imperial title qualified as a treason and was punished by death.

The Tsardom's embassies to the West, including the HRE, had been driving their counterparts crazy by the endless discussions of the protocol which should guarantee that, even in the communications with the German Emperor are done on a completely equal basis in the terms of who is saying and doing what (why asking about Tsar's health and Emperor should stand up and take off his hat, etc.). An ambassador was Tsar's representative and if he kow-towed to anybody, this would mean that Tsar is a vassal of that person (which, indeed was Chinese view on the subject). Even in the XIX century the approach was the same: when general Yermolov went as an ambassador to Persia, he insisted that all traditional Persian diplomatic protocol (followed by the Brits and French) had been changed: Russian ambassador would not walk in the stockings, would seat only on a chair, etc. Of course, this was after the Persian defeat. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the "kow-towing requirement" was extremely serious for Tsardom as a matter of prestige and prestige was all important. Even in the 1740 a mistake in a written imperial title qualified as a treason and was punished by death.
I know this.
The second biggest problem is utter lack of interest of Russian government in Chinese affairs in 1660ies-1670ies (before Spataru's embassy) which indirectly resulted in screw up during Albazino wars.
 
Last edited:
Even in the XIX century the approach was the same: when general Yermolov went as an ambassador to Persia, he insisted that all traditional Persian diplomatic protocol (followed by the Brits and French) had been changed: Russian ambassador would not walk in the stockings, would seat only on a chair, etc. Of course, this was after the Persian defeat. ;)

Goncharov describes something similar with Putyatin's Nagasaki mission. During the first meeting, the Russian side cooperated a little bit (without taking boots off), but the moment they understood this was going to get dragged out they insisted on chairs and the whole thing.
 
Goncharov describes something similar with Putyatin's Nagasaki mission. During the first meeting, the Russian side cooperated a little bit (without taking boots off), but the moment they understood this was going to get dragged out they insisted on chairs and the whole thing.

Of course. Anything that could be considered as an affront to the Emperor's dignity would be remembered upon returning home. Only a great and quick success could justify cutting some corners. And you are talking about the "enlightened" mid-XIX. The mid-/late-XVII was much less forgiving in the matters of protocol. IIRC, until late XVII Russian ambassadors were not even permitted to say something on their own: they were provided with the explicit list of the possible scenarios and any unlisted situation required communication with Moscow and waiting for a new scenario. One may only imagine how irritating it was for the Western counterparts. :teary:
 
Top