WI:Peter the Great makes site of Rostow on the Don to St Petersburg

What if Peter the Great has all his focus on the South against Crimean Tatars and Ottoman Empire and start building his St Petersburg at the site of Rostw,in this ATL he doesn't join the Great Northern War.
With the Capital at Rostow Russia keeps Focus on Ottoman Empire Persia and Central Asia.
IMO Sweden could be longer powerfull in altic Region
Perhaps a more stable Poland_Lithuania
Earlier decline Ottoman Empire.
Any suggestions
 
Why would he change his focus? Peter the Great was determined to increase the connection between Russia and Western Europe and in order to do that, he needed a Baltic presence; the famed “window to the west.”
 
The issue is that the Turks will still control the physical connection overseas to the West. While ideas can still get through, trade and ships cannot.
Whereas at St. Petersburg the Oresund is controlled by a Russian ally. Furthermore shipyards on the Baltic have easier access to better timber (generally timber from colder climates will be denser and better for shipbuilding, with some exceptions like southern Live Oak). Thus a Baltic capital allows much more access and power projection to the west in the long run.
 
Why would he change his focus? Peter the Great was determined to increase the connection between Russia and Western Europe and in order to do that, he needed a Baltic presence; the famed “window to the west.”

To start from the end, the term “window to the west” had been coined by an Italian visiting Russia during the reign of Anna. Attribution it to Peter is a popular anachronism. And, anyway, the normal people are using the doors for going somewhere. :)

Then, Peter was not focused on Baltic direction until he found that there are no allies to join his further anti-Ottoman adventures (the Great Ottoman War was over and everybody was getting ready for the new major European War). Moving South had clear practical sense because successful elimination of the Crimean Khanate would pacify the Southern border and open for settlement new fertile lands. Further success against the Ottomans would force then to open the Straits for the naval trade (as happened in OTL) simplifying Russian exports from the new Southern territories.

As far as connection with the Western Europe was involved, it already existed, was quite extensive and possession of a part on the Baltic Sea had nothing to do with it. How did Peter get all his "Western" ideas and friends when he was young? All these foreigners lived in Russia either as the merchants or as government's employees.

Sweden was not blocking Russian communication, it was just taking the custom dues for the merchandise passing through its Baltic ports and well after the GNW practically all Russian exports/imports had been carried to the Russian ports by the foreign ships while the Baltic fleet had been happily rotting in Kronstadt. So what exactly would be the difference?

OTOH, emphasis on the Asian markets would provide growing Russian industry with the outlets for their products (as happened in the XIX during the Great Game). As it was, for more than a century Russia stuck with being supplier of the raw materials and buyer of the final products produced by the "West".
 
The issue is that the Turks will still control the physical connection overseas to the West. While ideas can still get through, trade and ships cannot.

Unless you have an agreement like Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca allowing merchant traffic through the Straits. Which was a result of the successful war.


Furthermore shipyards on the Baltic have easier access to better timber (generally timber from colder climates will be denser and better for shipbuilding, with some exceptions like southern Live Oak).

Which would be important if there was significant Russian merchant fleet. But it did not exist until XIX century. Neither did availability of all that timber do anything good to the Baltic Fleet. 1st, it was staying near the major river and, as a result, rotting. 2nd, it's 1st expedition outside Baltic happened only during the reign of Catherine II and demonstrated that the ships had been in a very bad shape: some of them did not make it out of the Baltic Sea, at least one fall apart when reached Britain and most of the rest had to pass through considerable repairs while staying there. Even the ships for the 1st Russian circumnavigation (early XIX) had been bought in Britain.


Thus a Baltic capital allows much more access and power projection to the west in the long run.

Whatever "power projection to the west" took place, it was happening by land thus making this argument rather irrelevant. OTOH, St-Petersburg was a subject of the Swedish attacks for most of the XVIII (usually, in the most inconvenient moments). And, BTW, most of the Russian territorial expansion (except for the Partitions) was happening not to the west but to the South and East.

Actually, Peter returned to these directions in OTL: he fought campaigns both against the Ottomans while still being at war with Sweden and Persia immediately after the GNW.
 
What if Peter the Great has all his focus on the South against Crimean Tatars and Ottoman Empire and start building his St Petersburg at the site of Rostw,in this ATL he doesn't join the Great Northern War.
With the Capital at Rostow Russia keeps Focus on Ottoman Empire Persia and Central Asia.
IMO Sweden could be longer powerfull in altic Region
Perhaps a more stable Poland_Lithuania
Earlier decline Ottoman Empire.
Any suggestions

As far as I know, St. Petersburg was closer to the West and the population centre of early 18th century Russia. Unless the Ukraine and the Don regions are populated much earlier that is going to be hard. And especially if the Army is not reformed like Peter did. OTL you could get some victories in the Ukraine but after reforming the Russian Army the Russians could successfully hit Moldova, Walachia and Bulgaria which if victorious resulted in a quicker Ottoman defeat with favourable terms.
 
As far as I know, St. Petersburg was closer to the West and the population centre of early 18th century Russia. Unless the Ukraine and the Don regions are populated much earlier that is going to be hard.

Concentration on the Southern direction more or less assumes earlier version of the conquests made by Catherine II. Of course, Rostov-on-Don was somewhat more "border town" than St-Petersburg but if the Crimean Khanate is annexed then nothing specifically wrong with that location. In a long-run it could be less exposed to the enemy attack than St-Petersburg.


And especially if the Army is not reformed like Peter did.

Russian army was reformed by Peter's predecessors. He just continued the process. Having Swedes as the main opponent shaped his army in a way which proved to be unproductive against the Ottomans but, as the future events during the reign of Anna demonstrated, there was no need in any dramatic changes to achieve consistent victories. Nothing unrealistic in modifying to the tactics used by Rumiantsev either. Not to mention that experience of Prince Eugene already was available. The only thing really needed was to use brains instead of foolishly sticking to the worst of the "western" practices developed for the different situations.

OTL you could get some victories in the Ukraine but after reforming the Russian Army the Russians could successfully hit Moldova, Walachia and Bulgaria which if victorious resulted in a quicker Ottoman defeat with favourable terms.

Well, yes. However the critically important thing was to get the Khanate out of circulation.
 
Taking the question at face value:

I suspect that the center of population in Russia would pull southward more.

Moscow might fall further behind than OTL did vs StPB as it would be further from the center of activity.

Ukraine would become a somewhat more ethnically integrated part of the country with a large influx of Russians to their border.

Wallachia, Bessarabia, Transylvania, and Bulgaria may become part of a Russian Empire focused more on the Black Sea than the Baltic. Functioning as TTLs Poland/Baltic States. It would give the South-facing Russians a more defensible Western border with the Austrians.

Poland and Lithuania would have less pressure.

Sweden may linger as a stronger power for longer.

Finland probably gets to keep Karelia since it wouldn't be needed as a buffer for the capital.

The road to invade Russia would trend much further southward instead of into the teeth of Russian Winters. That could possibly change the Napoleonic Wars outcome, but its still going to be brutally cold.

A reconquest of Constantinople in the late 19th century could be a thing. That would be THE major strategic desire of a Black Sea focused empire and the religious overtones for an Orthodox state to get it would be an incredible morale boost to the position of the Tsars at that time. I could see them resettling the Turks in the same way they did the Germans in Konigsberg after OTL WW2.

In that situation (a total destruction of the Ottoman Empire) stronger ties between Greeks and Russians could see Greece retain its Eastern Aegean cities and Cyprus afterwards.

No Armenian Genocide if the Ottomans are completely dismantled by the Russians and a much enlarged Armenian "state". A rump Turkish state in Ankara? Maybe a Pontic Greek client state? A Kurdish client? I think they'd be pushing it to absorb just Thrace and Armenia, but imperial ambitions being what they are they may want the whole of Anatolia.

Colonialism in the Middle East would probably start a few decades earlier with Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, etc. being in a more chaotic situation.

No Ottomans and a stronger Russia ahead of WW1 may make the Austrians less interested in fighting. Are the Poles part of the Austro-German alliance then?

Without the humiliation of losing to Japan in Sakhalin and with a prolonged focus on much weaker opponents to the South and in Central Asia as well as the religious bump from retaking the Hagia Sofia there may not be the same openings for the Russian Revolution to take place when it did.
 
Simply not going to happen. Saint Petersburg was specifically a port connecting with the West, which is why it had a western (Dutch) name.

Could he have a different focus and build his new capital at Rostov-on-the-Don? Sure. But it would be a very different city because of its location and that different focus. In particular, it's name would be different. Possibly Petrog(o)rad, or Svyatpyetrogorod or even something like Pyetrbad if he wanted the name to reflect the orientation. Oh. Or Gagiopetropolis, or some such. (Russian not having an ' h'...

Specific spellings above will likely be wrong in details.
 
Top