WI - Russian Empire gains access to the Indian Ocean

Russia can't just kill off its own protectorates. One thing that's often forgotten is that Russia tended to turn their conquests into protectorates, something akin to Britain's princely states. And if Russia tries to kill off the population of the region, well, their protectorates would instantly ask for British support.
As I've mentioned,it depends on how much Russia needs the land and how much resistance there is.If the region's already up in flames and Russia really needs it,then chances are that Russia's gonna turn Afghanistan into another Circassia.It's also likely that the Russians will try to bribe certain tribes into supporting them while wiping out only the ones that are hostile.Unless the British are gonna back the revolt up with an army,there's not much they can do either.
 
About railway. Trans-Caspian Railway was built between 1879-1886 (if my memory don't lie). The railway was very important as Russia needed Central Asian cotton (aside from military purpose). Indeed this route become commercially success that may entrepreneurs wanted to expand the route to Tashkent by their money. So if Russian Empire is expanded to Central Asia earlier, Trans-Caspian railway will be built much sooner. Because ACW messed cotton marked and Russia would want cheaper Central Asian cotton. Once you TCRailway built till Ashgabad, it is not far to reach Indian Ocean. As i said it will be commercially important line to import spice and other commodities from East Asia.
Not far = railway across whole of Iran or Afghanistan + Pakistan.

Afghanistan has never had a cross country railway, the Iranian route is approx 1600 km of track (and was only completed in 2001) and has to traverse some really difficult country (as would Afghanistan).

If Russia has a warm water port it also has to have a significant hinterland to make it worthwhile. Which means war with British.
 
Problem is: such a port is indefensible. The British or the French can just seize it any day of the week.

More so than a Singapore or a Hong Kong in relative terms? (value of location/population/etc.)

That depends on A) Whose fighting and on which side B) Power of Abyssinia C) Importance of 'Russian Djibouti' in the grand scheme of things and D) Forces Russia has posted and forces her enemies are willing to deploy.

If we accept that Russia is strong/lucky enough to get Djibouti and a bridge to Abyssinia, it will funnel funds and influence into its Orthodox brother-nation, meaning its likely other European powers will be kept away from Eritrea and Somalia (northern Somalia anyway). This gives the Russian port fair protection from the land, its surrounded by a friendly nation that's hardly a cake walk to take down, especially if the Abyssianian army is getting rifles and instructors. Defence from the sea? Much trickier certainly. Its depends on how Russia views Djibouti. As the much vaunted warm water port that could try to fortify its heavily (an African Port Arthur) or it might lose meaning very quickly and become a colonial backwater. What of its naval compliment? Likewise it could end up home to some shiny new cruisers to show off Russian globetrotting power in the Indian Ocean or a retirement home for some banged up old ironclads used to scare off Zanzibari pirates from the trade lanes.

French support for the Djibouti project is probably nessecary as Britain isn't going to green light a Russian outpost at the neck of the Red Sea. This suggests a Franco-Russian alliance which greatly helps protect Djibouti in a hypothetical war by drawing off British forces in Africa (Mediterranean, West Africa) and the Indian Ocean (Indochina, Pacific)

I don't deny its vulnerability in a *Great War scenario facing Britain for instance but does that mean its not worth the effort in peacetime? At least by the Victorian standards of imperial glory and tapping the Dark Continent, plus political-religious motivations.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What if the Russian Empire managed to gain access to the Indian Ocean by conquering most of Afghanistan and either at minimum Iranian Balochistan or at maximum all of Balochistan (the latter in OTL currently divided between Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan)?

What effect would Russian control of the ports at Chabahar in the minimum ATL scenario or Chabahar plus Gwadar and Jiwani in the maximum ATL scenario have had on Russia prior to WW1 and later on under the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

Additionally what impact would the lost of Iranian Balochistan have had on Iran given it was a largely Sunni Muslim region ruled by a Shia state?
For one, Russia could presumably tax all land traffic going through its territory, no? Indeed, that could give it a lot of revenue once China and India begin developing considering that all land routes between China/India and the rest of Eurasia go through Russia.

Also, as a side question--might it not be a better course of action for Russia to avoid Bolshevism during WWI, to become a dictatorship in the 1920s or 1930s, and to make a grab for Iran in the 1940s? After all, this will also give Russia access to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

Or, alternatively, you could have Peter the Great's 1717 Khiva expedition succeed and go on from there, no?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
46942235.jpg
47e51eaf6a837e22070b15d10030ae4deae859cf8086fe885f19be7c81066362.jpg


just-mongols_o_2062495.jpg
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Russia can't just kill off its own protectorates. One thing that's often forgotten is that Russia tended to turn their conquests into protectorates, something akin to Britain's princely states. And if Russia tries to kill off the population of the region, well, their protectorates would instantly ask for British support.
Frankly, a better move for Russia would be to try educating the local populations of these areas. After all, the Soviet Union's success in educating (in terms of massively increased literacy, et cetera) Central Asia's population in our TL resulted in many Central Asians adopting a "Sovok" identity and resisting separatism until after the August 1991 coup attempt.
 
Last edited:
Rather than going for Balochistan, I wonder if Russia could have more success by trying to take Armenia and Mesopotamia off the Ottoman Empire? A warm water port in Kuwait City is probably easier to access than Karachi and less susceptible to the Brits– however, hostile control of the Straits of Hormuz could still block Russian access to the Pacific.

Secondly, a question. If Russia gets a Indian Ocean port and aren't in danger of losing it, will they move the capital there like they did with Saint Petersburg?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Rather than going for Balochistan, I wonder if Russia could have more success by trying to take Armenia and Mesopotamia off the Ottoman Empire? A warm water port in Kuwait City is probably easier to access than Karachi and less susceptible to the Brits– however, hostile control of the Straits of Hormuz could still block Russian access to the Pacific.

Armenia is certainly possible with a more successful WWI for Russia. However, as for Mesopotamia, annexing it would create a huge salient for Russia which Russia probably wouldn't want. Plus, Britain would probably still be hostile to it since Mesopotamia is full of oil.

Indeed, a better move for Russia might be to somehow avoid the Bolshevik Revolution during WWI, to become a dictatorship during the Great Depression, and to make a grab for Persia in the late 1930s or 1940s. Sure, this would mean war with Britain, but Russia should be sufficiently prepared for a 1 to 1 war with Britain by that point in time.

Secondly, a question. If Russia gets a Indian Ocean port and aren't in danger of losing it, will they move the capital there like they did with Saint Petersburg?

In regards to Kuwait City, this would probably be unlikely due to its vulnerability.
 
For one, Russia could presumably tax all land traffic going through its territory, no? Indeed, that could give it a lot of revenue once China and India begin developing considering that all land routes between China/India and the rest of Eurasia go through Russia.

Also, as a side question--might it not be a better course of action for Russia to avoid Bolshevism during WWI, to become a dictatorship in the 1920s or 1930s, and to make a grab for Iran in the 1940s? After all, this will also give Russia access to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

Or, alternatively, you could have Peter the Great's 1717 Khiva expedition succeed and go on from there, no?
What land traffic? China and India don't trade with Europe over land routes. They'd continue to use the Suez rather than divert their trade through central Asia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What land traffic? China and India don't trade with Europe over land routes. They'd continue to use the Suez rather than divert their trade through central Asia.
How cheap is sea traffic in comparison to land traffic? About the same?
 
Sea traffic is the most cost efficient way to transport stuff over long distances. For land traffic across Russia to even be a consideration you'd need a HUGE increase in the rail system, and also going to standard gauge to avoid the issues with transferring loads, switching wheel sets etc.
 
Afghanistan seems like the best scenario for a port in terms of ease of use and ease of holding onto it (keeping in mind nowhere is going to be particularly easy to hold). Russia will send settlers in to the region to have a better hold on it--if the Empire collapses in this scenario the Russian settlers probably flee or are killed.

EDIT: and Britain starts funding opposition groups, making claims on the region, what have you, so Russia may not even hold the region for long. Honestly Russia doesn't have good odds of holding a port for a significant amount of tine...
 
Afghanistan seems like the best scenario for a port in terms of ease of use and ease of holding onto it (keeping in mind nowhere is going to be particularly easy to hold). Russia will send settlers in to the region to have a better hold on it--if the Empire collapses in this scenario the Russian settlers probably flee or are killed.

EDIT: and Britain starts funding opposition groups, making claims on the region, what have you, so Russia may not even hold the region for long. Honestly Russia doesn't have good odds of holding a port for a significant amount of tine...

How can Afghanistan be the best place for a port when they're landlocked?
 
Maybe he meant Afghanistan + Balochistan?

I figured as much, just felt the need to be a little facetious.

Anyhow, the problem with a Turkestan-Afghan-Baloch railway (Turkafba for brevity) would would be required to service such a port would be that it would have to cover an immense distance. Ignoring the usual distance of everything past the Urals to the European Russian metropole, the mountain range that runs through the centre of Afghanistan would probably be too difficult (and expensive) to blast through with 19th century technology. So the railway would have to go around the range, increasing distance considerably, whilst being under threat from local bandits. The Turkafba solution to the 'warm-water port' problem doesn't seem to be the wisest economically. Not to mention the risk from the British. The risk is disproportionate to the reward, so I don't see a rational Russian state doing this, especially given that they have other better options. Even if they implemented this Turkafba idea, it wouldn't have any return.

Let's consider all the directions the Russians can effectively expand:

-East Asia (Manchuria/Korea)
-The Transcarpathian/Balkan region
-Persia/Indian Ocean

The Indian Ocean route appears tempting because it's the only one that reaches an 'open sea'. However, the infrastructure difficulties are too much. Whilst Persia becomes a significant prize, especially when oil is struck, there is a lot of risk of conflict with the British and (more importantly) the population might be a bit too big for Russia to bite off.

East Asia seems to be the path of least resistance, but also becomes an issue once the Anglo-Japanese alliance is signed, as the two powers work in tandem to contain Russia. Nevertheless, Manchuria is very valuable, as is Korea, although East Asians will swamp the Russians in the Far East demographically. However I don't consider this to be a 'dealbreaker' for the Russian Empire. The bigger difficulty here is that East Asia is oriented in the direction of the minority of Russia's trade in this period.

IMHO the Balkan direction was the most rational for Russia to expand. Some of the locals there were more welcoming to Russian presence than the Persians or Chinese/Koreans were, their primary rivals were on the decline (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire), and a port on the Mediterranean would allow barely-restricted trade with the rest of the world, and (in peacetime) beyond due to the presence of Suez. There was obviously a lot of symbolic importance in Constantinople/Tsargrad, but IMHO the desire for Russia to conquer it was primarily motivated by geopolitical considerations, as it would allow the Russians to 'break out' of the Black Sea into the Mediterranean, increasing Russia's power projection significantly, whilst making the Black Sea an uncontested Russian lake, unlike during the Crimean War.
 
Top