Would Constantinople have been the new Russian Capital?

Constantinople as New Russian Capital?

  • Absolutely

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Possibly

    Votes: 42 40.8%
  • Never

    Votes: 43 41.7%
  • No! Britain will never let it happen! Rule, Brittania!

    Votes: 10 9.7%

  • Total voters
    103
This flies completely in the face of the historical behavior of the Russian Empire where Eastern Orthodox, whatever their ethnicity were considered the best guarantee against Muslim reconquest of a frontier territory or colonists of land emptied of Muslims. See the settlement of Bulgarians and Gagauz in Besarabia or the settlement of Georgians and Armenians in Abkhazia. In fact, the most likely outcome for the settlement of any newly conquered territory would be for the colonists to come from the nearest Orthodox territory, in this case mostly Bulgarians and Greeks.

Wasn't at least the Bulgarian coast slightly Turkified/Islamized though
 
The northern part was to a large extent. And based on the general Russian practice if those Turks left, they would be mainly replaced with Bulgarians and Greeks.

If they filled it with Greeks, any situation where the Balkans get carved away from Russia and released as independent states later on would be fairly interesting
 
most of the natives of what would be renamed constantinople are now Sunni Turks, and do not wan't a Russian Orthodox Tsar ruling over them
Well to be fair, Sunni Turks did not even make up a majority in Constantinople until the early 20th century. Prior to that it was very cosmopolitan with orthodox Greeks still making up a rather sizeable majority.
 
The Russians regarded the Ukrainians (called Little Russians at the time) as part of the Russian nation and it was considered best if the entire nation used the same language. Otherwise, they did not give the Russians (then called Greater Russians) any preference in the resettlement of new territory and the majority of settlers in New Russia were Ukrainians.

I mentioned Ukrainians in response to the claim of the Russian Empire not having any qualms with those of the Orthodox faith.


Not really. It was one of the most multicultural regions in the Russian Empire.

Because the Russian empire actively attempted to Russify it. The area went from there being no Russians, to an ethnic Russian population of just under 20%.
 
I mentioned Ukrainians in response to the claim of the Russian Empire not having any qualms with those of the Orthodox faith.
Not to the extent to prevent them for resettling new territories.




Because the Russian empire actively attempted to Russify it. The area went from there being no Russians, to an ethnic Russian population of just under 20%.
If they wanted to Russify the region, they would have allowed only Russians to settle there. The reality is that the Russian Empire wanted to repopulate the former Ottoman territory in southern Bessarabia and invited different people (and not just Eastern Orthodox) to settle there. There were far more Ukrainians than Russians (and Russians were only 8% of the population in 1897, not 20%) settled in Besarabia, for example.
 
I wouldn't put it past the tsars to try and set up a new Byzantine Empire but they would never make Constantinople their capital. It was way too far from their political heartland for one thing...

teg
 
Not to the extent to prevent them for resettling new territories.

Like I said, the Russian Empire did have problems with those of the Orthodox faith. That they didn't forcibly resettle them doesn't negate that.

If they wanted to Russify the region, they would have allowed only Russians to settle there. The reality is that the Russian Empire wanted to repopulate the former Ottoman territory in southern Bessarabia and invited different people (and not just Eastern Orthodox) to settle there. There were far more Ukrainians than Russians (and Russians were only 8% of the population in 1897, not 20%) settled in Besarabia, for example.


According to 1817-census, Bessarabia was populated by 86% Romanians (Moldovans), 6.5% Ukrainians, 1.5% Russians (Lipovans) and 6% other ethnic groups. 80 years later, in 1897, the ethnic structure was very different: only 56% Romanians (Moldovans), but 11.7% Ukrainians, 18.9% Russians and 13.4% other ethnic groups.

Ion Nistor / Istoria Basarabiei. Editie si studiu bio-bibliografic de Stelian Neagoe / Bucuresti, Editura HUMANITAS, 1991

That's the citation for those statistics from Wikipedia. I can't find a copy of the source online, so I trust you have your own source which counters this?
 
Last edited:
Ion Nistor / Istoria Basarabiei. Editie si studiu bio-bibliografic de Stelian Neagoe / Bucuresti, Editura HUMANITAS, 1991

That's the citation for those statistics from Wikipedia. I can't find the source online, so I trust you have your own source which counters this?
Yes, the actual results of the census. They are available here, though in Russian. The main ethnic groups were Moldovans and Romanians 48%, Ukrainians 20%, Russians 8%.
However did the 1817 census include the same territory as the one in 1897? In 1817, southern Besarabia (Budjak) was almost uninhabited and it was here where the main settlement occurred.
 
However did the 1817 census include the same territory as the one in 1897? In 1817, southern Besarabia (Budjak) was almost uninhabited and it was here where the main settlement occurred.

I'd think that the 1817 census would have included all of Bessarabia, as it was conducted after Russia conquered it, and before they lost it after the Crimean war.
 
If they wanted to Russify the region, they would have allowed only Russians to settle there. The reality is that the Russian Empire wanted to repopulate the former Ottoman territory in southern Bessarabia and invited different people (and not just Eastern Orthodox) to settle there.

Case in point, even Germans settled there.
siedlungsgebiete-russlandde.jpg


One of my classmates was a descendant of Bessarabia Germans.
 
A permanent Russian ally, easier for the international community to swallow, and forever keeps the Bosporus open for the Russians.

Makes alot of sense.
I really like the idea. How about reviving Byzantium as kind of a "lesser partner" for Russia (which claimed Roman legacy)?
 
It is separated from the Russian mainland and too vulnerable to be the Russian capital.

Too vulnerable? I have seen other people arguing here on the forum that Constantinople is the city in the world that is most difficult to conquer. It might be a problem that it is not centrally located in the empire, but the same was to some extent true for St. Petersburg.
 
Too vulnerable? I have seen other people arguing here on the forum that Constantinople is the city in the world that is most difficult to conquer.

It was in the middle ages and the ancient world, but times changed.
Logistics and buffer zones became much more important than walls.

It might be a problem that it is not centrally located in the empire, but the same was to some extent true for St. Petersburg.

St. Petersburg is still part of the Russian mainland which makes it more defendable than potential capitals that were not.
 
I agree with the general consensus that Russia would never make Constaninople it's main offical capital but it would be the third city of the Empire (after St. Petersburg and Moscow) and a major trade and financial hub. However considering the culutral, religious and political significance of Constantinople the Palace of Blachernae is going to get restored and Topkapi demolished and then as travel gets easier later in the century and especially when Russia manages to build a railway linking Constantiople to European Russia Blachernae could become a Winter Palace for the Tsars and they would definitely be keen to celebrate Easter Mass in the Hagia Sofia. So while it would never become the offical capital and the administration would remain in St. Petersburg's I think the Tsars would spend a lot of time there.
 
I don't think this is the correct PoD to accomplish this, although I'm just going to wing it here. Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps, instead, Russia manages to succeed a bit more and creates a stalemate. I'm not sure how, but they manage to cause the Serbs and Bulgarians to actually revolt against the Ottomans and a stalemate is reached in the Balkans. Eventually, Bulgaria gets its independence (probably with its smaller borders). Russia doesn't gain territory anywhere, but they don't lose anything.

Fast forward to a likely inevitable Russo-Turkish war, and from a stronger initial position Russia's gain are even greater. This is when Russia would march into Constantinople before any intervention can be organized. As long as the situation on the ground remains under Russian control, even if any treaty is not recognized by other powers at first, the distracted world powers might not intervene for long enough.

Either that, or Russia is rebuked again. They gain more in Armenia and San Stefano Treaty Bulgaria might come into effect, but no one recognizes Constantinople has been conquered and war is threatened. Maybe or maybe not Russia backs down here, but they still eye it.

If WW1 evolves... similarly (Germany's rise occurs similarly, threatening Great Britain's control of the sea irrevocably pushes them towards France and Russia), and a stronger Russia comes out (the revolution would have to be averted, of course) of the war, they'd probably end up with Constantinople de facto as their spoils of war. The treaty of Sevres was drawn up after the war, so there won't necessarily be a an International zone.

This would involve a lot of parallelism, and the prospect of an allied Bulgaria does change things a bit, but the overall larger picture shouldn't be impacted so much as to prevent this from happening. Russia just needs to do a little better in each of those wars.

Now, as to whether Russia would make it its capital? Probably a ceremonial of some sort. For it to be a capital, it would probably encompass all of eastern Thrace and the Mamara region just so it wouldn't be an isolated spit of land. (And, in this situation, Greece likely has Ionia to "make up" in it losing Thrace to Bulgaria/Russia, so it even more friendly territory nearby. I wouldn't doubt that the Tsar would set up some kind of semipermanent residence though. ...It'd make it interesting if it eventually lead to a multicapital system of some kind, even if it just means that the Tsar spends x amount of time in the various palaces throughout the nation.
 
Top