Yeah, his successor is gonna want to seperate himself, and given McClellan's basically balancing between two extremes, there's gonna be pressure to pick one.
And I can imagine a lot of people are not amused at the Democrats living and let living.
Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
And I can imagine a lot of people are not amused at the Democrats living and let living.
Well, considering it's the CSA, their solution will probably be to start a war or something.
I know that it would be completely ASB, but the idea of Max winning a CSA-Mexican war and somehow taking back Texas is hilarious.
Last edited:
You laugh, but apparently taking more Mexican territory was a post-war plan of the OTL Confederate government.
This is all amazing information! I did have my own look at the Kulja Crisis, and do think that with the Qing overthrown (something Europe is only really getting a handle on TTL in 1867, news is slow and the Europeans were notoriously bad at really caring about internal Chinese politics) with the Russian forces on the ground in the East having the best take on what opportunities exist.
Starting more rail lines East is something I see being considered, especially with some events incoming. Though how pleased the Tsar and his ministers will be about some of it is an open question because much of this will be unsanctioned.
Though this does mean the Ural Railway will get a shot in the arm earlier instead of just purely private investment.
The long term population trends in Manchuria will be interesting. Doing some of my research for the 1890s beyond North America recently, and I've been learning there were efforts to get more Russians settled out east because of land problems in Russia proper. It was Witte (IIRC) who saw settlement out there as a sort of pressure valve to get the many unhappy peasants and who flooded the cities to work - and in doing so partially ended up radicalized - so the priorities of Russia could be met by this kind of ambitious project, especially as they will be paying attentions to efforts in America.
Money no, ambition, yes.
The mess that us Russian finances is a multifaceted hydra that I'm not sure I can find a way to unpack, but a different aspect of military spending does present itself. So I do think they will be building north rather than south to simplify things. There's going to be a response to future Chinese railway investment (which will take a different shape) so money going both ways is going to be seen as a must in Russia.
Interesting! I'm less well versed with Russian eastern settlement patterns, but that is something I would like to get more into. There's some massive changes coming in 1866 and beyond that will shape how Russia looks at the east - and not so coincidentally, how Britain views its security in the Pacific.
I have my own changes in mind (less in 1866 and more down the line) but the European tour in 1867 will be one to be remembered, if only because it is also one to be shared by a Chinese delegation to the courts of Europe!
The status of much of Central Asia is really up in the air right now. In theory, China controls what us modern Xinjiang, but in reality the region is deep in the Dungan Revolt currently. Tibet is a tributary of China, but is at best paying lip service to the new court in Nanjing and everyone knows it. That means that opportunistic agents in Russia could conceivably slice territory away, but it depends on the new dynasty being that willing to be accommodating in the 1870s. I do have a rough idea of where those borders will end up.
He's hardly bothering to even balance. He has no political instincts, and is largely trying to browbeat people into doing what he wants, which doesn't really work when you have a starting political base of zero. The cabinet he picked was a bit of an effort to make a unity cabinet from the position the Democrats were in leading up to the 1864 election, with a combination of Copperheads from loyal democratic states, and chosen men who were loyal to him. It's been less than ideal, but mostly he gets things done. However, he's very focused on legacy building as he's made peace with the South, and so wants to set up the country so that he can leave the machinery of government spinning with the idea of 1864 as the status quo.
His potential successors are very divided on that question. And many are starting to sharpen their knives in anticipation of 1868.
A future chapter is titled "And Furthermore, the Confederacy Must be Destroyed" which I hope gives you an idea of how many people feel about it
That or Texas will do what Texas does and have the Texas Rangers brutalize people on the border. While Richmond is eager for trade with Mexico, and by extension good relations with France, Austin won't always feel that way.
Well, some of the government wanted that. The Planter class, as I've learned, was not a monolith. Davis would be considered a moderate in that political base, but he was someone who had a full throated support for the Ostend Manifesto to buy Cuba, but had not advocated conquering all of Mexico. However, there were others who wanted more, and still coveted territory.
In the post-war world many will be expansionist minded, but they'll have to overcome the more Whiggish ideology of many of their counterparts who are looking only at their homes. The way the political lines will end up breaking is going to be very much based on who fell into the Fire Eater camp before and during the war, and men who were largely apathetic until secession.
So was the Golden Circle. Mind, it was less of a plan, more a fantasy, but....
Union Dixie intensifiesA future chapter is titled "And Furthermore, the Confederacy Must be Destroyed" which I hope gives you an idea of how many people feel about it
The irony of the CSA being stuck with Texas causing them headaches through being well, Texas, is appealing to me.
Also bear in mind, invading another country is a lot harder without a land border, and well, no Monroe Doctrine means there's now say, their former 'allies' running around.
And I can see the British being a bit ashamed at their CSA alliance if this starts going into South America.
I mean they were less allies and more cobelligerents, the British did just peace out as soon as they got what they wanted.
Of course Britain has a lot of commitments else where and with France essentially having a free hand in Mexico, the French can certainly expand their influence pretty easily to Central America, and Britain isn't really gonna want to start a fight over that.
Given all this Russian talk, I suggest we summon @alexmilman given he's the Russian expert
A dangerous fantasy, but one just enough influential Confederates supported to make it a not so secret political position in the halls of power in Richmond!
Oh believe me, it's hilarious for me! Every once and a while they'll threaten to secede over some silly thing...
Never really stopped the filibusters from trying sadly. I can certainly foresee some starting the whole inglorious endeavour up again now that they don't have to worry about Washington rapping knuckles. There's a few adventurous Cubans running around the Confederacy actually!
Essentially this. During the war Britain did not feel in any way beholden to the Confederacy, and I did try to go out of my way to make that clear in posts. The only British officer I'm aware of advocating for working with the Confederacy was Admiral Milne because he believed it would allow them to threaten Washington and potentially end the war in a fairly swift stroke. This did appeal to London who wanted the war over quickly, but once that failed and Lincoln went to the bargaining table, they were out.
The activity of other European powers in the Caribbean/Americas has intensified compared to what we saw in the 1860s, and Britain probably won't be eternally comfortable with that. For the most part no one in London is complaining yet, and the Royal Navy is now feeling smugly superior to every other navy on the planet. Not without some reason mind you.
It's going to take a bit more mucking about before Britain really takes notice. However, if France begins to entrench itself in North America, Britain will indeed take notice.
Well to them its making sure everyone now knows not to mess with British ships. The War of 1862 has made other countries pretty leery of trying to interfere with British vessels on the high seas. and Britain likes it that way.
Commercially interfering with European matters in the Americas is something Britain is unconcerned about, but they will be keeping a much larger military presence for some time longer than OTL. With little conflicts from Mexico to Chile flaring up right now, there's a lot London wants to keep its eye on. Though they still have to deal with the rest of the world.
Chapter 126: The Balance of Power in North America
Chapter 126: The Balance of Power in North America
“It is of course of interest to the military reader that, both in light of the late American War and the events on the Continent, the military power of the various North American peoples be considered. In the aftermath of the late unpleasantness with the United States the people of Britain were blessed to find themselves looking on a new hope for a liberal future on that continent with its new nations. Readers of international news are, of course, intimately familiar with the changes in territory and authority current in North America from the Saint Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, but it will be necessary for some to have a refresher.
The most unsettled concern of course currently is that of the Mexican Empire. Formally begun with the Treaty of Miramar in 1864 Emperor Maximillian claimed the throne in April of the same year and has since reigned in that perennially unhappy country to what all civilized observers can see is happy effect. The present condition of Mexico came to be from its own civil war of 1857 to 1861. The former Republic of Mexico however, reneged on its debts prompting the powers of England, France and Spain to sign the Convention of London to ensure that these debts were honored. However, the outbreak of the American War in 1862 resulted in the withdrawal of British presence, and that of the Spanish not long after. The French meanwhile continued on, occupying Mexico City in 1863, and since then have pacified much of the new empire.
The second most pressing issue was of course decided in 1864 with the signing of the Treaty of Rotterdam between Her Majesty's Government and the people of the United States which establishes the current border between the United States and the Kingdom of Canada.
Finally, the Treaty of Havana between the United States and the Confederate States signed in 1865 ended the late Confederate War of Independence and established the borders which we are now familiar with. Though some disputes remain, and it is considered that many parts of the frontier are unsettled. These are ongoing security concerns for each nation and their borderlands.
Each of these nations has, as a matter of course, established standing armies within their borders. It is the purpose of this article to sketch out the present balance of power between the new lands present on the continent and to examine their military potential and present military capabilities. This information has been garnered from both government reports, official sources, and reliable newspapers within each nation. The article is expected to enlighten the reader to the potential for renewed conflict on that continent and the present military maneuvers of each society.
The Mexican Empire
The nation of Mexico stretches from the Rio Grande in the north to the Yucatan Peninsula in the south, covering 760,000 square miles. Though the exact counts are at present unknown due to the current unrest, the estimates from 1860 put the country at a population of some 8,000,000.
The present conflict raging in the heart of the Mexican Empire represents the most pressing threat to peace and security. As of last report, the government of former President Benito Juarez has fled to the far north of the nation, close to the border with the United States through the state of California. Presently Juarez’s government is based in Chihuahua City, and from there attempts to coordinate the defence of its remaining territories. From reliable reports on the frontier, it is believed that the only aid coming to his government is that which is shipped discretely over the border from California at Fort Yuma up the River Colorado.
It is believed that Juarez still commands an army of 5,000 men. In the south, the only remaining republican army under Porifio Diaz, continues its defiant defence of Oaxaca. General Diaz is believed to command between 4,000 and 5,000 men. These are the only organized forces of soldiers remaining to the republican movement, other than many guerilla bands which are little better than bandits.
The Imperial cause is currently undertaken by a joint French and Mexican Imperial Army. The French Army, under the command of General Bazaine, currently campaigns in the North, and South, with the intention of crushing the final pockets of republican resistance. In the North, a joint Franco-Mexican force campaigns against Chihuahua, while in the South a purely French force besieges Oaxaca.
Presently, the French Forces in Mexico are laid out as such:
Commanding their forces is General Francois Bazaine, the supreme commander of all French, and ostensibly Mexican, soldiery in the new empire. It has been his campaigns which have, since 1863, pacified and placed most of the country under the control of the government in Mexico City. He has two divisions operating as maneuver forces. The 1st Division under Major General Armand de Castagny operates in the north of the country. The 2nd Division under Major General Felix Douay operates in the south. A reserve brigade guards the French bases in Mexico, Orizaba and Veracruz. The cavalry is commanded by Reinaud Boulonge de Lascours, though this cavalry brigade is broken up supporting different elements of the French army.
Based on reports, the French forces can be enumerated thusly:
Infantry - 25,773
Cavalry - 2,449
Artillery - 2,709
The fighting strength of the French in Mexico may thus be counted at 30,931 men, minus the administrative and support forces.
The European allies of the Emperor have also contributed the following forces:
Austria - 12,000 volunteers
Belgium - 1,600 volunteers
The Mexican Imperial Army has been built around those who supported the French invasion in 1862. Built up to a not inconsiderable strength with French assistance, it is now reported to number 21,000 men. Of these, there are a known number of ‘permanent’ units of the new Imperial Army, split between those of Mexican extraction and those of European origin. The most interesting fixture are those regiments of cazadores which are a mixed European and Mexican group, who work under officers of the Empire. Based on the German jager regiments of Austria, they are seen as invaluable assets to the Imperial cause. Their present strength is:
Cazadore Regiments 16 = 9,600
(European) Regiments of the Line 3 = 2,400
Cavalry Regiments (8 Mexican, 4 European) 12 = 4,800
Imperial Guard Regiment = 600
Artillery = 2,250
The total of the permanent Imperial Mexican forces may then be enumerated at 19,650.
In addition to the regiments enumerated above, it is known that there is a battalion of ‘Contra Guerillas’ numbering some 800 operating in the field in the incessant fight against bandits and saboteurs. It is also estimated that roughly a dozen independent companies of militia raised by loyalists are working with the Imperial government, providing another 1,000 men to the Imperial cause.
The present operations of the Armies are, at last report, the 1st Division under Major General Armand de Castagny, numbering some 10,349 men, with the Imperial Miramón Division under Major General Miramón numbering 6,499 men. This force marches against Chihuahua in harsh and desolate terrain, using roads not seen outside the vastness of Asia or Africa. It is expected to besiege or capture Chihuahua by December.
The 2nd Division under Major General Felix Douay is engaged in the bitter siege of Oaxaca. Pitted against a formidable, and mobile defence, it has struggled to maintain an effective siege. The division numbers 9,159 men.
The remainder of the French army operates as a garrison, maintaining the peace and the far flung outposts of the Empire in conjunction with those forces of the Imperial army and their European allies. It is presently assumed that the war shall drag on into 1867.
The Confederate States of America
The newest nation on the North American continent, the Confederate States of America began its struggle in 1861 when the original eleven states seceded. Through the crucible of war it’s territories were hammered out at the Treaty of Havana. Current population estimates approximate it at 9,500,000, but those states and territories (exclusive of the Indian Territory) which comprise the Confederacy had, by the 1860 census, a population of 10,289,169. It comprises an area of 865,000 square miles.
The current organized army of the Confederate States was, by act of Congress in 1861 set to be 15,015 enlisted men and 744 officers. However, the results of the war and the tumultuous events raging across the continent have currently seen the army expand to 27,000 men. The exact numeration and establishment is presently unclear as new regiments are only being organized this year.
The Army of the Confederate States is organized into two main field armies, and four major military departments. The current departments are: The Department of Virginia (Virginia and North and South Carolina) the Department of Florida and the Gulf (Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana) the Department of the West (Tennessee and Kentucky) and the Department of the Trans-Mississippi (Arkansas, Texas and the Indian and Arizona Territories). In these departments two field armies are maintained. The first there is the Army of Northern Virginia, in the Virginia Department, and then the Army of Kentucky, in the Department of the West. These two field armies occupy the various frontier fortifications, garrisons, and government institutions along the border with the United States. The units not assigned to the army are those in garrison along the coasts and in the Trans-Mississippi Department.
The United States of America
While we in England have now been at peace with the United States for two years, in the past century we have warred with them thrice now. Once during their Revolution, another in their unprovoked attack on our Canadian subjects in 1812, and now again with their impertinent interference with British shipping in 1862. Undoubtedly the United States remains our chief security concern in North America. Stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the United States comprises an area of 1,500,000 square miles. Much of that is a sparsely populated interior still teaming with wild Indian tribes, and crossed only at great hazard on overland trails. However, her Pacific shore is much more inhabited than those colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver, with the city of San Francisco a great entrepot of trade on that coast of North America. The eastern portion of the country up to the Mississippi is well developed and deeply settled, where much of their industry and most of their population. Absent the Confederate States, the population of the United States can now be said to be comprised of some 22 millions, though this is an estimate. Those states which make up the northern states comprised 21,154,153 souls in the 1860 United States census.
In the past the United States had been a tenacious foe and one, if not a great juggernaut like the European powers, one which was worthy of respect. However, the character of any army raised was one which was an enigma to European observers, but the powers of Europe may doubt the military strength of the United States no more. Yankee soldiery performed well despite comprising primarily of freshly raised conscripts and green men who had never seen war before. When facing off against our own soldiers they showed an aggressiveness and coolness under intense fire which would do the Anglo-Saxon race proud. Though perhaps not organized and disciplined to a European standard, they were well organized and performed impressive tactical feats in the field.
Prior to the late war the United States military was only 16,000 men strong. That number ballooned to over 600,000 men by reliable estimates during the conflict. This would have put the United States on par with a power like France or Prussia, a great score of men drafted into the conflict. However, the United States have proven unwilling to bear the costs of keeping a great army in the field, and it swiftly disbanded its forces come 1865 as peace began to return to the continent. Based on estimates from correspondence in Washington, the army has shrunk to near 80,000 men after a grueling uphill battle in Washington. This is still a respectable force, though many would imagine one not well disposed to defending so vast a country. However, with militaries that are substantially smaller than its own on the border, this may be a number that the United States is far more comfortable with, the electorate of that nation made uneasy by large armies.
With reports to hand, the rough estimation of the size of the United States army may be enumerated as such:
Regiments of Infantry: 35 - 50,000
Regiments of Cavalry: 14 - 16,000
Artillery: 8 regiments - 9,000
Corps of Engineers: 3,000
This rough tabulation gives an army of 78,000 men on the rolls. A large force indeed, one much greater and with more veterans than that which existed in 1861. We can only assume that in the field, and undistracted, any fight with the Yankees would be a difficult prospect for Britain with large armies able to be formed and launched into Canada. However, as this war has shown, the power of the navy and the willingness of the Canadians to take arms in their own defence would allow Britain to bring America to terms.
The Kingdom of Canada
Our premier consideration in North America of course is the new and infant Kingdom of Canada. A novel scheme of uniting numerous disparate self-governing colonies of Her Majesty's North American possessions into a single entity, it is a new experiment which may indeed bear fruit across the whole of the Empire. Whether it can survive of course, in its present condition, is another matter. The population of the Kingdom is over 3,000,000 souls. It comprises an area of 364,000 square miles.
Formed recently in August of 1866, it is composed of the former self-governing colonies of The United Province of Canada, Ontario (formerly Canada West), Quebec (formerly Canada East), New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. This new Confederation has established all the British outposts on the Atlantic, save Newfoundland, under one banner and a single governor-general with its capital in Ottawa. Having been forged in the fires of the late war, its people are proud and fierce patriots whose loyalty to the Queen cannot be doubted by any man. That these people have earned the right to govern themselves and the Protection of Her Majesty is beyond doubt.
Presently, the colony is defended by two considerations. The first is the garrison of Her Majesty's Troops present in the Dominion, and her Volunteer militia which fought so well against the American invasion. We shall consider each in order. The numbers are based on the recent Returns of troops in North America and reports from the Militia Department of the Dominion.
Currently the garrison of Canada many be enumerated as such:
Regiments of the Line, 16 = 14,280
Regiments of Cavalry, 3 = 1,599
Companies of Engineers, 4 = 500
Batteries of Artillery, 4 = 917
Batteries of Garrison Artillery, 7 = 1,050
The present garrison of Canada (exclusive of Her Majesty's Troops on the Pacific Coast) can be enumerated as, 18,346 men.
To augment this body a considerable force of Canadian militia may be raised at a moment’s notice. This body was raised in 1861 by the individual colonies, with a current number known to have served from each colony in the late war. From the former United Province of Canada, 76,000 men. From New Brunswick, 6,345 and from Nova Scotia, 14,000 and from Prince Edward Island, 1,150. In total tabulation it may be estimated that 97,250 Canadians gained some modicum of military experience in the late American War.
Though no formal militia act has yet been passed in the new Dominion, the Militia Department has begun a ‘rationalization’ of its current militia system. It seeks to organize all the active Volunteer Battalions into the new defence of the country. For that purpose the country has been divided into Nine Militia Districts, based primarily around the urban centers of the country.
From the Abstract Returns of August 1866, we may summarize that the existing Canadian system of forming divisions on their urban areas of two brigades each has paid dividends. In turn these are to be supported by regiments of cavalry and artillery. This provides for 54 battalions of infantry 8 regiments of cavalry, 9 organized batteries of artillery and a corps of 500 engineers. Based on the sizes set by the United Province of Canada during the war for those respective corps, we can estimate a force of 48,250 men available for service in case of war. Though the reliable estimations from the exercises of this past July showed that only 32,093 men As this is a part time military force, much similar to our own Volunteer units, we cannot expect all men to drop their trades and professions in peace time merely to show up for muster. However, when one considers that even five years previous our sources bemoaned the state of readiness by the colonial militia, we may take this as a sign of much improved martial spirit engendered by the late war.
With a stiff backing by Her Majesty’s Troops the militia of Canada would be ready to take the field against any threat, Yankee, Fenian, or even French. With the Royal Navy the uncontested hegemon of the Atlantic and Pacific, what power would dare threaten her shores? The country is loyal to London and united in a zeal against American demagoguery. To that end we can expect great things of this new colonial kingdom which pledges loyalty to Her Majesty and aims to keep the monarchical principle alive in North America under good government…” - Captain Martin Petrie, Journal of the Royal United Services Institute, September 1866
-----
I do want to stress that this is meant to read like a "period piece" based on other writings by Captain Petrie, which record the European powers of the time. So any nationalistic sentiment, or what reflects prejudices of the day, is meant to reflect what a British officer is writing after what Britain perceives as a victorious war that cements them as a great power.
Last edited:
interesting that the mexican war doesn't immediately end like most civil war TLs
I like that Oxacca is doing well in its defense particularly although anyone with any knowledge of mexican history would be troubled of who's leading it.
for the time captian Petrie seems tolerant actually although he doesn't mention the great disturbance or the impact of having essentially millions of enemies in its midst
I also felt a strange pride at his compliments to Americans. although I am most definitely not of "Anglo Saxon race" .one thing I liked about the period is the gentlemanly respect towards one's enemies .
great chapter again![tho I admit I tend to skim the ones with lots of numbers]
I like that Oxacca is doing well in its defense particularly although anyone with any knowledge of mexican history would be troubled of who's leading it.
for the time captian Petrie seems tolerant actually although he doesn't mention the great disturbance or the impact of having essentially millions of enemies in its midst
I also felt a strange pride at his compliments to Americans. although I am most definitely not of "Anglo Saxon race" .one thing I liked about the period is the gentlemanly respect towards one's enemies .
great chapter again![tho I admit I tend to skim the ones with lots of numbers]
If I looked at the right post, a short answer is “I don’t think so” but this is just my opinion. In 1877-78 Russia was fighting a major war out of which it got out victorious but seriously exhausted and internationally isolated. Finances were in terrible state (they were not very good before the war and war coast over 1,000,000,000 rubles), there was a noticeable disappointment with the regime and starting a new war over nothing was the last thing AII could afford. The region in question is valuable as a source of important natural resources but titanium and some other things were not in a high demand in the 1870’s and as far as iron and coal are involved, extraction of iron at Kursk and coal at Donetsk region did not start, yet, so there was really no need to look for them so far away. Plus, under AII the Russian industry in general was in a state of stagnation and mostly not due to the shortage of the natural resources. So what could be a serious reason, with a risk of a big war, except for expansion for the sake of expansion?
As far as Siberian Military Flotilla is involved, construction of Vladivostok fortress started only in 1877 and in the 1870s the most modern warship was a cannon boat “Nerpa” built in 1873. There was also corvette “America” built in 1855
three cannon boats of “Walrus” class built in 1860s (1 196 mm gun, One experimental Armstrong rifled gun and four "amphibious" 87-mm rifled copper guns)
and few steam-sail schooners and other small vessels. IMO, not extremely impressive or too modern but this is a matter of an opinion.
Then, while I’m not denying importance of the railroads, 1870s and 1888-94 are different “epochs”. Besides the railroads, a big stimulus for resettlement was a fast growth of population with a resulting growing land crisis. In 1880, 82 million people lived in the country, by 1894 this number had increased to 122 million, 1897 - 125.6 millions, by 1914 - 182 million. .
In OTL 1861 to 1882, more than 240 thousand people moved to Siberia, usually to the Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces of Western Siberia. 50 thousand people went to the Far East, and a significant part of them from the neighboring East Siberian districts of the Irkutsk province and the Trans-Baikal region. In1883 to 1905, more than 1 million 640 thousand people moved to these regions and CA. Of these, 740 thousand remained in Tomsk province, 162 thousand in the Far East, 230 thousand in Akmola region. In 1906-14 number of settlers grew to 3 million 312 thousand people because the land crisis became quite severe and there was a comprehensive state program supporting this process.
Last edited:
IMHO with Qing being overthrown, China has a pretty slim chance of reestablishing control over East Turkestan aka Xinjiang. In my initial analysis I have definitely underestimated this factor.
In the course of Dungan revolt the entire regions was split into several de-facto independent states (most notably Jakub Beg’s Yettishar eventually controlling all Kashgaria and parts of Dzungaria, but also Taranchi Sulatanate of Ili that was eventually occupied by Russia, Urumqi Sulatanate, Chuguchak rebel state etc.).
Moreover, the only force in the region faithful to central government IOTL that is Manchu troops have very little reason to be willing to reintegrated into China ITTL where Qing Dynasty has been overthrown. IOTL these local Manchu officials tried to ask Russian officials (both local and in St. Petersburg via Beijing) to move the troops into Xinjiang in the name of Qing government to save these officials from rebels. ITTL both Muslim rebels and Taiping government are very grim alternatives for local Manchu so they might be willing to invite Russians in the region permanently in order to reestablish order and save their lives.
IOTL general Kolpakosvsky, Russian commander of Semirechye (bordering Xinjiang) proposed a plan in early 1865 with Russian troops entering large parts of East Turkestan (namely Chuguchak, Kulja and Kashgar region). This plan was denied by Alexander II because he didn’t want to harm their relationship with Qing (though eventually as we know Russia did partially implement it with occupying and trying to annex Kulja region).
But ITTL there is no such thing as Qing government (at least no ruling China proper) and the new government’s claim on Xinjiang is much less valid. Moreover, if I get your hints correctly Russia would meddle is Manchuria anyway which is much more important for any Chinese government than East Turkestan. Thus, Alexander II definitely shouldn’t worry about hurting relations with new government in Beijing and can give Kolpakovsky a green light.
If Russian expedition starts in 1865 or 1866 Manchu are still holding out in Kulja (which was the most important city in North-Western Xinjiang) and Chuguchak. So, while the front is wider than that of OTL 1871 campaign, unlike IOTL there is a substantial local support against Muslim rebels. While Russia doesn’t have a particularly large local force, given 1871 example (and Russian campaigns in Central Asia) I think Russia should be able to defeat local rebels and conquer another major rebel state in Dzungaria Urumqi Sultanate. After that there is only Kumul Khanate left centered around Hami which IOTL stayed loyal to Qing and fought on their side against rebels. ITTL given Qing are overthrown it might chose to switch its allegiance to Russia (or if not this not a particularly large state so it can be conquered easily).
So by late 1860s Russia might more or less completely control of Dzungaria (northern half of Xinjiang). Dealing with Jakub Beg and his Yettishar (by late 1860s fully controlling Kashgaria, southern half of Xinjiang) would definitely take a lot more time and effort though (especially considering his links to Kokand and possible British support).
I mean to be fair Ural Railway (as pretty much all the private railways in Russia) had a governmental guarantee on return of investment. IOTL this guarantee did eventually trigger as without the completion of Yekaterinburg-Tyumen part (it was completed as a government railway in 1882-1885) the railway was losing money (also because local factory owners had extremely beneficial condition on cargo transportation).
However, this deal was still a reasonable deal for the government: not only such an arrangement was at worst (that is if the railroad did not become profitable as happened IOTL) a private loan with decent terms used to finance a strategically important project.
It also allowed the government to reduce subsidies paid to the owners of Ural factories (IOTL in 1870s yearly subsidies averaged some 12 million rubles compared to 45 million that the Perm-Yekaterinburg railway costed with all its auxiliary branches and 15 million that Yekaterinburg-Tyumen railway costed; the entire governmental budged in 1870s was on average 500-600 million rubles)
So, if ITTL the railways to Asian part of Russia have a higher priority, Russia can encourage private investors to start building railways earlier. It is not free, Russian government is likely to eventually pay back the cost of project, but it doesn’t require governmental spending at the moment.
So, if there is a political will (and it looks like ITTL it may be top priority for Russia) the government can provide a guarantee in the same way it did IOTL but a few years earlier.
Moreover, there was a private investment consortium willing to finance Nizhny Novgorod-Kazan-Yekaterinburg-Tyumen railway given similar guarantee. IOTL the government was reluctant to provide such a guarantee (although IOTL in 1875 it decided to build the railway with governmental money; this project was stopped though because of Russian-Turkish War approaching, as I mentioned in my previous post), but if ITTL Asia has a top priority in late 1860s-1870s, it Alexander’s ministers might be willing do so ITTL.
If this does indeed happen there is really nothing that prevents both Ural Railway and the first section of Siberian railway (Nizhny Novgorod-Kazan-Yekaterinburg-Tyumen) from being built by around 1875. And with the proper link to main Russian railway network both railways are likely to be profitable from the beginning.
The population of Manchuria in the second half of XIX century is a quite contentious topic.
We have the official data of registered settlers for several years, but the academic consensus is that these numbers are highly undercounted. Indeed, the local Han settlers had incentive to avoid being counted even after 1887 when Qing government lifted the last limitation for Chinese settlement in Manchuria (partial removal of limitations was done in 1860, but this was only for certain areas in the Northern Manchuria) since being registered meant being taxed and settler wanted to avoid it.
All the numbers below a given for contemporary province borders (different from modern borders).
The official data for 1862 (from Kang Chao’s Demographic Development of Manchuria):
Manchuria total: 3332 thousand people, Liaoning: 2818 thousand people, Jilin: 329 thousand, Heilongjiang: 185 thousand (there is no data for Heilongjiang in 1862, but it is assumed that the population there grew at the same rate as for Jilin).
But once again these numbers are definitely undervalued, the question is by how much (there are different opinions ranging from something close to official data to Manchuria having over 20 million people in 1890s).
The numbers I personally think are somewhat reasonable (mainly because they correspond well to the numbers in other sources) are inferred form Isett’s total population of Manchuria from his State, Peasant, and Merchant in Qing Manchuria. Here are the numbers for 1862:
Manchuria total: 6770 thousand people, Liaoning: 5724 thousand people, Jilin: 668 thousand, Heilongjiang: 375 thousand
Of those at most 2.5 million are not Han.
IOTL there was 2.5 million of non-Han population in 1910, including 1692 thousand Manchu and 658 thousand Mongols.
Presumably ITTL several hundred thousand Manchu escape from mainland China, but we are some 50 years earlier and should account for natural growth that happened IOTL.
Even if the real numbers are somewhat smaller than the ones above, only the official population of Manchuria is larger than the population of the whole Siberia in 1862 (not counting Steppes District aka Kazakhstan, but there the majority of population is nomadic).
If we take more believable Isett’s number then Manchuria is 1.5 more populous than whole territory of Russia over the Ural Mountains (in 1862 Siberia had 3141 thousand people, Steppes District 1485 and Manchuria 6770).
So overall there is no way in hell Russia would be able to assimilate the whole Manchuria. This doesn’t prevent Russia from being able to conquer and fully control it though (the same way it did with Central Asia or Caucasus).
Moreover, Russia can probably implement divide and conquer policy giving non-Han population substantial privileges and these population groups are large enough for this policy of having a chance to succeed (the same way Russia gave privileges to Caucasus Christians despite those were a minority).
Another factor to consider that the 85% of population (both in total and even more so Han) is concentrated in Liaoning.
Now it is extremely important part of Manchuria, it has an access to Yellow Sea, it has insanely abundant natural resources (most notably coal around Fushun and iron around Anshan allowing Japan to build an industrial giant Showa Steel Works), so it’s not Russia would willingly part with it.
However the government may choose to treat this region differently from the two northern provinces (where there is at most 1 million people and most of those are probably non-Han).
So, Russia may attempt to settle and assimilate two former northern provinces (the same way it did with Northern Caucasus and Northern Kazakhstan) while considering Liaoning as populated by “foreign people” (инородцы in Russian, basically non-Slavs) which of course won’t prevent some Russian settlement there (once again in the same way Tashkent and Chu Valley around Bishkek were settled by Russian-speaking population).
This is an extremely ambitious project of course and only the TL author may answer if Russia would succeed (if it attempts to do it that is).
As mentioned in my post above Russia does not necessarily has to spend governmental money for it at least not immediately. What is has to do is to guarantee the private investors return on their investment (and there were private investors willing to finance both Ural Railway and the first section of Siberian railway in late 1860s provided they had such a guarantee).
Of course, it is still a serious obligation on the government part, but it doesn’t require it to write the check straight away (and as we know it now definitely worth it in the long run).
IOTL the government worried that the railway would never be profitable (which sounds ridiculous for us now), but even if they have the same doubts ITTL they might be more willing to risk it since Russian ambitions in Asia are much stronger (as even if there are doubts about economic value of the railroad, its strategic and military importance is unquestionable)
Well China doesn’t control Xinjiang, it owns it (and some countries such as Ottoman Empire recognized the new states by 1870s). The only part of the region loyal to the government was Kumul Khanate around Hami and I have serious doubts that it would retain loyalty to non-Qing government. Moreover in 1865 there are a few pockets of Manchu resistance in Xinjiang (Kuldja, Chuguchak) and ITTL they really have no one to look for protection other than Russia.
Will Russia act according to Kolpakovsky plan in such a conditions ITTL is another question. I think it would, but there may be factors I don’t see.
These gunboats, steem schooners and steamers are modern fleet that Qing really have nothing to counter.
This is comparable to the fleet used by allies during Second Opium War for example and we all know how it ended. Also I don't claim that Russian gunships would go through Tainjing and storm Forbidden Palace. However it is more than enough to interrupt Chinese shipping in the Yellow Sea which would help the possible Russian War effort by a large deal.
This looks like data from the top Russian Wikipedia article on the population of Russian Empire and it is both is extremly suspicious and has no proper reference. Here is a proper source.
While there is no total population specifically for 1880, there is for 1885 and it is 99 millions without Poland and Finland (and your data for late years include Poland and is once again overblown for 1914, when it was most 175 million without Finland ).
Moreover if we look further down in the Wikipedia article that you seem to have referenced we can see that the population of the Empire in 1880 was 98 million (without Finland, while the data for 1894 matches the one you have provided; the data provided in the table also matches the one from my source, so I intend to trust this table).
And the difference between 98 million country and 122 million is not nearly as striking as the difference between 82 and 122 million)
Sorry for nitpicking, but I don't think your argument really holds even if we ignore the number problems.
The population of Russian Empire was growing rapidly, yes, but it was growing at a pretty stable rate (fluctuation around 1.5-2% of annual increase).
Your model of larger population being equal to larger migration does not seem to be valid (with relatively close time periods that is)
You may notice that the two time periods that did not have special events happening (1901-1905 had a major hunger in 1901-1902 and closing railroad for non-military cargoes during Russo-Japanese War; 1906-1909 was Stolypin reforms), there was a quite similar number of settlers for 1896-1900 and for 1910-1914.
Since Perm-Tyumen Railway is useful primarily for the settlement of Western Siberia (and it was the region to where 88% settlers in 1886-1893 went) the data for West Siberia seems extremely relevant
So, we could assume that the number of settlers in 1875-1885 ITTL and in 1885-1895 IOTL can be quite similar.
I have seen the numbers you have provided (once again it seems to be Russian Wiki). While data itself seems to be correct, it is diced in a very curious way.
In late 1878 Perm-Yekaterinburg railway started to work that while not being able to bring settlers all the way to Ob-Irtysh basin, made crossing the Ural (the most difficult part of the journey) infinitely easier.
Here is my main source with settlement of Siberia before 1897. If we subtract data for 1881 and 1882 from the numbers you have referenced the result is exactly the same as provided in my initial message (around 9 thousand per year for the period of 1861-1880). The numbers of settlers added per year with the help of Perm-Tyumen railway is from this source (roughly 40 thousand for first 5 years and roughly 75 for the second five an further i. e. 30 and 65 thousand additional settler respectively).
If you don't trust this source here for example another other one stating on p. 166 following:
In 1860-1870s the average number of settlers crossing Ural was 10 thousand per year.
In 1880s (i. e. when Perm-Yekaterinburg became fully operational and since 1885 Yekaterinburg-Tyumen railroads were completed) the average number settlers crossing Ural was 20-30 thousand per year.
In 1890s it never fell down below 50 thousand (including obviously 5 years before at least a part of Trans-Siberian railway became operational).
You can notice that these numbers match the ones provided in the previous source really well.
Last edited:
Sorry, I forgot to answer this part of your message.
You seem to reference Stolypin reforms that arguably came too little too late (but lead to at least 2 million settler arriving to Siberia in 1907-1909 and another million in 1910-1914, compared to a million in the decade prior to 1907 i. e. when the Trans-Siberian was already fully operational).
Now could the social situation in Russia be changed for the better if similar reforms were conducted one or two decades prior is another question.
A very nice overview of the situation. I have a couple of slight quibbles/questions around the terminology above
1) Given that the Confederacy won, would third-party observers still be calling it a civil war, or something along the lines the "Confederate War of Indepence" (or, in this case "the late war between those two countries")
2) Again, post-war, with a Confederate victory, would the term "northern states" in the present tense be used, rather than the past tense? Especially given that there are a few decent-sized chunks of those states (if not their population) that are now Canadian.
But who would lead such reforms? Wouldn't something major have to happen in Russia for that to happen?