IOTL, there were some Russian penetrations into Siberia. Some Russians - mainly Cossacks - had dreams of annexing large parts of Siberia, or even conquering the whole of it. Of course, these dreams never came to pass. But suppose they had? What if Russia had been able to take control of Siberia?
DBWI: Russian Siberia
- Thread starter Mort the Reaper
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
Look, if the Franco-Japanese alliance can force that free port concession from the Mongols, I'm sure Russia can make some headway, too. I'll grant that Mongolia was no push-over, but the big issue is that the Russians got beaten hard in the Battle of the Erchis (which they call Irtysh). This humiliating defeat soured the Russians on further expansion in that direction, and prompted the Russian "about-face" to focus on playing a role in European politics.
The Russian commander during the battle was a notorious drunkard, if I recall correctly. Suppose the Russians, maybe with a different commander, win at the Erchis? That's no guarantee of them getting all Siberia, but their attention will be on the far East for longer, at least. That'll also have major consequences in Europe.
What would they gain with Siberia? Sure conquering all of it would of secured their eastern border more then OTL, but the Urals was "good enough" for them eventually, infact, if they end up focusing so many resources on conquering and colonising barren Siberia, it could reduce their position in the west, which is arguably, where it really matters. Mongolia COULD be quite a large threat if Russia is in a bad enough situation, but thats quite a big IF, everyone in Europe overestimated their strength, especially the Russians.
Granted if they conquer the entirety of Siberia this would give them direct access to China and, if they play their cards right, get them coastline in East Asia.
TL;DR they'd gain miles and miles of empty forest for a slightly more secure border, in exchange for weaker presence in the west and possibly a coastline in East Asia
Last edited:
Well, there was nothing of value (as known prior to the XX century) to the East of Ural Mountains and strictly speaking Russia got some territories East of the mountains with a border on Ob - Yirtish line which provided a sensible secure perimeter. Penetration further to the East is an interesting idea but it does not look too practical by a number of reasons:
1st, most of the territory (I assume that "Siberia" is used in a vernacular meaning) is uninhabitable: it is either deep forest (taiga) or permafrost.
2nd, Russia never had excess of a population allowing a meaningful migration to the areas which could be of some usefulness.
3rd, the distances would make communications prohibitively long: travel from Ural to the Pacific would take a couple of years, taking into an account a need to wait for the major rivers to freeze, etc. How these travelers would be supplied is another big question.
4th, what's the end game? Let's assume, just for the argument sake, that the Russians got it all the way to the Pacific coast where some reasonably good lands are available and even built some ports. Then what? There is nobody to trade with over the sea/ocean until the late XIX and you could easily get tea and silk from China either through the Bukhara merchants or directly across the OTL border (admittedly, there is some not quite "pacified" by the Chinese area between Yirtish and Baikal Lake but the natives were routinely bought to guarantee caravans' safety). A lot of expenses with no tangible gain.
5th, if you do all that Pacific thingy, you are bound to build and maintain at least some navy here and the same goes for the troops to provide security initially against the Chinese and later against Japan, USA, Brits and whoever else. Again, a lot of expenses and strategic vulnerability to which end?
6th, in the late XIX - early XX there is finally a technical possibility to improve communications by building a railroad all the way to the Pacific Coast. A huge effort and expense would negatively impact an ability to build the railroads in more populated regions, including the railroads which would have a strategic importance in the case of a war. And in the case of a military conflict with China or Japan this road would not have enough of a carrying capacity to provide an adequate flow of troops and supplies. Not to mention that whatever fleet you have on the Pacific would be just one of the fleets that you have to maintain while any of your opponents would be able to concentrate its whole navy against you.
Dammit, are we really still calling them the Mongols? The Yuan have ruled China for centuries, guys; they're rulers of China now.
Speaking of which, having the power ruling Siberia not being backed up by the military might of China would do wonders for Russia's ability to take the region.
Just for the fun of it? There was no economic reasons (except furs, which would not compensate the expenses) and strategically it would mean getting out of one trouble just to face another. Not to mention that the only people willing to move there were not too numerous semi-criminal elements.
The main problem would be not even Chinese or Mongols but distances and climate.
Well, North China. It's easy to forget that southern China obviously spent quite a bit of that time with those breakaway dynasties. In fact, if it hadn't, the Mongol rulers might have turned more of their attention southwards and wouldn't have even bothered with Siberia, just as the Jurchen Jin had. In that case, those Russian Cossacks probably could have expanded quite a bit deeper into Siberia before anyone gave them trouble. But trouble did happen, and regardless of which side you want to blame, the ultimate result of the battle was the eviction of Russian settlers (no, not all of them were fur trappers and bandits) from central Siberia by the Yuan and their Tatar Allies. This has arguably left Russia distrustful of China to this day.
Last edited:
Yeah, true, the Yuan had yet to modernize, so South China hadn't yet been reconquered. I guess that's another possibility; if Russia had coordinated its attack with the Southern Tang, even by accident, both of them probably would have gotten what they wanted.
The Yuan might still have won, since it would probably have been hard for Russia to transfer a large amount of troops from its heartland in Europe over the Urals and into Siberia along the Chinese border, and even harder to supply them without an extensive railway network, well the Chinese could get large amounts of troops there and supply them relatively easily sense they share a direct border with the area without obstructions like large mountain ranges. Although I doubt the Tang would have been attacking much of anything: people tend to forget that before the Second Global War they were almost always on the defensive. There was a good reason the Yuan weren’t expecting a lightning war like the one they launched, and only the reinforcements from the Chinese vassals in Siberia and the assistance from Russia (which has helped to majorly improve the relationship between the two nations, even if they are still somewhat distrustful of each other) saved them and allowed them too push back and conquer the South like they did.
Last edited:
That sounds like it might make an interesting timeline.
You're probably right, but it's an interesting idea nevertheless.
I agree it would be intresting, but I don’t see how it could have occurred. Even if the Tsar’s since Ivan VI hadn’t basically given up on Siberia after his failed war for it and turned their attention to Eastern Europe instead, the Yuan Tartar vassals in Siberia like the khanate Of Sibir were relatively strong on there own and would have probobly been able to hold of Russia for long enough for the Yuan to deal with the Tang and turn their attention north. They certainly would be defeated eventually without the support of the Yuan, but Siberia is so huge that even if in such a war Russia took it they would have a huge amount of difficulty transporting supplies through it and effectively coordinateing their armies, and it wouldn’t be hard for China to beat them once the Tang were beaten.
Probably fairly similar to what Chinese Siberia looks like now; the various chieftans and Khans have a good deal of autonomy, bowing to the Emperor in Beijing and following his laws but also being largely left alone domestically. I see the same thing happening with Russia; after all, differing religions wasn't an issue with Russia, and it would be even harder for the Russians to impose centralized rule than the Chinese.
Same as the American West and the southern Northern shores of Spain, France, Sicily, Greece, and Lombardy. Completely cleared of locals. Though of course it would be harder, as the Tartars aren't exactly known for staying in one spot. Might be the Russians use settlers that went for settling Persia, Anatolia, and Rumelia and take all the the good land reaching to Peking.
Deleted member 109224
There's also the matter of why exactly the Russians would want to move east. The Russian core was, is, and always will be the Dneiper and to a lesser extent the Don and Dniester Rivers. The eastern boundary of Russia will always be the Volga. These lands and the trade routes south and west were where all the money was.
If the Russians for whatever reason moved east, maybe that'd give the Poles enough breathing space to expand east themselves, rather than having been boxed in west of the Masurian lakes and Bug River as the Rus absorbed Moldavia, Wallachia, and Georgia.
We all know the song.
From the Volga to the Bug
Fom the Baltic to Danube
Masuria to Baku and Pontus too
Time may go on but the Russians stand true
As for the question of how Russia would have even managed to go east, why can't they just do what Sweden-Brandenburg did? Absorb the lands around the White Sea and Barents sea and from there travel south along the Irtysh River. S-B managed to conquer Khanate of Sibir, so it can't be that much harder for the Russians to do so.
If the Russians for whatever reason moved east, maybe that'd give the Poles enough breathing space to expand east themselves, rather than having been boxed in west of the Masurian lakes and Bug River as the Rus absorbed Moldavia, Wallachia, and Georgia.
We all know the song.
From the Volga to the Bug
Fom the Baltic to Danube
Masuria to Baku and Pontus too
Time may go on but the Russians stand true
As for the question of how Russia would have even managed to go east, why can't they just do what Sweden-Brandenburg did? Absorb the lands around the White Sea and Barents sea and from there travel south along the Irtysh River. S-B managed to conquer Khanate of Sibir, so it can't be that much harder for the Russians to do so.
I guess it's possible for them to do that, but then again, I'm not exactly an expert on this. Maybe someone who knows more could weigh in?
It would probably lead to a very strange Russia. You would have the densely populated Slavic west, and then you would have a vast, sparsely occupied East with a population that is incredibly different both culturally and ethnically. It would be like Iceland-Greenland, only more so. I think they would find it hard to build a national identity.
Deleted member 114175
They might be able to eke out a Russian plurality using state sponsored colonies. Something like Ottoman Kanada's timariot system, which served to create a substantial population of Muhacir in the New World as well as give the Ottomans a lead in the transatlantic fur trade.
A Russian Siberia may weaken Kanada since it will extend the Eurasian fur trade before its revival under the Yuan-Rus railroad connection. The serfs in Russia want to escape east out of rigid social stratification in Russia; on the other hand, Turkish burghers don't necessarily want to leave the developed Endülüs, so without the attraction of gold, tobacco, and fur profits, Kanada will be smaller.
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like this scenario might worsen Russo-Turkish relations.