Plausibility of Russia becoming a christian haven for middle east christians in the 19th century

[Tupiniquim]

I was just thinking today... how plausible is Imperial Russia using the "Third Rome" (like the crazy Greek Plan from Catherine the Great) excuse and inviting/gathering christian minorities (asia minor greeks), syriac christians, armenians, assyrians and copts? Like a christian zion. Today there are more armenians living in Russia then in Armenia itself... Russia can use the religious refugees to colonize sparsely populated lands like Novorossiya (the Wild Fields) and the Caucasus.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@alexmilman

 

[alexmilman]

@alexmilman

Did happen in OTL. To a certain degree.

 

[Historywatcher0]

I mean the point for Russia was to use those Christians as continued CBs in bite by bite conquests.

You would need a situation where the Ottomans/Turkey still in control of Syria and Iraq and Russians stalemate bloodily or a foreign power interverns or threatens to do so. With mandated population transfers, with the Muslims in Russian conquered territory transferred to the Ottomans, and Christians going to Russia. Like a larger example of the ones post ww1

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

I was just thinking today... how plausible is Imperial Russia using the "Third Rome" (like the crazy Greek Plan from Catherine the Great) excuse and inviting/gathering christian minorities (asia minor greeks), assyrians, syriac christians, armenians, assyrians and copts? Like a christian zion. Today there are more armenians living in Russia then in Armenia itself... Russia can use the religious refugees to colonize sparsely populated lands like Novorossiya (the Wild Fields) and the Caucasus.

Fairly plausible, especially if the goal is to replace the Circassians Russia genocided.

 

[alexmilman]

Fairly plausible, especially if the goal is to replace the Circassians Russia genocided.

In OTL the settlers from the Balkans had been invited in the XVIII into the newly conquered lands of Novorossia. This was relatively easy because the territory (Wild Steppe) was pretty much empty. This was nothing like situation on the Caucasus where the agricultural territories had a relatively dense sedentary population.

As far as the goal you mentioned (avoidance of genocide) is involved, it is a noble one but you are talking about the XIX century when the imperial powers did not care too much about the methods used to deal with the “natives” so the motivation seems to be a little bit anachronistic. Then, again, why would the Circassians voluntarily leave their ancestral lands? Just because the Ottomans said so? They did not acknowledge the Sultan’s authority except in his Caliph’s capacity.

In this specific case, from the Russian imperial perspective, there was a hated long-term enemy, which did not fully capitulate (at least as far as AII was concerned), was acting (or could be acting) as something of a fifth column during the CW (*) and, among many other “sins”, was living on the good agricultural lands that could be granted to the loyal Cossacks of the Kuban. Tradition of dealing harshly with the “uncivilized opponents” was there (for example, in the 1780s the Nogais had been forced to flee from the Black Sea steppes to the Caucasus and most of them eventually fled to the OE, the process continued all the way to the 1860s so out of 1 200 000 in 1774, by the late XIX their numbers in the RE were in the low tens of thousands, pretty much the same goes for the Tatars of Crimea) for well over the century so this was nothing new except for the scale. This is not an apology of the practice, just putting things into the historic framework. On the other side of the equation was the OE, which also took an advantage of the situation mistreating the refugees.



________
(*) They most probably did not on any serious scale but Palmerston’s idea of creating “Kingdom of Circassia” helped to create this perception. However, the mutual hate did exist on both sides: what could one expect after at least a century of never-ending border war?

 

[Domz]

The only reason Russia wanted to do the Megali Idea was so that they can get a Greek puppet state in the Mediterranean, at the Ottoman's expense. Why would Russia want to create a powerful micro-state in its own territory that might undermine Russian political authority? If Russia could get Constantinople without having a puppet state, they would have certainly gone for it.

The only way I can see this happening is that the Russians gain land from the Ottomans in the Pontus and Armenia and settle Greeks in the territory as a protective buffer state between the Russian and Ottoman Empires.

 

[Ulahlica-Ulahlica]

Fairly plausible, I'd say. What started the Crimean War IOTL was Tsar Nicholas I claiming himself as protector of the Ottoman Empire's Christian minorities, after all. Assuming that Nicholas doesn't die of Pneumonia ITTL, I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to pull such a stunt post-war.

 

[ramones1986]

But what specific part of the Empire?

 

[alexmilman]

Fairly plausible, I'd say. What started the Crimean War IOTL was Tsar Nicholas I claiming himself as protector of the Ottoman Empire's Christian minorities, after all. Assuming that Nicholas doesn't die of Pneumonia ITTL, I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to pull such a stunt post-war.

How exactly? Russia was out of money, the Black Sea Fleet ceased to exists and the army weapons had been obsolete. It took over 20 years for Russia to be able to start a war against almost completely isolated OE.

 

[Ilúphatar]

One problem with this is that the Christians of the Middle East were (and are) divided. The most significant division is between the Chalcedonians (most notably the Eastern Orthodox like the Asia Minor Greeks you mentioned, who are in communion with Russian Orthodoxy) and the Miaphysites (which includes the Armenians, Copts and Syriacs).

The division is theologically complex and deeply rooted, centred around different Christologies and the interaction between Christ's human and divine natures.

That's not to say that a rapprochement between the two major groups is impossible - I remember reading somewhere about the growing cordiality between the Greeks and Armenians of Constantinople, for example. But a state like the Russian Empire, firmly Eastern Orthodox as it was, might be incapable of mustering the kind of ecumenism needed to appeal to the diverse Christian peoples of the region.

That's not to say non-Eastern Orthodox couldn't worship relatively unmolested - the Lutherans of Finland and the Baltics spring to mind. But if we're talking a kind of pan-Christian state ideology, that might be slightly harder. Perhaps if we can work out a way of making or preserving a stronger non-Chalcedonian influence in Russia? But the butterflies might be too big.

 

[Ulahlica-Ulahlica]

Russia was out of money, the Black Sea Fleet ceased to exists and the army weapons had been obsolete.

D'OH! I did not consider that.

 

[Tupiniquim]

One problem with this is that the Christians of the Middle East were (and are) divided. The most significant division is between the Chalcedonians (most notably the Eastern Orthodox like the Asia Minor Greeks you mentioned, who are in communion with Russian Orthodoxy) and the Miaphysites (which includes the Armenians, Copts and Syriacs).

The division is theologically complex and deeply rooted, centred around different Christologies and the interaction between Christ's human and divine natures.

That's not to say that a rapprochement between the two major groups is impossible - I remember reading somewhere about the growing cordiality between the Greeks and Armenians of Constantinople, for example. But a state like the Russian Empire, firmly Eastern Orthodox as it was, might be incapable of mustering the kind of ecumenism needed to appeal to the diverse Christian peoples of the region.

That's not to say non-Eastern Orthodox couldn't worship relatively unmolested - the Lutherans of Finland and the Baltics spring to mind. But if we're talking a kind of pan-Christian state ideology, that might be slightly harder. Perhaps if we can work out a way of making or preserving a stronger non-Chalcedonian influence in Russia? But the butterflies might be too big.

hmmm I don't think theological differences would be an obstacle... 1.1 million armenians live in Russia and 14,000 assyrians that came after the WW1 genocide... If these christians fit into the russian narrative of colonization in "empty lands" like Novorossiya, I think in the end of the day, it didn't matter. The problem is that Imperial Russia was engaged in being a war machine, I guess.

The only reason Russia wanted to do the Megali Idea was so that they can get a Greek puppet state in the Mediterranean, at the Ottoman's expense. Why would Russia want to create a powerful micro-state in its own territory that might undermine Russian political authority? If Russia could get Constantinople without having a puppet state, they would have certainly gone for it.

The only way I can see this happening is that the Russians gain land from the Ottomans in the Pontus and Armenia and settle Greeks in the territory as a protective buffer state between the Russian and Ottoman Empires.

I'm not talking about Russia craving a "powerful micro-state" full of non-slavic christian minorities, but something like a "new-world" immigration style though. Assyrians, Armenians, Syriac Christians and Copts fleeing there and settling in many parts of Russia properly, I just said novorossiya and the caucasus as examples because it's logistically easier, since it's near the black sea.