Russia and China in the eighteenth century
- Thread starter Grey Wolf
- Start date
Wasnt the Russian culture before Peter the Great much more asian? I think that they resembled their former turkish lords alot, no shaving, viels for women, the peasentry system, etc. I would think that if the russians had focused east that these things wouldnt have changed in any aspect and the russians would have moved farther into the central and east asian culture.
Justin Green said:
*cough sputter choke* TURKISH overlords? They Golden Horde were Tatars. Mongols. The damned Turks never gained dominion over the Russ. And there's a huge difference between the Slavic/ Varangian/ Finno-Ugric mix that gave us Muscovy and Turkic culture, nevermind the Chinese.
Whe think of Japan as completely closed before Perry in 1854.
In fact the Japanese were moving into Sahilikin and into Amur across the channel. The late 1700's , early 1800's are full of the two sides going around attacking and destroying the other's trading posts and settlements [England v France in the Ohio valley].
Whe could either get a Russian Japan, or a Japan that wakes up earlier, focused on Russia instead of China.
In fact the Japanese were moving into Sahilikin and into Amur across the channel. The late 1700's , early 1800's are full of the two sides going around attacking and destroying the other's trading posts and settlements [England v France in the Ohio valley].
Whe could either get a Russian Japan, or a Japan that wakes up earlier, focused on Russia instead of China.
NFR said:
There all Altaics to me
.Yes but you would agree that the Mongols and Tartars had more in common with the Chinese then with the French orm English. I'm saying the Russians were the most Asian of the European cultures and that it could have developed more in line with Central Asia and China then with western Europe.
Smaug said:
Too late. The Mongols are a joke by the time the Manchus come along, the Japanese won't become a menace until mid-nineteenth century at the earliest, and the English in India, well, they have their hands full, really.
Besides, what would that do? Merrying daughters off mean nothing to the Chinese. It's not like this is Russia.
Grey Wolf said:
God knows. Maybe the Polish-Lithuanian state might survive to fight the Swedes over dominance in Baltic. I dunno about Cossack state. In any Russian attempt to move East I am thinking will always chase the Cossacks and then follow them, and increasing settlement of the East isn't going to make them more independent.
Grey Wolf
Donor
NFR said:
The Cossacks in the West have their own institutions, were used IIRC as a buffer not only by Moscow but by Poland, and I think Hungary, and did they not in the early eighteenth century achieve independence for a time anyway before being subjugated by Russia ?
The Cossacks in the East are pseudo-employees of the Russian state, used as advancing frontiersmen.
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Those are Ukrainian cossacks.
I think we are in a simple terminology confusion here.
The Zaporoijan or Dnepr Cossacks did establish two autonomous states in Malorossiya and Novorossiya. But that was after they were alienated from the Commonwealth and went into Russian orbit. An interesting possiblity would be if the Commonwealth didn't try so hard to turn the Cossacks into serfs... Triple commonwealth, maybe?
Come to think of it there is no reason why the Zaporoijan Cossacks couldn't survive playing the Ottomans, a more Eastward looking Muscovy and the Commonwealth off against each other.
Last edited:
NFR said:
Uhhuh. Well it wasnt meant as an insult, just an observation that the Russians appeared in many ways before Peter to be non-european.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Justin Green said:
Given that Peter The Great himself is quoted as sayign that the choice facing Russia was whether to be a European power or an Asiatic one, I don't see the problem ?
I don't feel like I'm having any confusion. The Cossacks in the East originated with ones from the West employed by the Russians in the East. The institution then developed independently in the East.
Grey Wolf
Justin Green said:
Russia is by definition European.
Look, I don't want to get into a debate about the nature of Russian culture here, so let's just leave it, alright?
I don't have a problem with Russia becoming an Eurasian, or Asiatic power given some change in the past, but I make observation about what you say or do not say to a Modern Russian, alright?
Redbeard
Banned
Interesting thread, hadn't noted it before.
Before telegraph and the Transsiberian railway I doubt if Russia could seriously put much weight behind a presence in Siberia or anywhere near at all. But Asia Minor, Black Sea, Caucasus, Afghanistan and perhaps even India might be another matter. Without Peter's urge for becoming western ASAP I could imagine Moscow rulers (with pre Peter look) turning their full attention to the south and southeast.
Against the Ottoman they will have their hands full, especially if not military reorganised along western lines, so this could draw out into a looong conflict. They risk meeting the British sometime too in Afghanistan or India. Chistianity (Ortodox) will probably be advanced more into Central Asia in this ATL, and if the Russian "Crusade" against the S and SE goes on it might even include Constantinople. I could imagine this Russian orientation being coupled closely with a greater focus on the Byzantine heritage claimed by the Zars long before Peter.
In Europe things might develop quite differently. First the southern coast of the Baltic Sea will be dominated by one or more N. European powers. If the PoD is Peter never happening Sweden at first glance appear to be the best bid for a dominant power in the Baltic, but it must not be overlooked, that Sweden in the Great Nordic war already had its hands full and never really had sea supremacy, not in the W. Baltic anyway. Of course having Karl XII at home will be nice, but that is no guarantee - Frederiksten is still there.
By early 18th century Poland had been at least temporarily broken, but relieved of the presense of a westward oriented Russia and perhaps even a Prussia Poland might be seriously back in the fight later. They were underway with interesting development in late 18th century.
Until then Denmark-Norway will still be the main rival over Baltic supremacy, supported by various European allies. I could imagine Denmark-Norway settling in Pommerania and Sweden in Finland, Ingermannland (no St. Petersburg) and Estonia. Poland and/or various German principalities (Brandenburg, Saxony) could be bidders for the area around East Prussia.
The European sea powers will probably (as usual) see to that no power gains control completely over the Baltic entrances, so one power dominating the whole Baltic is unlikely (need an earlier PoD).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Before telegraph and the Transsiberian railway I doubt if Russia could seriously put much weight behind a presence in Siberia or anywhere near at all. But Asia Minor, Black Sea, Caucasus, Afghanistan and perhaps even India might be another matter. Without Peter's urge for becoming western ASAP I could imagine Moscow rulers (with pre Peter look) turning their full attention to the south and southeast.
Against the Ottoman they will have their hands full, especially if not military reorganised along western lines, so this could draw out into a looong conflict. They risk meeting the British sometime too in Afghanistan or India. Chistianity (Ortodox) will probably be advanced more into Central Asia in this ATL, and if the Russian "Crusade" against the S and SE goes on it might even include Constantinople. I could imagine this Russian orientation being coupled closely with a greater focus on the Byzantine heritage claimed by the Zars long before Peter.
In Europe things might develop quite differently. First the southern coast of the Baltic Sea will be dominated by one or more N. European powers. If the PoD is Peter never happening Sweden at first glance appear to be the best bid for a dominant power in the Baltic, but it must not be overlooked, that Sweden in the Great Nordic war already had its hands full and never really had sea supremacy, not in the W. Baltic anyway. Of course having Karl XII at home will be nice, but that is no guarantee - Frederiksten is still there.
By early 18th century Poland had been at least temporarily broken, but relieved of the presense of a westward oriented Russia and perhaps even a Prussia Poland might be seriously back in the fight later. They were underway with interesting development in late 18th century.
Until then Denmark-Norway will still be the main rival over Baltic supremacy, supported by various European allies. I could imagine Denmark-Norway settling in Pommerania and Sweden in Finland, Ingermannland (no St. Petersburg) and Estonia. Poland and/or various German principalities (Brandenburg, Saxony) could be bidders for the area around East Prussia.
The European sea powers will probably (as usual) see to that no power gains control completely over the Baltic entrances, so one power dominating the whole Baltic is unlikely (need an earlier PoD).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
NFR said:
Wrong. Most of the troops and ruling class of the Golden Horde were Turks, as was the case for the entire Mongol Empire. That's why the Crimean Tatars, the remnants of the Golden Horde, were Turkish. Descent from Gengiz Khan, more often than not invented, was a critical element in dynastic legitimacy.
And watch your mouth with your comments about "damned Turks".
Grey Wolf
Donor
Russia faced much lesser problems expanding over the taiga than over the steppes. The tribes were pretty primitive and easy to dominate, whereas the steppe cultures were more settled, or at least more militarily developed. I don't think the advance East in the steppe could be expanded much in this period if you look at the history of war with Kazan, and the other Mongol remnants.
Bizarre at it may seem, a clash with China makes more sense than an earlier expansion over the steppes. The taiga goes all the way to the Okhotsk coast, the Amur area was where Russian expansion ran into Manchu tributaries, at a time when the Manchu were just themselves moving into China. Once established in Peking, the Manchu turned their attention back towards their own Northern homelands, and the Treaty of Nerchinsk defined the borders along the Amur.
But there was a period where Russia WAS going to send a military expedition to the Amur, but a major European war intervened instead. A first serious clash of regular Russian troops and Manchu could have laid the groundwork for the conflicts between them to have become deeper and more serious, especially if Russia continued to focus in the area.
Yes, I admit we are creating the POD around Nerchinsk and not Kiakhta, my mistake
Grey Wolf
Bizarre at it may seem, a clash with China makes more sense than an earlier expansion over the steppes. The taiga goes all the way to the Okhotsk coast, the Amur area was where Russian expansion ran into Manchu tributaries, at a time when the Manchu were just themselves moving into China. Once established in Peking, the Manchu turned their attention back towards their own Northern homelands, and the Treaty of Nerchinsk defined the borders along the Amur.
But there was a period where Russia WAS going to send a military expedition to the Amur, but a major European war intervened instead. A first serious clash of regular Russian troops and Manchu could have laid the groundwork for the conflicts between them to have become deeper and more serious, especially if Russia continued to focus in the area.
Yes, I admit we are creating the POD around Nerchinsk and not Kiakhta, my mistake
Grey Wolf