Russia and China in the eighteenth century

Molobo

Banned
Well it wasnt meant as an insult, just an observation that the Russians appeared in many ways before Peter to be non-european.
It was ruled by Tatars so its not really surprising.The fact is that Russia to this day remains an uneuropean state with much emphasis on absolutism and devoid of influnece of several importent european movements as well as respect for invidual rights.For example when Russia conquered Poland in late 18 century, it was perceived as totally alien, cruel and oppressive state.It certainly wasn't perceived as an European country/a case being corporal punishment in the army, which was shocking to nobility based polish army/

Triple commonwealth, maybe?
Such attempt was made by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hadiach
The Treaty of Hadiach (Polish: ugoda hadziacka) was a treaty signed on September 16, 1658, in Hadiach (Hadziacz, Hadiacz,) between representatives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (represented by S. Bieniewski and K. Jewłaszewski) and Cossacks (represented by ataman Ivan Vyhovsky and starshyna (sztarszna, the elders) Yurii Nemyrych, architect of the treaty, and Pavlo Teteria). It was designed to elevate the Cossacks and Ruthenians to the position equal to that of Poland and Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Union and in fact transforming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into a Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Trojga Narodów, "Commonwealth of Three Nations").


Features

The specific features of the Treaty of Hadiach were:

1. creation of the Ruthenian Duchy or Grand Duchy of Rus (Polish: Księstwo Moskiewskie) from Czernichów Voivodship, Kijów Voivodship and Braclaw Voivodship (The Cossack negotiators had originally demanded that Galicia Voivodship, Wolhynian Voivodship, Belz Voivodship, Podole Voivodship, Pynske Voivodship, Starodub Voivodship, and Ovruch Voivodship be included as well), which would be governed by a Cossack ataman, elected for life from among four candidates presented by the Cossacks and confirmed by the king of Poland;
2. creation of parallel Ruthenian offices, tribunal, academy (Kiev's Orthodox Collegium would be raised to the status of an academy; a second Orthodox higher institution of learning would be founded; and as many schools and printing presses "as were necessary" would be established), a judicial system, treasury and mint as existed in Poland and Lithuania (see Offices in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth);
3. the Duchy would be connected with the Commonwealth by the common king. There would be only one national parliament (Sejm) and one foreign policy;
4. admission to the Senate of Poland of Orthodox ecclesiastic members: the Archbishop (metropolita) of Kiev and other Orthodox bishops (of Lutske, Lviv, Peremyshl, Kholm, and Mstsislau) and elevation of the Orthodox religion and Church to the same level as Catholicism. No Uniate monasteries or churches were to be built in the Duchy - the Union of Brest would be dissolved on the territory of the Ruthenian Duchy;
5. nobilitation of Cossacks elders (starszyzna kozacka). Each year the ataman would recommend to the king 1,000 Cossacks to receive the hereditary patent of nobility, and up to 100 Cossacks in each military regiment could be nobilitated as well.
6. establishment of a Cossack army, in the form of the Cossack register of 30,000. The officers of these forces would be elected by their own members. The Cossacks' own forces would be supplemented by 10,000 regular mercenaries, paid from public taxes. No other Commonweatlh troops were to be allowed in Rus' without the consent of the Cossack hetman, except in the event of war, and then they would come under the Cossack hetman's command;
7. return of land and property to Commonwealth nobility (szlachta), which had been confiscated by Cossacks after the 1648 Chmielnicki Uprising;
8. a general anmesty for previous crimes would be decreed.

History and importance

Historian Andrew Wilson has called this "one of the great 'What-ifs?' of Ukrainian and East European history", noting that "If it had been successfully implemented, the Commonwealth would finally have become a loose confederation of Poles, Lithuanians and Ruthenians. The missing Ukrainian buffer state would have come into being as the Commonwealth's eastern pillar. Russian expansion might have been checked and Poland spared the agonies of the Partitions or, perhaps just as likely, it might have struggled on longer as the 'Sick Man of Europe.'" (p. 65)

In spite of considerable Roman Catholic opposition, the Treaty of Hadiach was approved by Polish king and parliament (Sejm) on 22 May 1659. It was a Commonwealth attempt to regain influence over the Ukrainian territories, lost after the series of Cossack uprisings (like the Chmielnicki Uprising) and growing influence of Muscovy over the Cossacks (like the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav).

Ataman Vyhovsky supported the negotiations with the Commonwealth, especially after he suppressed a revolt led by the colonel of Poltava, Martyn Pushkar, and severed relations with Muscovy for its violations of the Treaty of Pereyaslav of 1654. The Treaty of Hadiach was, however, viewed by many Cossacks as 'too little, too late', and they especially opposed the agreement to return land property to the szlachta. After the 1648 revolt, the Commonwealth was very unpopular with ordinary Cossacks. Rank-and-file Cossacks saw Orthodox Moscow as their natural ally and did not care for alliance with the Commonwealth. Furthermore, Hadiach was too much a deal that merely benefited the elite of the Cossacks—the "starshyna"—who wanted to be recognized as equal to the Polish nobility. Thus, while some Cossacks, among them the ataman Ivan Vyhovsky supported the Commonwealth, many did not, and Cossack unrest continued in Ukraine.

The Commonwealth position was further weakened by the agression of Muscovy. Muscovy felt threatened by the Treaty of Hadiach, which weakend their hold on Cossacks. The Muscovites saw the treaty as an act of war, and even before it was ratified sent an army into Ukraine. Although Polish forces under hetman Stefan Czarniecki dealt defeat to Muscovy forces at the battle of Polonka, and recaptured Wilno in 1660, lack of other Commonwealth military successes, especially in Ukraine, further undermined Cossack support of the Commonwealth. Vyhovsky's early success at the battle of Konotop in June 1659 was not descisive enough, and was followed by a series of defeats. The Muscovite garrisons in Ukraine continued to hold out; a Zaporozhian attack on the Crimea forced Vykhovsky's Tatar allies to return home, and unrest broke out in the Poltava region. Finally, several pro-Moscow colonels rebelled and accused Vykhovsky of "selling Ukraine out to the Poles."

Unable to continue the war, Vykhovsky resigned in October 1659 and retired to Poland. The situation was further complicated by the Ottoman Empire, which tried to gain control of the disputed region and played all factions against each other. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth was weakened by the rokosz of Jerzy Lubomirski.

In the end, Muscovy was victorious, as seen in the 1667 Treaty of Andrusovo and the 1686 Eternal Peace. Cossacks fell under the Muscovite sphere of influence, with much fewer priviliges under the Hetmanate than would have been granted under the treaty of Hadiach. By the end of the 18th century, Cossack political influence has been almost completely destroyed by the Russian Empire.


Second Treaty of Hadiach

In the aftermath of the November Uprising in 1861, there was an attempt to recreate the Treaty of Hadiach, to form a Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth to throw off the partitions of Poland. It was then that the coat of arms of the proposed Commonwealth was created. The planned convention in Hadiach was declared illegal by the Russians, who stationed close to 2,000 soldiers there to ensure that no meetings or demonstrations take place and blocked passage through nearby bridges. Despite these precautions, a mass and a celebration involving 15–20,000 people and over 200 priests (both Catholic and Orthodox) took place near Hadiach.
And here is a proposed coat of arms of the Triple Commonwealth :

Rzeczpospolita_Obojga_Narodow.png


Without the interference of Moscow this attempts could develop in to formation of such state. It is likely it would be able to fend aggression from Prussia also.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha 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".

Somehow I am not surprised to hear that from a Turk.

The 'Turks' were assimilated Bulgars and Urals, assimilated by the Tatars so they call themselves Tatars. That makes them Tatars. By your definition the Mongol dynasty in China was Chinese and hence China was never conquered.

And I'll call enemies of Russia names if I damn well please.
 
NFR said:
Somehow I am not surprised to hear that from a Turk.

The 'Turks' were assimilated Bulgars and Urals, assimilated by the Tatars so they call themselves Tatars. That makes them Tatars. By your definition the Mongol dynasty in China was Chinese and hence China was never conquered.

And I'll call enemies of Russia names if I damn well please.

What is particularly hilarious about this debate is that the modern inhabitants of Turkey are ethnically Greek (or more accurately Hellenized Indo-Europeans) and by and large not of Turkic origin. This has been fairly well demonstrated by the father of a friend of mine, but the Turkish government has of course suppressed the information ( I.E if you publish this you will not be digging here again...)

The double irony of course is that it is fairly likely that many of the inhabitants of modern Greece are Slavs not Greeks.

One may conclude that ethnology is by and large a silly business.
 
I don't think Russian attention could possibly have been MORE focused on the Ottomans than historically!

Also, I don't think there is too much potential for expansion into India - this would require going through Central Asia, which was too remote, difficult to get to, and too powerful militarily compared to Russian power-projection capabilities until the middle of the 19th c. You just have too cross too much hostile-nomad-infested steppe and desert.

Redbeard said:
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
 
While I agree about taiga vs steppe, there is still the issue of extreme distance. While perhaps not a fatal handicap to expansion into barely-inhabited places like North America, trying to maintain a presence strong enough to deal with China would be problemmatic.

A more eastern-oriented policy could certainly make a difference, but I don't think you will end up with a Russian-dominated China. Perhaps a greater hold over Manchuria, Mongolia, Chinese Turkestan, etc... but the consequence would be greater British engagement in China, which could have very unexpected results. Would the British find it in their interest to prop up China? How would this affect Japan? etc.

Grey Wolf said:
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
 
NFR said:
Somehow I am not surprised to hear that from a Turk.

The 'Turks' were assimilated Bulgars and Urals, assimilated by the Tatars so they call themselves Tatars. That makes them Tatars. By your definition the Mongol dynasty in China was Chinese and hence China was never conquered.

And I'll call enemies of Russia names if I damn well please.

Do you know anything at all about your own history? The Bulgars were Turks that became assimilated after conquering Balkan Slavs, not the other way around.

Turkey and Russia are friendly today, but I suppose I shouldn't expect civilized behavior from smelly ill-dressed mafiosi. European? Hah! Turkey will be in Europe 100 years before anyone even thinks of letting in the Mongols of Moscow in. Now why don't you go off and steal a German car and strip it for parts - I realize that's the only way to make a living in your sorry ruin of a country.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
While I agree about taiga vs steppe, there is still the issue of extreme distance. While perhaps not a fatal handicap to expansion into barely-inhabited places like North America, trying to maintain a presence strong enough to deal with China would be problemmatic.

A more eastern-oriented policy could certainly make a difference, but I don't think you will end up with a Russian-dominated China. Perhaps a greater hold over Manchuria, Mongolia, Chinese Turkestan, etc... but the consequence would be greater British engagement in China, which could have very unexpected results. Would the British find it in their interest to prop up China? How would this affect Japan? etc.

A clash with China could start in the Amur region but then become critical in the Eastern Mongol area - that's actually what the Manchu themselves feared, and its notable that after Nerchinsk the next major Chinese move was to try to get a treaty demarcating the rest of the border to the West.

I could imagine a series of small wars in the Northern Manchu tributaries on the Amur, that then develops into a major war in Western Mongol areas

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
I've been trying to make some sense of this, rather than simply let it die. Some of the decisions will be based on possibilities rather than probabilities, but the difficulty of debate makes this necessary.

My main problem is that one cannot construct a timeline for Europe which simply deletes Russia and allows one to work out what happens if Russia is not there. There is the problem of the 'Instead'. Instead of Russia in the great power interplays we would have Poland, Sweden (even more so than OTL) and my contention is the Ukraine also as an independent Cossack state.

I've bashed out the barest of bare timelines in the roughest of rough form :-

russia and china fight in the East
russia finally rises to dominance
a joint russian-manchu dynasty sits on the throne of china
southern china remains independent
in europe, sweden and poland clash for supremacy
sweden initially gains ascendancy
the 18th century sees wars to limit sweden
britain and france, austria and prussia....
ottomans and cossacks....the khanate of the Crimea, the Principalities
rise of the Ukraine against the Crimean Tatars
No partitions of Poland, which is greater used in alliances against the Swedes
Russian penetration into N America etc
independent Tibet, Russian Mongolia and Dzungaria
But the Rus-Manchu dynasty in Peking holds sway over 'Chinese Turkestan'
this includes Kashgaria as well as Khokand, the lands of the Kirghiz etc

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Oh dear...

I haven't really got the time to study it all at the moment...

But my crowded life can get so boring I was hoping to get a general over-arcing idea of what the world MIGHT look like a couple of hundred years since the POD

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Bored, and having had a red wine disaster I've been doing some looking up...

http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/Decline.html

In 1697 the Elector of Saxony, Augustus, was elected King. From 1700 - 1721, Augustus II allied himself with Russia and became involved in war with Sweden for control of the Baltic (the Great Northern War). Poland became a battlefield and the Polish throne the prize.

Remove Russia from the equation and the dynamics of this conflict, if it ever arose would be different

But if we posit the POD at Nerchinsk then we may even remove the antecedents of this war as well

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Hmmm, Nerchinsk was in 1689 - if we assume that everything up to there is historical, then we are looking at the end of the reign of Sophia, and OTL the start of that of Peter The Great. If war breaks out in full in the East, then how does this affect the political events in the West ? Might, paradoxically, the coincidence of military defeats against the Tatars and a full-scale war against China make whatever regime is in power in the 1690s focus Eastwards ?

We still have the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 which gives Russia grounds for meddling in Poland, but grounds for meddling can become null and void if different circumstances arise to drag attention elsewhere. A different example as a parallel would be Unkiar Skelessi where Russia appeared to repeat this feat with the Ottoman Empire but within a decade the situation had reverted to one very similiar to that beforehand. So, perhaps the same sort of thing happens with the teaty of peace with Poland ?

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Hmmm, I was not trying to define an exact POD, merely to give some examples. I don't actually need or want to do this in excruciating detail as it will prevent the timeline from ever getting to the twentieth century. I was trying to set a background where one could say it is feasible, and then look at what the longer term effects would be...

Grey Wolf
 
This is a really interesting idea, I hope you continue it.

A few questions though, what will be the effects of the Russian Orthodox church now that Russia is much more Oriental then western? I assume they lose their leadership and influence among the orthodox community. Perhaps the Russodox Church might be influenced by Confucism? Possible ancestor worship? Was there any examples of ancestor veneration among the Russians in the past?
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Justin Green said:
This is a really interesting idea, I hope you continue it.

A few questions though, what will be the effects of the Russian Orthodox church now that Russia is much more Oriental then western? I assume they lose their leadership and influence among the orthodox community. Perhaps the Russodox Church might be influenced by Confucism? Possible ancestor worship? Was there any examples of ancestor veneration among the Russians in the past?

A good point, I certainly see them becoming cut off, with the Tatars, the Cossacks, the Turks etc all in the way, and with an Eastern focus resulting in less of an imperative to regain the initiative in the West.

One could certainly imagine a Rus-Manchu dynasty adopting a merged form of Orthodoxism and Confucianism, and overtime this may well spread West to Moscow itself.

One could imagine an intellectual tradition growing up blending the two cultures, two traditions and creating a unifying creed. It would bring schism, and perhaps civil war, which would not be bad as it would help to advance the timeline somewhat !

Grey Wolf
 
Wozza said:
What is particularly hilarious about this debate is that the modern inhabitants of Turkey are ethnically Greek (or more accurately Hellenized Indo-Europeans) and by and large not of Turkic origin. This has been fairly well demonstrated by the father of a friend of mine, but the Turkish government has of course suppressed the information ( I.E if you publish this you will not be digging here again...)

The double irony of course is that it is fairly likely that many of the inhabitants of modern Greece are Slavs not Greeks.

One may conclude that ethnology is by and large a silly business.

The population of Asia Minor was pretty diverse, including Indo-European, Celts, Semites, etc., but much of the Christian population fled West as the Seljuks advanced. While there is certainly a large amount of Greek blood in the Turks, there is also a large amount of Turkish, and also, millions of Tatars, Circassians and other Caucasians, and Balkan Muslims (Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, Vlach, Bulgarian, etc) fled to Asia Minor as refugees. There is also a lot of Armenian and Jewish.

So I wouldn't call them "largely non-Turkish" - that was more true in 1923 than it is now, as the mixed-blood coastal and urban centers have been flooded by Anatolians. I don't think you would get in trouble for pointing out that a very large portion of Turks have non-Turkish heritage; it's just when such statements are coupled with attacks on the legitimacy of Turkey that people get agitated.
 
Molobo said:
It was ruled by Tatars so its not really surprising.The fact is that Russia to this day remains an uneuropean state with much emphasis on absolutism and devoid of influnece of several importent european movements as well as respect for invidual rights.For example when Russia conquered Poland in late 18 century, it was perceived as totally alien, cruel and oppressive state.It certainly wasn't perceived as an European country/a case being corporal punishment in the army, which was shocking to nobility based polish army/


Such attempt was made by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hadiach

And here is a proposed coat of arms of the Triple Commonwealth :

Rzeczpospolita_Obojga_Narodow.png


Without the interference of Moscow this attempts could develop in to formation of such state. It is likely it would be able to fend aggression from Prussia also.
Hmmm, what would the advantages be of such a triple commonwealth?
 
Top