Who else could fill up the space of Russia's land?

For most of the world's history, the northern parts of Eurasia weren't part of any organized polity. They belonged only to the various groups of small-scale subsistence farmers, hunters, and reindeer herders who etched lives for themselves in the frozen vastness, speaking Uralic and Altaic languages, we well as various Paleo-Siberian languages. The harsh nature of the land meant that it couldn't be a major population center, nor would it be coveted by those who lived in the populous regions to the south.

Eventually, however someone had to claim this land, if only to fill the space on a map. The Russians did the deed, emerging from Moscow to take control of all the other Russian polities and fulfill its expansion all the way to the Pacific Ocean.

Is there anyone else who could have done what the Russians did? Nobody particularly wanted the land aside from the native peoples content to carve out lives there - One could argue that the only reason Russia took it was because it was there. Until the rise of map-making as a serious discipline and the desire to build empires just for the sake of building an empire, there was no reason to claim the northernmost regions. Who else is in the running?

1. The Chinese - They once nominally claimed the Amur river region and Sakhalin. They might go even further north if no one else does. Certainly, in modern times China could use the space. Even if China reached the Arctic Circle, however, I can't see them taking the parts beyond Asia.

2. The Tatars - There's a bit more incentive here, given the former rivalry between the Muslim Tatars and the Christian Slavs, and also the fact that a good number of languages found up there are Turkic languages, not unlike the languages of the Tatars. The distant linguistic relationships are the only thing these peoples have in common, however. Perhaps in a more successful Tatary state, intellectuals would identify the Siberian Turkic-speakers as the "original" Turks and emphasize a duty to bring Islam to their long-lost shamanist cousins.

3. The Manchus - If they don't become part of China, they might create their own state, and where else to go but up? There are plenty of Tungusic speakers in the far north for the Manchus to feel affinity and kinship with.

4. The Mongols - There isn't much reason for the Mongols to do so, but they're close enough. There are a few Mongolic peoples to the north of Mongolia, too, like the Tuvans and the Buryats. They don't go anywhere near the furthest north, however.

5. Scythians or Finno-Ugrians - This one is cheating a bit, because it proposes that Slavic-spakers never become the dominant group in the Russian steppes, and instead Finno-Ugric or Iranian-speaking peoples continue to rule the land. Eventually, they take the place of the Russians in building organized states and one day in the far future, one of their own pulls its own Muscovy. It's still something emerging from the area of the Russian "core," however, which isn't quite what I'm looking for.

Other less-likely possibilities:

Iran - If nobody else is going to take the job, a more powerful Iran might as well see how far north they can get, perhaps as part of a pissing contest with another empire.

Korea - Goguryeo extended beyond the modern limits of the Korean peninsula, and Korean scholars claim the Balhae state that went even further north than that were an extension of the Goguryeo. Perhaps another Korean state might push into Manchuria and the Russian Far East.

Britiain - Because... why not?

Scandinavians - They explored the area in ancient times, and in the Viking area founded many towns that later become Russian cities. By modern times, however, the Scandinavian population was too small to fill up the land the way Russia did.
 
All possibilities- barring perhaps the British. Personally, I think in most alternate worlds China may have a larger share of Siberia.

Here's another possibility: the Japanese (or a nation on the OTL Islands of Japan) could colonize Siberia from the east. Sakhalin Island was partially under their control in OTL, were they to begin expansive efforts in that region moderately earlier than Russia OTL, they could pull off some of that territory (it's a much longer way from Moscow than it is Tokyo).
 
All possibilities- barring perhaps the British. Personally, I think in most alternate worlds China may have a larger share of Siberia.

Here's another possibility: the Japanese (or a nation on the OTL Islands of Japan) could colonize Siberia from the east. Sakhalin Island was partially under their control in OTL, were they to begin expansive efforts in that region moderately earlier than Russia OTL, they could pull off some of that territory (it's a much longer way from Moscow than it is Tokyo).

Um...when you say "Sakhalin" was under their control, what do you mean by that?

For much of their history, Japan hasn't been in strict control of Hokkaido, much less Sakhalin. Even after the Meiji Restoration, they shared the island with Russia, which is too late for this POD.
 
Well, didn't the Spanish at one point claim as far north as Valdez in Alaska? If you just knock the Russians out of colonizing America (or getting to the Chukchi Peninsula), what would stop the Spanish from making claims on Far Eastern Siberia?
 
Well, didn't the Spanish at one point claim as far north as Valdez in Alaska? If you just knock the Russians out of colonizing America (or getting to the Chukchi Peninsula), what would stop the Spanish from making claims on Far Eastern Siberia?

Geography. They can claim all they want, but they're not going to control it.
 
I'm trying to figure out the logistics of the Tatars pulling off what the Russians did. Does anyone have any information about demography of the Golden Horde? After the breakup of the Golden Horde, there were several rather large Tatar polities - Crimea, Kazan, Sibir, and Astrakhan. In modern times, however, the only very sizeable Tatar groups are the descendants of Kazan, the Volga Tatars:

Volga Tatars - 7,000,000
Crimean Tatars - 500,000
Astrakhan Tatars - 80,000
Siberian Tatars -10,000

The last one is the most significant, as historical records suggest the Siberian Tatars had a much larger population in the past. It's explained that many Astrakhan and Siberian Tatars were assimilated into the Volga Tatars, and even today many just identify as "Tatar".

It's also known that after the Russian conquest, there was a mass exodus of Tatars, especially Crimean Tatars, to the Ottoman Empire... Today only about 150,000 people identify as Tatar in Turkey, but Crimean Tatar activists claim the number of Tatar descendants in Turkey could be as many 6 million today, suggesting 1 million of them left for Turkey in the first place and held steady birthrates until the modern day.

If so, that still only gives 13 million Tatars compared to a modern population of 130 million or more ethnic Russians.... But how did things look back in the 15th and 16th centuries? Were things more even back then?

We could also through in other Muslim Turkic groups of Russia, which were often thrown under the "Tatar" blanket in premodern times. The Bashkirs have a population of 2 million. The Karachay-Balkars number half a million, as do the Kumyks, and the Nogais number 100 thousand. That pushes the modern "Tatary" population base to 16 million. I guess also in the Tatars' favor is that they can assimilate other Turkic populations such as the Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Azeris, into a broader Tatar or Turkic identity.
 
Without a Russian expansion, the most likely candidates would be the Turkic/Siberian Khaganates, maybe Sinicized Siberians or Jurchen peoples as well, and maybe in a mixed way (Proto-Mongols and Jurchen didn't exactly collided, and formed as with Jin some common ensembles).

See, while the Eurasian North wasn't that deeply organized, for most of its history since the Vth century, it had been at the margins of several political ensembles.

Among few : Uyghurs, Kimeks, Kirghiz, Liao, etc. Mongols mostly walked onto their steps for what matter political presence in this region.
Let's say that Russia remains divided in several states, you'd end with a large ensemble filled with semi-nomadic polities, maybe slowly Sinicized and Iranized (and *maybe* Europeanizingn the west, while it would be harder).

Now, how could such situation last again an expansionist entity, as for exemple a *colonialist power? That's anybody's guess, altough I don't think it would fare well.
But you'd have room for either integration (China, Persia) or a situation akin to IOTL Central Asia (which means Europeanisation/Sinization/Iranisation trough settlements).

So, at first Turks, Jurchen, Mongols, Siberians, etc. peoples, that should know some Sinicization, Iranisation and maybe Europeanisation trough different geopolitical outcomes.
 
If so, that still only gives 13 million Tatars compared to a modern population of 130 million or more ethnic Russians.... But how did things look back in the 15th and 16th centuries? Were things more even back then?
They were far more even back then. The Grand Duke of Moscow had at most 7 million subjects in 1500 (some of them were Finno-Ugrians, but most were Slavs; however, some minor ethnic Russian states were still independent from Moscow in 1500, so these two facts cancelled each other, and we can safely put ethnic Russian population at no more than 7 million in that year). Meanwhile, the Golden Horde's Turkic successor states (the Nogai Horde, the Crimean Khanate, the Kazan Khanate, etc.) each likely numbered hundreds of thousands of subjects in that year (the Nogais are estimated at 450,000 to 1 million here (pp. 493-499), and they were still unable to establish a lasting hegemony in the steppe).

Summing up, at the turn of the 16th century, there were 7 (or even 6) million ethnic Russians vs 2 to 4 million "Tatars" (actually, the latter belonged to many distinct tribes and states and lacked a common identity, despite speaking mostly mutually intelligible dialects).

The Russians became really numerous only in the 18th century, when they colonized fertile Eastern European steppes (formerly dominated by Turkic nomads).
 
Personally

I always thought the people of the Ainu would have been a great Empire that should have developed in the Eastern Asian lands of Russia. But they instead went East to Japan and the were later conquered and assimilated until near extinction after they were island locked.
 
They were far more even back then. The Grand Duke of Moscow had at most 7 million subjects in 1500 (some of them were Finno-Ugrians, but most were Slavs; however, some minor ethnic Russian states were still independent from Moscow in 1500, so these two facts cancelled each other, and we can safely put ethnic Russian population at no more than 7 million in that year). Meanwhile, the Golden Horde's Turkic successor states (the Nogai Horde, the Crimean Khanate, the Kazan Khanate, etc.) each likely numbered hundreds of thousands of subjects in that year (the Nogais are estimated at 450,000 to 1 million here (pp. 493-499), and they were still unable to establish a lasting hegemony in the steppe).

Summing up, at the turn of the 16th century, there were 7 (or even 6) million ethnic Russians vs 2 to 4 million "Tatars" (actually, the latter belonged to many distinct tribes and states and lacked a common identity, despite speaking mostly mutually intelligible dialects).

The Russians became really numerous only in the 18th century, when they colonized fertile Eastern European steppes (formerly dominated by Turkic nomads).

To make it clear, who exactly would you be counting as "Tatar" for the sake of your 16th century figure? The peoples of Kazan, Astrakhan, Sibir, Crimea and Nogai? Probably the Bashkirs, Kumyks, Karachay, and Balkars as well? That probably gives the upper figure?

Anyway, a ratio of 7:2 in favor of the Slavs is not a good outlook for the Tatars, but a a ratio of 7:4 (or even 6:4) is more feasible. The issue of a common identity isn't much a big obstacle, as the Russians were also divided into many states at the outset.

The Uzbeks and Uyghurs, for example, didn't even have common identities of "Uzbek" or "Uyghur" before pre-modern times. They identified with their cities more then anything else, so you were from Tashkent, Kashgar, Turpan, or Khiva before anything else. If the Tatars can conquer and assimilate the Silk Road cities, they'll have a much larger population base to work with in colonizing the north. The fact that the "Tatars" share religious and linguistic ties to the peoples of the Silk Road areas gives them some advantages that the Russians didn't, in this regard.
 
To make it clear, who exactly would you be counting as "Tatar" for the sake of your 16th century figure? The peoples of Kazan, Astrakhan, Sibir, Crimea and Nogai? Probably the Bashkirs, Kumyks, Karachay, and Balkars as well? That probably gives the upper figure?
Yes. Actually, the Caucasian Turkic peoples (Kumyks, Karachay, and Balkars) are not that populous even now (and were even less so five centuries ago), so we can get to the range of 2 to 4 million even without counting these three groups in. Also, the Kazakhs (numbering around a million in the 16th century) were then perceived (including by themselves) as yet another post-Golden Horde nomadic people (on par with the Nogais), so we can add them to the "Tatars," making this super-group 3 to 5 million strong.

The problem with the Tatars (however we define them) conquering Siberia is that they had the wherewithal but lacked the desire OTL. Russia conquered Siberia with a few thousand Cossacks, soldiers and civilian merchant adventurers, who were armed with abundant cold weapons and a few unreliable handguns (cannon usually appeared in a Russian fort well after the initial conquest). Obviously, any strong Tatar state could send a few thousand warriors into Siberia (they probably would need to send more men than Russia did OTL, because most nomads had no firearms, but it was still doable). However, the Tatars were content to trade for furs with Siberian peoples (and sometimes extort furs from natives living closest to Tatar settlements), while the Russians were determined to extort (I mean, tax) wherever possible, and traded for furs only when taxation was totally unworkable. Since taxation needed an armed force to enforce it, the Russians felt the need to conquer as much of Siberia as they could.
 
I wouldn't discount the British, Scandinavians or some other maritime people, especially if we have some good ice free winters. All they need to do is control a few key ports, maybe some rivers, and from there "claim" broad swathes of the interior with which they trade.
Key factor is the ice.
 
I'd like to think that the Volga Germans, if more emigrated, can be sent to colonise the farther reaches of the Russian Empire. ;)

That's a bit too late, I'd think. The Germans went to Russia on behalf of the Russian Empire, they only went because they were invited. The land already belonged to Russia at the time.
 
That's a bit too late, I'd think. The Germans went to Russia on behalf of the Russian Empire, they only went because they were invited. The land already belonged to Russia at the time.

Also was that the Germans had no strong country then, so the Russians didn't fear them. Maybe an earlier German queen becomes ruler of Russia?
 
Also was that the Germans had no strong country then, so the Russians didn't fear them. Maybe an earlier German queen becomes ruler of Russia?

Catherine initially invited any Western Europeans who wanted to go there, including British, French, Dutch, and so on. It's that only the Germans came in large numbers, as they had the biggest excess population and the most desire (other Western Europeans looking to immigrate chose the Americas first). Western Europeans were seen as closer kin to the Russians than the Mongols and Tatars they were trying to drive out.

My point is that by that time, Russia already owned the territory. I'm looking for alternate colonizing powers other than Russia, not alternate settlers within Russia.
 
Top