|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 25, 2020 8:25:25 GMT
So from its existence as the Grand Duchy of Moscow to the Tsardom of Russia and finally the Russian Empire, it has never abandoned the goal of bringing back the other lands that were lost by Kievan Rus'/Kyivan Rus' to Poland and Lithuania. The modern states of Ukraine and Belarus had undergone a rather different kind of socio-political and cultural development that was hugely affected by mainly Polish and Lithuanian influences, as was seen during the era of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The eventual conquest of much of modern Belarus and most of Ukraine had transformed Russia into a major European player. At the same time, the partitions of Poland had also brought in the former Commonwealth's Jewish population, making Russia the nation with the largest Jewish population before the pogroms had propelled Russian Jews to immigrate to other nations.
How would Russia as we know it, develop if it failed or didn't try to conquer the eastern lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Preventing Russia from conquering much of modern Belarus and Ukraine seems to be easy: a stronger Polish-Lithuanian military, combined with a helpful Swedish ally to block Russian access to the Baltic Sea and perhaps a slightly stronger Ottoman presence as well. However, would the absence of Belarus and Ukraine inside Russia make it better off or worse off?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381 
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Jan 25, 2020 12:19:41 GMT
So from its existence as the Grand Duchy of Moscow to the Tsardom of Russia and finally the Russian Empire, it has never abandoned the goal of bringing back the other lands that were lost by Kievan Rus'/Kyivan Rus' to Poland and Lithuania. The modern states of Ukraine and Belarus had undergone a rather different kind of socio-political and cultural development that was hugely affected by mainly Polish and Lithuanian influences, as was seen during the era of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The eventual conquest of much of modern Belarus and most of Ukraine had transformed Russia into a major European player. At the same time, the partitions of Poland had also brought in the former Commonwealth's Jewish population, making Russia the nation with the largest Jewish population before the pogroms had propelled Russian Jews to immigrate to other nations. How would Russia as we know it, develop if it failed or didn't try to conquer the eastern lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Preventing Russia from conquering much of modern Belarus and Ukraine seems to be easy: a stronger Polish-Lithuanian military, combined with a helpful Swedish ally to block Russian access to the Baltic Sea and perhaps a slightly stronger Ottoman presence as well. However, would the absence of Belarus and Ukraine inside Russia make it better off or worse off?
Well if the Polish Commonwealth survived and especially if it avoided the OTL conflicts with Sweden then that would be a big game changer, both in eastern Europe and probably elsewhere. Denying Russia pretty much everything west of the Dnieper and possibly some to the west would largely isolate it from events in Europe and you could well see Sweden stay the dominate power in the Baltic region so that route of access would be cut off as well. With very little contact with western and central Europe Russia is going to lack a lot of the trade and interactions and stay more a semi-Asiatic power in the eyes of most Europeans.
It could be more successful in the eastern Ukraine if it concentrated against the Ottomans and possibly if it could get a base there possibly even more successful in a drive towards Constantinople which would give it more of the access to western resources. However if Poland and Sweden keep it away from contact with the rest of Europe, while a lot would depend on what happens in central and western Europe with a powerful 'Poland' and how it handles its internal issues Russia could be largely isolated from events further west and probably suffer a number of costly defeat trying to change that. Could possibly even see Russia break up into regional states at the worst.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 26, 2020 3:48:38 GMT
I see. Would it have pushed for an earlier conquest of northern Asia on the part of Russia? It might make the whole conquering Central Asia a bit more manageable, as well as have more interactions with Asian powerhouses like China, Korea and Japan. On the other hand, even at the height of the PLC, they hardly captured any territories ruled by the Crimean Khanate, so most likely Muscovy or the Tsardom of Russia would have focused on conquering several successor states to the former Golden Horde.
Consequently, the demographics might be vastly different in a Russia without its Ukrainian and Belarusian provinces as the Tatars might become the secondary ethnic group after ethnic Russians in this alternate Russia.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Jan 26, 2020 13:19:09 GMT
I see. Would it have pushed for an earlier conquest of northern Asia on the part of Russia? It might make the whole conquering Central Asia a bit more manageable, as well as have more interactions with Asian powerhouses like China, Korea and Japan. On the other hand, even at the height of the PLC, they hardly captured any territories ruled by the Crimean Khanate, so most likely Muscovy or the Tsardom of Russia would have focused on conquering several successor states to the former Golden Horde. Consequently, the demographics might be vastly different in a Russia without its Ukrainian and Belarusian provinces as the Tatars might become the secondary ethnic group after ethnic Russians in this alternate Russia.
There might be an earlier or larger push eastwards, although after the conquest of the Volga basin and delta this seems to have been largely a private enterprise operation by groups looking to exploit the fur trade. However central Asia seems to have been tougher and here Russia is going to be significantly weaker. Possibly more so if a lot of resources are consumed trying and failing to break through the Polish/Swedish block on the Baltic and western Ukraine. If Poland was to keep Kiev and hence control of the Dnieper [although this may be a step too far for them] then even pushing southwards to the Black sea east of that would be markedly more difficult and if Poland maintained its early relative tolerance then a good chunk of central and even eastern Ukraine may stay outside Russian control. Which means their got huge areas but their main breadbasket is probably in the Volga so you might even see the capital moved to somewhere further east at some point and it concentrating on pushing down via the Volga and lower Don. That would make Russia far more 'eastern' in culture and population and as you say some sort of Tartar/Turkish/Mongol sub-set could easily become the 2nd ethnic group.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 26, 2020 21:39:06 GMT
So perhaps it might have been inevitable that Muscovy or the Russian Tsardom would have conquered large portions of Ukraine and Belarus in order not to collapse. Although the territories of Russia before the Polish partition does seem to be reasonably managed well, even if it had some troubles.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Jan 27, 2020 16:16:19 GMT
So perhaps it might have been inevitable that Muscovy or the Russian Tsardom would have conquered large portions of Ukraine and Belarus in order not to collapse. Although the territories of Russia before the Polish partition does seem to be reasonably managed well, even if it had some troubles.
Ah if your assuming only the OTL partitions in the late 18th C are affected that would be a different matter. I was thinking that the Polish Commonwealth remains at something like its ~1620 form with control of areas up the Dnieper and beyond it to include Kiev. If the state remained stable and well organised, which would probably mean avoiding the war(s) with Sweden then it could probably maintain this sort of territory, especially if it stayed fair liberal politically and tolerant religiously then it would probably be at least challenging Russia for control of areas like the Crimean as the Tartars weaken.
If Russia gets the sort of gains in the south that it made OTL by ~1760 then its going to have a markedly stronger position, especially if it also wins a version of the Great Northern War to control the eastern shore of the Baltic. In that case its going to become a major player in Europe and almost certainly going to secure more gains against Poland I would expect because it would have a markedly larger resource base.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 28, 2020 6:16:18 GMT
Realistically, if Russia would have to settle for bits of Ukraine and Belarus (not conquering them in its entirety outright), it would have settled for the borderlands (Polotsk and most of what is now Bryansk and Smolensk) in eastern and northern Belarus, and would have focused more on taming the wild steppe that was contested by the Cossack Hetmanate and the Crimean Khanate.
|
|
