What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Modern By 1850, Russia is industrialized

How hard is France and Britain pooping themselves?

  • Large skidmark, scrub your butt before you sleep

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Brown pants requested

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Brown pants demanded

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total Bowel Evacuation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Vashon

Active member
Banned
For starters, lets say

Survives, and lives about 100 years retaining his faculties to the very end. He did have at least one relative that survived that long while imprisoned. Anyways, past this point its 100% pure fiat. As he grows older, and comes of age, he changes his opinion on serfs, and also has a harsh opinion of his German relatives. As in, he de-Germs the Romanov family and much of , up to and including delegitimization by ax. and reverses some of the social reform his grandfather did while keeping a keen interest in technology. As a deal, he allows the nobles to engage in merchanting and other things, in exchange for setting up schools for serfs, really just getting the church in on making the populace literate and numerate and more options for freedom.

The reason he wants this, he explains, is that everything he has to purchase outside the country enriches somebody he can't tax and won't serve in his military. And if they make stuff here, it means nobles or whatever get the money instead of sending it elsewhere. And some excellent points are made about cheaper military equipment of the same quality.

This forms an odd, warped way of developing craftsmen and artisans and then later an industrialization workforce, with freemen and women subject to wage slavery and early company towns and serfdom warping into a steampunk cyberpunk contract but it serves the purpose. Peter II dies at the age a hundred and whatever, having only seen a few substantial changes, but the ideas stick. At the time of his death, literacy and numeracy are up to a "staggering" 40% across the board.

By 1800, the Russian empire has some nascent industrial output, being behind Belgium.

By 1820, having did what two Americans did and thieve the tar out of every bit intellectual property they could, Russia has some serious face output across the board. They also have established and expanded colleges and universities. Literacy and numeracy of basic arithmetic have hit 75%.

By 1835, its among the top industrial powers in Europe in total finished goods production, among the top 5, though per capita is lower, and isn't making as much from export directly. At this point, its just benefitting from increased agricultural output and many nobles and freemen are making money off of this. Thats not to say they aren't exporting finished goods, its just most of that production is internally consumed and is otherwise noncompetitive thanks to tariffs. And it is constructing railways at pace with Britain.

By 1850, Russia is a serious face industrial power, having exceeded total British rail length in (throws a dart) 1848, and only has a handful of finished products it actually needs to import, none of which are strategically necessary. It has also managed to avoid some of the rot of Nicholas the 1st, with narry a Prussian Marching fanboy in sight of the throne.

And seeing this, regarding the early population boom and other issues, the British and French decide to intervene in the Crimean War as otl. Similar goals, except against a stronger, much wealthier Russian empire.

How does this play out? What is the likelyhood of the Czar getting Constantinople by 1900? Or smashing the Ottomans clean to pieces by then? What about an increase in nations involving themselves in the Crimean war?

Generally, what do you think of the geopolitical and geostrategic consequences of Russia entering the Crimean War as a modern and advanced industrial power? And beyond that?
 

KittyWubs

Member
All of europe is in some form Russian territory by 1950

Russia was on track to roll over all of europe until the proliferation of nukes and eventually MAD.

EDIT:

Altho, the pressure of this, could lead to a literal trifecta of Alliances between germany, italy and France. with the sole goal of forming a military bloc to repel russia. But I can't see America getting involved in this, and I don't know how much britain would do to help them post 1920s.

At best europe is far more militarized.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
As I hit the quote button, your edit popped up. So I got your editted in bits showing in my quote box but not your post, not until I refresh. Its weird.
All of europe is in some form Russian territory by 1950

Russia was on track to roll over all of europe until the proliferation of nukes and eventually MAD.
I honestly don't see that happening, what with the large lack of wanting to do so. Its a lazy ATL, but the dismemberment of Poland was an Austrian and Prussian show that Russia joined in because why not. the Czars were mostly concerned in acquiring secure ports and securing farmland. And eventually wanted to bully the Ottomans into helpless for the annoying support they gave to everyone who the Cossacks had to fight. The actual interests and goals seemed to be to use Europe to replace Byzantium as a trading partner and secure itself against the raiders of the Steppe, European invasion, and the ensure the Ottomans could never be a threat again.
EDIT:

Altho, the pressure of this, could lead to a literal trifecta of Alliances between germany, italy and France. with the sole goal of forming a military bloc to repel russia. But I can't see America getting involved in this, and I don't know how much britain would do to help them post 1920s.

At best europe is far more militarized.
Yeah, I was also wondering if another Coalition might form, including Austria and Prussia, against Super Russia, and how successful that would be. And for those just reading, Russia actually has a long history of strategic and tactical cleverness in the field, and not just blobbing things to death. The obsession with being a steel blobbing behemoth was purely a Cold War fixation that was period specific for reasons.
 

KittyWubs

Member
Basically in my opinion. Once russia, and I believe it almost certainly will, starts to close in properly on germany proper. and Pretty much if there's any significant inter power war between 1910 and 1940 in europe then Russia is going to start leveraging it's probably insanely developed industry base and manpower reserves and economy, resources etc, to almost certainly land grab.


After 1910, the only things stopping russia from taking more and more european land would be coalition dedicated entirely to stopping Russia. which means France and Germany are going to have to play nice with eachother, and hope that britain doesn't buddy up with Russia.

There is undoubtebly going to be at least 1 great war in the 1900-1950s period within europe, the blocs I see forming is one Pro russian bloc and an Anti russian bloc.

Earlier on, you have little hope of American involvement. maybe much later towards the 50s they may involve themselves.
Russia actually has a long history of strategic and tactical cleverness in the field, and not just blobbing things to death. The obsession with being a steel blobbing behemoth was purely a Cold War fixation that was period specific for reasons.
Yes I'd agree in part. I'd argue that there performance in WW1 did involve significant blobbing. Although to be far, world war 1 was the battle of the blobs for the most part.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
Yes I'd agree in part. I'd argue that there performance in WW1 did involve significant blobbing. Although to be far, world war 1 was the battle of the blobs for the most part.
What killed them there was the lack of industrial strength to replace equipment losses and concurrent difficulties in regenerating armies in the field. Other than that, Russia performed exceptionally well early on, but had a thin, easily shattered sword they couldn't rebuild. Had they been able to do so, I don't think the Czardom would have fallen and the war could have been won sooner.

In fact, I have seen an argument that Russia could have ripped the heart out of eastern Germany and put them in a similar position as Germany in France, had they focused on Germany and had Evert not been a delaying turd.
 

Vorpal

Administrator
Administrator
This feels like the first PoD would have been better if Peter I did not reverse the uniformity policy in the lands he purchased from Sweden, since there were also aimed at abolishing serfdom and bolstering education of the peasants, and instead this later spread more to other parts of Russia.

As I hit the quote button, your edit popped up. So I got your editted in bits showing in my quote box but not your post, not until I refresh. Its weird.
I honestly don't see that happening, what with the large lack of wanting to do so. Its a lazy ATL, but the dismemberment of Poland was an Austrian and Prussian show that Russia joined in because why not. the Czars were mostly concerned in acquiring secure ports and securing farmland.
Well, sort of. For the events leading up to the First Partition of Poland, Catherine II was probably initially motivated by creating a Russia-friendly buffer state between the Germanics and avoiding the very real possibility of being assassinated. The aristocracy having just offed her husband with her approval, she must have realised that there's not much reason they wouldn't do that to her, a foreigner that recently converted to orthodoxy... unless she shows proper patriotic and religious inclinations while defending the interests of the aristocracy.

So when Rzeczpospolita comes along with pogroms against its dissent population (and in then-terminology, dissident = non-Catholic, which consistuted a large fraction of the population with highly reduced political rights, most of them Russians under Russian Imperial ideology), there's basically nothing else for her to do, on both personal and geopolitical level, except to demand that Rzeczpospolita protect the rights of dissidents, up to and including dominating its monarchy to make it so. That ultimately failed, but it would have been in fact a much better geopolitical outcome for Russia than taking some lands: a Rzeczpospolita with a large Russian orthodox population with full political rights is a state that's pulled into common interests and friendly to the Russian Empire, while providing a buffer to the Germans.

Now, in this magically-powerful Russia timeline, Catherine II shouldn't exist, but at the same time the political motivations are there and if anything the anti-Germanic ideology in the scenario enhances them. So I think what would happen there is that Rzeczpospolita survives and is not partitioned, but becomes a vassal of the Russian Empire, or de facto close enough to it, because Russia would be strong enough to make its OTL-attempted-puppetry stick.

Basically in my opinion. Once russia, and I believe it almost certainly will, starts to close in properly on germany proper. and Pretty much if there's any significant inter power war between 1910 and 1940 in europe then Russia is going to start leveraging it's probably insanely developed industry base and manpower reserves and economy, resources etc, to almost certainly land grab.
Why, though? It feels more it's motivated mostly by the highly specific XX century fears, rather than anything motivated by rational incentives for the Russians to do. There's plenty of expansion that makes way for sense than trying to conquer Western Europe. (What for? The Russian Empire doesn't have the right ideology for it nor would it be economically lucrative to try to rule a bunch of powerful would-be hostile states.) Some land grabs are more natural:
— Against Sweden, to kick the past superpower one more time and buffer the Russian capital, which is too close to Sweden, also exploiting Finnish separatism.
— Against the Ottomans, because Constantinople, Third Rome ideology, much history of warfare, but most importantly, getting out of the Black Sea bottle into the Mediterranean.
— Generally in the Balkans, because Panslavic ideology, orthodoxy, and also more Mediterranean trade.
— Eastward, to dominate Asian trade, and chase more yasak (tribute usually in the form of furs) and well as being relatively easy. For example, while the British went drug-dealer on China to get more tea because they didn't have anything China wanted, the Russians found that China did want furs, which led to more and more Siberian domination.
— Incidentally, this also makes Anatolia, or basically modern Turkey, a much more interesting target than Western Europe (and the Russian Empire did import tea-growing into Georgia).
— Once Russia is out of the Black Sea bottle, the next natural target would be dominating Egypt, once again because of trade and strategic importance of the Suez.
— Manchuria, for its nice unfrozen ports and rich chernozem land similar to what Russian peasants are already used to, as well as low population.
— Alyaska and California, and simply a more successful version of the OTL expansion in the region.
YMMV, but I think this version of Russia would push south much more than west, as well as simply being more successful in the east (e.g. regarding Korea, etc.).
 
Last edited:

KittyWubs

Member
Why, though? It feels more it's motivated mostly by the highly specific XX century fears, rather than anything motivated by rational incentives for the Russians to do. There's plenty of expansion that makes way for sense than trying to conquer Western Europe. (What for? The Russian Empire doesn't have the right ideology for it nor would it be economically lucrative to try to rule a bunch of powerful would-be hostile states.) Some land grabs are more natural:
— Against Sweden, to kick the past superpower one more time and buffer the Russian capital, which is too close to Sweden, also exploiting Finnish separatism.
— Against the Ottomans, because Constantinople, Third Rome ideology, much history of warfare, but most importantly, getting out of the Black Sea bottle into the Mediterranean.
— Generally in the Balkans, because Panslavic ideology, orthodoxy, and also more Mediterranean trade.
— Eastward, to dominate Asian trade, and chase more yasak (tribute usually in the form of furs) and well as being relatively easy. For example, while the British went drug-dealer on China to get more tea because they didn't have anything China wanted, the Russians found that China did want furs, which led to more and more Siberian domination.
— Incidentally, this also makes Anatolia, or basically modern Turkey, a much more interesting target than Western Europe (and the Russian Empire did import tea-growing into Georgia).
— Once Russia is out of the Black Sea bottle, the next natural target would be dominating Egypt, once again because of trade and strategic importance of the Suez.
— Manchuria, for its nice unfrozen ports and rich chernozem land similar to what Russian peasants are already used to, as well as low population.
— Alyaska and California, and simply a more successful version of the OTL expansion in the region.
YMMV, but I think this version of Russia would push south much more than west, as well as simply being more successful in the east (e.g. regarding Korea, etc.).
the reason I think it's possible/likely is that there's a fairly possible timeline here where russia become demonstrably more powerful then most european powers, Think USA but with actually more development then Russia had. It's not hard to see a russia, in my advantage taking advantage of this.

In other words Russia in this timeline is likely going to outstrip america in sheer power going into the 1900s. The best potential thing here is Russia decides that economic alliances are more important than directly ruling said countries. but I don't know.

And yes I agree with all of your suggestions on what makes more sense at the time for russia to conquer, but what's that setting the stage for? Russia as a country (Like many did around this time) Will be throwing around its demonstrably powerful and effect military to essentially completely grab several large and prominent countries, I highly doubt russias going to push through all these eastern and norther european states, asian states, with a military far outstripping any singular state and then not move in for europe at some point, or not have europe move against it.

There's essentially around 100 years here for russia to take lands before any sort of MAD like scenario setting in, I can't help but feel that if Russia literally took asia, and then surrounded europe with conquered states that they'd decide to stop there where the final two/three powers that could ever possibly challenge them in the foreseeable future could be taken. Military success has done much more to the direction of a country with much less power and success russia is going to have.
 

Vashon

Active member
Banned
— Against Sweden, to kick the past superpower one more time and buffer the Russian capital, which is too close to Sweden, also exploiting Finnish separatism.
Super Power is pushing it, and there isn't much more they could take from Sweden that they didn't already take
— Against the Ottomans, because Constantinople, Third Rome ideology, much history of warfare, but most importantly, getting out of the Black Sea bottle into the Mediterranean.
— Generally in the Balkans, because Panslavic ideology, orthodoxy, and also more Mediterranean trade.
The long term fears where a non freezing ocean the Russians could use as a training ground and construction facility, and Russian domination of all trade from the Danube trying to reach the wider world. That last bit is the main reason Austria was there rival
— Eastward, to dominate Asian trade, and chase more yasak (tribute usually in the form of furs) and well as being relatively easy. For example, while the British went drug-dealer on China to get more tea because they didn't have anything China wanted, the Russians found that China did want furs, which led to more and more Siberian domination.
— Manchuria, for its nice unfrozen ports and rich chernozem land similar to what Russian peasants are already used to, as well as low population.
There is also Korea and Korean Christians for a pretext, even more apparent after or if the Taiping Rebellion happens historically.
— Incidentally, this also makes Anatolia, or basically modern Turkey, a much more interesting target than Western Europe (and the Russian Empire did import tea-growing into Georgia).
— Once Russia is out of the Black Sea bottle, the next natural target would be dominating Egypt, once again because of trade and strategic importance of the Suez.
They'd need time to digest Anatolia, assuming they took all of it, because I honestly don't see the Russian Empire trying to absorb that large and powerful of a Muslim Turkic population outright. Might just make Armenia bigger, Greece independent and larger, and Bulgaria bigger, reducing the Turks to a Anatolian heartland.
— Alyaska and California, and simply a more successful version of the OTL expansion in the region.
Now this is something I can't figure out would be affected like that. Even with a massively beefier Russia I don't see Alaska and California being much more profitable or securable, the same issues would affect it is OTL, too far and remote for anything beyond what was already done, fur trapping and Orthodoxy missionaries.

@KittyWubs

Nah, Russia, no matter how powerful, wouldn't be trying to conquer and absorb all of Asia. Thats just out of the question. North West China and Manchuria? Slightly more of Persia? Anatolia and the Levant? I could see that but the rest? Nah. They could have taken Afghanistan had they wanted it but frankly didn't. Too much trouble, too little to gain.
 

Lord Kragan

The one and only Lord of Mutton Chops.
Author
This forms an odd, warped way of developing craftsmen and artisans and then later an industrialization workforce, with freemen and women subject to wage slavery and early company towns and serfdom warping into a steampunk cyberpunk contract but it serves the purpose.
So Russia never gets to industrialize. Gotcha.

Because what you're is not the path to industrialization. It's Ming-Qing China. One of the key factors of industrialization was that freemen and all the urban classes were getting paid more and more, being both expensive (and thus desireable to mechanize the production process) and having more purchasing power (hence, being able to buy the industrial output).

You making wage slavery outright kills any chance at meaningful industrialization in the early period.

Of course, there's also the fact that russian coal, at best, is in frigging Ukrania, the crimean areas that wouldn't be russian until the mid 1750. The Czar is not going to get coal from there any time soon as there's barely any infrastructure or even urbanization there. And it doesn't correct the fact that all the other centers of industry are FAAAAAAAR as heck. The soviets could pull that in good part because locomotive industry and technology had reached a substantial refinement and thus long range travel was viable. But early 19th century? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

At best you get Ukrania to industrialize quite early, and quite possibly being able to wrestle independence out of the more rural russia by mid 1850s.
 

KittyWubs

Member
So Russia never gets to industrialize. Gotcha.

Because what you're is not the path to industrialization. It's Ming-Qing China. One of the key factors of industrialization was that freemen and all the urban classes were getting paid more and more, being both expensive (and thus desireable to mechanize the production process) and having more purchasing power (hence, being able to buy the industrial output).

You making wage slavery outright kills any chance at meaningful industrialization in the early period.

Of course, there's also the fact that russian coal, at best, is in frigging Ukrania, the crimean areas that wouldn't be russian until the mid 1750. The Czar is not going to get coal from there any time soon as there's barely any infrastructure or even urbanization there. And it doesn't correct the fact that all the other centers of industry are FAAAAAAAR as heck. The soviets could pull that in good part because locomotive industry and technology had reached a substantial refinement and thus long range travel was viable. But early 19th century? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

At best you get Ukrania to industrialize quite early, and quite possibly being able to wrestle independence out of the more rural russia by mid 1850s.
they gone muh dude.
 

KittyWubs

Member
I mean, the banned user is not the only one that will read this.
I know I know I guess it's just a way of looking at it.


Like if you were in a room and someone was like "We need to bring back slavery" But they got shot, you probably wouldn't refer to them directly if you then wanted to explain why what they said was wrong to the crowd right?

So like in that situation, I was just making sure you knew they were gone. since I guess that's how I view online discussion
 
Top Bottom