1700 Petrine Russia ISOTs to the world of 1200

Post by Rob
Here's what this does to the world map-
https://i.imgur.com/hYZDODv.gif
Will the Russians eliminate the Mongols easily or not?

You can see change the size of the Mongolian state on Loading Image...

Until approximately 1230 it had little intersection with Russia circa 1700 and most of that intersection was in the areas where Russian presence was mostly formal. Serious territorial conflict would start in 1230's.

As far as "eliminating" is involved, sorry to disappoint you but Russian army circa 1700 (and probably any European army of that period) had been ill-equipped for dealing with the likes of the XIII century Mongols if they had a "strategic depth" on their side: even campaigns against the Crimean Khanate represented a major problem for the slow moving army with a big baggage train. OTOH, unless opponent is panicking or doing something fantastically stupid (as Peter during the Prut campaign) or completely outnumbered, the Mongolian army could not attack such an opponent with a serious chance of success due to a serious difference in a firepower. And, unlike the OTL, even a reasonably small fortified place becomes a major problem if it has an artillery.

So, it is highly questionable if Peter's army of 1700 (which was a far cry from one of Poltava) would be able to keep the defensive perimeter all the way to the Pacific and even more questionable if it would be able to march all the way to the Mongolia or even Central Asia.

OTOH, it is hard to imagine how the Mongols of 1230's would be able to launch anything more than occasional raid into "Russia proper" from either Caucasus or the steppes to the North of Caspian Sea: as soon as they are slowed down by their loot (which was the whole purpose of their attack to start with), they became a reasonably easy target. Add to this extensive fortification systems that existed at that time in the Southern Russia (approximately along the modern Russian - Ukrainian border). It would be expanded to address the new threat with the further expansions to squeeze the opponents out (as it was happening in OTL on the Russian south-eastern borders).

So the relevant (IMO) question is about the Mongols daring to go into the "conflict zone" after the first experiences with the firearms. They could concentrate on conquest of China with the extension into Indo-China (as Kublai did) and/or try conquest of India (as did Tamerlan and then his descendants) and/or pay more attention to conquest of the Middle East (Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt)

Post by Rob
What will they do with Europe I imagine its a foregone conclusion Peter's Muscovite Russia will absorb the Medieval Russian principalities that appear in the place of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Well, this is no-brainier: what a feudal militia of the XIII century could do against a regular western-style army of the XVIII? Besides dying heroically, of course. But, following the OTL tradition, Peter would hardly stop there: he would conquer the Baltic coast (Hanseatic trade) and, if problem with the Mongols is somehow settled, expand to the Black Sea (Byzantine trade) or somewhere else (analog of the OTL Persian Expedition would mean inevitable conflict with the Mongols).

Post by Rob
The Russians in addition to a monopoly on 1700 technology have a monopoly on the the knowledge of the existence of the New World and Cape Route around Africa.

It probably worth mentioning that in OTL serious Russian naval operations did not start until the reign of Catherine II and even by that time most of the naval trade with Russia had been conducted by the foreign ships (mostly British and Dutch). Russian merchants did not have capital and/or experience and even in pre-Muscovite Novgorod all physical export/import was conducted by the Hanseatic merchants coming to Novgorod. As for the military aspect, when the Baltic squadron was sailing to the Med (the 1st Ottoman war of Catherine II), some of the ships could not even made it out of the Baltic Sea, some arrived into Britain in a condition that was either beyond repair or required fundamental repairs in the British docks (IIRC, few ships had been simply bought in Britain). It took a while for the necessary experience to be acquired.

Of course, in that ATL the Russians are more or less in a position of one-eyed competing with the blind and we can assume their greater naval activity at least along the European coasts. Byzantine Empire is still around and looks like a potential trade partner (with the interesting possibility of Russia developing a negative attitude toward the 4th Crusade and all resulting consequences).

But as far as travels to the New World and around Africa are involved, this would be a long-term perspective (getting from Russia to Mexico would be a tricky issue and it is not quite clear if Russia would be interested in the slave trade out of Africa, of course, there was some gold as well).

Now, for how long would they be able to maintain their monopoly?

Alex Milman

2018-02-11 22:18:27 UTC

Post by Rob
Here's what this does to the world map-
https://i.imgur.com/hYZDODv.gif
Will the Russians eliminate the Mongols easily or not?

You can see change the size of the Mongolian state on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire#/media/File:Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif
Until approximately 1230 it had little intersection with Russia circa 1700 and most of that intersection was in the areas where Russian presence was mostly formal. Serious territorial conflict would start in 1230's.
As far as "eliminating" is involved, sorry to disappoint you but Russian army circa 1700 (and probably any European army of that period) had been ill-equipped for dealing with the likes of the XIII century Mongols if they had a "strategic depth" on their side: even campaigns against the Crimean Khanate represented a major problem for the slow moving army with a big baggage train. OTOH, unless opponent is panicking or doing something fantastically stupid (as Peter during the Prut campaign) or completely outnumbered, the Mongolian army could not attack such an opponent with a serious chance of success due to a serious difference in a firepower. And, unlike the OTL, even a reasonably small fortified place becomes a major problem if it has an artillery.
So, it is highly questionable if Peter's army of 1700 (which was a far cry from one of Poltava) would be able to keep the defensive perimeter all the way to the Pacific and even more questionable if it would be able to march all the way to the Mongolia or even Central Asia.
OTOH, it is hard to imagine how the Mongols of 1230's would be able to launch anything more than occasional raid into "Russia proper" from either Caucasus or the steppes to the North of Caspian Sea: as soon as they are slowed down by their loot (which was the whole purpose of their attack to start with), they became a reasonably easy target. Add to this extensive fortification systems that existed at that time in the Southern Russia (approximately along the modern Russian - Ukrainian border). It would be expanded to address the new threat with the further expansions to squeeze the opponents out (as it was happening in OTL on the Russian south-eastern borders).
So the relevant (IMO) question is about the Mongols daring to go into the "conflict zone" after the first experiences with the firearms. They could concentrate on conquest of China with the extension into Indo-China (as Kublai did) and/or try conquest of India (as did Tamerlan and then his descendants) and/or pay more attention to conquest of the Middle East (Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt)

Post by Rob
The Russians in addition to a monopoly on 1700 technology have a monopoly on the the knowledge of the existence of the New World and Cape Route around Africa.

It probably worth mentioning that in OTL serious Russian naval operations did not start until the reign of Catherine II and even by that time most of the naval trade with Russia had been conducted by the foreign ships (mostly British and Dutch). Russian merchants did not have capital and/or experience and even in pre-Muscovite Novgorod all physical export/import was conducted by the Hanseatic merchants coming to Novgorod. As for the military aspect, when the Baltic squadron was sailing to the Med (the 1st Ottoman war of Catherine II), some of the ships could not even made it out of the Baltic Sea, some arrived into Britain in a condition that was either beyond repair or required fundamental repairs in the British docks (IIRC, few ships had been simply bought in Britain). It took a while for the necessary experience to be acquired.
Of course, in that ATL the Russians are more or less in a position of one-eyed competing with the blind and we can assume their greater naval activity at least along the European coasts. Byzantine Empire is still around and looks like a potential trade partner (with the interesting possibility of Russia developing a negative attitude toward the 4th Crusade and all resulting consequences).
But as far as travels to the New World and around Africa are involved, this would be a long-term perspective (getting from Russia to Mexico would be a tricky issue and it is not quite clear if Russia would be interested in the slave trade out of Africa, of course, there was some gold as well).
Now, for how long would they be able to maintain their monopoly?

A little bit of an order in timing for this ISOT:

1. Staring point is 1700 -> 1200. Mongolian Empire did not, yet, came into the existence (Genghis united Mongolia in 1206). OTOH, the Russian troops (of 1700) are ready to march/already marching to "Livonia". There are no even Livonian Brothers of the Sword (order was established in 1202) or Danish presence (started in 1218) and, outside the Bishopric of Riga, the region is not yet fully converted into Christianity. Conquest of the whole region by the army of 1700 is a relatively simple (genocidal, taking into an account the prevailing methods of the Russian warfare of the time) walk which would take few months (mostly spent on killing and capturing the natives). The few fortifications which exist in the area can't stand up to the siege or even field artillery that Russian army had in 1700. By the end of 1700 the region is in Peter's hands.

On the Southern flank, city of Azov is in Peter's hands since 1696 and he keeps building Azov fleet in Voronez (actually, started this program _before_ Azov was captured). By 1700 fleet included 14 ships of the line (between 54 and 80 guns), 10 galeases with 32 - 46 guns, 4 older ships with 52 guns, 1 with 66 and 1 with 36 guns. Plus there were numerous galleys (with 3 - 4 guns) and smaller ships.

2. 1701/2 -> 1201/2 - Further expansion. By 1701 the Baltic coast all the way to Vistula is populated by the primitive Lithuanian, Samogitian and Prussian tribes (Teutonic Order came into the area only in 1226). A big part of their "economy" are looting raids on their neighbors (the reason why Konrad I of Masovia invited the Teutonic Order). Taking into an account that at least Lithuanian raids are carried in the Eastern direction as well, the next obvious thing for Peter is to deal with the problem. Of course, heavily forested/swamped area makes things more difficult but combination of the XVIII century military technology with the available irregulars (including Tatars of Volga, which creates an interesting paradox in this ATL) would provide a fast victory (and probably a significantly reduced native population). Keep in mind that in 1200 OTL Lithuanian expansion into Belorussia, Ukraine and Western Russia is a thing of a relatively remote future which is never happening. These territories are either already in Petrian Russia (as Kiev and Smolensk) or are easily captured due to a power vacuum (few local princes with their tiny bands and no notion of a gunpowder against the regular troops with the firearms and artillery).

Operations in the area require only a fraction of the available military force.

3. 1701/2 -> 1201/2. In parallel with the "cleansing" of the Baltic coast the Black Sea advance in the Balck Sea area continues (absence of the Ottomans and Polovtsy instead of Tatars make the whole thing much easier).
The Crimean Peninsula (more or less) belongs to the Byzantine Empire (went to Trebizond Empire only in 1204) with the Polovtsy controlling the North Shore of the Black Sea (only a small fraction of them is available because most of their habitat of 1200 is a part of the Russia circa 1700). With the Russian hold on Azov and an absence of a serious opponent, this is one more military walkout unless Peter decides to demonstrate excessive fondness toward the Byzantine Empire. Scenario forks:

(a) Peter decides to respect the Byzantines (a little bit of ideological inconvenience with the 2nd and 3rd Romes but who cares), sends an embassy and signs a friendship treaty with the privileges for the Russian trade and a right of a free passage for the Russian navy. At which point he starts considering empire as his de facto vassal (or a state under the "Russian protection"). Probably convenience of today's Sevastopol as a navy base does not escape his attention and Fleet of Azov, now the Black Sea Fleet starts moving into this newly built base.

(b) Peter decides that friendship is a good thing but Crimea is even better so he annexes it, after which sends embassy to Constantinople and (see "a").

4. 1703 -> 1203. The fun part. On 23 June 1203 the Crusading fleet reached Constantinople. Of course, the Sack of Constantinople did not happen until April 1204. Peter, as "a defender of the Orthodox Church", does not like the Latin presence in the ...er... protected area and sends a naval squadron with an appropriate number of troops. The Crusaders and Venetians have approximately 20K with 210 ships. Perhaps, just due to the sheer numbers, _some_ of these ships manage to escape but most of the rest are destroyed and the same goes for the crusading forces (I'd assume that even without any Byzantine participation, 4 - 5K of the troops circa 1700 would be enough to destroy 20K of the warriors of 1200. Even if the issue is not pursued further, the Empire survives and Venice received a very heavy hit which can be used by the Genovese.

5. 1703/6 -> 1203/6 Relative quietness.

6. 1707 -> 1207, etc.. In 1207 his eldest son Jochi subjugated the Siberian forest people, the Uriankhai, the Oirats, Barga, Khakas, Buryats, Tuvans, Khori-Tumed, and Kyrgyz. Not sure if this involves territories under the Russian control by that time. For a while the Mongols are busy in the Northern China and Central Asia. The 1st serious contact is the OTL raid which resulted in a Battle of Kalka (1223). Taking into an account the different borders and other things, the clash is probably happening earlier and not too happy for the Mongols (even if at that time Russian army is not very effective in fighting the nomadic cavalry). It is probably safe to assume that the next invasion is repulsed somewhere in the Volga area or even further to the East forcing the Mongols to get reoriented (by that time both Peter and Genghis are dead) toward the easier targets. OTOH, Russian penetration to the Central Asia is impractical until well into the XIX century (logistics, logistics, logistics).

Developments on the Western borders of Russia is anybody's guess. Peter can grab this or that specific geographic region on the border but I don't think that he would go for the full-scale conquest of Europe.

Rob

2018-02-12 04:25:15 UTC

Post by Alex Milman
So the relevant (IMO) question is about the Mongols daring to go into the "conflict zone" after the first experiences with the firearms. They could concentrate on conquest of China with the extension into Indo-China (as Kublai did) and/or try conquest of India (as did Tamerlan and then his descendants) and/or pay more attention to conquest of the Middle East (Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt)

I assume that the Mongols would not care much about the more forested Siberian and Far Eastern zones where the Russians are collecting fur tribute?

If deterred from trying Russia's European defenses multiple times, this shields western Russia, Poland and Hungary.

The Mongols may well be tempted to focus on Asia, potentially leading to ahistorical successes in India and Egypt.

I wonder if the 1700s Russian areas the Mongols can loot would appear more particularly rich and attractive as targets compared to Russian areas of the 1200s. If so, that could make it worth the risk for a repeated series of Mongol raids on Russia.

That in turn offers an opportunity for Peter to join battle and be killed.

yes- good point

Post by Rob
The Russians in addition to a monopoly on 1700 technology have a monopoly on the the knowledge of the existence of the New World and Cape Route around Africa.

Yes- the Russians have one more eye than anyone else!

Byzantine Empire is still around and looks like a potential trade partner (with the interesting possibility of Russia developing a negative attitude toward the 4th Crusade and all resulting consequences).

hmm, could/would the Russians be dialoging enough with the Byzantines to warn them against Crusader intrigue?

Or could they be more likely to get involved as patrons of the Empire of Nicaea after the fact, possibly setting up a joint dominance over the Balkans and Central Europe with a Byzantine junior partner.

Post by Alex Milman
But as far as travels to the New World and around Africa are involved, this would be a long-term perspective (getting from Russia to Mexico would be a tricky issue and it is not quite clear if Russia would be interested in the slave trade out of Africa, of course, there was some gold as well).
Now, for how long would they be able to maintain their monopoly?

Well we could anticipate "how" they would try to keep their monopoly.

Peter probably tries to use carrot and stick to keep the "colony" of westerners in his service and not going to their downtime home countries.

This could be pretty effective at limiting technological spread, when combined with the fact that Scotsmen or Germans hoping to go home and to advance the arts and sciences of their home countries have a decent chance of being misunderstood, killed and imprisoned if they tried.

Plus, westerners in Russia who were personally committed to Protestantism could be alienated by their "home" countries being Catholic at this time.

Post by Alex Milman
1. Staring point is 1700 -> 1200. Mongolian Empire did not, yet, came into the existence (Genghis united Mongolia in 1206). OTOH, the Russian troops (of 1700) are ready to march/already marching to "Livonia". There are no even Livonian Brothers of the Sword (order was established in 1202) or Danish presence (started in 1218) and, outside the Bishopric of Riga, the region is not yet fully converted into Christianity. Conquest of the whole region by the army of 1700 is a relatively simple (genocidal, taking into an account the prevailing methods of the Russian warfare of the time) walk which would take few months (mostly spent on killing and capturing the natives). The few fortifications which exist in the area can't stand up to the siege or even field artillery that Russian army had in 1700. By the end of 1700 the region is in Peter's hands.

Good point-

Post by Alex Milman
On the Southern flank, city of Azov is in Peter's hands since 1696 and he keeps building Azov fleet in Voronez (actually, started this program _before_ Azov was captured). By 1700 fleet included 14 ships of the line (between 54 and 80 guns), 10 galeases with 32 - 46 guns, 4 older ships with 52 guns, 1 with 66 and 1 with 36 guns. Plus there were numerous galleys (with 3 - 4 guns) and smaller ships.

those could spoil a Venetian flotilla's day.

Post by Alex Milman
2. 1701/2 -> 1201/2 - Further expansion. By 1701 the Baltic coast all the way to Vistula is populated by the primitive Lithuanian, Samogitian and Prussian tribes (Teutonic Order came into the area only in 1226). A big part of their "economy" are looting raids on their neighbors (the reason why Konrad I of Masovia invited the Teutonic Order). Taking into an account that at least Lithuanian raids are carried in the Eastern direction as well, the next obvious thing for Peter is to deal with the problem. Of course, heavily forested/swamped area makes things more difficult but combination of the XVIII century military technology with the available irregulars (including Tatars of Volga, which creates an interesting paradox in this ATL) would provide a fast victory (and probably a significantly reduced native population). Keep in mind that in 1200 OTL Lithuanian expansion into Belorussia, Ukraine and Western Russia is a thing of a relatively remote future which is never happening. These territories are either already in Petrian Russia (as Kiev and Smolensk) or are easily captured due to a power vacuum (few local princes with their tiny bands and no notion of a gunpowder against the regular troops with the firearms and artillery).
Operations in the area require only a fraction of the available military force.
3. 1701/2 -> 1201/2. In parallel with the "cleansing" of the Baltic coast the Black Sea advance in the Balck Sea area continues (absence of the Ottomans and Polovtsy instead of Tatars make the whole thing much easier).
(a) Peter decides to respect the Byzantines (a little bit of ideological inconvenience with the 2nd and 3rd Romes but who cares), sends an embassy and signs a friendship treaty with the privileges for the Russian trade and a right of a free passage for the Russian navy. At which point he starts considering empire as his de facto vassal (or a state under the "Russian protection"). Probably convenience of today's Sevastopol as a navy base does not escape his attention and Fleet of Azov, now the Black Sea Fleet starts moving into this newly built base.
(b) Peter decides that friendship is a good thing but Crimea is even better so he annexes it, after which sends embassy to Constantinople and (see "a").
4. 1703 -> 1203. The fun part. On 23 June 1203 the Crusading fleet reached Constantinople. Of course, the Sack of Constantinople did not happen until April 1204. Peter, as "a defender of the Orthodox Church", does not like the Latin presence in the ...er... protected area and sends a naval squadron with an appropriate number of troops. The Crusaders and Venetians have approximately 20K with 210 ships. Perhaps, just due to the sheer numbers, _some_ of these ships manage to escape but most of the rest are destroyed and the same goes for the crusading forces (I'd assume that even without any Byzantine participation, 4 - 5K of the troops circa 1700 would be enough to destroy 20K of the warriors of 1200. Even if the issue is not pursued further, the Empire survives and Venice received a very heavy hit which can be used by the Genovese.
5. 1703/6 -> 1203/6 Relative quietness.
6. 1707 -> 1207, etc.. In 1207 his eldest son Jochi subjugated the Siberian forest people, the Uriankhai, the Oirats, Barga, Khakas, Buryats, Tuvans, Khori-Tumed, and Kyrgyz. Not sure if this involves territories under the Russian control by that time. For a while the Mongols are busy in the Northern China and Central Asia. The 1st serious contact is the OTL raid which resulted in a Battle of Kalka (1223). Taking into an account the different borders and other things, the clash is probably happening earlier and not too happy for the Mongols (even if at that time Russian army is not very effective in fighting the nomadic cavalry). It is probably safe to assume that the next invasion is repulsed somewhere in the Volga area or even further to the East forcing the Mongols to get reoriented (by that time both Peter and Genghis are dead) toward the easier targets. OTOH, Russian penetration to the Central Asia is impractical until well into the XIX century (logistics, logistics, logistics).
Developments on the Western borders of Russia is anybody's guess. Peter can grab this or that specific geographic region on the border but I don't think that he would go for the full-scale conquest of Europe.

good summary

Alex Milman

2018-02-12 19:04:22 UTC

I assume that the Mongols would not care much about the more forested Siberian and Far Eastern zones where the Russians are collecting fur tribute?

In OTL the Mongols subdued Southern Siberia on the early stage of their conquests (in 1206). Importance of the furs as a commodity was well understood by everybody, plus don't forget about the "human resources": 3 tumens had been formed from the "forest tribes". I'm not sure up to which degree this conquest would overlap with the territories from which Russia already had been collecting tribute by 1706.

The "Golden Horde", judging by the map (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%9E%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B0#/media/File:Golden_Horde_1389.svg), included parts of the Western Siberia which by 1700 were controlled by Russia not just on the paper but this map reflects territory of the late XIV.

To make the long story short, I can't tell with a certainty at which point the Mongolian conquests East of Ural would led them into the areas effectively controlled by Russia circa 1700.

The famous raid of Subetei and Jebe would definitely be the case and, taking into an account that they remained in the Volga-Don steppes over the winter prior to the Battle at Kalka, there would be enough time for Russia to move an adequate military force into the region.

OTOH, the whole thing could develop along the completely different lines. Genghis was not a mad dog conquering for the conquest sake. Profitable trade (and as a result security of the trade routes) was a very important part of the whole schema. Similarly, maintaining "Eastern" trade, especially with China, was an important part of the Russian policy (we are talking XVII - XVIII centuries). Access to the markets of the Central Asia was a triggering point of the Great Game (and of the British paranoia about Russians coming to India). So, how about two sides starting with the trade pact which, unlike one between the Mongols and Khwaresm, stays. Let's say, there are some border clashes which make it clear to Genghis that this opponent is to string to be beaten (and, as I said earlier, extensive expansion into the CA is not, yet, practical for Russia of the early XVII).

The sides negotiate a trade deal which is mutually beneficial and maintain friendly relations with the Mongols NOT going to the Russian territories but concentrating more on the conquest of China, Middle East and even India and/or Egypt. OTOH, Russia is not meddling in Caucasus (which is under Mongolian control).

Post by Rob
If deterred from trying Russia's European defenses multiple times, this shields western Russia, Poland and Hungary.

Yes. OTOH, Poland, Hungary and Eastern/Central Europe in general have a Big Brother within a marching distance and it is an open question how things are going to develop under this scenario.

I'm not sure that either Peter or his immediate successors would plan conquest of Europe but they'd certainly meddle into the affairs of the neighbor states many of which either had elective monarchies or did not even form a single state, yet.

How about Russian interference into the ongoing conflict between Hohenstaufens and the Papacy on the imperial side because Catholicism is "ideological enemy" and in the early XVIII the HRE emperors (who cares that they are from a different dynasty) were the allies?

Imagine earlier version of the Italian Campaign of 1799? With the looting still being an important part of the Russian military operations I'd assume that such a campaign could be quite popular at home. :-)

Post by Rob
The Mongols may well be tempted to focus on Asia, potentially leading to ahistorical successes in India and Egypt.

We are thinking along the same lines. :-)

Taking into an account that there is no prolonged military conflict between the "Golden" Horde (does not exist) and IlKhanate, the resources are concentrated where it matters with the much better results. OTOH, there is a theory that one of the reasons for IlKhanate failures in Syria was the fact that the region is not well-suited for supporting the big numbers of horses (however, the Mamluks were cavalrymen).

Post by Rob
I wonder if the 1700s Russian areas the Mongols can loot would appear more particularly rich and attractive as targets compared to Russian areas of the 1200s. If so, that could make it worth the risk for a repeated series of Mongol raids on Russia.

The main "merchandise" of the (Crimean Tatar) raids by the early XVIII were slaves. The same goes for the nomadic tribes of the Cauasus and "Turkestan" (modern "stans") all the way to the late XIX.

The usual way of dealing with the problem was "squeezing" the raiders territory by building series of the forts and eventually going into a direct conquest.

Of course, the problem for the raiders was obvious: as soon as they captured enough prisoners, their speed was slowed down to a crawl making them easy to intercept. Of course, the interceptor's task was more difficult in the case of the short distance raids made by the small bands (as was usually the case in the Caucasus), especially if they could hide in the mountains. However, the big-scale raids would, by definition, go further into enemy's territory with a resulting higher risk for the raiders.

Post by Rob
That in turn offers an opportunity for Peter to join battle and be killed.

Highly unlikely. Besides, why do you assume that this would be a major loss for the Russian side? He was not a good general, administrator, diplomat or pretty much anything else (with a possible exception of a carpenter/handyman).

yes- good point

Post by Rob
The Russians in addition to a monopoly on 1700 technology have a monopoly on the the knowledge of the existence of the New World and Cape Route around Africa.

Why not? Especially if they start with arranging for some trade privileges. And why limit themselves to just a warning when they already have a fleet of Azov (Black Sea in this ATL) capable of sinking the Venetian navy just as a naval target practice?

Post by Rob
Or could they be more likely to get involved as patrons of the Empire of Nicaea after the fact, possibly setting up a joint dominance over the Balkans and Central Europe with a Byzantine junior partner.

Even with a venerable Russian tradition of pulling teeth through the rectum, this seems to be more than a little bit convoluted: why wait for the Sack of Constantinople to happen, leaving the Straits in the "Latin" hands, and then spend time and effort on taking it back if the whole thing could be avoided? The issue of a "junior partner" would be quite clear unless there is a suicidal maniac on Byzantine throne (in which case he can be easily substituted with someone more sane).

Which they most probably would not do anyway (most of the foreign personages of Peter's reign settled in Russia often well before he started ruling the country) and which would not make too much of a difference in most cases: how many of them had been specialists in metallurgy, chemistry, naval construction, etc.? And those who were, would find themselves on the lowest levels of the XIII century societies instead of being highly respected individuals in the XVIII Russia.

Post by Rob
This could be pretty effective at limiting technological spread, when combined with the fact that Scotsmen or Germans hoping to go home and to advance the arts and sciences of their home countries

Which, as everybody knows, was a main purpose in life for every Scot or German who left his home country. :-)

Post by Rob
have a decent chance of being misunderstood, killed and imprisoned if they tried.

Now, you are back to the Planet Earth. :-)

Post by Rob
Plus, westerners in Russia who were personally committed to Protestantism could be alienated by their "home" countries being Catholic at this time.

That's to. How about losing their estates, positions at court, army, civic administration? Not to mention that even comparing to the Petrian Russia, Europe of the early XIII was a real "s--thole".

Good point-

those could spoil a Venetian flotilla's day.

A perfect case of the understatement. :-)

good summary

Rob

2018-02-15 01:15:28 UTC

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 2:04:25 PM UTC-5, Alex Milman wrote:

OTL,not long after Peter's death, Russia had developed an interest in Latin America, see JSTOR article:

Anglo-Russian Enterprises against Hispanic South America, 1732-1737

The Russians will not immediately have much of a navy, but they will figure it out over a couple decades and probably move stepwise, as likely via the Baltic rather than Pacific, to pull a conquistador on Mexico and Peru.

Alex Milman

2018-02-15 17:57:01 UTC

Post by Rob
Anglo-Russian Enterprises against Hispanic South America, 1732-1737

Unfortunately, the available preview does not contain anything besides the Courlandian colonial activities of the XVII (well-known but had nothing to do with Russia).

Taking into an account that in 1730's Russia almost completely lacked navy (or at least one capable of getting out of the Finnish Gulf :-)) and did not have any noticeable merchant fleet either, how could it be involved in anything happening in the Latin America of that period? Beyond, of course, the fantastic plans in which Russia would supply the cannon fodder for the Brits.

Post by Rob
The Russians will not immediately have much of a navy, but they will figure it out over a couple decades and probably move stepwise, as likely via the Baltic rather than Pacific, to pull a conquistador on Mexico and Peru.

There is one interesting point in that line of thought: in OTL up to at least late XVIII Russia was EXTREMELY short of precious metals. Situation was, as I understand, remedied by the growing Russian exports to Europe (really picked up during the reign of Catherine II) but in the early XVIII it was REALLY BAD (except for the court :-)): quite often payments (routinely in the arrears) had been made in small nomination copper coins so one could get couple wagon-loads of coppers.

Following rumors about the gold in the Central Asia Peter I sent expedition which was completely annihilated (and there was no gold, anyway).

Now, in ATL information of the American gold and silver is available so it can be tempting to arrange for an expedition to such source of wealth.

OTOH, look from a different perspective. Your ISOT means that Russia (unlike OTL circa 1700) has a LOT of things to sell and all the ports it needs for the export operations. Strictly speaking, it does not even need a merchant fleet of its own to _start_ the operations because there are competing Genovese and Venetians on the "Southern flank" (the Black Sea).
Then Russian own merchant fleet can be built. In the easiest scenario, the initial routes could end in Constantinople and later extend to Italy, Middle East, etc.

Hanseatic League is not yet established (will happen in 1358) but Baltic trade with Novgorod existed since at least early XI century and, in the absence of the powerful OTL competition (mostly British) it is not too difficult to start building the merchant ships going in and then beyond Baltic.

With the technological advantage of 500 years Russia there could be a "giant sucking sound" of the precious metals being squeezed out of Europe and probably of the Mediterranean part of the Muslim world as well. So, there may be no need in the adventures across the Atlantic.

Rob

2018-02-16 00:48:31 UTC

Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, look from a different perspective. Your ISOT means that Russia (unlike OTL circa 1700) has a LOT of things to sell and all the ports it needs for the export operations. Strictly speaking, it does not even need a merchant fleet of its own to _start_ the operations because there are competing Genovese and Venetians on the "Southern flank" (the Black Sea).
Then Russian own merchant fleet can be built. In the easiest scenario, the initial routes could end in Constantinople and later extend to Italy, Middle East, etc.
Hanseatic League is not yet established (will happen in 1358) but Baltic trade with Novgorod existed since at least early XI century and, in the absence of the powerful OTL competition (mostly British) it is not too difficult to start building the merchant ships going in and then beyond Baltic.
With the technological advantage of 500 years Russia there could be a "giant sucking sound" of the precious metals being squeezed out of Europe and probably of the Mediterranean part of the Muslim world as well. So, there may be no need in the adventures across the Atlantic.

Interesting idea- What do you think the principal articles of trade would be? What would Europeans be most eager to buy that Peter would be willing to sell? Will Russia want anything from Europeans besides gold and silver? What would the articles of trade between Russia and Mongol Asia be?

Was 1700 vodka stronger than any distilled spirits in Europe in 1200? Was vodka wheat or potato based then? Would the potato spread from Russia into Europe?

Alex Milman

2018-02-16 17:44:50 UTC

Interesting idea- What do you think the principal articles of trade would be?

Actually, I asked myself this question almost as soon as I clicked "post". :-)

Couple things to keep in mind:

(a) To be of a noticeable importance, the trade must be of a high volume.
(b) Russian fur export had been dwindling since the late XVII (extensive hunting took its toll).

Post by Rob
What would Europeans be most eager to buy that Peter would be willing to sell?

Let's not be too fixed on Peter: if he had a clue about economy and other similar trifles, he would keep selling Russian stuff through Riga and Narva taking advantage of the low tariffs established by the existing Russian-Swedish treaties. Anyway, Peter is gone in less than 3 decades.

The obvious Russian export items would be grain, high quality leather (AFAIK, at some point #1 in the export list), perhaps fabrics.

Europeans could be interested in luxury items like mechanical trinkets (clocks) or carriages. Of course, Russian metallurgy is growing but what would the Europeans of the XIII century be ready to buy in the big numbwers? The frying pans?

Probably selling weaponry is not a very good idea even if there would be a big market for it.

In general, what WERE big volume marketable items in the XIII Europe? Were there ones (except, perhaps the slaves)?

Post by Rob
Will Russia want anything from Europeans besides gold and silver?

Horses. Russian horses had been small and it took a dedicated effort in post-Petrian times to improve the stock, especially for the heavy cavalry.

Post by Rob
What would the articles of trade between Russia and Mongol Asia be?

Russia would want same things they wanted from China (access to which is controlled by the Mongols): tea, porcelain, silk. Probably cotton fabrics from the Central Asia.

The Mongols may want grain and various things made of a metal (kettles, etc.). Probably some fabrics as well (woolen) and perhaps some luxury items.

Post by Rob
Was 1700 vodka stronger than any distilled spirits in Europe in 1200?

AFAIK, vodka was not known in the Western Europe in the XIII century but something similar appeared in Poland in XI century (being used for the medical purposes).

The question about its strength does not make sense: it was not regulated until the late XIX (40% standard strength was already introduced by the Russian government in 1843). Can't tell about the market in Western Europe but in XVII Shah of Persia asked and received equipment for a distillery and a considerable volume of a finished product. If the Wiki is correct about
brandy not being available until XV century, then there is a potentially great market.

Post by Rob
Was vodka wheat or potato based then?

Wheat. Potato was not a popular crop in Russia until XIX.

a***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 13:12:45 UTC