Catherine II of Russia once said that if she could live to 200, all of Europe would be subject to the Russian scepter. Do you think, if she was about 40 years old in health and apperance for 200 years, do you think she could have conquered Europe?
Could she do it?
- Thread starter Nuka-sama
- Start date
obliterate
Warrior Monk
Just because she got older doesn't mean the European nations got any weaker. Russia was near relatively weak eastern European states at the time. Even Sweden was far more powerful than Russia.
If Russia was able to conquer eastern Europe, Western Europe would've smashed anything Russia could've mustered. The disparity was enormous. Russia wasn't able to catch up until WWII.
If Russia was able to conquer eastern Europe, Western Europe would've smashed anything Russia could've mustered. The disparity was enormous. Russia wasn't able to catch up until WWII.
Like has been said before, Cathy really hadn't the power to drive through the combined forces of the HRE, let alone all of Europe. Friedrich II, although old, was still alive, well, and a better general than Suvorov, Rumyantsev, or any of Catherine's other warhorses. She could very conceivably run over the Ottoman Empire had the Brits been busier elsewhere and the Austrians also concerned with some other thing, but after that there wasn't much of a chance for the Russian steamroller to drive over Europe.
However, for the forty year period between 1815 and 1856, Russia was clearly the most powerful land power in the world. Russian arms enforced the Vienna system and helped crush the Treaty of Versailles, after all. After that, though, the rudimentary industrialization wasn't able to keep up with the more advanced West, which combined with Russia's political backwardness put them behind again for a few decades.
However, for the forty year period between 1815 and 1856, Russia was clearly the most powerful land power in the world. Russian arms enforced the Vienna system and helped crush the Treaty of Versailles, after all. After that, though, the rudimentary industrialization wasn't able to keep up with the more advanced West, which combined with Russia's political backwardness put them behind again for a few decades.
She wouldn't have even needed to worry about conquering Prussia if her mother-in-law hadn't died and her Yuri husband Peter III came to the throne. It does make for an interesting question, but I'd say no, but I think Russia would be out of control in terms of size (which it already was when they added Crimea and Poland.) Tsargrad (Constantinople) was the city of her dreams. (Her grandson was named Constantine by her, while a coin published with him and her on one side, with the Hagia Sophia on the other.) I'm surprised she never did conquer it or even really attempt to. To answer the question, Russia would've control Eastern Europe, but conquering Western Europe is a bit of a stretch.
Swedishguy
Deity
I don't think she wouldn't be able to conquer even Sweden.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
I dont know, the Russians and Peter did managed to defeat the Swedes and occupy its Baltic and Finnish Terretries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_north_war
again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hats'_Russian_War
and again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_III's_Russian_War
and again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Catherine the Great of Russia ruled from 1762 to 1796.
But you are talking about the period 1815 to 1856. Then you start taliking
about helping to crush the Versailles Treaty. Which one? 1919?
What on earth are you talking about?
Possibly she could conquer much or all of it but keep it, that I doubt
Look how long Napoleon's empire lasted
Look how long Napoleon's empire lasted
It was an attempt to indicate how powerful Russia has been, rebutting some comments that Russia couldn't subjugate a large chunk of Europe. It was somewhat irrelevant, I guess. Sorry for confusing you.Catherine the Great of Russia ruled from 1762 to 1796.
But you are talking about the period 1815 to 1856. Then you start taliking
about helping to crush the Versailles Treaty. Which one? 1919?
What on earth are you talking about?
Swedishguy
Deity
Excuse my ignorance, but didn't that war end in a tie? As in, no land was taken and no land was gained?
For your information, there has been five wars between Russia and Sweden in all of history. 2 wins for Russia, 2 wins for Sweden and one tie.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
People who do not wish for the rule of a foreign power will eventually have their own way. If a population is willing to sacrifice any number of themselves to acheive success then they will inevitably win. That is why the U.S. lost in Vietnam and that is why the U.S. will lose the so-called War on Terrorism.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
Have you ever thought that maybe that comment was pessimistic, as in "Only if I if I live to be 200 could I conquer Europe", instead of "Give me enough time, and I could conquer Europe"?
Clearly she wasn't enough of a go-getter. 1010 WINS promises: "Give us 22 minutes and we give you the world."
Anyway...I don't think Russia could have become strong enough to take on Europe and conquer it all. Certainly it couldn't do that while also having to maintain their frontiers to the south all along Central Asia.
Anyway...I don't think Russia could have become strong enough to take on Europe and conquer it all. Certainly it couldn't do that while also having to maintain their frontiers to the south all along Central Asia.
Gelion
Retired Captain
A simple search through wikipedia would give you this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_Wars
And as you could see from the article about the Great Northern War of 1700-1721, it was a huge disaster for Sweeden when she lost a bunch of territories, extinguished it manpool and drained dry the treasury. Last Russo-Sweedish war made such an impression on the Sweeds that they never entered any wars ever again.
So, ignorance excused
BEHIND_THE_MASK
A Liar... A Cheat...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,840
In the Great Northern War didn't we gain the land that would bear St. Petersburg/Leningrad?
And Major Coastal Port City Riga?
And overthrown your puppet-king in Poland?
And raid the coast of Sweden, nearly taking Stockholm but falling short but still causing severe damage?
And humiliate the Swedish Navy by using Galley fleets?
And splitting apart the Swedish King frois empire and pretty much trapping him in the Muslim Ottoman Empire?
Before which we had driven you into the Ukraine where you froze your dicks off along with those traitorous Cossacks?
Then defeating you in the Battle of Poltava following which came the mass surrender of Swedes?
Following which your King's stubborness pretty much destroyed an entire generate and all he got out it was a lead slug in the head somewhere in Norway?
Must I go on?
Swedishguy
Deity
All due respect, but I think Sweden's failure is more due to the the fact that Sweden had to fight against 6 countries alone. (Brandenburg, Russia, Poland, Denmark, Netherlands and some other country I can't remember right now). I don't think Russia had much to do with that.
The Finnish front was pretty much a stalemate.
The Finnish front was pretty much a stalemate.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Stalemate? Russia occupied Finland! Sweden was raided! The Baltic coast was captured!
Also, Sweden can blame itself for successfully antagonising and provoking 3 nations into an Alliance agaisnt it.
Also, Sweden can blame itself for successfully antagonising and provoking 3 nations into an Alliance agaisnt it.
Similar threads
