Some questions on Siberia

[RedRalph]

1. How did Russia colonise such a gargantuan amount of Siberian territory in such a short space of time? Bar one or two hiccups, it seems the Russians more-or-less strolled through the largest (and most inhospitable) territory in the world with ease.

2. Why didn't anyone else? China would be an obvious candidate, but it seems no one else ever made a serious attempt to develop much of Siberia. The Russian heartland was so far from most of Siberia, so there was nothing inevitable about them getting it.

3. What might have happened the territory if Russia hadn't colonised it? Let's say because of war, famine, or political reasons Russia decides to expand west or even not expand at all, what might be Siberia's status now?

 

[Tee Kay]

1. How did Russia colonise such a gargantuan amount of Siberian territory in such a short space of time? Bar one or two hiccups, it seems the Russians more-or-less strolled through the largest (and most inhospitable) territory in the world with ease.

As I understand it, initially early pioneeers were few and were mostly in or near isolated forts and trading posts. Large-scale settlement didn't start to follow until the 18th century. It was a gradual process taking centuries. You could argue it's still not completed.

2. Why didn't anyone else? China would be an obvious candidate, but it seems no one else ever made a serious attempt to develop much of Siberia. The Russian heartland was so far from most of Siberia, so there was nothing inevitable about them getting it.

At the time China was still colonizing its south and west, while the way north was barred by hostile terrain and the steppe nomads, so I guess that might be part of the reason.

3. What might have happened the territory if Russia hadn't colonised it? Let's say because of war, famine, or political reasons Russia decides to expand west or even not expand at all, what might be Siberia's status now?

I guess one of the Mongol peoples would dominate, like the Khanate of Sibir. Or perhaps the Manchus would chose to expand north instead of west into Xinjiang. Or the Japanese, if they came out of isolation.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm talking about the Russian Empire here, SU is a different topic altogether.

Simplifying things, imagine an American subjugation of Wild West, but with harsher climate, larger amount of natives (which necessitated friendlier relations with them), and more repressive and "feudal" (pre-1861) state - it'd be interesting to compare Russian paternalism and American private propertism.

Russian peasants from Siberia were on average wealthier then their counterparts from European Russia, initially they could "squat" the lands, taking them as they pleased - a consequence of large amount of land. With the population growing, such squatting was becoming harder to do. Like their Russian European counterparts, their mentality was collectivist - they didn't hold these lands in private property. Almost all Siberian land belonged to the state - there was no equivalent of 1862 Homestead law.

You could argue it's still not completed.

More or less true. Siberia is still mostly a raw materials producer.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

2. Why didn't anyone else? China would be an obvious candidate, but it seems no one else ever made a serious attempt to develop much of Siberia. The Russian heartland was so far from most of Siberia, so there was nothing inevitable about them getting it.

China is at heart an agricultural nation, traditionally. There'll be little reason for the Chinese to want such a poor land (agricultural-wise). Plus the deserts and steppes were formidable barriers. Not to mention the Mongols.

And the Chinese imperial power actually wants to exert control over its resources, so they're generally against expansion unless it's done by imperial assets (like how Yunnan was first conquered by a largish Ming army, because it was still controlled by a Mongol remnant after the Ming had pushed out the Mongols from the rest of China etc).

The Chinese imperial power is also already very content with China proper, which they already have their hands full with...

If the Chinese imperial power is to want to really expand, SE Asia is much closer by, more productive and far easier to travel to using ships than Siberia...

 

[RedRalph]

I guess one of the Mongol peoples would dominate, like the Khanate of Sibir. Or perhaps the Manchus would chose to expand north instead of west into Xinjiang. Or the Japanese, if they came out of isolation.

That's the thing though, could Sibir or any of the other potentials have set up a viable state there? Siberia nowadays is heavily dependent on European Russia, I'm not sure any of the local 'states' would have been viable colonisers of it.

Russian peasants from Siberia were on average wealthier then their counterparts from European Russia, initially they could "squat" the lands, taking them as they pleased - a consequence of large amount of land. With the population growing, such squatting was becoming harder to do. Like their Russian European counterparts, their mentality was collectivist - they didn't hold these lands in private property. Almost all Siberian land belonged to the state - there was no equivalent of 1862 Homestead law.

Interesting, did not know that.

China is at heart an agricultural nation, traditionally. There'll be little reason for the Chinese to want such a poor land (agricultural-wise). Plus the deserts and steppes were formidable barriers. Not to mention the Mongols.

Well... sort of true, but they still bothered to take Tibet.

If the Chinese imperial power is to want to really expand, SE Asia is much closer by, more productive and far easier to travel to using ships than Siberia...

Hell of a lot harder to conquer though.

 

[Dachs]

China is at heart an agricultural nation, traditionally. There'll be little reason for the Chinese to want such a poor land (agricultural-wise). Plus the deserts and steppes were formidable barriers. Not to mention the Mongols.

[...]

The Chinese imperial power is also already very content with China proper, which they already have their hands full with...

this, mostly

Well... sort of true, but they still bothered to take Tibet.



Hell of a lot harder to conquer though.

Yes. A lot has been made of the fact that the conquerors of Tibet and Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia were in fact the Qing, and people have attempted to draw links between the Manju dealings with steppe tribes prior to the conquest of Zhili and the 18th century conquests in the north and west. Supposed proof positive that the Chinese really couldn't be assed to take over that stuff unless they weren't actually Chinese. I'm not sure how much stock I put in that explanation.

Perhaps most reasonably, we can rely on contingency. The Muscovites/Russians began their colonization efforts at a time when the contemporary Chinese power, the Ming, were beset with colossal internal problems and dueling with various resurgent Mongol groups and, of course, later on, the Later Jin. By the time any Chinese powers could bother to turn attention to a colonization spree to the north, after the Qing fully defeated the Ming and crushed the rebellion of the southern generals, the Russians had already reached the Pacific. The 1670s-1680s twilight struggle between Russia and the Qing over the Amur River region that ended in the Treaty of Nerchinsk may perhaps be said to represent a kind of last-ditch Chinese effort at a northern land-grab.

 

[TheLastOne36]

2. Why didn't anyone else? China would be an obvious candidate, but it seems no one else ever made a serious attempt to develop much of Siberia. The Russian heartland was so far from most of Siberia, so there was nothing inevitable about them getting it.

We know from linguistic history that Chinese from Northern China were still immigrating en masse to South China. Settlers had little reason to expand north or to the west when they could take over Southern Chinese rich farmlands.

 

[Dachs]

Actually, we just know that from regular history. Linguistics are notoriously error-prone when describing historical events.

However, one could reasonably state that that southern migration was more or less complete by the Song period, or even by the end of the Northern and Southern Dynasties. It does not explain why there was no move to colonize Siberia during the Ming period. It also doesn't really jive with the military-political reasons behind a lack of colonization, which seem to me to be the most relevant ones. After all, a cursory examination of the history of the Manju will show that, much like sub-Roman groups like the Goths, Vandals, and so forth, the Manju were comprised partially of "ethnic" Manju and partly of other ethnicities like Chinese, Russians, Koreans, and Mongols. Chinese were clearly migrating into the north in some numbers, but this did not translate into political control. Why? The military reasons alluded to earlier.

 

[RedRalph]

In the absence of Russian or Chinese colonisation of Siberia, I wonder if a western power could have got there... UK or Spain maybe, if you go back far enough? US even? Probably too late for them.

 

[Tee Kay]

Japan would be the most likely, I think.

 

[RedRalph]

How could Japan do it? By the time Japan was even willing to acknowledge the outside world, Russia was already there.

 

[Tee Kay]

How could Japan do it? By the time Japan was even willing to acknowledge the outside world, Russia was already there.

Assuming an absence of Russian or Chinese colonization, I mean.

If we discount the Russians and the Chinese, and ignore the various Mongol and Turkic hordes and the indigenous Siberians, then Siberia wouldn't likely be colonized, at least by any significant number of settlers, until the late 19th century, by which time an industrializing Japan would probably be in a better position to do so than any Western power.

 

[RedRalph]

Possibly, though they took long enough to even take Hokkaido so I'm not sure. Obviously they would have a geographic advantage, and the minerals there would have been very useful to them. It would have required a much bigger expansion of the IJN though, and much earlier too.

 

[Tee Kay]

Possibly, though they took long enough to even take Hokkaido so I'm not sure.

Part of the reason for that, I think, was that they had no urgency to do so. Until the Russians arrived in force in the late 18th- early 19th century the Japanese had no real competitor to the land save for the Ainu from whom they were taking the land in the first place. Japan's main islands were crowded but not so crowded as to necessitate mass migration up north into a relatively inhospitable region. And the politics and inward-looking attitude of the Tokugawa period probably played a part in the slow colonization too.

Obviously they would have a geographic advantage, and the minerals there would have been very useful to them. It would have required a much bigger expansion of the IJN though, and much earlier too.

The Japanese would not have known about mineral deposits beforehand unless one of the indigenous states substantially developed them, which is unlikely. The Japanese would be acquiring Siberia for pretty much the same reasons the Russians went east in the 16th century - land, fur trade, but also to make sure the land is under Japanese rule rather than under another nation.

Compared to the other Great Powers (save Russia), they probably do have a geographical advantage. Japan still has to beat China, though, as the Ussuri and Amur regions were under Qing rule, and that would necessitate a faster development of the IJN, though they could have earlier settle the areas north and east of that.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah they probably would have gone to Kamchatka first, makes the most sense. So they may not have ended up with all of eastern Siberia, but possibly the Pacific coast. You may have guessed, the idea of this thread came from a game of EU3 I'm playing. I wonder... could it have inspired China to have a Meiji restoration* of its own? They might have been less complacent if a serious potential rival was beginning to grow to the north...


*I'm using the term in its generic sense.

 

[Tee Kay]

So they may not have ended up with all of eastern Siberia, but possibly the Pacific coast.

At least initially. But once you have the Pacific Coast, you can prevent anyone else from colonizing Siberia from the east. In the 19th or 20th century Japan could grab Siberia as far as the Baikal or further. The western part would probably become Russian if they decide to move east, or if not then under the control of an indigenous state or a Mongol or Turkic state.

I wonder... could it have inspired China to have a Meiji restoration* of its own? They might have been less complacent if a serious potential rival was beginning to grow to the north...


*I'm using the term in its generic sense.

The Russian Empire was not a serious rival?

 

[RedRalph]

At least initially. But once you have the Pacific Coast, you can prevent anyone else from colonizing Siberia from the east. In the 19th or 20th century Japan could grab Siberia as far as the Baikal or further. The western part would probably become Russian if they decide to move east, or if not then under the control of an indigenous state or a Mongol or Turkic state.

Not sure they would have been able to control that much of it it be honest. Would have required an enormous amount of manpower and resources (initially) that japan probably wouldn't have had. Would have been fairly indefensible that far away from Japan too.

The Russian Empire was not a serious rival?

Of course it was, my mistake. But there could have been something a lot more psychologically shocking about Japan doing it IMO.

 

[Tee Kay]

Not sure they would have been able to control that much of it it be honest. Would have required an enormous amount of manpower and resources (initially) that japan probably wouldn't have had. Would have been fairly indefensible that far away from Japan too.

Well, no, it won't be like Russian colonization OTL, it'd be more like Belgium colonizing the Congo. Japanese settlements would be concentrated in the Pacific coastal regions, and deeper inland Japanese garrisons along railway lines would keep order.

There were about three million Japanese colonists in Korea, China and the South Pacific at the end of the Second World War. If all three million were to be colonizing Siberia instead, they would have probably formed substantially a larger proportion of the population than Europeans in most of their African colonies.

Of course it was, my mistake. But there could have been something a lot more psychologically shocking about Japan doing it IMO.

Maybe, though the success of any reformist movement is not guaranteed (eg the Hundred Days Reform).

 

[RedRalph]

Well, no, it won't be like Russian colonization OTL, it'd be more like Belgium colonizing the Congo. Japanese settlements would be concentrated in the Pacific coastal regions, and deeper inland Japanese garrisons along railway lines would keep order.

There were about three million Japanese colonists in Korea, China and the South Pacific at the end of the Second World War. If all three million were to be colonizing Siberia instead, they would have probably formed substantially a larger proportion of the population than Europeans in most of their African colonies.

Not sure if Japan could have sustained 3m people in Siberia in those days. Japan had very little experience of colonising, much less colonising thousands of miles away from home in the worst terrain on Earth. I suspect they would have concentrated on the coastal areas, to a depth of a few hundred miles or so. Of course, this is so far from OTL it's impossible to say.

Maybe, though the success of any reformist movement is not guaranteed (eg the Hundred Days Reform).

Of course. It was stupid to say Japan colonising Siberia alone could have provided the impetus, though it could have played a role I believe.

 

[Dachs]

And, of course, any Chinese reform is likely to cause serious internal problems. Since the Chinese state had tied its particular brand of education so tightly to its legitimacy principle and to its methods of elite governance, any attempt to change that education system to a more "Western" model, unlike in Japan, basically decouples the state from its own governing ideology. If China "pulls a Meiji Restoration", the result is likely to be something like a Yuan Shikai Empire or a Jiang Jieshi "Republic" instead of the Qing state that obtained before.