Maximum realistic territorial gains for the Russian Empire?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Depends on your definition of successful. Currently more and more Tatars are beginning to identify as Russians.
Source and why?

Yeah, if they could.
Russia likes to take as much as they can. They took it in 1812, as part of their plans to take the Balkans.
By that logic then maybe Kiev but I doubt any others.
Not Tashkent?

I doubt it would effect the percentage of people living in suburbs, it would be equivalent of the existing populations, just adjust for the increased population (if any).
It wouldn't affect the percentage of people living in the suburbs, but since the total population is going to be larger, so will the total number of people who live in various suburbs.
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Source and why?

Not Tashkent?

It wouldn't affect the percentage of people living in the suburbs, but since the total population is going to be larger, so will the total number of people who live in various suburbs.
I don't recall where I read it but years ago I read an article about how Tatars and other Russian minorities were choosing to identify as Russians on census' to avoid discrimination. This is combined with the fact that most Tatars outside of their republics and in urban areas speak Russian as a first language. Their languages aren't taught in most schools anymore and Russia is in the process of abolishing the autonomous republics.

I don't see any particular reason why Tashkent's population would be larger in this scenario. A larger Russian empire would have less Russians to settle, so Tashkent's Russian population and importance would be smaller. This would be offset by the fewer massacred people, so I don't think it would be any larger. Its possible it could hit 3 million but probably not much over that.

Yes, but why does the suburban population matter if its the same percentage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
I don't recall where I read it but years ago I read an article about how Tatars and other Russian minorities were choosing to identify as Russians on census' to avoid discrimination. This is combined with the fact that most Tatars outside of their republics and in urban areas speak Russian as a first language. Their languages aren't taught in most schools anymore and Russia is in the process of abolishing the autonomous republics.
Interesting; I'll try finding it. I haven't heard of the Russian government actually wanting to abolish autonomous republicans in Russia--though that is undoubtedly a dream of at least some Russian nationalists.

I don't see any particular reason why Tashkent's population would be larger in this scenario. A larger Russian empire would have less Russians to settle, so Tashkent's Russian population and importance would be smaller. This would be offset by the fewer massacred people, so I don't think it would be any larger. Its possible it could hit 3 million but probably not much over that.
Why would a larger Russian Empire have less Russians to settle? Or do you mean that they would simply settle elsewhere instead?

Yes, but why does the suburban population matter if its the same percentage?
Because I'm talking about total numbers here. I want metropolitan areas with 5+ million people. I don't care whether Russia's total population is 300 million or 400 million or 500 million or 600 million or whatever in this scenario.
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Interesting; I'll try finding it. I haven't heard of the Russian government actually wanting to abolish autonomous republicans in Russia--though that is undoubtedly a dream of at least some Russian nationalists.

Why would a larger Russian Empire have less Russians to settle? Or do you mean that they would simply settle elsewhere instead?

Because I'm talking about total numbers here. I want metropolitan areas with 5+ million people. I don't care whether Russia's total population is 300 million or 400 million or 500 million or 600 million or whatever in this scenario.
https://www.rferl.org/a/1067861.html
They would have to spread them out over a larger empire. Example: Instead of settling say, .5 million Russians in Tashkent, they would only settle .1 million and settle the other .4 million across Anatolia (just random numbers for example).
I'm not overly familiar with Russia's metropolitan populations. Of note however, is that metropolitan isn't just suburbs. It also includes smaller cities and towns in close proximity to a large city that often function as an economic extension of said city. A suburb is usually a residential centered population center on the outskirts of a city, usually populated by wealthier people who moved from the city for better housing. Even if the Russian empire was as large as theorized here, I doubt the urban/metro population would be drastically larger aside from the capital and possible special cities like Constantinople.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Even if the Russian empire was as large as theorized here, I doubt the urban/metro population would be drastically larger aside from the capital and possible special cities like Constantinople.
It would also have a much larger population without Nazism and Communism, though. If its urban population isn't going to change very much (with the exception of adding some Russians to cities in newly conquered territories), then Russia is a whole is going to be much more rural (on average) than it/the USSR was in real life.
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
It would also have a much larger population without Nazism and Communism, though. If its urban population isn't going to change very much (with the exception of adding some Russians to cities in newly conquered territories), then Russia is a whole is going to be much more rural (on average) than it/the USSR was in real life.
People always like to say if this # of people didn't die in this war/incident, then there would be #x# more people now. This doesn't take into account several important realities.
Some of the people who died were old/sick and wouldn't have sired more children; meaning their deaths didn't affect later populations.
The population is sometimes limited by resources, meaning say family1 lost five children in the war, then after the war they have three more children. If the war never happened they may not have had any more children because they couldn't afford more than five (still a loss but not as much). Another example, say the Ukraine could only support 50 million people with living standards/technology/food of the time (just and example). Any more than that and people begin to starve or suffer hardship, thus they either die, move away or stop having children. Now conflict 1 happens and kills half the population, after said conflict they rebuild and repopulate until they reach 50 million again and the limit is reached. Now in that time technology would raise the number ceiling to 60 million but the point is the same, resources limit populations, so just because # of people died doesn't mean #x# of people would exist now. Granted probably more people would be in Russia now without ww2/communism. But It wouldn't necessarily be 60+ million more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
People always like to say if this # of people didn't die in this war/incident, then there would be #x# more people now. This doesn't take into account several important realities.
Some of the people who died were old/sick and wouldn't have sired more children; meaning their deaths didn't affect later populations.
Yes, but a lot of the people who died/were killed were of fertile age or would have eventually become of fertile age.

The population is sometimes limited by resources, meaning say family1 lost five children in the war, then after the war they have three more children. If the war never happened they may not have had any more children because they couldn't afford more than five (still a loss but not as much).
Yep. Interestingly enough, this actually happened to my maternal grandmother's parents in the 1930s. They had three children--all of whom died--and then had three more children, including my maternal grandmother.

That said, though, if there is a severe shortage of males relative to females for various age cohorts, then this could also significantly reduce population growth due to a lot of females simply being unable to find suitable spouses--or even any spouses at all.

Another example, say the Ukraine could only support 50 million people with living standards/technology/food of the time (just and example). Any more than that and people begin to starve or suffer hardship, thus they either die, move away or stop having children. Now conflict 1 happens and kills half the population, after said conflict they rebuild and repopulate until they reach 50 million again and the limit is reached. Now in that time technology would raise the number ceiling to 60 million but the point is the same, resources limit populations, so just because # of people died doesn't mean #x# of people would exist now.
Agreed.

Granted probably more people would be in Russia now without ww2/communism. But It wouldn't necessarily be 60+ million more.
Was Russia actually running low on resources before World War II and Communism, though?
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Not especially but my point was that populations are always limited by resources. Even America or Europe would find themselves strapped if a billion new people suddenly appeared in their countries. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Not especially but my point was that populations are always limited by resources. Even America or Europe would find themselves strapped if a billion new people suddenly appeared in their countries. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
Agreed. However, considering that the USSR had 300 million at its peak and doesn't appear to have been in an immediate crisis in regards to resources, I do think that it (or a Greater Russia in some other form, such as a democratic republic or a surviving Tsarist Russia) could have supported an additional 50-100 million people.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
BTW, I think that both the US and Europe are each capable of sustaining an influx of up to several hundred million additional people just as long as this influx occurs extremely gradually rather than immediately. Of course, this is not to mention the ethnic and/or religious tensions that this could result in, but this could be avoided by simply having Whites in the US and Europe reproduce much more and thus themselves be the main driving force behind population growth in both of these territories.