Maximum realistic territorial gains for the Russian Empire?

Apr 2017
1,378
U.S.A.
#51
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.
America is already running into water shortages, we could change the usage of water from agricultural to consumption but then we are changing the industries of the nation to something else. The danger is becoming like India or China, too large a population that it becomes a burden.
Also the Soviets did have problems feeding the population throughout the cold war. Much of this was because of inefficient farming policies, corruption and fear of trade with the west. More people would only compound this.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,747
SoCal
#52
America is already running into water shortages, we could change the usage of water from agricultural to consumption but then we are changing the industries of the nation to something else. The danger is becoming like India or China, too large a population that it becomes a burden.
What do you think is the optimal population size for China and India?

Also the Soviets did have problems feeding the population throughout the cold war. Much of this was because of inefficient farming policies, corruption and fear of trade with the west. More people would only compound this.
Were there any famines in the USSR after 1950?

Also, a capitalistic Russia would be better capable of fighting against hunger and effectively managing agriculture than the USSR was in real life, no?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,747
SoCal
#53
If they could get away with it but by the 20th century its somewhat unlikely. More likely by making them client states, maybe a ways in the future have them join the Russian empire like how the german kingdoms joined the german empire.

Not necessarily, Frederick the Great was prepared to abandon East Prussia to Russia if needed. Or if Prussia was dismembered in the seven years war or the Napoleonic wars.

Potentially all the Slavic lands, Hungary and Transylvania.

Tibet is too mountainous and too far. It was already under British influence.

I can't really see any Russian city having such a large population in this scenario unless Russia moves its capital. The only potential ones would be Constantinople or a port city in Manchuria.
BTW, in regards to East Prussia, had Russia captured it in the Seven Years' War, it would have simply given it to Poland in exchange for Courland, no?
 
Apr 2017
1,378
U.S.A.
#54
Optimal is debatable, if you look at it from a purely efficiency standpoint, I would say half their current would be good. It would make them more lean and give them room for growing food, while still having a large workforce. However, it isn't practical to lower their population to this level, as this would lead to a aging workforce that couldn't support the weight of the older population. So their best course (from a purely efficient standpoint) is to stay stagnant or slightly decrease the population, while investing in new technology to help with the problem. Or become expansionist and start conquering new lands but that would be bad for the rest of the world.

No, not really. But there was food rationing, which became especially bad in the 80's.
Yes, but it would still have the problems of corruption.

Possibly but they would simply turn around and take it back a few years later.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,747
SoCal
#55
Optimal is debatable, if you look at it from a purely efficiency standpoint, I would say half their current would be good. It would make them more lean and give them room for growing food, while still having a large workforce. However, it isn't practical to lower their population to this level, as this would lead to a aging workforce that couldn't support the weight of the older population. So their best course (from a purely efficient standpoint) is to stay stagnant or slightly decrease the population, while investing in new technology to help with the problem. Or become expansionist and start conquering new lands but that would be bad for the rest of the world.
Or they could simply raise the retirement age and improve healthcare to deal with a declining population, no?

BTW, unfortunately I suspect that all countries' populations are eventually going to reach their carrying capacity. The people who are inclined to reproduce a lot should gradually become a larger and larger percentage of the total population with each generation. Now, there might be environmental factors that bring down the birth rate from time to time--such as poor economic conditions (which might be what's going on right now in the West)--but I suspect that the long-term trend over the decades and especially centuries will be one of increasing birth rates until we will reach our carrying capacities. Here's an article about this:

An evolutionary projection of global fertility and population: My new paper (with Lionel Page) in Evolution & Human Behavior

No, not really. But there was food rationing, which became especially bad in the 80's.
OK.

Yes, but it would still have the problems of corruption.
So does most of the rest of the world, though--including China and India. The West and a few other countries (Japan, Singapore, et cetera) really are exceptional when it comes to their relative lack of corruption. It's almost as if they evolved this way over the centuries (especially the West).

Possibly but they would simply turn around and take it back a few years later.
The Prussians? What exactly makes you say that?
 
Apr 2017
1,378
U.S.A.
#56
Or they could simply raise the retirement age and improve healthcare to deal with a declining population, no?

BTW, unfortunately I suspect that all countries' populations are eventually going to reach their carrying capacity. The people who are inclined to reproduce a lot should gradually become a larger and larger percentage of the total population with each generation. Now, there might be environmental factors that bring down the birth rate from time to time--such as poor economic conditions (which might be what's going on right now in the West)--but I suspect that the long-term trend over the decades and especially centuries will be one of increasing birth rates until we will reach our carrying capacities. Here's an article about this:

An evolutionary projection of global fertility and population: My new paper (with Lionel Page) in Evolution & Human Behavior

OK.

So does most of the rest of the world, though--including China and India. The West and a few other countries (Japan, Singapore, et cetera) really are exceptional when it comes to their relative lack of corruption. It's almost as if they evolved this way over the centuries (especially the West).

The Prussians? What exactly makes you say that?
An ever decreasing population would require an ever increasing retirement age, what do you do when your raise the retirement age above life expectancy?

No, I meant the Russians. In real life the first partition of Poland was in 1772.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,747
SoCal
#57
An ever decreasing population would require an ever increasing retirement age, what do you do when your raise the retirement age above life expectancy?
Russia's life expectancy is steadily rising, though.

No, I meant the Russians. In real life the first partition of Poland was in 1772.
Would these partitions still occur without Prussia leading the way, though? I thought that Russia was content with a PLC that was gradually becoming more and more dependent on it.
 
Apr 2017
1,378
U.S.A.
#58
Russia's life expectancy is steadily rising, though.

Would these partitions still occur without Prussia leading the way, though? I thought that Russia was content with a PLC that was gradually becoming more and more dependent on it.
I was referring to the optimal population for India and China. Doesn't matter if life expectancy goes up, with a decreasing population it won't be able to keep up.

Possibly, its only natural for Russia to expand into Poland. Poland was stagnant and weak, with no real allies. It also offered valuable territory to Russia and Austria.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
19,747
SoCal
#59
I was referring to the optimal population for India and China. Doesn't matter if life expectancy goes up, with a decreasing population it won't be able to keep up.
So, are Japan, South Korea, and much of Eastern Europe likely to experience severe problems as a result of their severely declining populations?

Possibly, its only natural for Russia to expand into Poland. Poland was stagnant and weak, with no real allies. It also offered valuable territory to Russia and Austria.
That makes sense.

BTW, why did Poland have no real allies during this time?
 
#60
So, are Japan, South Korea, and much of Eastern Europe likely to experience severe problems as a result of their severely declining populations?



That makes sense.

BTW, why did Poland have no real allies during this time?
Some already are.

Poland had an inefficient system of government that gave the nobles too much power and left the central authority weak and often with foreign kings that had little interest in the good of the country. Without any real central authority Poland became backward and isolated, not involving themselves in foreign affairs. In the decades before the partition they were an effective puppet state of Russia.
 
Likes: Futurist