Maximum realistic territorial gains for the Russian Empire?

Apr 2017
1,748
U.S.A.
Being one of the largest Russian cities in 1897 is not important enough?
It only has one million people now, I see no way to quintuple its population. Only St. Petersburg and Moscow reach that amount. Unless Odessa became the capital for some reason, I can't see it happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,622
SoCal
It only has one million people now, I see no way to quintuple its population. Only St. Petersburg and Moscow reach that amount. Unless Odessa became the capital for some reason, I can't see it happening.
Fair enough, I suppose; after all, even in Soviet times (at least in 1989), Odessa was only #17 by population:

 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,622
SoCal
Hey Visigoth Panzer, how much larger do you think that Moscow and St. Pete's would have been in a scenario where Russia didn't endure the demographic devastation of the 20th century and also didn't have the propiska system but instead allowed for complete freedom of movement? Also, what about if St. Pete's will permanently remain the Russian capital in this scenario?
 
Apr 2017
1,748
U.S.A.
Well, currently St. Petersburg's population is 4.6 million, in 1916 it was 2.4 million. Moscow has a population of 12 million and in 1915 it was 1.8 million. So assuming most of the people who moved to Moscow and stayed there instead went to St. Petersburg (switching the increase rate %), Moscow would be between 3.5 and 4 million; while St. Petersburg would be around 16 million. As for calculating it without the large population losses and accounting for freedom of movement, that's hard to say. St. Petersburg took heavy losses during ww2.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,622
SoCal
Well, currently St. Petersburg's population is 4.6 million, in 1916 it was 2.4 million. Moscow has a population of 12 million and in 1915 it was 1.8 million. So assuming most of the people who moved to Moscow and stayed there instead went to St. Petersburg (switching the increase rate %), Moscow would be between 3.5 and 4 million; while St. Petersburg would be around 16 million. As for calculating it without the large population losses and accounting for freedom of movement, that's hard to say. St. Petersburg took heavy losses during ww2.
Russia incurred huge demographic losses not only as a result of WWII, but also as a result of WWI, the Russian Civil War, the Bolshevik purges, and the famines in the 1930s and 1940s. So, a lot of Russians were either killed, died young, or were never actually born.
 
Apr 2017
1,748
U.S.A.
Russia incurred huge demographic losses not only as a result of WWII, but also as a result of WWI, the Russian Civil War, the Bolshevik purges, and the famines in the 1930s and 1940s. So, a lot of Russians were either killed, died young, or were never actually born.
Yes, I'm aware. It was especially brutal for Leningrad during ww2. My point is calculating that would be difficult. There's too many variables for a clear answer unless you are a highly skilled in math and history. If you want a simple estimate, find out the population % loss of the soviet union/Russia after the revolution/civil war/ww1 (excluding that lost from territorial loss), add the percentages from the purges and ww2; then increase the city population by that combined %.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,622
SoCal
It states here that Russia within its current borders would have had slightly more than 260 million people right now without the demographic devastation of the 20th century:


So, almost twice more than in real life. If St. Pete's population would have been 16 million in this scenario, adjusting for population losses, it should be about 30 million or so in this scenario.