Really successful expansion plus settler colonialism

Jan 2014
989
Rus
#31
What about the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as the other territories which Russia could have acquired but didn't?
North Caucasus was almost settled by Russians after ending of Caucasian war. It was successful because native population was nomadic, others were expeled to Turkey, others still didnt go down from mountains. So there was large bank of land for Russian peasants.

In Transcaucasia (modern Georgia, Armenia and Azerbajzhan) there was native settled arabling population. So it was hard to find plots for Russian peasants. But government did it (for example irrigated land in modern Azerbajzhan), because it wanted to have some loyal population. It was all about Tsar's government. Soviet government didnt resetle peasant. Otherwise it claim them Tsar's colonizators, some of them lost their allotment and were expelled. But Soviet government decided to build industry here. As locals were low-browed it demanded attraction of Russian workers and specialists.

Only Armenia was some exception. It is highly mountinious, have few arable land. In addition Armenians tricky like Jews, they presented as in Tsar's as in Bolshevik's government. So there was almost no Russian peasant settlers in Armenia and was almost no Russian workers in Armenia too. Armenia was most Russian-free of Soviet semistates.

Middle Asia.

There were large scale peasants resettlement to Kazakhia in Tsar's time, because local population was sparce and nomadic and thats why here were lots of free land. Later there was enough industrial resettlement here. And finally Soviet resettlement for industrial farming "Tselina". So population become predominantly Slavic here. And if we would continue Frank81's comparisons Kazakhstan was something like Texas in America. Native nature is similar to Texasian too. If Bolsheviks didnt stop peasants resetlement than Slavic share and similarity with Texas would be much more.

Situation in Kirgizia was similar to Kazahia. While in other MiddleAsian republics it was similar with Transcaucasia.
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#32
Also, I suppose that the Appalachians and Urals can both symbolize the end of the core territory of the US/Russia. AFAIK, few Non-Hispanic White Americans lived west of Appalachia before 1763, and I am skeptical that many Russians lived east of the Urals before the 1500s or 1600s. Thus, both of these mountain ranges can symbolize expansion into the unknown.
Yes.
But Russian colonization inside Ural borders wasnt very easy. I think main part was fully agriculturally settled only after the midXIX. And North Caucausus only in the begining of XX. But It is quite separate story...like Florida in East coast of USA.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#34
North Caucasus was almost settled by Russians after ending of Caucasian war.
What do you mean "almost"?

It was successful because native population was nomadic, others were expeled to Turkey, others still didnt go down from mountains. So there was large bank of land for Russian peasants.
OK.

In Transcaucasia (modern Georgia, Armenia and Azerbajzhan) there was native settled arabling population. So it was hard to find plots for Russian peasants. But government did it (for example irrigated land in modern Azerbajzhan), because it wanted to have some loyal population. It was all about Tsar's government. Soviet government didnt resetle peasant. Otherwise it claim them Tsar's colonizators, some of them lost their allotment and were expelled. But Soviet government decided to build industry here. As locals were low-browed it demanded attraction of Russian workers and specialists.
Yeah, I was thinking of massive urban settlement in Russia's recently acquired territories after Russia would have become more urbanized. It's like with the U.S.--initially, a lot of our living space was settled by rural farmers, but later on our living space came to have a lot of urban areas on it.

An advantage of urban areas is that they don't need that much space to settle huge numbers of people.

Only Armenia was some exception. It is highly mountinious, have few arable land. In addition Armenians tricky like Jews, they presented as in Tsar's as in Bolshevik's government. So there was almost no Russian peasant settlers in Armenia and was almost no Russian workers in Armenia too. Armenia was most Russian-free of Soviet semistates.
Yeah, I've been struck by how few Russians ever settled in Armenia.

By the way, what about Ottoman Armenia and Trebizond if Russia would have ever acquired these territories?

Middle Asia.

There were large scale peasants resettlement to Kazakhia in Tsar's time, because local population was sparce and nomadic and thats why here were lots of free land. Later there was enough industrial resettlement here. And finally Soviet resettlement for industrial farming "Tselina". So population become predominantly Slavic here. And if we would continue Frank81's comparisons Kazakhstan was something like Texas in America. Native nature is similar to Texasian too. If Bolsheviks didnt stop peasants resetlement than Slavic share and similarity with Texas would be much more.

Situation in Kirgizia was similar to Kazahia. While in other MiddleAsian republics it was similar with Transcaucasia.
What's interesting is that both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were a part of the Russian SFSR until 1936.

Also, it's worth noting that out of the Central Asian SSRs, only Uzbekistan had a significant population in the early 20th century. In the early 20th century, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan had very small populations.
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#35
The guys looking for animal skins, fur etc They were usually pioneers in the exploration of territory






I remember to have seen similar maps of fur trade expansion through Siberia, in old books. Internet, though, is too Anglocentric

Yes. It's true. I only didnt understand word "Mountain Men". Russians never were "mountain".

...This type of colonization were principal in Russia in XVII and begining of XVIII century. It tied Siberia to Russia, but didnt make Russian population overwhelming. Furthermore Russians of that wave were very mixed with natives. So they were called "chaldons (чалдоны)" and markedly differed from settlers of peasant and later waves .
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#37
Yeah, I've been struck by how few Russians ever settled in Armenia.

By the way, what about Ottoman Armenia and Trebizond if Russia would have ever acquired these territories?
You can see at he history of Kars province. It was acquired in 1878, but only Kars and its outskirts were settled by Russians. There were several reasons: there were no free lands, russian peasnats didnt like mountains, there were competition between projects of Russian and Armenian colonization.

(Armenian colonization project was to gather Armenians from Ottoman Empire and settle them in nearest regions of Russian Empire. It had to weaken Ottomans.)

For Russians proper was no need to get some new lands from Ottomans (). It was necessary only to Armenian lobby. Russian real goal was straits to Mediterranean.
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#38
What's interesting is that both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were a part of the Russian SFSR until 1936.

Also, it's worth noting that out of the Central Asian SSRs, only Uzbekistan had a significant population in the early 20th century. In the early 20th century, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan had very small populations.
Whole Middle Asia was relatively sparse populated. Whole its population was equal to several regions in mainland Russia.Demographic explosion was only after WWII here. So Russia could colonized them too.Tsar government's plan was to irrigate new lands and to settle them by Russian colonists. Now larger part of lands were irrigated in XX century. So if this plan was executed even Uzbeks and Tajiks wouldnt be majority in their country.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#39
Another example of successful expansion and colonialism are Chechens. All they lived in mountains and begun to settle in the plain only in XVII century. Now 80% or more of them living on the plain.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#40
You can see at he history of Kars province. It was acquired in 1878, but only Kars and its outskirts were settled by Russians. There were several reasons: there were no free lands, russian peasnats didnt like mountains, there were competition between projects of Russian and Armenian colonization.

(Armenian colonization project was to gather Armenians from Ottoman Empire and settle them in nearest regions of Russian Empire. It had to weaken Ottomans.)

For Russians proper was no need to get some new lands from Ottomans (). It was necessary only to Armenian lobby. Russian real goal was straits to Mediterranean.
One would think that the coastal areas of Anatolia would have been more attractive to Russian settlers than mountainous areas are, though. Out of the territories that Russia acquired from the Ottomans in 1878, only Batumi was actually located on the coast.
 

Similar History Discussions