Really successful expansion plus settler colonialism

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,495
SoCal
#51
How populated were they? I wouldn't be surprised if those territories were of comparable population densities as European "core" Russia. Its hard to colonize lands that are just as densely populated as your original lands to begin with...
Russia was and still is not densely populated at all. You can probably fit all of the ethnic Russians into Krasnodar krai to get a population density comparable to western European states.
Of course, the Russian government is structured in such a way that makes land/apartments expensive in a country that has plenty of it and builds 10-storey crammed apartment complexes next to... empty fields. :upsidedown:
AFAIK, Russian Turkestan had something like 10 million people in 1897. Meanwhile, the European parts of Russia had something like 100 million people during this time--and that's excluding Poland!
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,495
SoCal
#52
My feeling that if Tsar's politics wasnt stop in 1917 than near half of population of modern Uzbekistan and Tajicistan and Turkmenia would be Europen (much of them Russian). So if modern population of Uzbekistan is 33 mln (most of them Uzbeks and some Tajiks), than it could be something like 10 mln Russians, 3 mln other Europeans (Tatars,Germans, Jews, Armenians etc) and 17 mln native Uzbeks and Tajiks. In other words situation here would be similar to situation in modern Xinjiang where 40% Chinese now.
Why would there have been much less Uzbeks and Tajiks in this scenario? Would it have been because many of them would have moved to the Russian interior/core to acquire a better standard of living similar to how many Blacks moved out of the Southern U.S. during the Great Migration?
 
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#53
How populated were they? I wouldn't be surprised if those territories were of comparable population densities as European "core" Russia. Its hard to colonize lands that are just as densely populated as your original lands to begin with...
Russia was and still is not densely populated at all. You can probably fit all of the ethnic Russians into Krasnodar krai to get a population density comparable to western European states.
Of course, the Russian government is structured in such a way that makes land/apartments expensive in a country that has plenty of it and builds 10-storey crammed apartment complexes next to... empty fields. :upsidedown:
Only some irrigated valleys were dense populated there.They were more dense populated than even south Russia. But they occupied only several procents of Turkestan's area.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2014
989
Rus
#54
Why would there have been much less Uzbeks and Tajiks in this scenario? Would it have been because many of them would have moved to the Russian interior/core to acquire a better standard of living similar to how many Blacks moved out of the Southern U.S. during the Great Migration?
I dont think that they would migrate. One of the reasons of their rapid growth was that they got vast volume of new irrigated land for settling. If they got less, their growth would be less too. Soviet authority gave some other advantages which accelerated their increase.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,495
SoCal
#55
I dont think that they would migrate. One of the reasons of their rapid growth was that they got vast volume of new irrigated land for settling. If they got less, their growth would be less too. Soviet authority gave some other advantages which accelerated their increase.
Which other advantages did they get?
 
Aug 2014
107
New York, USA
#56
AFAIK, Russian Turkestan had something like 10 million people in 1897. Meanwhile, the European parts of Russia had something like 100 million people during this time--and that's excluding Poland!
I find it hard to believe, unless you count Finland, Baltic states, Moldova, and Ukraine in "European Russia". I was talking about more or less modern Russian borders.
There were only 67.5 million ethnic Russians in the whole of Russian Empire, with ~6 million of them living in Siberia. The rest of the ethnic Russians lived on a huge territory, giving a fairly low pop. density. Even now, the population density of European Russia (even discounting Siberia and the Far East) is amongst the lowest in the world.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,495
SoCal
#57
I find it hard to believe, unless you count Finland, Baltic states, Moldova, and Ukraine in "European Russia". I was talking about more or less modern Russian borders.
There were only 67.5 million ethnic Russians in the whole of Russian Empire, with ~6 million of them living in Siberia. The rest of the ethnic Russians lived on a huge territory, giving a fairly low pop. density. Even now, the population density of European Russia (even discounting Siberia and the Far East) is amongst the lowest in the world.
Yes, I was including Ukraine, Belarus, Finland, et cetera in my definition of European Russia here. You are correct that, within its current borders, Russia had less than 70 million people back in 1897.
 

Similar History Discussions