Well both. Russia’s so big that I wondered why pieces of it weren’t regularly being poached by Europe in the west, the Arabic countries in the south, and the Asian countries in the east
They were occasionally, as when it lost some chunks it had earlier seized to Poland-Lithuania during the Time of Troubles.
But ultimately Russia’s highly centralized approach to empire ( in the west and south, if not in the east ) proved more effective than Poland-Lithuania’s highly decentralized approach, especially from the mid-16th century on. So Russia expanded until it ran up against other sturdier and better geographically bounded powers in the west ( i.e. Habsburgs, Prussians ). Poland-Lithuania-Russia and related subregions formed one vast belt of highly discontinuous population centers broken up by very lightly inhabited or uninhabited “waste” with no strong geographic barriers. In the long drive to dominate this enormous open area it was probably inevitable there would be one big winner and for a variety of structural reasons ( and perhaps a good chunk og luck ), Russia prevailed.
Arabic is a bit of a misnomer here, perhaps you meant ‘Islamic’ - there were no real Arabic powers anywhere in the vicinity when Russia began its rise. But anyway it was indeed challenged and restrained by the steppe khanates and the Ottomans for long stretches of time. Early on Russia actually actively sought rapproachment with the Ottomans in particular while it was tied up in the west with its long, long grinding confrontation with Poland-Lithuania.
It did march its borders south somewhat on the steppes through tightly centralized military colonization as much from self-defense as anything else - it was raided constantly by Tatar states who were eventually loosely vassals of the Ottomans but functionally autonomous and highly dependent economically on the slave trade from the 16th century. I haven’t checked but I wouldn’t be shocked to find that Moscow may have been sacked, sieged and raided more than most any other modern European capital. But in the early centuries it carefully tried to restrain its own autonomous vassals like the Don Cossacks from provoking the Ottomans by raiding directly Ottoman-held centers like Azov.
However once it had started to reach the limits of easy(ier) expansion in the west and become a competitor for influence in the Orthodox sections of the Balkans, it began to pound south/southwest against a senescing Ottoman state that was no longer capable of meeting it on fully equal terms. So by the time the push against the south began it was from a position of at least initially slight dominance, increasing over time. Russia still had to slog very slowly over centuries ( because the Ottomans could dig in like ticks ), but it usually had the advantage.
Even more so when it began to spill out southeast into central Asia where states like that of Bukhara or even Persia just were not punching at the same weight as the Russians by the time they made their move.
As noted Siberia was very lightly populated and had nothing beyond very simple and small tribal organizations that were utterly incapable of putting up much of a fight. Here the Russian push was initially very decentralized - warlordism was the rule and the search for more and more tribute ( in furs ) dragged expansion east.
States like the Manchus and in eastern Central Asia the Dzungars for a time DID pose a greater resistance. And really for the most part that space was occupied by China ( and still is ). But as China started to spiral downwards after 1800 there too the Russians were in the stronger position and able to seize certain strategic areas along the Pacific coast and rest dominance in restive border areas like Outer Mongolia.
Well, there are Inuit in the USA as well. So a better comparison might be to compare Inuit life with native peoples further to the south, like, say, Cherokee or Navajo.
It depends if you mean settlement or other types of expansion, such as mineral exploitation. When Canada acquired Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory in 1870, it expanded its holdings all the way to the Arctic Ocean, and then in 1880, acquired the Arctic Archipelego. The federal government took steps to administer those areas, setting up regional governments, such as the North-west Territories, the District of Keewatin, and the District of Ungava. When the Klondike Gold Rush began, the federal Parliament promptly created the Yukon Territory and set up a regional government to deal with the situation.
By its nature, the North is sparsely populated and always will be (barring global warming, of course). But within that framework, the federal Government has always worked to expand Canadian authority in the northern regions.
Prior to the Mongol conquest, Russia actually was smaller, more defensible pieces. They got picked off by Mongols on one side and Teutonic Knights on the other. Moscow was an unimportant fur trappers’ fortress when the Tatars came through and burned it to the ground. When they left, the Muscovites realized this could have been avoided. They had an impenetrable forest on one side, a huge river on the other, and a narrow strip of land they could have defended a bit more effectively that the Khanate marched through unopposed. They rebuilt a big city there, guarded it effectively, and made it cost ineffective for the Mongols to come by and demand more tribute.
As the Mongol empire stared to recede, all the Russias clustered around the militarily strong Moscow instead of the culturally rich Kiev, and Ivan III was the first emperor of all the Russian principalities. His grandson, Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) laid claim to Siberia (By then there were no other serious claimants) and the huge country we all know and love began to take shape.
I don’t remember the book, but I’ve always remembered the quote about the misfortune of countries like Poland, caught between two powerful nations and no natural borders.
As I mentioned in post #36.
As you say, a comparison could be discussed between the Inuit lifestyle and a single tribe. carnivorousplant’s interest in comparing Inuit lifestyle with Native American lifestyle(s) in general is too broad a brush, as historical tribal lifestyles varied with climate and access to food, just to name two variables. In modern times, the contrast would have to be focused on the differences between reservation life of Indians (in the lower 48) and village life of the Inuit/Eskimo. Even Alaska Indian life is way different than Indians in other locations.
It may not be the book, but I recall similar sentiments expressed in The Next 100 Years.
People always seem to forget that Germany defeated Russia in WWI.
It was France that proved to be unconquerable in that war, although that probably would not have been the case without British help.
You’re really really really oversimplifying the fall of the Roman Empire, but let’s focus on Russia for now.
At the beginning of the 20th century the political entity known as the Russian Empire was much larger than the country known as Russia is today. After WWI it lost territory it had controlled in Poland and Finland and became known as the USSR (which was hardly just a Russian affair). The USSR collapsed in the late 1980s-early 1990s and became more than a dozen different nations, which include contemporary Russia, as well as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, etc.
So basically the Russian Empire did crumble and collapse into several smaller states.
Defeated, maybe. But not at all conquered–Germany apparently had the sense to stop at about Poland. My history and geography ain’t so good, but it doesn’t look like Germany got all that far into Asia, either.
Was it really defeat, so much as “We’ve got other fish to fry, what will it take for you to leave Russia alone?”
That’s not Siberia, that’s just Cossacks, man.
Or Nick II telephoned Kaiser Bill II and reminded him about getting involved in a land war in Asia…
Nicholas was out of the picture by then. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was negotiated by the new Bolshevik government.
No, it was defeat. You have German puppet governments in places like Ukraine and the Crimea that used up dozens of infantry divisions that, in retrospect, could have been better used on the Western Front. The notion was to inflict a “Bread Peace” that would help the homefront suffering from severe blockade-related shortages. In the end the Central Powers got little from their eastern conquests before the late-1918 collapse, but they were actual conquests.
Forget Siberia. Siberia is a no-brainer, and I’m actually disappointed that half this thread was wasted on repeating the obvious explanation of how Russia got to take and keep it.
For me, the much more interesting question is: Even excluding the entirety of her Asian possessions, Russia is still the hugest country in Europe. That’s no barren tundra we’re talking about here; that’s actual inhabited, arable countryside. 110 million peopl - 1/7th of Europe’s total population. 4/10ths of Europe’s surface area. How did they manage to pull THAT off?
Why was Poland-Lithuania the largest country in 14th century Europe? Why was Kievan Rus so huge? The answer is the same and has been talked about above. It was a large area of limited geographic barriers and highly discontinuous settlement. To some extent any substantial political entity would have to be largish just as a result of geography. It’s much the same reason why cavalry remained a primary military arm later in the east than the west - it wasn’t backwardness but rather an adjustment to local conditions where to some extent mobility trumped firepower.
Ultimately ( from the late 15th century ) Muscovy/Russia and Poland-Lithuania emerged as the two largest contestants for dominance in this huge open area of forests, marshes, steppes and occasional sprinklings of farmland. From the Thirteen Years War ( 1654-1667 ) Russia began to emerge as dominant. By the time we reached the First Partition of Poland in 1772, that state had ceased to be much of an impediment.
Meanwhile forests were cleared, marshlands drained, steppes were converted from nomadic pasturage to farmlands ( after the nomads were defeated ) and populations boomed, filling in the old gaps between towns that had previously existed. Viola! Large, populous Russia :).