What if Russia manages to conquer Columbia, Purchases Louisiana and annexes Texas, I know that there are many Slavs in Texas, it is possible for Russia to Slavicize Louisiana would this Slavic American state merge with the US if it frees itself from Russia.
Russia buys Louisiana
- Thread starter kasumigenx
- Start date
Delvestius
Banned
It'd take some crazy POD that would probably butterfly the situation, but If they did make the purchase, I doubt the Russian citizens would have the wealth or freedom to leave in great enough numbers to Slavicize it, no more than Mexico Romancized it. The U.S. would have been surely backed by France, and anyways it would eventually claim the territory in the name of manifest destiny anyways. They Russians did not have the means to attack a country on the other side of the world.
If they freed the serfs a bit earlier, perhaps the newly freed citizens would flock to the new colonies in search of the new wealth to be had. This would have slowed the growth the growth on the united States, as well as stalling the Russian Revolutions a good bit.
If they freed the serfs a bit earlier, perhaps the newly freed citizens would flock to the new colonies in search of the new wealth to be had. This would have slowed the growth the growth on the united States, as well as stalling the Russian Revolutions a good bit.
You do realize that are many Slavs that want nothing to do with Russia? Or many more that whatever feelings they have towards Russian state don't want to be a part of it? Slav =/= Russian.
Indeed N America looks like this in 1800 AD:
The key and PoD is Russia and Napoleon to agree on divison of the world. Thus Russia stays in the Continental camp. The trick would be if they agree to "restore the Roman empire" and Napoleon to become "Roman Emperor of the West" and the Russian tsar to become "Roman Emperor of the East". Nominally single Empire, with two Emperors. Union in all essential matters - incl monetary unification, customs union, military union, civil legislature ( code civile in Russia ).
The same way Napoleon ceded Louisiana from Spain to France to USA, on the grounds of the above "Restored Roman Empire constitutional treaty" Russia receives: Louisiana + the unexplored / unclaimed white up-map + the disputed between Britain and Spain + the Californias ( Upper and Lower ) and recognizes the anexation of Hawaii and Northern Pasific islands...
Such transfer would be purely formal until Alaskan and Californian gold found ( say in 1810es ), and RU subjects flocking into Americas.
The key and PoD is Russia and Napoleon to agree on divison of the world. Thus Russia stays in the Continental camp. The trick would be if they agree to "restore the Roman empire" and Napoleon to become "Roman Emperor of the West" and the Russian tsar to become "Roman Emperor of the East". Nominally single Empire, with two Emperors. Union in all essential matters - incl monetary unification, customs union, military union, civil legislature ( code civile in Russia ).
The same way Napoleon ceded Louisiana from Spain to France to USA, on the grounds of the above "Restored Roman Empire constitutional treaty" Russia receives: Louisiana + the unexplored / unclaimed white up-map + the disputed between Britain and Spain + the Californias ( Upper and Lower ) and recognizes the anexation of Hawaii and Northern Pasific islands...
Such transfer would be purely formal until Alaskan and Californian gold found ( say in 1810es ), and RU subjects flocking into Americas.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Couldn't France and Russia agree to split the world between them, with Russia getting all of Asia while France gets the rest?
A. There are many Czechs, and significant numbers of Slovaks and Sorbs in Texas. Overhwelmingly, they are Catholic and Protestant, not Orthodox.
B. These populations first arrive in Texas as '48ers. An 1803 POD definitely butterflies those circumstances.
Incidentally, an interesting page on the Texas Sorbs (who still call themselves Wends
):http://www.texaswendish.org/Pages/Museum.aspx
Last edited:
Russian purchase of Louisiana (not that they ever would) would be an American license for a consequence-free westward invasion. I mean, what are the Russians going to do? They have no means of supplying or reinforcing the colony, and no real means of attacking the US elsewhere. I suppose the Russians might try to convince other European colonial powers to back their claim (Britain post-1812 perhaps), but there's no real reason why they wouldn't just claim it for themselves and the pay the Russians a nominal fee for it.
That said, it wouldn't happen in the first place. This particular Czar is not as stupid as some of his more famous successors.
Oh, and as a native Central Texan I would like to reaffirm what mikegold said about the Texan Slavs, and add that breakfast kolaches are the best.
That said, it wouldn't happen in the first place. This particular Czar is not as stupid as some of his more famous successors.
Oh, and as a native Central Texan I would like to reaffirm what mikegold said about the Texan Slavs, and add that breakfast kolaches are the best.
Kaiphranos
Donor
Did you get this idea from Early American Chrononauts?
I knew I'd run across this idea before--that's probably where...
A. There are many Czechs, and significant numbers of Slovaks and Sorbs in Texas. Overhwelmingly, they are Catholic and Protestant, not Orthodox.
B. These populations first arrive in Texas as '48ers. An 1803 POD definitely butterflies those circumstances.
Incidentally, an interesting page on the Texas Sorbs (who still call themselves Wends
http://www.texaswendish.org/Pages/Museum.aspx
I love Kolaches. Thank you, Czechs of Texas.
Listen to this guy. This guy knows what he's talking about.
kasumigenx, if you read Russian( which I suppose you do observing you threads ) I could recommend you a novel with relatively the same PoD: Russia buys California and than all Mexico( including Texas) from Spain during and after Napoleon Wars( the PoD is count Ryazanov convincing Alexander I to buy California in 1806 in order to be with Conchita ) .
) .Why would Russia do that to begin with? Assuming they have the money at hand, why not spending it for something more useable? And even if they have the money at hand, do they have hte money to build up a fleet that is actually able to secure passage there and bring settlers there - settlers that are much more needed in Siberia?
They have them (it would be easier for the Europe-centred Imperial Russian Navy to reach and supply New Orleans than its Pacific holdings),
though I agree that they would not have enough (naval) capacity to hold it.
Last edited:
You forgot about the Texas Poles.A. There are many Czechs, and significant numbers of Slovaks and Sorbs in Texas. Overhwelmingly, they are Catholic and Protestant, not Orthodox.
B. These populations first arrive in Texas as '48ers. An 1803 POD definitely butterflies those circumstances.
Incidentally, an interesting page on the Texas Sorbs (who still call themselves Wends
http://www.texaswendish.org/Pages/Museum.aspx
I think Russia sold Alaska to the United States, isn't it? If Russia was not interested in keeping a territory adjescent to their eastern border, why should they bother to buy land somewhere else to which they do not even have easy access? It would be difficult to settle it, maintain supply lines to it and defend it. Any sensible Russian Ruler will dismiss any similar proposal without a second consideration.
Yes, and it was stupid for doing so. There was NO WAY the US could have taken Alaska by force. It's too isolated and blocked off by both the Royal Navy and the Russian Pacific Fleet. And Alaska has humongous gold, diamond, and oil deposits that could easily inject valuable wealth into the Russian economy. And it has a great strategic position. Excellent base for long-range nuclear bombers. The US won the Cold War because they had Alaska.