I would say that Russia is in a much worse position than Brasil because of the climate and aggressive neighbours throughout history. Other than they indeed look similar on the surface.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would say that Russia is in a much worse position than Brasil because of the climate and aggressive neighbours throughout history. Other than they indeed look similar on the surface.
yet, they remained a monarchy ruled by the Braganza (sp?) so, in a sense, they remained closely tied to Portugal until later in the century (unlike other South American countries that became republics right away).
By the way, I Think Russia held some territory in North America. They had Alaska and the Aleutians and they may have had other holdings on the West Coast.
They did not have the means to colonize and expand that although.
They did not have the means to colonize and expand that although.
I believe they had forts in california. (grr - webbrave! 
)
I know they traded with the natives on california's channel islands as well. But failed to leave a lasting mark really..
wouldn't it have been damn interesting if the mainland of california was catholic influenced by spain and mexico, and the islands were russian orthodox?
)I know they traded with the natives on california's channel islands as well. But failed to leave a lasting mark really..
wouldn't it have been damn interesting if the mainland of california was catholic influenced by spain and mexico, and the islands were russian orthodox?
Originally posted by Jaron
wouldn't it have been damn interesting if the mainland of california was catholic influenced by spain and mexico, and the islands were russian orthodox?
Russian Orthodoxy is still relatively widespread among Alaska natives - at least there are working Ortodox churches there now.
Russia controlled Alaska and part of Northern California (Fort Ross colony built in 1812 - it is roughly 100 km north of San Francisco - there is a museum there now). Fort Ross was sold by the Russian-American company (who had a trade monopoly in Alaska) in 1840s to some American whose name I can't recall at the moment, while Alaska was sold in 1867 (it took a lot of bribing on Russia's part, since the Congress didn't want to approve the deal
). By the time it was sold, all of Alaska had roughly 800 colonists, so its colonization wasn't among Russia's priorities.
Originally posted by Zagys
Just how strong do you think Russia is at the start of the game?
The game starts in the 1820's and Russia was considered the greatest military power back then. So I guess they should be pretty strong indeed
Their land army was large but of poor and declining quality. I never said they were weak, I just don't see them overruning Asia.Originally posted by Frodon
The game starts in the 1820's and Russia was considered the greatest military power back then. So I guess they should be pretty strong indeed
Oh, and I thought the game began in 1835.
No they didn't, and I wasn't counting empty and undeveloped Siberia or Central Asia.
You are correct. The game do begin in 1835 (damn, thought it would begin right after EU2 ended) and the russian army started to decline in the 1840's and probably hit a low peak during the Crimean War.
However it resurrected quite quick afterwards...
Russia took a large chunk of Asia and that doesn't count in your book. Interesting...
I thought it was obvious that I didn't mean the parts of Asia they already have at the beginning of the game, nor did I mean that they couldn't take any more Asian territory. I meant overrunning all of Asia, or at least the significant powers within.Originally posted by webbrave
Russia took a large chunk of Asia and that doesn't count in your book. Interesting...
ok, I took it out of contest then. Sorry.
Of course Russia had neither the means nor the desire to overrun ALL of Asia, but until the emergence of modern Japan there wasn't any Asian country that could be a threat to Russia in this time period.
Originally posted by webbrave
ok, I took it out of contest then. Sorry.
No but niether could Russia be a real threat to them.
The infrastructure to invade China was just simply not there.
nope, but Russia still managed to get a hold of huge border areas in the Far east. I wonder what could have been achieved if Russia had a huge army in the area. Then again, defeat of 19th century China would not be much of an achievement anyway.
Some mughal-states of India, the one which is able to unite India, drive out the Britains, and install a hegemony in East-Asia will imho have the most potential.