Most maps of the Russian Empire show it as expanding very far into the east in pretty early dates. I know that after defeating the tatar khanates successors of the Golden Horde, there wasn't much resistance basically because almost nobody lives in Siberia and the Far East, but the Trans-Siberian Railway was started at the end of the 19th century.
So before the 19th century how much control over the peoples of Siberia and the Far East did the russians actually have? Were the inhabitants of those remote areas actually ruled by Moscow/St. Petersburg beyond symbolical protocols? Was it basically a Wild Eas with no law? By the inhabitants I mean both the natives and the ethnic russian settlers.
>>1375060
There was nothing to rule over. Natives lived their life, which was simple, no need to Russian involvement. Later when the Russian settlers came the Russian state expanded their control.
>>1375060
There was a large land empire called Tartaria which has been written out of history, you can see it on old maps from as late as the 18th century
>>1376140
But how did the power of the state reach that far? It must've been fucking months of travel.
>>1376386
That's just it, there was really no need to expend much authority over Sibiera aside from formally claiming it after sending explorers through the areas. At most, there were a few small military outposts, but for the most part, since the land was essentially uninhabited there was no need to waste time and resources establishing authority there.
>>1376399
So basically the few settlers were left on their own devices.
Why we don't see separatist movements in the east when the central state tried to change that?
>>1376425
Not the guy you're responding to, and I know very little about the period, but I would hazard a guess that they were still economically dependent on the "Core" Russian areas, and weren't self sufficient in things like food, fuel, metalworking, etc.
>>1376425
Why would they care enough to do that and was it even possible?
>>1376461
How can they be dependent? They would be dead if the food and the rest of the basics had to be transported from the hearthland, a dangerous long travel of weeks if not months.
They're dependent today thanks to new technologies.
>>1376467
If people lives free of the taxes and impositions of the state is only natural that they would resist if they control of the state arrives overnight, unless they need the state for something else that compensates it.
>>1376484
>They're dependent today thanks to new technologies.
>If people lives free of the taxes and impositions of the state is only natural that they would resist if they control of the state arrives overnight, unless they need the state for something else that compensates it.
I guess over time they became more dependent. By then it was too late. But they probably had no means of resistance since I'm pretty sure they were all tribal people with no guns or anything. IDK nigga read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia
They apparently massacred the natives sometimes
Upon arrival in an area occupied by a tribe of natives, the Cossacks entered into peace talks with a proposal to submit to the White Tsar and to pay yasak, but these negotiations did not always lead to successful results. When their entreaties were rejected, the Cossacks elected to respond with force. At the hands of people like Vasilii Poyarkov in 1645 and Yerofei Khabarov in 1650 some peoples like the Daur were slaughtered by the Russians. 8,000 out of a previously 20,000 strong population in Kamchatka remained after being subjected to half a century of Cossacks slaughter.[8] The Daurs initially deserted their villages since they heard about the cruelty of the Russians the first time Khabarov came.[9] The second time he came, the Daurs decided to do battle against the Russians instead but were slaughtered by Russian guns.[10] In the 17th century, indigenous peoples of the Amur region were attacked by Russians who came to be known as "red-beards".[11] The Russian Cossacks were named luocha (羅剎), after demons found in Buddhist mythology, by the Amur natives because of their cruelty towards them, who were subjects of the Qing dynasty during the Sino–Russian border conflicts.[12]
There was the empire of Sibir, and others, but they were conquered. If you'll note, Central Asia was not conquered until the time leading up to 1900, though the map is not completely accurate on that one. Sibir was a polity on par with them, just on the northern edge of where their lifestyle as possible; Russia conquered them during the 1700-1800 phase on the above map.
You should look it up; if you find the history of the Old West interesting, the Old East was WTF.
>>1376367
That's because it didn't mean "organized state of Tatars," it meant "here there be nomads."
