Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Russia is famous for it's railroads, in particular the Trans-Siberian railway. Also considering the immense size of Russia, and that Russia's rivers flow north and are not very helpful in transporting goods in a country that is oriented in a west-east direction, you would think that Imperial Russia would've had the development of rail transport in Russia as priority number one. But if you look a bit deeper you will see that Russia's rail network was fairly minimal, especially when compared to the US.
Now imagine if the Russian's started building the Trans-Siberian at the same time as the Americans in the 1860s. Perhaps Russia could've even won the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. Vladivostok probably would've been a much bigger city too.
Also Russia's first major rail line was between St. Petersburg and Moscow, built between 1842 and 1851, so theoretically Russia could've started even earlier and reached the pacific prior to the sale of Alaska in 1867.
So why wasn't Russia investing as much in rail transport as the US and British Canada, and why weren't they the leaders in this field?
Russia was a poor backwards feudal and agricultural country until the late 1800's. That's why. I thought you could figure it out yourself, to be frank.
Russia was a poor backwards feudal and agricultural country until the late 1800's. That's why. I thought you could figure it out yourself, to be frank.
Yeah but the US wasn't all that rich in the 1860s either, and although Russia didn't have middle class, I'm pretty sure the nobility still held quite a bit of wealth. Here are some estimates for historical GDP's of regions, and Russia (former USSR) is always ranked in the top 5, so I'm pretty sure Russia could've squeezed some money for such an important project.
GDP (PPP) in millions of 1990 International Dollars
Also considering that the liberal reformer Tsar Alexander II reigned 1855 – 1881, I would think that infrastructure development should've been possible.
Yeah but the US wasn't all that rich in the 1860s either, and although Russia didn't have middle class, I'm pretty sure the nobility still held quite a bit of wealth. Here are some estimates for historical GDP's of regions, and Russia (former USSR) is always ranked in the top 5, so I'm pretty sure Russia could've squeezed some money for such an important project.
Also considering that the liberal reformer Tsar Alexander II reigned 1855 – 1881, I would think that infrastructure development should've been possible.
Why would the nobility fund public transport systems which they likely won't profit from?
Ok, total GDP is nice and all that, but the per capita PPP shows the true story of the tax base.
1913:
US: 5,301
UK: 4,921
NL: 4,049
Germany: 3,648
France: 3,485
Western European average: 3,457
Mexico: 1,732
Eastern European average: 1,695
Russia: 1,488
Lol, 1488. Anyway, these figures doesn't even take in count colonial possessions, of which Russia (and the US) had none.
Why would the nobility fund public transport systems which they likely won't profit from?
Ok, total GDP is nice and all that, but the per capita PPP shows the true story of the tax base.
1913:
US: 5,301
UK: 4,921
NL: 4,049
Germany: 3,648
France: 3,485
Western European average: 3,457
Mexico: 1,732
Eastern European average: 1,695
Russia: 1,488
Lol, 1488. Anyway, these figures doesn't even take in count colonial possessions, of which Russia (and the US) had none.
It's about money, Russia was poor.
but on a per capita basis china is also very poor, yet it's building projects left and right. Also once the trans Siberian was built there was huge demand for transport of goods (these rail roads don't have to just carry people, but goods too), and even before that there was a lot of trade on the Siberian Route a road built between 1730 and the mid 1800's. In 1915 65% (70,297 tons) of the tea china exported went through Siberia on this road into Europe. Another profitable good was Rhubarb root which was sold at 15 times the price then what was originally bought for in china. Also Russia was making huge profits in Siberia with the fur trade, in fact it was so profitable that there were laws that forbade the cutting of trees in some regions to promote wildlife populations. Agriculture was big in Siberia too.
"By 1910, when roughly 80 million acres of farmland were in use producing foodstuffs in Siberia, a million-ton annual surplus of wheat was established.[22] In fact, compared with other areas of the country, around the turn of the century, Siberia's agriculture was quite technologically advanced. In 1911, when their European Russian equivalents were still threshing their grain by hand, Siberian Russians had an impressive collection of 37,000 mowing machines and 39,000 horse-drawn rakes.[23] Siberians were using a full 25% of the Agricultural machinery in the country, which was part of the reason that grain production exploded in this period.[24]
Their animal helpers were also in better supply than in European Russia: Siberian Russians had twice as many oxen, three times as many horses, five times as many sheep, and nineteen times as many goats.[23] The particular Siberian twist when it came to livestock, however, was the number of domesticated reindeer in the area, as many as 250,000 in the mid-19th century.[25]"
"One facet of Siberian agriculture that may not be common knowledge is its thriving butter industry. By 1912, the Altai Region, which exists in the southernmost reaches of Siberia, close to the convergence of China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan, was among the most densely populated area of Siberia. By the time of the First World War, the majority of the tillable land of the area was in use. There was also significant Cattle-breeding in this area, both by Russians and by natives.[26] Taking advantage of these circumstances, a group of Danes had previously come to the region and introduced Siberia to the butter industry, though mainly starting their production plants in the cities of Tomsk and Tiumen. A butter romance, or as W. Bruce Lincoln described, a "butter fever," thus sprung up on the grasslands of what many may think is the world's coldest, most inhospitable terrain.[27] A quote that serves to capture its importance comes from P.A. Stolypin, the Russian Prime Minister himself: "The whole of our butter export to foreign markets is entirely based on the growth of Siberian butter production. Siberian butter-making brings us more than twice as much gold as the whole Siberian gold industry".[21]"
but on a per capita basis china is also very poor, yet it's building projects left and right.
If you are seriously comparing 2018 China with 19th century Russia, IDK if it's worth discussing further.
Where does the state get their income from? Taxes. In 19th century Russia 98% of the populace were p**s-poor and had barely anything to tax from. Those who had money (the nobility, capitalists and the church), were either exempt or could evade taxes. Ok, so where do you get money from if not from taxes? Tariffs and customs fees.
Next, where do you spend the money on? First, the Royal Family, next the military, then the navy and then the massive ineffective Slav-Byzantine bureaucracy. Now you've spent almost all of your budget, so with what money do you build railways with?
There were some private incentives, mostly heavily subsidised. And it was a risky venture, as the despot Czar could just confiscate your precious railway.
As I said: Russia was a poor backwards feudal and agricultural country until the late 1800's. That's why.
I don't think you really realise how poor compared to the West Russia really was until the 1890's.
If you are seriously comparing 2018 China with 19th century Russia, IDK if it's worth discussing further.
Where does the state get their income from? Taxes. In 19th century Russia 98% of the populace were p**s-poor and had barely anything to tax from. Those who had money (the nobility, capitalists and the church), were either exempt or could evade taxes. Ok, so where do you get money from if not from taxes? Tariffs and customs fees.
Next, where do you spend the money on? First, the Royal Family, next the military, then the navy and then the massive ineffective Slav-Byzantine bureaucracy. Now you've spent almost all of your budget, so with what money do you build railways with?
There were some private incentives, mostly heavily subsidised. And it was a risky venture, as the despot Czar could just confiscate your precious railway.
As I said: Russia was a poor backwards feudal and agricultural country until the late 1800's. That's why.
I don't think you really realise how poor compared to the West Russia really was until the 1890's.
Okay so if Russia was so poor why was it able to build the trans Siberian later on in the 1890s-1910s? What changed? Did Russia just see how successful the American transcontinental was and then decided to play catch up 20 years later? Was Russia significantly richer in 1890 vs 1860? Also shouldn't the Crimean war in the 1850s been a wake up call that they need an effective and fast way of transporting troops from one end of their empire the other? I guess the ruling class was just supper backwards as you say.
Okay so if Russia was so poor why was it able to build the trans Siberian later on in the 1890s-1910s? What changed? Did Russia just see how successful the American transcontinental was and then decided to play catch up 20 years later? Was Russia significantly richer in 1890 vs 1860? Also shouldn't the Crimean war in the 1850s been a wake up call that they need an effective and fast way of transporting troops from one end of their empire the other? I guess the ruling class was just supper backwards as you say.
I don't exactly know why, but Russia had the among the fastest growing economies in Europe between around 1895 and 1910.
The ruling class wasn't backwards, quite the contrary, but neither was it especially willing to sacrifice its money for the public good. You don't see the Koch brothers building highways in the US either, do you?
The US had men like Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt and Russia didn't. Building the railroads took men of ambition and vision. Neither of these were given reign in most countries while in the US they could run free.
Russians had a fear of invasions. Railroads would have made invasion easier. Large areas suffer from permafrost or boggy soil. Trains derail or tip over without a solid base. Hence, construction was expensive, not a priority, and often worked by prisoners. The slightly wider 5 foot gauge thwarted invasion plans and slightly reduced the tipping/derailment problems. The delay of shipping agricultural goods like grain or lumber by boat wasn't a big issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.