British Siberia?

Kinda made a similar post earlier, but I learned a bit and want to revisit

In the 1550s, with the ultimate goal of sailing around Siberia to get to China, the Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands reached the harbor of Nikolo-Korelsky Monastery on the Northern Dvina river, near present-day Arkhangelsk. With the northeast passage proving to be a bust, the Moscuvy company was formed. Ivan IV commissioned the Stroganov family to settle Siberia and develop the lucrative Russian fur trade that would ultimately take them to Alaska.

Meanwhile, England was increasingly dependent on Baltic and Nordic countries for lumber. This lead to a trade deficit, which had to be made up in bullion, and this trade was vulnerable to foreign blockades, which eventually did happen during the War of Spanish Succession. These concerns combined with the push towards transportation as an alternative sentence to criminals made North American colonies a more attractive alternative.

Now suppose that, perhaps through bad luck, Native resistance, or Spanish aggression, none of the British North American colonies took off. Britain would be facing a bit of a crisis. Do you think the Muscovy company could have become a colonizing force, like East India Company, chartering land from or fighting against Russia to go into Siberia, sending criminals in and extracting furs and lumber? What would a British run Siberia and Northern Russia look like?
 
In conflict or in conjunction with Russia? There is no reason there would be more British moving over than Russians, who are right next to the place. Even if there was a British company for some time, it would likely be settled overwhelmingly by Russian pioneers and depend on a perpetually weakened Russia, or a Russia that derives significant benefits from keeping it around as a British colony.
 
In conflict or in conjunction with Russia? There is no reason there would be more British moving over than Russians, who are right next to the place. Even if there was a British company for some time, it would likely be settled overwhelmingly by Russian pioneers and depend on a perpetually weakened Russia, or a Russia that derives significant benefits from keeping it around as a British colony.
Good point. The Yaik Cossacks had a pretty easy time spreading east after the Sibir Khanate was defeated. I suppose the easiest route might be outright conquest. Maybe a partition of Russia between Britain, Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire? I can also see efforts to settle the far east and connect that colony by moving westward towards their base in Arkhangelsk.

Alternatively, if they were on very good terms, maybe Britain could have access to what became Vladivostok in our timeline and help Russian expansion by building rails from eastern end moving east, so it would almost be like a joint colony mostly populated by Cossacks with some British criminals sprinkled in?
 
What if Novogorod had held out against Muscovy longer and/or England had sent an earlier expedition that landed near Archangelsk?

England could play Novgorod & Muscovy & even Kazan off against each other, striking a balance that means much more sustained fighting between them & a greater degree of exploitation by England until it's fully colonised to maintain the level of resource extraction
 
Top