14. expansion of the empire 1762-1796

Hugh Ragsdale (1990) – Evaluating the Traditions of Russian Aggression: Catherine II and the Greek Project

Argument:

• Catherine II’s foreign policy combined dynastic, strategic, and ideological motives; the Greek Project was real in aspiration but limited in practical implementation.

Key Points:

• Russian ambitions southward had roots in Peter I’s Black Sea campaigns (1696); goal: Constantinople, removal of Turks/Tatars, Byzantine legacy.

• Catherine actively prepared her grandson Constantine for a Greek monarchy (~1779), including Greek tutors.

• Discussions with Bezborodko (1781–1782) considered Balkan interventions, annexation of Crimea (1783), Black Sea islands, Austria compensated with Serbia.

• Greek Project never reached concrete operational planning; primary sources are letters (Joseph II, Austrian archives, 1780s), making historical assessment difficult.

• Some historians (Markova, Hosch) argue it was more rhetorical than actionable, letters did not constitute a real plan.

• Success of Catherine’s foreign policy relied on timing: British/French distraction (American War of Independence, 1776–1783) and weak Poland/Ottoman Empire.

• 1787 war with Ottoman Empire delayed Greek Project; threats of Franco-Prussian intervention underscored limits of unilateral Russian action.

• Catherine’s motives: Byzantine legacy, strategic Black Sea access, economic gain via southern trade, and liberation of minorities from Ottoman control.

Greek Project / Southern Ambitions

Russian ambition southward

• Peter I captured Azov (1696); dream: Constantinople, drive Turks/Tatars out of Europe, restore Greek monarchy.

• Catherine II (1779) groomed grandson Constantine, gave Greek tutors, nurses to reinforce dynastic vision.

2. Greek Project planning

• Discussions with Bezborodko (1781–82): Black Sea conquest, Crimea annexation (1783), Greek islands, Austria compensated with parts of Serbia.

• Primary sources: letters between Joseph II, Austrian chancellery, ambassadors. Historical evidence incomplete, heavily reliant on archives (1870–1900 publications).

3. Historiography & Implementation

• Some argue Greek Project rhetorical rather than operational; letters show intent, not detailed plans.

• Temporarily delayed by 1787 war; threat of Franco-Prussian intervention limited unilateral Russian action.

4. Motives behind the project

• Dynastic: Constantine as future Greek ruler.

• Strategic: access to Black Sea ports and Mediterranean trade.

• Ideological: revive Byzantine legacy.

• Humanitarian/propaganda: free Christian minorities under Ottoman rule.

5. Why Catherine’s foreign policy couldve succeeded

• Timing: Britain & France distracted by American War of Independence, Frederick II aging.

• Weak neighbors: Poland (internal weakness), Ottoman Empire (multi-ethnic governance challenges).

• Russian military & navy strong; diplomacy effective.

• European powers (France, Austria) preoccupied with other crises

Imperial Borderlands & Frontier Policy (Michael Khodarkovsky)

Expansion ideology

• Early 18th century: empire framed as civilizing mission: bring Christianity and civilization to non-Christian populations.

• Religion central to identity: divided “civilized Russians” vs “barbarians,” integrated into imperial worldview.

Classification of conquered peoples

• 1776 Shcherbatov treatise: divide subjects into six categories based on lifestyle, tax, military service, and religion.

• Significance: shift from “foreigners” to differentiated imperial subjects, laying foundations for later bureaucratic classifications.

Preventing Islam spread

• Mid-18th century: coercion in Kazan & Siberia; mosques destroyed (1756), Muslim conversion pressured via legal/military incentives.

• Agency of Convert Affairs reported >100k Muslim converts by 1747; resistance common; laws favored converts but fueled revolts.

Catherine II’s reforms (1764 onward)

• Abolished coercive conversions, dissolved Agency of Convert Affairs.

• Promoted voluntary missionary education, reduced material incentives, integrated converts into state administration.

• Motivation: Enlightenment ideals + pragmatism to secure loyalty via toleration, not force.

Frontier settlement & control

• Tsaritsyn line (1718) and forts restricted nomadic migration, making steppe populations dependent on Russia for economic & military security.

• Expansion via forts, Christian colonization, selective tolerance of Muslims (loyal elites), co-optation of local authorities.

• Limited success: North Caucasus strongly resisted; Yurt Tatars partially assimilated.

• Refugees & migration: Indigenous elites and commoners migrated into Russian territory seeking protection, privileges, or service.

• Policies deepened divisions in local societies, accelerated assimilation, and strengthened imperial control.

Religion & Religious Toleration

Religion as marker & instrument

• Religion used to justify imperial authority and mark civilizational difference.

• Christianization tied to Russian identity; non-Christians categorized as “other” (religion & race).

13. Coercion vs Toleration

• Pre-Catherine: forced conversions, destruction of mosques, legal/military pressure on non-Christians.

• Post-Catherine: shift to pragmatic toleration, incentives (land, money), partial institutional support for old believers & Muslims.

14. Orthodox Church & Catherine II

• Church lands secularized, reduced independence → easier state oversight and toleration of other faiths.

• Allowed Old Believers institutional stability (hospitals, cemeteries).

• Regulated Catholics, required loyalty oaths; partial recognition of Jewish civil rights (1786 decree, 1794 Pale of Settlement).

colonial and administrative policy

Civilizing mission & integration

• “Civilizing barbarians”: enforce Orthodoxy, settlement, and imperial law, while integrating elites into administration.

• Policy combined incentives (trade, land, titles) with selective coercion.

Steppe & nomadic integration

• Steppe populations controlled via forts, resettlement, and co-optation.

• Frontier policy redefined land as Christian space, limiting Muslim autonomy.

Religious policy as pragmatic tool

• Loyalty over ideology: voluntary conversion and education used to stabilize empire.

• Elite collaboration incentivized through titles, annuities, and administrative integration.

european power fear, Russia weakness

Balance of Power

• France wary: Russian control of Ottoman territories = Black Sea & Mediterranean access, upsetting European balance.

• Russia’s alliances inconsistent; France distrusted them.

19. Limits of Greek Project

• Despite dynastic intent, letters show no operational planning, obstacles included European politics and Ottoman resistance.

20. Frontier instability

• Russian settlement & fortification often provoked local resistance; migration of indigenous populations increased, creating social conflict that required ongoing imperial intervention.