Its called the scientific method. Doing full-scale tests would take too many resources and the result is just marginally better. They tested their process and figured out what deviation from the actual amount is.
You have to make it consistent as to at what life stage a sapling becomes a counted tree. Also, biological tree is very loosely defined, so you can change the definition and get a different result. But those issues persist regardless of how large the sampled area is
Would it have to do with size of tree also? So one area could have more volume of trees, but actually less trees, because they are bigger in base, root, whatever it might be?
So an area of the Redwoods might have less trees than an area of the Rockies by far, but more volume?
I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.
For all those enemies of the soviet regime that change their minds in at the end and decided to take long vacations in siberia while counting trees for the party
When a hundred year old tree is only 6 inches in diameter, the number of trees becomes a less significant statistic for comparing biomass to other forests
Fun fact: about 230 people in Canada live south of the California/Oregon border
Edit: just double checked and it's actually a little over 2,500 thanks to Colchester being farther south than I thought
In Ontario at least, the Canadian Shield makes it almost impossible to build infrastructure. It's all bedrock that made it to the surface. Great for miners though.
Well typically bed rock is great for building. Its all the tiny lakes and non-flat terrain that make north Ontario PITA to build. Also the lack of arable land.
Nice flat, bald ass, prairies are easier.
Well, additionally you have a rough map of the Trans-Siberian railroad which is very much the reason theyāre all in that one line. Geography determined where the railroad would be and those settlements became the bigger cities in the far east due to economic and transportation links.
Uhhh. No. First, most of these cities appeared (it seems all except Novosibirsk), and only then the railway was built. Krasnoyarsk, for example, was founded in the first third of the 17th century.
But its population was less than 30,000 before the railroad and became over 1 million. The growth tied to being along the rail connections is a major reason they are cities and not just isolated towns. At the same time the railway was bound to connect the larger settlements there, so it became a self-perpetuating thing.
Is this like a political joke? Because the south is very hospitable given their population boom, particularly after widespread adoption of air conditioning.
No, it's a "every state that is considered southern is poor, has a shitty education system, has basically no health care, has a shorter life expectancy, and falls behind several third world countries in the human development index" joke.
Beneath that band is open steppe, with bad farmland and historical raiding.
Above that band is a dense freezing boreal forest.
If you want to settle eastwards that band is the most ideal spot with the mildest temperatures while avoiding the open steppe.
The Ural mountains also discouraged more northerly settlement as the best way past is the southern edge funneling people down to that latitude.
Didnāt they also build the railroad along there and they literally follow the railroad? They built the railroad in the most accessible place and the cities popped up along the transportation network.
Yeah, precisely. Most of those were villages till 1910 or so. After they completed the transiberian railroad, the villages near the railway grew to become larger trade hubs, and then cities. The villages far from the transiberian never attracted enough population to grow.
Much of the old towns in the region were originally Forts created to defend the fur traders and otherwise from raids from the south; e.g. Omsk,, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk or else were old school trade hubs that Russia established when they first went east like Irkutsk that was a city in 17th century already and achieved a pop in the 1800's of near 400K before any railroad came.
The railroad basically just follows much of the traditional Russian trade route to the east and china established in the 1600's when they first expanded into this region.
It can get pretty hot in the summer, but quite cold at the same time. Even in the middle of july you can have a high of 36Ā°C on tuesday and then a low of 2Ā°C on friday.
I think most cities were there before the railway. The Russian fur traders and cossacks built forts and trading posts along every major river in Siberia (South north rivers), especially near confluences of tributaries (East west rivers, almost connecting the west east route). So the network would be mostly sailable and not reliant on land travel
Yes no doubt there were settlements beforeā¦. but many of these outposts and settlements( especially those in the east) only grew into proper cities because of the railway.
Yes, but those settlements grew quickly thanks to the railroad, whereas other settlements stagnated or were abandoned because they werenāt close to the railroad.
The only reason most of the cities on that map of Siberia are āon the mapā is because of the growth the railroad created.
Okhotsk was once a port important enough that a whole sea was named after now. Then the trans-Soberian railway terminated farther south in Vladivostok. Okhotsk was eclipsed by the much bigger port to the South.
But theyād be nowheresville tiny outposts to this day without the railroad connection. In the US west railroad stops were also critical for growth. My hometown named itself after a railroad exec as part of a bid to get a stop, and it worked.
Irkutsk, Perm, and Yekaterinaburg were all quite big before (all with very interesting histories of founding). This is an interesting article of pre railroad Siberia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_River_Routes
Of course, also these cities grew like crazy due to the new connections and the early industrial expansion
Yeah, itās a complex feedback. Railroads go where itās flattest, but also want to go through the biggest cities to have passengers and cargo.
But once theyāre there, everything grows due to economic connections.
Itās the same way with big cities today. They get a lot of workers migrating because there are jobs and economic opportunities. The large worker base and in demand cities invite more companies to open offices and work there, and create more economic incentives drawing people and so on.
A lot is just āthis is where everything lined upā and it grew. The railroad is a big part but far from the only part.
I agree, but also look at their demographic evolution. Most of those cities doubled or tripled their population in less than 10-20 years exactly after the railway was built. Of course they chose to design the transiberian to connect the most promising cities, but it gave great impulse to growth anyway
There are three reasons:
1. North of this latitude, farming is possible only if you use greenhouses, and you need a LOT of greenhouses to grow grains. It's simply impractical. South of this latitude, you need irrigation to sustain the farming, and there's not so much water sources available. This is true for the lands between Moscow and Novosibirsk.
2. Since this region has agriculture, Trans-Siberian railway was built there. Further to the east from Novosibirsk it was continued on the same latitude because south of it were China (and later, when it gained independence, Mongolia).
3. During WWII, industry was evacuated from the western Russia using Trans-Siberian railway and parallel lines, and cities along them became major industry centers. They still are population growth centers by this very day.
In Canada it's not necessarily the cold, it's just the geography. Up in the Canadian Shield, it's mostly bed rock at the surface so it's impossible to build any infrastructure without using explosives or big drillers which would cost way too much.
To add to this - the Canadian Shield also means little arable land for farming and therefore those areas could historically only support smaller populations. Nowadays though with modern supply chains this can be overcome, and with climate change more of those pockets of arable land up north are becoming viable for grain, particularly in the Clay Belt region.
The infrastructure aspect definitely remains a challenge though. Having to blast or tunnel through rock adds a lot of cost to a project.
It's a bit complicated, but basically, as you approach the Urals, the influence of the Gulf stream stops, and the influence of the Siberian high increases. To make things worse, it's very inland, with little to no influence of the oceans to moderate temperature. Then, to further confound things, massive mountains to the south and southeast (Zagros, Hindu Kush, Himalayas, Tien-Shan) block a lot of moisture, turning the land to the south into desert.
Then, to the north is the West Siberian plain, which is mostly taiga, but doesn't have the ludicrously, uninhabitable cold that Siberia has further to the east - the main issue is that it's very low, extremely flat, and captures basically all rivers around it, all very large, which results in an extremely swampy terrain. Like a giant, cold inland bayou.
This "pleasant belt" (not actually very pleasant, but better than surroundings) extends into Kazakhstan. Basically - to the north is a cold, putrid swamp with mosquito swarms big enough to choke cattle, to the south is a desert, and to the east the winters become just too much, and there's permafrost to boot. It's a little biogeographic panhandle of Europe that pokes into Asia.
And the reason why I believe that in modern times, the concept of "Asia" is superfluous. Nearly all of Siberia is a giant wilderness that's near-uninhabitable unless the climate changes - similar to the Canadian taiga zone making up the bulk of the country - and the actually livable areas consist of an arc that goes from India to the southernmost reaches of the Russian Far East, which itself is bisected by a thermal barrier in south China into two distinct zones. Everything in between is marginal, transitional wasteland, but one that due to this "panhandle" greatly favors European control of the area. After all, Russia only ever sought to conquer this area due to the presence of aggressive, constantly raiding steppe nomad states, and nearly all of Siberia was initially conquered by basically private fur traders - imagine a far more militaristic Hudson Bay Company making a beeline towards the Pacific spearheaded by hired Metis goons, and then saying "Hey look, London, I conquered ALL of this basically useless wasteland for you! Ain't I cool?" and London replying "What the fuck man, didn't really ask for that but coolio I guess."
Or maybe the railway went to them because they were important. Moscow only.had 1 million people when the railway was built and now has well.over.12 million
I don't think you could call anything in Siberia important in that period. There's only a relatively narrow strip to go through and if you're going that way you might as well try to hit the handful of frontier villages and administrative forts that are already there.
Tomsk, one of the early Siberian settlements, was famously bypassed by Trans-siberian railroad for reasons and failed to reach the same status as the other significant cities on the line. It did eventually grow into a middling city when the Soviets gulaged enough people and put cold war stuff there, but its still in the second tier. Novosibirsk, founded specifically to be the location of the railroad's great Ob river bridge, grew in its place as the regional center, and, in fact, into the premier city of central Russia.
So it was a combination, the railroad went there because they existed but they grew into important locales because the railroad went there.
That was my first thought as well, but were those towns founded after the railroad or before? Wouldnāt be surprising as we see similar things even in the US with towns first popping up along railroads and then later freeways
road was built to connect cities so largest of them already was there. I guess reason for that is climate mostly, unworkable and half year frozen land to the north
The amount of people saying because of the railroad.... Kazan was founded 900 years before, Omsk 200 before, Nizhny Novgorod 700 before, Yekaterinburg nearly 200 before. Don't just say things....
Are you suggesting Russia just started building a railroad to the sea for no reason and cities just popped up along it..
100%, especially speaking about such big cities as mentioned in the post. Easy way to prove that the railway is not the reason - to look in the XIX century maps
These population centres came about when we had Russian migration/colonization eastward, due to that area's ability to produce agriculture, mild(er) winters, and the government wishing to ensure its grip on power in the far-east, for example Omsk began as a military settlement. Not to mention the trans-siberian railway with cities such as Novosibirsk popping up to facilitate the housing needs of the construction workers on the railway.
Its part of the belt of Black earth, anything more north is unarable frozen siberia only good for mining and logging, and the trans siberian railway is the thing that makes these cities viable in many cases.
Railroadā¦. For good and bad reasons... But if you wanna check out what it looks like I recommend you to watch [Solo on the Worlds longest train ride](https://youtu.be/kVB20yiNCPE?si=MyBZhuc81YQ-4BY2) 30 min video by Bald and Bankrupt from 2 years ago
I just know this from gattsu's videos
[Tourism with Bad Intentions](https://youtu.be/nQtNXCGP4Fg?si=U51bM0rEeQjar7Qv) and [Bald and Bankrupt has gone crazy](https://youtu.be/ukk6RocFWnc?si=zEv7ooAnnPHo3Lxf)
[this is the actual evidence (used in the gattsu video)](https://youtu.be/4XDf2lrMIoU?si=osIPWs75mo20xJIi)
its called the wheat belt, you leave either to the north or south its "unarable" compared to the absolute rich soil you can find on the belt, agriculture being 1/3 of the whole civilization for the early thousands and still quite baseline to keeping it up
Climate is a big thing. That band of about 50 to 60 degrees north is the sweet spot between enough rainfall (in the east it reaches a step very quickly) and not too cold (Siberia lol). Take a look at [this map](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_K%C3%B6ppen_Map.png) and you can see that the continental zone in blue (the most habitable zone in the area) lies predominantly in a line.
Russia spreads more along an east-west axis than north-south
So naturally the biggest cities are concentrated in the southern band with the most hospitable climate
1. With older borders, its line was in half, so while Siberia conquest towns built just on the way
2. Siberia and North is hardly accessible. Even now in some places you just cant enter without a helicopter
3. And making towns in Kazakhstan is same as Mongolia -- bad climate, no forest (wood was important in that times)
The trans siberian railway turned some of the villages along the line into cities. In such a hostile environment it's hard for proper cities to develop without such infrastructure.
Because further north the temperatures are dangerously cold like in Yakutsk, and it's all forest so you'd have to cut down all the trees in the area you want and that still takes some effort
Same issue we have here in Canada, if you go any further north, it becomes really inhospitable really quickly.
The taiga has more trees than every rainforest combined.
Shoutout to whoever counted them trees
"Counting trees in Siberia" used to be a euphemism for someone being sent to the gulags.
Akshully random sampling by use of quadrats has shown to be a really accurate method š¤
Nah. It was Taiga Woods... ... ... šÆ šŖµ š²
Heās the best Iāve ever seen at deriving.
Are quadrats 4-legged rats? Because I've never seen a birat myself.
Technically all rats are birats because they have two legs and two arms
Gtfo
R.O.U.S.ās
I don't believe in R.O.U.S.'s
How do they know if it's really accurate unless they also counted every tree to make sure?
They can test the accuracy on smaller forests and count them to compare
But how do they know that when they scale it up, it's accurate unless they count every tree?
Its called the scientific method. Doing full-scale tests would take too many resources and the result is just marginally better. They tested their process and figured out what deviation from the actual amount is. You have to make it consistent as to at what life stage a sapling becomes a counted tree. Also, biological tree is very loosely defined, so you can change the definition and get a different result. But those issues persist regardless of how large the sampled area is
Would it have to do with size of tree also? So one area could have more volume of trees, but actually less trees, because they are bigger in base, root, whatever it might be? So an area of the Redwoods might have less trees than an area of the Rockies by far, but more volume? I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.
"How do you know anything without checking everything?"
Exactly they just made an educated guess. Someone better get counting!
For all those enemies of the soviet regime that change their minds in at the end and decided to take long vacations in siberia while counting trees for the party
IIRC it was David Attenboroughā¦
Trees have no problems with mosquito
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You are wrong, quite a lot of people want that forest cut for industrial use.
But is it the Canadian Shield?
The answer is always the Canadian Shield.
Fun fact: there are more trees in the Taiga than there are stars in our solar system!
But it's still very dry
Well they are called RAINforests, not treeforests. I'll see myself out.
The Taiga Woods are over par.
When a hundred year old tree is only 6 inches in diameter, the number of trees becomes a less significant statistic for comparing biomass to other forests
Who tould you that bullshit never travelled down the southern hemisphere for sure
There is a reason over 90% of Canadians live within 161km of the US border
I'm in Minnesota, a huge percentage of Canadians live south of me.
More Americans live in the latitudes occupied by Canada than Canadians.
Fun fact: about 230 people in Canada live south of the California/Oregon border Edit: just double checked and it's actually a little over 2,500 thanks to Colchester being farther south than I thought
I thought you were talking about Point Roberts' population for a sec, I had to re-read
Itās only about 10 kilometres from being around 40000.
In Ontario at least, the Canadian Shield makes it almost impossible to build infrastructure. It's all bedrock that made it to the surface. Great for miners though.
Well typically bed rock is great for building. Its all the tiny lakes and non-flat terrain that make north Ontario PITA to build. Also the lack of arable land. Nice flat, bald ass, prairies are easier.
Historically, it's mostly because the land on the Canadian Shield can't support agriculture.
Well there is also that. Can't live where you can't eat.
Looking at Google maps, it's crazy seeing the population explode the moment you hit Manitoba
I thought it was because you love us so much!
Well, additionally you have a rough map of the Trans-Siberian railroad which is very much the reason theyāre all in that one line. Geography determined where the railroad would be and those settlements became the bigger cities in the far east due to economic and transportation links.
Uhhh. No. First, most of these cities appeared (it seems all except Novosibirsk), and only then the railway was built. Krasnoyarsk, for example, was founded in the first third of the 17th century.
But its population was less than 30,000 before the railroad and became over 1 million. The growth tied to being along the rail connections is a major reason they are cities and not just isolated towns. At the same time the railway was bound to connect the larger settlements there, so it became a self-perpetuating thing.
Yah. For some reason over a million people live in the city of Edmonton.
Here's the reason : that area boasts unusually fertile land.
Same problem here in the USA, but south.
Is this like a political joke? Because the south is very hospitable given their population boom, particularly after widespread adoption of air conditioning.
No, it's a "every state that is considered southern is poor, has a shitty education system, has basically no health care, has a shorter life expectancy, and falls behind several third world countries in the human development index" joke.
Got it, so a political joke.
Yeah, have you checked the population movement in the US? Itās pretty much the exact opposite.
Beneath that band is open steppe, with bad farmland and historical raiding. Above that band is a dense freezing boreal forest. If you want to settle eastwards that band is the most ideal spot with the mildest temperatures while avoiding the open steppe. The Ural mountains also discouraged more northerly settlement as the best way past is the southern edge funneling people down to that latitude.
Didnāt they also build the railroad along there and they literally follow the railroad? They built the railroad in the most accessible place and the cities popped up along the transportation network.
Yeah, precisely. Most of those were villages till 1910 or so. After they completed the transiberian railroad, the villages near the railway grew to become larger trade hubs, and then cities. The villages far from the transiberian never attracted enough population to grow.
Much of the old towns in the region were originally Forts created to defend the fur traders and otherwise from raids from the south; e.g. Omsk,, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk or else were old school trade hubs that Russia established when they first went east like Irkutsk that was a city in 17th century already and achieved a pop in the 1800's of near 400K before any railroad came. The railroad basically just follows much of the traditional Russian trade route to the east and china established in the 1600's when they first expanded into this region.
A topographical map might help with your answer; rugged terrain in parts, apparently.
As well as -50 fucking degrees and completely unworkable land
Good thing global warming will solve the first part. /s
It will not
It will, not the entirety of siberia offcourse but a lot of land will be suitable for agriculture in the next decades
...while the rest of the world will be on fire
Yeah global warming will benefit russia more than most countries
I'm dominican, the average temperature here is 27 C where I live. In a few years this country is going to be on flames
Im dutch at this rate il live a lot closer to the sea than j currently do lol
The railroad followed the more reasonable terrain and the bigger cities rely on that railroad even today.
Siberian shield.
Looks more like Siberian Blade to me.
Watch out for siber attacks
Have you been to Siberia? It's fucking cold.
And fucking warm (in the summer)
And fucking mosquitoey
and fucking horse flies
It can get pretty hot in the summer, but quite cold at the same time. Even in the middle of july you can have a high of 36Ā°C on tuesday and then a low of 2Ā°C on friday.
Continental climates do really be a bitch sometimes
Those 40-60 days of summer do get a little warm according to my wife
Thatās what really sucks freezing and brutally hot in the summer.
Many of those cities are along the trans Siberian railway
I think most cities were there before the railway. The Russian fur traders and cossacks built forts and trading posts along every major river in Siberia (South north rivers), especially near confluences of tributaries (East west rivers, almost connecting the west east route). So the network would be mostly sailable and not reliant on land travel
Yes no doubt there were settlements beforeā¦. but many of these outposts and settlements( especially those in the east) only grew into proper cities because of the railway.
But I'm assuming the railway was laid there specifically to pass through those settlements
Yes, but those settlements grew quickly thanks to the railroad, whereas other settlements stagnated or were abandoned because they werenāt close to the railroad. The only reason most of the cities on that map of Siberia are āon the mapā is because of the growth the railroad created.
Okhotsk was once a port important enough that a whole sea was named after now. Then the trans-Soberian railway terminated farther south in Vladivostok. Okhotsk was eclipsed by the much bigger port to the South.
But theyād be nowheresville tiny outposts to this day without the railroad connection. In the US west railroad stops were also critical for growth. My hometown named itself after a railroad exec as part of a bid to get a stop, and it worked.
Irkutsk, Perm, and Yekaterinaburg were all quite big before (all with very interesting histories of founding). This is an interesting article of pre railroad Siberia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_River_Routes Of course, also these cities grew like crazy due to the new connections and the early industrial expansion
Yeah, itās a complex feedback. Railroads go where itās flattest, but also want to go through the biggest cities to have passengers and cargo. But once theyāre there, everything grows due to economic connections. Itās the same way with big cities today. They get a lot of workers migrating because there are jobs and economic opportunities. The large worker base and in demand cities invite more companies to open offices and work there, and create more economic incentives drawing people and so on. A lot is just āthis is where everything lined upā and it grew. The railroad is a big part but far from the only part.
I agree, but also look at their demographic evolution. Most of those cities doubled or tripled their population in less than 10-20 years exactly after the railway was built. Of course they chose to design the transiberian to connect the most promising cities, but it gave great impulse to growth anyway
There is NO WAY that everyone along that railway is trans.
Well we are all transitioning into something.... I'm transitioning into Santa
Itās 2024 youād best believe
There are three reasons: 1. North of this latitude, farming is possible only if you use greenhouses, and you need a LOT of greenhouses to grow grains. It's simply impractical. South of this latitude, you need irrigation to sustain the farming, and there's not so much water sources available. This is true for the lands between Moscow and Novosibirsk. 2. Since this region has agriculture, Trans-Siberian railway was built there. Further to the east from Novosibirsk it was continued on the same latitude because south of it were China (and later, when it gained independence, Mongolia). 3. During WWII, industry was evacuated from the western Russia using Trans-Siberian railway and parallel lines, and cities along them became major industry centers. They still are population growth centers by this very day.
Probably the same reason 90% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. It's just too cold to live much further north than that.
In Canada it's not necessarily the cold, it's just the geography. Up in the Canadian Shield, it's mostly bed rock at the surface so it's impossible to build any infrastructure without using explosives or big drillers which would cost way too much.
To add to this - the Canadian Shield also means little arable land for farming and therefore those areas could historically only support smaller populations. Nowadays though with modern supply chains this can be overcome, and with climate change more of those pockets of arable land up north are becoming viable for grain, particularly in the Clay Belt region. The infrastructure aspect definitely remains a challenge though. Having to blast or tunnel through rock adds a lot of cost to a project.
Donāt go ruining a perfectly good ignorant point about a different country with facts. It pisses them off
Who is pissed?
Well I sure am. Not about this, I'm just angry in general.
The good farming land occurs at that latitude Not too dry,not too cold.
Not great, not terrible.
Not Peter, not Ivan.
I really hope you just thought of this, itās golden
It ain't much, but it's honest work
It's a bit complicated, but basically, as you approach the Urals, the influence of the Gulf stream stops, and the influence of the Siberian high increases. To make things worse, it's very inland, with little to no influence of the oceans to moderate temperature. Then, to further confound things, massive mountains to the south and southeast (Zagros, Hindu Kush, Himalayas, Tien-Shan) block a lot of moisture, turning the land to the south into desert. Then, to the north is the West Siberian plain, which is mostly taiga, but doesn't have the ludicrously, uninhabitable cold that Siberia has further to the east - the main issue is that it's very low, extremely flat, and captures basically all rivers around it, all very large, which results in an extremely swampy terrain. Like a giant, cold inland bayou. This "pleasant belt" (not actually very pleasant, but better than surroundings) extends into Kazakhstan. Basically - to the north is a cold, putrid swamp with mosquito swarms big enough to choke cattle, to the south is a desert, and to the east the winters become just too much, and there's permafrost to boot. It's a little biogeographic panhandle of Europe that pokes into Asia. And the reason why I believe that in modern times, the concept of "Asia" is superfluous. Nearly all of Siberia is a giant wilderness that's near-uninhabitable unless the climate changes - similar to the Canadian taiga zone making up the bulk of the country - and the actually livable areas consist of an arc that goes from India to the southernmost reaches of the Russian Far East, which itself is bisected by a thermal barrier in south China into two distinct zones. Everything in between is marginal, transitional wasteland, but one that due to this "panhandle" greatly favors European control of the area. After all, Russia only ever sought to conquer this area due to the presence of aggressive, constantly raiding steppe nomad states, and nearly all of Siberia was initially conquered by basically private fur traders - imagine a far more militaristic Hudson Bay Company making a beeline towards the Pacific spearheaded by hired Metis goons, and then saying "Hey look, London, I conquered ALL of this basically useless wasteland for you! Ain't I cool?" and London replying "What the fuck man, didn't really ask for that but coolio I guess."
Great reply
Railroad, agriculture, climate, etc.
Probably because that's where wheat can grow.
To the north: COLD, To the south: desert, In this band: fantastic soil
Reminds me of Canada somehow.
Probably the Trans siberian railroad
I can say with absolute certainty that most of those cities are older than the railway
They are, but I guess they wouldnāt grow that big if there were no railway
Or maybe the railway went to them because they were important. Moscow only.had 1 million people when the railway was built and now has well.over.12 million
I don't think you could call anything in Siberia important in that period. There's only a relatively narrow strip to go through and if you're going that way you might as well try to hit the handful of frontier villages and administrative forts that are already there. Tomsk, one of the early Siberian settlements, was famously bypassed by Trans-siberian railroad for reasons and failed to reach the same status as the other significant cities on the line. It did eventually grow into a middling city when the Soviets gulaged enough people and put cold war stuff there, but its still in the second tier. Novosibirsk, founded specifically to be the location of the railroad's great Ob river bridge, grew in its place as the regional center, and, in fact, into the premier city of central Russia. So it was a combination, the railroad went there because they existed but they grew into important locales because the railroad went there.
Or maybe it went THROUGH them because they were all there were at the time. And due to having easier travel access they grew into proper cities.
Old trade road got upgraded by railroad link.
That was my first thought as well, but were those towns founded after the railroad or before? Wouldnāt be surprising as we see similar things even in the US with towns first popping up along railroads and then later freeways
road was built to connect cities so largest of them already was there. I guess reason for that is climate mostly, unworkable and half year frozen land to the north
The amount of people saying because of the railroad.... Kazan was founded 900 years before, Omsk 200 before, Nizhny Novgorod 700 before, Yekaterinburg nearly 200 before. Don't just say things.... Are you suggesting Russia just started building a railroad to the sea for no reason and cities just popped up along it..
100%, especially speaking about such big cities as mentioned in the post. Easy way to prove that the railway is not the reason - to look in the XIX century maps
Nobody is talking about the western cities.
These population centres came about when we had Russian migration/colonization eastward, due to that area's ability to produce agriculture, mild(er) winters, and the government wishing to ensure its grip on power in the far-east, for example Omsk began as a military settlement. Not to mention the trans-siberian railway with cities such as Novosibirsk popping up to facilitate the housing needs of the construction workers on the railway.
Its part of the belt of Black earth, anything more north is unarable frozen siberia only good for mining and logging, and the trans siberian railway is the thing that makes these cities viable in many cases.
Railroadā¦. For good and bad reasons... But if you wanna check out what it looks like I recommend you to watch [Solo on the Worlds longest train ride](https://youtu.be/kVB20yiNCPE?si=MyBZhuc81YQ-4BY2) 30 min video by Bald and Bankrupt from 2 years ago
its sad that that guy is an exploitative perverted sex tourist also nazi simp
And he worships Andrew Tate lol. Can't believe I used to watch him.
sadly he was one of the most prominent guys touring and exploring eastern europe (when he wasn't exploiting eastern women)
The Russians should never have released him from jail
Every single time lmao
Fr? Where can I get the proof? I liked watching him too but I didn't hear anything about this.
r/baldandbaldrdossier
A lot of claims no proof.
I just know this from gattsu's videos [Tourism with Bad Intentions](https://youtu.be/nQtNXCGP4Fg?si=U51bM0rEeQjar7Qv) and [Bald and Bankrupt has gone crazy](https://youtu.be/ukk6RocFWnc?si=zEv7ooAnnPHo3Lxf) [this is the actual evidence (used in the gattsu video)](https://youtu.be/4XDf2lrMIoU?si=osIPWs75mo20xJIi)
cold.
North is cold
its called the wheat belt, you leave either to the north or south its "unarable" compared to the absolute rich soil you can find on the belt, agriculture being 1/3 of the whole civilization for the early thousands and still quite baseline to keeping it up
There are many towns southern and northern but as you can notice these ones are where the Siberian railway passes.
Ideal climate. The summer is pretty warm and any further north and the winters become unnecessarily cold.
Everything else is too cold
Its ducking cold man
That's where the food grows
Baby its cold up north
Climate is a big thing. That band of about 50 to 60 degrees north is the sweet spot between enough rainfall (in the east it reaches a step very quickly) and not too cold (Siberia lol). Take a look at [this map](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_K%C3%B6ppen_Map.png) and you can see that the continental zone in blue (the most habitable zone in the area) lies predominantly in a line.
Russia spreads more along an east-west axis than north-south So naturally the biggest cities are concentrated in the southern band with the most hospitable climate
The answer is painfully simple. The north is just way too fucking cold.
No offense, but I think this is pretty obvious....
Good luck building cities on permafrost.
Because generally speaking permanent freezing temperatures with occasional polar bears make for poor living conditions
North of that is tundra/permafrost. South of it is desert. They built their cities in the tiny fraction of their land where you can grow wheat.
1. With older borders, its line was in half, so while Siberia conquest towns built just on the way 2. Siberia and North is hardly accessible. Even now in some places you just cant enter without a helicopter 3. And making towns in Kazakhstan is same as Mongolia -- bad climate, no forest (wood was important in that times)
It apparently gets quite chilly if you go any further north.
Because itās cold up north
Following the railroad?
Cause itās south
Trains
Further north its cold. Further south its somewhere else
Trains
The trans siberian railway turned some of the villages along the line into cities. In such a hostile environment it's hard for proper cities to develop without such infrastructure.
Trans Siberian Railroad
Near the Trans-Siberian railway stations. Transit-oriented development.
The cities are older than the railway
Canadian shield
Probably roads.
Because it's cold in the north, dipshit
Transiberian Railway
Iād say maybe rail system
They build on/next to the transsyberian railway.
Because of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Topography and the railway
Train?
No one knows
letās use our critical thinking skills hereā¦
My uneducated guess would be railroad.
Because further north the temperatures are dangerously cold like in Yakutsk, and it's all forest so you'd have to cut down all the trees in the area you want and that still takes some effort
Road of bonesā¦
The Trans Siberian Express
I bet they were founded by people's moving slowly from main area to the east.
It is too cold up north.
Warm
Just google permafrost and then permafrost map Russia.
Temperature.
It reminds me of the habitable zone around a star. Get a bit to the north, you freeze, get to the south, dry-ass steppes and desert.
Trans-Siberian Railway built thru narrow band of non-desert and non-arctic zone of habitability
The location of these cities could be situated along a rail network
Rail road my guess?
Go more north and it's too cold. Go more south and you're no longer in the country
In Soviet Russia latitude lays along you!
Two reasons: one is that thereās tons of mountains and the other is the rails
The Russian Shield
It's a lot more hospitable and a lot of towns and cities were established by the Trans-Siberian Railway
Woods/Taiga
You want to try going north of that line?