WI Russia wins the Crimean War?

BigDave1967

Banned
What if Russia had won the Crimean War? I think Russia would have taken the victory as de facto permission to conquer the Balkans. They would probably say that they were freeing their Slavic brothers. It(IMO)probably would have hastened the death of the Ottoman Empire by 50-60 years.
 
Well, given that Russia wouldn't realistically be able to take the fight to Britain and France, any Russian victory would be more along the lines of making her enemies conclude that it's not worth the effort of continuing the war than of defeating them decisively enough to give Russia a free hand in the Balkans; or, if Britain and France are weakened so much that they can't stop Russia, it's likely that Russia herself would be too weakened to take advantage of this. Plus of course Prussia and Austria wouldn't have been bled in the Crimean War, but would most likely view a Russian conquest of the Balkans with great apprehension. Either way, then, I think that a large-scale Russian push into south-eastern Europe is unlikely. One plausible and significant butterfly, OTOH, would be the effect a Russian victory would have on domestic politics: IOTL, IIRC, part of the impetus behind the various modernisation efforts of the late 19th century was that the Anglo-French victory seemed to show that the Western countries were pulling ahead of Russia. An Anglo-French defeat, on the other hand, would probably seem to confirm the Russian way of doing things, so we'd be less likely to see reforms such as the abolition of serfdom and the baby-steps towards more democratic government under Alexander II. This would almost certainly affect the *Russian Revolution, although whether such a revolution would occur earlier or later I could not say.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
IMHO the only real way is not to have a CRIMEAN war but a Danubian war in which Russia pushes the Anglo-French back. The whole problem of a Crimean war is that it is Britain and France invading Russian territory, and even if forced out, it does not lose them anything per se. Having them field armies in the Danubian provinces/Principalities and THEN being decisively defeated would however show what's what.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
IMHO the only real way is not to have a CRIMEAN war but a Danubian war in which Russia pushes the Anglo-French back. The whole problem of a Crimean war is that it is Britain and France invading Russian territory, and even if forced out, it does not lose them anything per se. Having them field armies in the Danubian provinces/Principalities and THEN being decisively defeated would however show what's what.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

So then how would one get a Danubian war?
 
Russian loss: We're the top dog in this region. OTL Britain/France combine to say 'Oh Hell, no you aint'

Russian win: We're the top dog in this region. TL Britain/France fail to prove otherwise. Russia doesn't have to defeat B/F, but merely prevail in doing what Russia wants in it's backyard. In this scenario, Russia will keep on pushing until someone successfully pushes back.
 

BigDave1967

Banned
Russian loss: We're the top dog in this region. OTL Britain/France combine to say 'Oh Hell, no you aint'

Russian win: We're the top dog in this region. TL Britain/France fail to prove otherwise. Russia doesn't have to defeat B/F, but merely prevail in doing what Russia wants in it's backyard. In this scenario, Russia will keep on pushing until someone successfully pushes back.

In the Russian win scenario you mentioned I bet Russia would eventually be on a collision course in the Balkans with the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
 
IMHO the only real way is not to have a CRIMEAN war but a Danubian war in which Russia pushes the Anglo-French back. The whole problem of a Crimean war is that it is Britain and France invading Russian territory, and even if forced out, it does not lose them anything per se. Having them field armies in the Danubian provinces/Principalities and THEN being decisively defeated would however show what's what.
Although that would probably be Britain, France, and Austria-Hungary, fielding armies in the Danubian principalities... Didn't AH actually move troops in that direction, to deter Russian expansionism, IOTL?
 
Although that would probably be Britain, France, and Austria-Hungary, fielding armies in the Danubian principalities... Didn't AH actually move troops in that direction, to deter Russian expansionism, IOTL?
Austria still; it's pre-1867.

The other problem is that the Russians had more or less already lost before the Western Allies showed up. So you'd need earlier reforms and modernization of the Russian army, which would probably delay the war significantly.

The only way I see the Russians winning the OTL Crimean War is if they could convince the Austrians to side with Russia, which would require an internal Austrian political POD that I can't begin to speculate on. That said, such a change would almost certainly lead to the Russo-Austrian alliance winning, as the Western armies (especially the British) did not exactly cover themselves with glory OTL.
 
Austria still; it's pre-1867.

The other problem is that the Russians had more or less already lost before the Western Allies showed up. So you'd need earlier reforms and modernization of the Russian army, which would probably delay the war significantly.

The only way I see the Russians winning the OTL Crimean War is if they could convince the Austrians to side with Russia, which would require an internal Austrian political POD that I can't begin to speculate on. That said, such a change would almost certainly lead to the Russo-Austrian alliance winning, as the Western armies (especially the British) did not exactly cover themselves with glory OTL.

Austria is so exasperating in this case. All the Tsar wanted from them was benevolent neutrality. This would have made the war a Balkan one rather than a Crimean one and could have resulted in a face saving peace for Russia if not a victory. Maybe you get independent Serbia and Romania clearly allied with Russia. And the Austro-Russian estrangement doesn't happen.
 
Say the Russians win the Crimean War by exhausting France and Britain, and some 'status quo per ante' is signed.

The immediate cause of the war - France being confirmed as defender of the Holy Sites in Palestine - would be reversed,with Russia resuming that role. With the only powers in the region willing to stop it defeated, Russia probably will increase agitation among the Orthodox population to increase its influence in the Balkans and in Armenia. I don't think Austria will appreciate this, but since they have little chance against Russia themselves they might join in with annexation of Bosnia while balancing with Britain and France.

Domestically in Russia, impetus for serfdom liberation would probably be reduced, as army reform, political reform etc. Probably would lead to Russia being even more backward than reality, with much-needed reform probably happening after the next defeat at the hands of Britain and France (maybe like 1870s in my opinion). But Russian backwardness does mean that anarchism and communism might take a bit longer to take root, thus 'missing' the chances they got in OTL to be a serious force.

The damage to French prestige would be huge, and probably reignite agitation against Napoleon III's government. Could be beneficial for France in the long-run as it means Napoleon III engages in fewer adventures, though it does mean French help in Italy does not happen and so no Italy. For Britain, you'd probably see some panic regarding India in Whitehall and thus it might pursue a more belligerent role in the Middle East, esp. Persia and Afghanistan.

For Turkey, it's probably safe to say that Russia would attempt to re-establish the Treaty of Hunkar Iskelesi (1833), which would conclude an 'alliance' between Turkey and Russia while also giving Russia the right to intervene in the Ottoman Empire for reasons of 'security'. Also likely that the Tsar would demand that Turkey close the Dardanelles at Russia's request, or perhaps an even more favorable version where Turkey allows Russian ships free passage into the Med.
 
Last edited:
Austria is so exasperating in this case. All the Tsar wanted from them was benevolent neutrality. This would have made the war a Balkan one rather than a Crimean one and could have resulted in a face saving peace for Russia if not a victory. Maybe you get independent Serbia and Romania clearly allied with Russia. And the Austro-Russian estrangement doesn't happen
... until that "independent Romania clearly allied with Russia" starts promoting anti-Habsburg unrest amongst the Vlach majority in Transylvania...
 
Just gonna say it Russia got its ass handed to it by the Ottomam forces in the Caucases, and Danube to the point they were able to do a two pronged invasion into Russia itsself. At that point the Crimean war is over Ottomans are in Russia, Russia has no more money for offensive actions back into the Balkans or Anatolia even if they checked, and defeated the Ottoman armies. So what naturally should have followed would have been cease fire and some treaty, up until Britain, and France invade the Crimea...now Russia actually has a reason to keep fighting b4 they lose the main ports in the Black Sea to a British/French occupation, puppet Crimea, or worse the Ottomans.(Russia can go to peace even if the Ottomans are occupying some wilderness and villages in the Ukraine, and Georgian countryside, not when there main cities in Ukraine besides Kirv are under threat.)
 
Top