WI Russia wins the crimean war

[West]

Lets say due to a mixture of corruption, incompetance, diplomatic blunders, and just bad luck that the Ottoman empire loses the Crimean war and that Russia ends up claiming the whole of Antolia because of this.

How would that change world history?

How would the middle east be changed, europe be changed, russia be changed ect.

 

[triscreen]

Are we considering that Britain and France (and Sardinia) don't get involved in the war, or that they do or somehow lose?

Either way, Russia would very easily become seen as a very big threat by much of its fellow European powers for having just upended the Concert of Europe, although more so in the latter scenario.

 

[Falecius]

Are we considering that Britain and France (and Sardinia) don't get involved in the war, or that they do or somehow lose?

Either way, Russia would very easily become seen as a very big threat by much of its fellow European powers for having just upended the Concert of Europe, although more so in the latter scenario.

Without at least French involvement, there is no Crimean war at all. The Ottomans could have blundered into a war with Russia in this period over something, and would have most likely lost, but that would be a different conflict with a different trigger and most likely not one fought in Crimea at all. Also, it would take a really major Ottoman incompetence for that. That Ottomans in that period were the opposite of itching for a fight, especially one with Russia, and if Russia acts as aggressor, France or Britain, and probably both, would intervene. Which in turn significantly reduces the odds of a major Russian victory. Thus, this needs to be a situation where the Ottomans miscalculate into provoking Russia while alienating all other major powers, who all have an interest in Russia not trashing the Ottomans too much (well, Prussia really cares little any way).

 

[Vabasion]

It would become a pariah state due to increase in threat perception by other major powers. They are still stuck in the Black Sea, Baltic and Arctic circle. In the East they don’t have the power to do much yet if Britain and France are still opposed to them. Crimea as bad of a defeat as it was allowed for normalization of relationships and return of power balance to Europe which was Britain’s aim. On the upside for Russia or the Tsar at least victory would unify the nation more.

 

[Osman Aga]

Lets say due to a mixture of corruption, incompetance, diplomatic blunders, and just bad luck that the Ottoman empire loses the Crimean war and that Russia ends up claiming the whole of Antolia because of this.

How would that change world history?

How would the middle east be changed, europe be changed, russia be changed ect.

1. Is France and the UK defeated as well along the Ottomans? Otherwise you need a PoD of 1808 where Mustafa IV remains on the throne and not abolishes the Janissary Corps like Mahmud II did in 1826 for Ottoman incompentence.

2. But even then, there is zero (0) possibility for Russia to win the Crimean War in a manner that results in a Russian Anatolia.

3. See point 2

4. See point 3

 

[Osman Aga]

Are we considering that Britain and France (and Sardinia) don't get involved in the war, or that they do or somehow lose?

Either way, Russia would very easily become seen as a very big threat by much of its fellow European powers for having just upended the Concert of Europe, although more so in the latter scenario.

No France = no Crimean War

 

[dcontreras]

Are we considering that Britain and France (and Sardinia) don't get involved in the war, or that they do or somehow lose?cor.

Either way, Russia would very easily become seen as a very big threat by much of its fellow European powers for having just upended the Concert of Europe, although more so in the latter scenario.

Interesting scenario. After all, of all the great powers of Europe at that time, Russia was likely the one power that did believe in the Concert of Europe and that it would would work in their favor. After all, they helped crushed the Revolutions of 1848 in Austrian controlled Hungary, and in Austrian and Prussian parts of Poland. Austria's seemingly ingratitude by not intervening on behalf of the Russians to maintain the Balance of Power should be considered one of the major reasons for the demise of the Concert of Europe.

 

[alexmilman]

Without at least French involvement, there is no Crimean war at all. The Ottomans could have blundered into a war with Russia in this period over something, and would have most likely lost, but that would be a different conflict with a different trigger and most likely not one fought in Crimea at all. Also, it would take a really major Ottoman incompetence for that. That Ottomans in that period were the opposite of itching for a fight, especially one with Russia, and if Russia acts as aggressor, France or Britain, and probably both, would intervene. Which in turn significantly reduces the odds of a major Russian victory. Thus, this needs to be a situation where the Ottomans miscalculate into provoking Russia while alienating all other major powers, who all have an interest in Russia not trashing the Ottomans too much (well, Prussia really cares little any way).

Or (as unlikely as this may be) NI does not behave as an obnoxious idiot and: (a) grants Little Nappy an appropriate addressing, (b) shows flexibility on the issue of the Holy Sites (or does not get involved at all) and (c) offers Little Nappy to share a burden of protecting the Ottoman Christian subjects (NI - Orthodox and NIII - Catholics) while making it clear that Russia does not have any interests in Levant except for those of (b) and (c). Cherry on a top of the cake would be an invitation to arrange for a friendly visit of the French warship into Sevastopol in violation of the existing international protocol regarding the Straits (in OTL the whole brouhaha was triggered by France firing the Ottomans to let their warship into the Black Sea).

Little Nappy would swallow the whole thingy and France is either neutral or on the Russian side in expectation of getting something at Ottoman’s expense. Austria would not risk its OTL position of a hostile neutrality and Britain can do very little.

Now, I doubt that NI or any other Russian monarch wanted “all Anatolia”: pattern of the Russian-Ottoman wars is quite clear and the Caucasus theater was always a secondary one. Perhaps Ottoman Armenia and that would be it. After all, Russia still have to deal with the Circassians and Shamil so getting much more Muslims would not make too much sense (especially taking into an account expansion into the CA which is still going on). AFAIK, there were no even plan to annex the Danubian principalities populated by the fellow Orthodox christians.

So Russia would end up with the approximately the same borders in Europe and a relatively insignificant expansion on the Asiatic side. Russian navy is still obsolete and it would take many years before it can venture into the Eastern Med: the technological capacities for building a powerful steam-based navy are simply not there and with NI alive and kicking, there are no chances for any modernization of the Russian economy in a foreseen future.

 

[dcontreras]

Or (as unlikely as this may be) NI does not behave as an obnoxious idiot and: (a) grants Little Nappy an appropriate addressing, (b) shows flexibility on the issue of the Holy Sites (or does not get involved at all) and (c) offers Little Nappy to share a burden of protecting the Ottoman Christian subjects (NI - Orthodox and NIII - Catholics) while making it clear that Russia does not have any interests in Levant except for those of (b) and (c). Cherry on a top of the cake would be an invitation to arrange for a friendly visit of the French warship into Sevastopol in violation of the existing international protocol regarding the Straits (in OTL the whole brouhaha was triggered by France firing the Ottomans to let their warship into the Black Sea).

Little Nappy would swallow the whole thingy and France is either neutral or on the Russian side in expectation of getting something at Ottoman’s expense. Austria would not risk its OTL position of a hostile neutrality and Britain can do very little.

Now, I doubt that NI or any other Russian monarch wanted “all Anatolia”: pattern of the Russian-Ottoman wars is quite clear and the Caucasus theater was always a secondary one. Perhaps Ottoman Armenia and that would be it. After all, Russia still have to deal with the Circassians and Shamil so getting much more Muslims would not make too much sense (especially taking into an account expansion into the CA which is still going on). AFAIK, there were no even plan to annex the Danubian principalities populated by the fellow Orthodox christians.

So Russia would end up with the approximately the same borders in Europe and a relatively insignificant expansion on the Asiatic side. Russian navy is still obsolete and it would take many years before it can venture into the Eastern Med: the technological capacities for building a powerful steam-based navy are simply not there and with NI alive and kicking, there are no chances for any modernization of the Russian economy in a foreseen future.

The wars end was not seen by the Autocratic Conservative, Nicholas I. The humiliation of the defeat had to be the burden of his more progressive son Alexander II. But the combination of Nicholas I's death, the defeat in the Crimean War, and the succession of the more progressive Alexander II would see some movement of the Russian Empire into the modern Industrial Era that would bring a new balances of power, growth of Nationalism, and the unification of Italy and Germany, and the creation of the compromise that created the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That led that Empire's looking towards, and expansion into the part of Europe (Balkans) also of interest to the Russians after Austria's expulsion from Germany by the Prussians.