Austro-Prussian intervention in the Crimean War instead of Anglo-French?
- Thread starter herricks
- Start date
"We shall astonish the world with our ingratitude. And also, really confuse it. I mean, what the hell?"
Caesar Biden
Banned
It sounds Machiavellian, until you realize it isn't.
In all fairness, I can understand why OP might be confused. Up until the late 1800s, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were all allies. It was only once the Ottomans became a second-rate power and they started squabbling over the Balkans that the alliance broke up. Also, Germany being formed kind of messed up the whole balance of power.
The Austrians weren't too far from intervening OTL, and I suspect that if Austria does intervene Britain can get the Swedes on board too and once that happens the Prussians might as well jump in for good measure.
It would be a hilarious end result for a war that started largely because of who owned the keys to a church.
I didn't read the 'instead of' in the title. I very much doubt that Prussia especially cares about the fate the Ottoman Empire. Austria might care, but she still felt quite indebted to Russia for help in putting down the Hungarians. You'd need a big POD to get both intervening against Russia on behalf of the Ottomans.
It would be a hilarious end result for a war that started largely because of who owned the keys to a church.
I didn't read the 'instead of' in the title. I very much doubt that Prussia especially cares about the fate the Ottoman Empire. Austria might care, but she still felt quite indebted to Russia for help in putting down the Hungarians. You'd need a big POD to get both intervening against Russia on behalf of the Ottomans.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Actually, the possibility of an Austrian intervention
Actually, the possibility of an Austrian intervention had a lot to deal with the Russian decision to end the war; the Turks had already forced the Russians to withdraw from the Balkans in July of 1854, when the Austrians moved troops to the disputed territories (Romania and Bulgaria today, essentially) as what amounted to peacekeepers. The first Allied (as in French and British) troops weren't even at the front at the time; they had barely arrived (June, 1854) in Varna, which is now in Bulgaria.
In September, the Allied armies landed in the Crimea and spent the next 12 months more or less in stalemate with the Russians, with (eventually) the help of the Sardinians; the French and Turkish forces in the Black Sea theater(s) significantly outnumbered the British and Sardinians.
By the end of 1855, the Austrians were making it clear the conflict had to end, or they would join the Allies, and so it did; but absent the French and British intervention, the Austrians would never have threatened to join.
A war between the Russians, Austrians, and Prussians in the 1850s is certainly possible, but the Crimea would have had very little to do with it. The fronts would have been in Central/Eastern Europe, from the Baltic to (potentially) the Balkans and the Black Sea, not the Crimea or Anatolia.
Best,
Actually, the possibility of an Austrian intervention had a lot to deal with the Russian decision to end the war; the Turks had already forced the Russians to withdraw from the Balkans in July of 1854, when the Austrians moved troops to the disputed territories (Romania and Bulgaria today, essentially) as what amounted to peacekeepers. The first Allied (as in French and British) troops weren't even at the front at the time; they had barely arrived (June, 1854) in Varna, which is now in Bulgaria.
In September, the Allied armies landed in the Crimea and spent the next 12 months more or less in stalemate with the Russians, with (eventually) the help of the Sardinians; the French and Turkish forces in the Black Sea theater(s) significantly outnumbered the British and Sardinians.
By the end of 1855, the Austrians were making it clear the conflict had to end, or they would join the Allies, and so it did; but absent the French and British intervention, the Austrians would never have threatened to join.
A war between the Russians, Austrians, and Prussians in the 1850s is certainly possible, but the Crimea would have had very little to do with it. The fronts would have been in Central/Eastern Europe, from the Baltic to (potentially) the Balkans and the Black Sea, not the Crimea or Anatolia.
Best,
Caesar Biden
Banned
Not exactly. While I agree calling them 'allies' is a bit of an oversimplification, the fact of the matter is that Austria and Russia had mutual interests that would make it not beneficial to go to war.
Following on from Smith's post about the Austrians stepping in as self-appointed peace keepers one idea I've always liked is for them to offer themselves as a neutral party with Moldavia and Wallachia being joined together to become the United Principalities under a cadet Austrian line, Russia gets Budjak north of the Danube as compensation, and the United Provinces get northern Dobruja as their access to the sea. Just like Belgium the new state has to declare perpetual neutrality with the various great powers guaranteeing this and their security. The Russians won't like it since although they got the consolation prize of Budjak this effectively blocks them out of the Balkans so expect war a few years down the line, it's not the Crimean War but close enough.
Why under a cadet Austrian Line? Moldavia and Wallachia were already ruled by the same monarch and de facto the same nation, just de jure united after the Crimean War. I think the Prince of Moldavia and Wallachia might disagree.
Bear in mind that the Prussian military is not yet the well-oiled machine these boards stereotype it as. It struggled to mobilise effectively in 1859, and its front-line strength incorporated the kind of Landwehr units that Hanover would beat in 1866. And if Prussia and Austria decide to try and mobilise the German Confederation on their side, it's going to take a lot of diplomacy followed by a lot of logistical support. Saxons were good, though, as was the Hanoverian cavalry.
Well, I'd assume that the Austrians would intervene to protect the Russians from destroying their interests in the Balkans (esp. regarding Danube control) as previously mentioned, and the Prussians would join in because... I suppose you could argue that Frederick William IV was under some degree of Austrian influence after 1848, and perhaps would join in the war after Russia refuses mediation or something.
It would be difficult to get the German Confederation to be involved in this war, since even if this war could be construed as 'defensive' the Danubian regions fall outside the purview of the Confederation, even if Austria and Prussia participate.
In any case, an Austro-Prussian war against the Russians alone would probably end quite badly for the former. Russia had no response to British and French naval power, which meant that Russian supply lines, coastal forts, and naval assets could be raided with impunity until St. Petersburg was threatened and the army in the Crimea could no longer be logistically supported, forcing the Tsar to sue for peace.
None of these things apply in a war against Austria and Prussia, whose main theater would probably be in Poland/Bohemia and play to Russia's greatest strength, which is its army. It's not impossible to imagine the Russians advancing on a broad front in this scenario and eventually driving a wedge between the Prussian and Austrian armies, with various Russian attempts at inciting the Slav (and maybe even Magyar) minorities.
Eventually Britain and France would intervene with a call to mediation (given Austria's pivotal role in the European order), and the matter would likely be settled to Russia's benefit.
It would be difficult to get the German Confederation to be involved in this war, since even if this war could be construed as 'defensive' the Danubian regions fall outside the purview of the Confederation, even if Austria and Prussia participate.
In any case, an Austro-Prussian war against the Russians alone would probably end quite badly for the former. Russia had no response to British and French naval power, which meant that Russian supply lines, coastal forts, and naval assets could be raided with impunity until St. Petersburg was threatened and the army in the Crimea could no longer be logistically supported, forcing the Tsar to sue for peace.
None of these things apply in a war against Austria and Prussia, whose main theater would probably be in Poland/Bohemia and play to Russia's greatest strength, which is its army. It's not impossible to imagine the Russians advancing on a broad front in this scenario and eventually driving a wedge between the Prussian and Austrian armies, with various Russian attempts at inciting the Slav (and maybe even Magyar) minorities.
Eventually Britain and France would intervene with a call to mediation (given Austria's pivotal role in the European order), and the matter would likely be settled to Russia's benefit.
Mainly because otherwise the Austrians don't really have a reason to stick their oar in as in our timeline. As for the locals if they're given the choice between full independence under a new Prince or continuing to be an effective protectorate I think they'd choose the former, plus Austria had troops on the ground and during that period the Princes were pushed out of office after the Treaty of Paris with several temporary replacement Princes before Alexandru Ioan Cuza. If Austria, Britain, France and the Ottomans back someone then chances are they're getting the job.
Is there a bigger possibility of Austria joining the Western powers if Maximilian is emperor instead of Franz Joseph? If yes, then you just need to have the assassination attempt on FJ János Libényi in 1853 succeed.
You are mistaken by a few years. In 1853-56, the Prince of Moldavia was Grigore Alexandru Ghica, who was opposed by Austria for his support of the Rumanian nationalist program. The Prince of Wallachia was Barbu Dimitrie Ştirbei, who was mostly supported by Austria and who actually fled to Vienna when Russian troops occupied his homeland.
Alexandru Ioan Cuza (the man you're probably thinking of) was not ruler of the two principalities before Januaray 1859, long after the CW.
First thing, once Prussia and Austria are in the war, they will call their little allies in Germany, and it will become a so-called Bundeskrieg (Federal war). Thing is, it can give birth to a new nationalist movement in the German Confederation (as the 1870 war did), and you might see, after the end of the war, some reinoforcement of the federal power (as the 1870 war did). Germany might unite earlier, and, as Austria was the head of the German confederation, under Austrian control.
Second thing, I doubt this would be a quick war. France and Britain will be better armed than anyone of the other countries - remember, even Prussia will do badly against France (Moltke wasn't yet in command in 1854). But Austria, Russia and Prussia have the numbers on their side, and they can defend along the Rhine border (were the German Csonfederation had some strongholds).
Third thing, I think it will end in a stalemate. Russia and Austria will crush the Ottomans in the Balkans, while Prussia will be fighting hard to hold the Rhine. Britain will send troops either to one of the war theaters. In the end, Russia might gain a symbolic victory, but nothing of the sort "Ottomans annexed by Russia". Germany will maybe have this national awakening, and Napoleon III will, another time, fail to gain something in the east - except maybe (maybe) the Sarre if he does really good against the German powers.
So this is "Austria and Prussia enter the Crimean War on the side of Russia"?
I don't see this as possibility. Austria did act against Russia's interests in *Romania and distracted many Russian forces. You might have a grateful Austria remain truly neutral, but fighting against France and the UK? Why?
And Prussia? They have nothing to gain at all.
I don't speak German as well as I used to, so I can't figure out the exact definition of "defensive" in the Federal military constitution. I suspect that, if Austria proposed mobilising the Federal military for the Crimea, the wording was at least a little flexible. But even if a federal war couldn't be declared, individual countries in the Confederation could choose to join on their side. Historically, one or two of them were reasonably enthusiastic at the prospect of taking on Russia- Wurtemberg and Hanover both started coming to a war footing when Austria suggested mobilising the Federal army in January 1855, before any vote was taken. The larger states- Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony- could have provided corps-size continents which might have been reasonably manageable in a war, though awkward from the point of view of supply.
Cool but I had asked what if Austria and Prussia went to war against Russia instead of France and Britain going to war against Russia