Could Russia win a war against britain in 1878?

If the Russian empire decided to take Constantinopolis in 1878 ignoring the british ultimatum, and thus caused a war with great Britain, could Russia win it?
 
No. Any army that occupies Constantinople can get bombarded heavily by sea. Russia would need naval supremacy, and they were far inferior to the Royal Navy at this time.
 
Russia had made heavy weather even of just defeating the Turks.

Think "Sebastopol II", with the lines of communication a lot less favourable to Russia.
 
I agree with the points people make about the potential vulnerability from sea of Istanbul but this won't simply be Sebastopol for a number of reasons.

The first being, primarily, that Sebastopol has already happened. The Russians were deeply embarrassed by losing the Crimean War, especially given what it said about the state of Russian logistics. That Britain and France were able to project power in Russia itself easier than the Tsar's government could was deeply problematic. That is why, post-war, significant investment was made in industry and particularly railways. In 1855 Russia had some 570 miles of track - by 1880, just after we're talking about, that was 14k+. Russia IS going to be able to move troops and supplies into the area more easily by rail and by fleet.

Which leads me to the second point - in this scenario Russia essentially controls the Black Sea doesn't it? Whilst Istanbul may be vulnerable to bombardment from the sea how problematic would it be for a British fleet to force the straights and enter the Black Sea to break up those supply lines? I imagine Russian coastal guns and Ottoman sea defences reused by the Russians would make it difficult for a British fleet to truly besiege the city.

Which means landing soldiers to choke the Russians off, like at Sebastopol. But, unlike a Sebastopol, the campaign area is not a peninsula easily ringed in by sea. Britain must project a land army into Thrace where the bulk of the Russian army that has taken the city is operating.

And do so, maybe, without allies. For this isn't 1854. Who is on the British side? The French are starting to think about Russia as a potential counter to Germany, and would probably see little gain in intervening (although I may be wrong here - French motives in the period are complex). Germany is too tied to keeping Russia on side to intervene, whilst Vienna is anyone's guess. Crucially, who are the regional allies Britain can rely on for support? The Greeks aren't going to help and, in fact, could make life difficult for the British if the Russians made it worth their while to join up. The Ottomans, if they've lost Istanbul, will be in a rough shape. Historically, in 1854, Britain AND France AND the Ottomans (and the Sardinians I suppose) all struggled to crack Sebastopol.

Finally, like any mooted war involving Britain and a European power in 1870-1914 you have to ask the two key questions - What is a victory for Britain in this (and how is that achieved)? and Is there the public and political appetite in Britain to sustain a long and potentially costly war?

I think, OP, it depends very much on what you see a Russian or a British victory looking like.
 

Hecatee

Donor
I'd say that France, so few years after Sedan and the Commune, would be in no shape for such an adventure. The British would probably go for the Dardanelle like in WW1 and get similarily stuck in trench warfare. But they could attempt something very different, going through the Baltic and strike at the Russian capital in the same way the Russians are striking at the Ottoman's capital... I pity it's too early for Tsushima, or the British could have tried to get Japanese forces to attack Vladivostock and other russian ports on the Pacific too...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I imagine Russian coastal guns and Ottoman sea defences reused by the Russians would make it difficult for a British fleet to truly besiege the city.
Probably not. In the 1880s - very soon after this date - the British Mediterranean Fleet bombarded and captured Alexandria. Their ironclads took several direct hits but those hits did not destroy (or even seriously damage) the ships in question, and the bombardment took one day to achieve its objective including capturing all the forts.
 
Probably not. In the 1880s - very soon after this date - the British Mediterranean Fleet bombarded and captured Alexandria. Their ironclads took several direct hits but those hits did not destroy (or even seriously damage) the ships in question, and the bombardment took one day to achieve its objective including capturing all the forts.

You know more than I, but are Istanbul and Alexandria comparable? Especially an Instanbul occupied by a Russian army with artillery that could be used to bolster defenses?

Also, reading up the account of that action on Wikipedia there are some key differences - British forces never actually captured the city itself, the Egyptian defenders were a lot fewer and weaker than the Russian Army would be, and Wikipedia at least claims that the forts were bombarded into surrender rather than captured by land forces - a key difference is the objective of the action is to seize the city. But wikipedia is never particularly reliable in this regard...

Of course these military matters all pale into insignificance against the global and political factors I mentioned.
 
Probably not. In the 1880s - very soon after this date - the British Mediterranean Fleet bombarded and captured Alexandria. Their ironclads took several direct hits but those hits did not destroy (or even seriously damage) the ships in question, and the bombardment took one day to achieve its objective including capturing all the forts.
Russia isn't Egypt.By 1870,France couldn't even invade North Germany by sea due to coastal artillery.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Russia isn't Egypt.By 1870,France couldn't even invade North Germany by sea due to coastal artillery.
The French navy of 1870 was not impressive... and besides, we're talking about the defences of Konstantiniyye not that of Russia.

You know more than I, but are Istanbul and Alexandria comparable? Especially an Instanbul occupied by a Russian army with artillery that could be used to bolster defenses?
Army artillery in the 1880s is of a completely different scale to coast guns.
At Alexandria, the defence had 37 rifled guns (5 10in RML, 18 9in RML, 12 8in RML, and 2 7in RML), 204 smoothbores (including 10 500pdrs) and 31 mortars (including 6 15in and 10 20in). The Royal Navy had 80 rifled muzzle-loading guns, of which only 20 were greater than 10in calibre and only 43 could bear on a broadside. Firing began at 7:07AM, and by 5PM every fort was in the hands of a British landing party.
While this doesn't say that the British could capture Konstantiniyye in a day (certainly not with the navy alone), it suggests that unless the sea defences of Constantinople were more formidable than the Alexandria ones they will not be much of a problem, and nor will any guns the Russians can bring in in a timely fashion to bolster the defences - field guns at this time are 3" guns or less and the Russian siege train will take a while to re-emplace in any kind of bunker or fort.
Thus, after a few days at most of firing, Konstantiniyye is essentially a city defended by an army - not one that can keep a navy at any great distance.
 
The French navy of 1870 was not impressive... and besides, we're talking about the defences of Konstantiniyye not that of Russia.


Army artillery in the 1880s is of a completely different scale to coast guns.
At Alexandria, the defence had 37 rifled guns, 204 smoothbores (including 10 500pdrs) and 31 mortars (including 6 15in and 10 20in). The Royal Navy had 80 rifled muzzle-loading guns, of which only 20 were greater than 10in calibre and only 43 could bear on a broadside. Firing began at 7:07AM, and by 5PM every fort was in the hands of a British landing party.
While this doesn't say that the British could capture Konstantiniyye in a day (certainly not with the navy alone), it suggests that unless the sea defences of Constantinople were more formidable than the Alexandria ones they will not be much of a problem, and nor will any guns the Russians can bring in in a timely fashion to bolster the defences.
Thus, after a few days at most of firing, Konstantiniyye is essentially a city defended by an army - not one that can keep a navy at any great distance.

As I said, you know more about the military side of it than I. Although you do seem to just be assuming that the defenses are comparable in size and scale - I don't know either way. My point about field artillery was that it could, and would, be used against landing forces that the British would have to drop onto the coast to secure these forts before moving on the city itself. Maybe they won't harm ironclads, or even reach them, but they could reek havoc among the small craft ferrying soldiers and marines to shore.

But remember that it isn't all about the military. The OP asked who would win this conflict? How are you expecting a British Government to sell to its people the shelling, repeatedly and violently, of a largely Christian city so that it can be taken out of Christian hands and given back to the Ottomans (who the British public has been conflicted about, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Uprising)? Say Britain shells the Russians in Istanbul into retreat or surrender...what next? I find it hard to see the British being able to project enough on shore power into the area to do more than shelter under the protection of their naval guns.
 
I think the British would need a lot of allies and a much bigger army than they have.
The French navy of 1870 was not impressive... and besides, we're talking about the defences of Konstantiniyye not that of Russia.


Army artillery in the 1880s is of a completely different scale to coast guns.
At Alexandria, the defence had 37 rifled guns (5 10in RML, 18 9in RML, 12 8in RML, and 2 7in RML), 204 smoothbores (including 10 500pdrs) and 31 mortars (including 6 15in and 10 20in). The Royal Navy had 80 rifled muzzle-loading guns, of which only 20 were greater than 10in calibre and only 43 could bear on a broadside. Firing began at 7:07AM, and by 5PM every fort was in the hands of a British landing party.
While this doesn't say that the British could capture Konstantiniyye in a day (certainly not with the navy alone), it suggests that unless the sea defences of Constantinople were more formidable than the Alexandria ones they will not be much of a problem, and nor will any guns the Russians can bring in in a timely fashion to bolster the defences - field guns at this time are 3" guns or less and the Russian siege train will take a while to re-emplace in any kind of bunker or fort.
Thus, after a few days at most of firing, Konstantiniyye is essentially a city defended by an army - not one that can keep a navy at any great distance.
The French navy was the second largest navy in 1870 and was in many ways much better than the British one .But otherwise,I agree with your point that the Russians most likely won't have much time to fortify Constantiniople against the British.Nonetheless,as I've mentioned,I think the British would need a much bigger army than they have as well as a lot of allies.
 
Last edited:
We are speaking 1878 here so lets sum up what we know OTL:
1. Austria can be brought on board by the british. Chancellor Andrássy was a russophobe - hos big goal being a austro-german alliance against Russia. Going at it with only the british will make it harder to persuade him but not an impossible task if Bismarck doesnt intervene. Which is unlikely as i dont see Bismarck letting a war between Austria and Russia happen. And Austria just happens to be in a very ideal position to treaten Russian land supply lines on the Balkans.
2. France is isolated and it can end its isolation if he helps the british - or the Russians, so I wouldnt rule them out. If France takes a side and Bismarck didnt manage to keep the war from happening or localised I think he will side against France.

In the end i think that the british wont go at it alone or at least not seriously and anyone who might help can be and would be bullied by Bismarck into inaction. OTL outcome was by far the most likely and I really dont see it going differently unless you remove Bismarck.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
As I said, you know more about the military side of it than I. Although you do seem to just be assuming that the defenses are comparable in size and scale - I don't know either way.
Basically I'm making that assumption because I can't find any evidence otherwise, AND because the scale of defences of Alexandria is quite large for the period.

My point about field artillery was that it could, and would, be used against landing forces that the British would have to drop onto the coast to secure these forts before moving on the city itself. Maybe they won't harm ironclads, or even reach them, but they could reek havoc among the small craft ferrying soldiers and marines to shore.
The British wouldn't necessarily have to land troops to secure the forts if they can neutralize them with bombardment first, though - indeed, the ironclads could simply steam right through if none of the defending guns can harm them significantly. I'm simply arguing that, since the British at Alexandria defeated some quite modern defences with pretty casual ease, then the position cannot necessarily be made that the Russian-captured Ottoman forts will be able to stop the British navy from mattering here. Especially since the British might show up before the Russians even arrive!

The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano.

(Frankly, if a major British victory against coast defences within five years of the time period under examination isn't evidence that they could handle coastal defences roughly, you have to ask what kind of burden of proof the British would have to fulfil... especially when the assumption is also being made that the Russians who OTL had trouble with the Ottoman army could handle "the Ottoman army plus fifty thousand or so highly skilled British regulars")
 
Basically I'm making that assumption because I can't find any evidence otherwise, AND because the scale of defences of Alexandria is quite large for the period.

Thank you - I better understand why you were making the comparison now.

(Frankly, if a major British victory against coast defences within five years of the time period under examination isn't evidence that they could handle coastal defences roughly, you have to ask what kind of burden of proof the British would have to fulfil... especially when the assumption is also being made that the Russians who OTL had trouble with the Ottoman army could handle "the Ottoman army plus fifty thousand or so highly skilled British regulars")

Except I'm not arguing that your proposed course of events is wrong or doesn't constitute proof (although I would argue that the nature of alternate history means that there is no certainty that such an attack would work as you argue - but I agree on the likelihood of success as you lay it out). What I've been trying to point out is that the British bombarding and maybe taking Istanbul from the Russians does not solve the OP's question. What happens next, the politics and alliance-shifting of the period, is more important.

The OP asked would Britain or Russia win the war.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Except I'm not arguing that your proposed course of events is wrong or doesn't constitute proof (although I would argue that the nature of alternate history means that there is no certainty that such an attack would work as you argue - but I agree on the likelihood of success as you lay it out). What I've been trying to point out is that the British bombarding and maybe taking Istanbul from the Russians does not solve the OP's question. What happens next, the politics and alliance-shifting of the period, is more important.
Yes, and I understand that - my reasons for raising Alexandria were:
1) People often don't know it happened at all.
2) It's a good example of how coastal defences in the time period were not invulnerable.
3) "Russian coastal guns and Ottoman sea defences would make it difficult for a British fleet to besiege the city" - the point you'd made which I wanted to contest.
 
The OP asked would Britain or Russia win the war.

But alliance shifting is going to be heavily against Russia as a hell of a lot of people would not want to see Constantinople in her hands. Add in the fact that Russians are already operating at the reach of their logistical capacity while they have advanced towards British bases and the Russians have innumerable problems.
 
As for allies, the Ottoman Empire during the later 19th century managed to avoid being dismembered because every major European country was too worried that, if the Ottomans fell, one of their rivals would end up getting more than them. Russia charging in and capturing Constantinople would completely upset the balance of the region, leading the possibility of exactly the sort of free-for-all the great powers were worried about. If the British decided to help the Turks kick the Russians back out, I'd expect most of Europe to be at least benevolently neutral, and quite possibly to join in themselves.
 
Yes, and I understand that - my reasons for raising Alexandria were:
1) People often don't know it happened at all.
2) It's a good example of how coastal defences in the time period were not invulnerable.
3) "Russian coastal guns and Ottoman sea defences would make it difficult for a British fleet to besiege the city" - the point you'd made which I wanted to contest.

I agree, and considering that I lived in Egypt for four years and didn't know about that action (although I did know about the wider invasion) made it more interesting still. Thank you. I do think a distinction needs to be drawn between how effective the navy would be at neutralizing Russian coastal defenses and the impact Russian army guns might have on any British force landed, but I agree with your contention of the point.

But alliance shifting is going to be heavily against Russia as a hell of a lot of people would not want to see Constantinople in her hands. Add in the fact that Russians are already operating at the reach of their logistical capacity while they have advanced towards British bases and the Russians have innumerable problems.

I agree - I was never saying that the Russians would win. Just that British naval supremacy in the region, making Istanbul difficult to capture/hold for the Russians does not equal a verdict on final victory itself. My point was just that wider factors needed to be considered, and that Russia was not as weak in 1878 as it was in 1854 (nor Britain, at the outset, as strong).

As for allies, the Ottoman Empire during the later 19th century managed to avoid being dismembered because every major European country was too worried that, if the Ottomans fell, one of their rivals would end up getting more than them. Russia charging in and capturing Constantinople would completely upset the balance of the region, leading the possibility of exactly the sort of free-for-all the great powers were worried about. If the British decided to help the Turks kick the Russians back out, I'd expect most of Europe to be at least benevolently neutral, and quite possibly to join in themselves.

Quite possibly, although it could conceivably produce the sort of free-for-all the Concert of Europe was afraid about, especially if a stalemate develops between an Anglo-Turkish force holding Istanbul and a Russian force not quite ready to give up on taking it. If other regions start to think about revolting against the Sultan, it could trigger a scramble for dominance which Britain would be on the wrong side of. France, for instance, wouldn't have to go to war with Britain to support, say, a break-away attempt by Egypt in 1879 in this scenario...
 
I agree - I was never saying that the Russians would win. Just that British naval supremacy in the region, making Istanbul difficult to capture/hold for the Russians does not equal a verdict on final victory itself. My point was just that wider factors needed to be considered, and that Russia was not as weak in 1878 as it was in 1854 (nor Britain, at the outset, as strong).

Except that relatively speaking the British are stronger than they were in 1854, especially when it comes to rapid deployment land forces and the capacity to maintain them.
 
Except that relatively speaking the British are stronger than they were in 1854, especially when it comes to rapid deployment land forces and the capacity to maintain them.

Yes, but I was specifically talking about the siege of Sebastopol in 1854, where the British are instigators in the siege and part of a coalition. Here they are, despite as you say being better at rapid mobilisation and deployment, essentially johnny-come-latelys into an ongoing conflict where, if they have taken or are directly threatening Istanbul, the Russians are already in place in significant force. I'm not talking about long-term military comparison here, rather those first stages of British intervention that will be alone (apart from the Ottomans) and hastily assembled.
 
Top