Could the Russian Take Constantinople?

Perhaps Austria-Hungary might support Russia? While I cant imagine that they are thrilled with the prospect of Russian expansion, perhaps they decide to overlook this in favor of gains in the Balkans (this would put Italy sollidly in the anti-russia coalition, although I doubt that makes much difference aside from opening another front against Austria)?

"Powers"? Not so much but it's possible that a Slavic Balkan state (Bulgaria if it had a Russo-centric ruler, par exemple) could open a second front to distract Europe.
 
The Bulgarians have a history of supporting Russia, so I trust the Bulgarians would be solidly in Russia's camp whatever the Tsar decides to do, barring complete annexation of Bulgaria (which is, in itself, tentative).
 
The Bulgarians have a history of supporting Russia, so I trust the Bulgarians would be solidly in Russia's camp whatever the Tsar decides to do, barring complete annexation of Bulgaria (which is, in itself, tentative).

Actually no. During the 1877-1878 war, the Bulgarians were generally skeptical about the Russian attempt to "liberate" them, at very least. Yeah those Turks were disgusting heathens, but they were a better overlord for the Bulgarians to demand autonomy from compared to those ever-authoritarian and way more intolerant Russians !
 
Ever authoritarian? Intolerant? How about April Uprising just two years before? Russian overlords would be far preferable than the Ottomans who had perpetrated that massacre (most Bulgarians would be baying for Ottoman blood). And the type of government Bulgaria became after it gained its independence was an autocracy, ruled by, of all things, a Tsar (granted, even if it did take ten years).
 
Were the russians to take Istanbul, sparking a dismemberment of the empire and a general european war, would any power be willing to intervene on Russia's behalf?

Britain is to opposed th russian control over the straits, France has similar views and doesnt yet have the alliance with russia, Germany fears an overly strong russia.

Perhaps Austria-Hungary might support Russia? While I cant imagine that they are thrilled with the prospect of Russian expansion, perhaps they decide to overlook this in favor of gains in the Balkans (this would put Italy sollidly in the anti-russia coalition, although I doubt that makes much difference aside from opening another front against Austria)?

Russia and Austria-Hungary screwed each other over even as it was. Austria-Hungary would not go against the Powers, nor would it be in their interest to have Russia gain total predominance over the Balkans. In fact, they have more at stake here than anyone else.
 
Thing go better in '78-79 for the Russians and they take Constantinople [?What happened to AHP's TL where the Ottomans won]
The British/French/Austrians object
Russia enters negotiations, and begins courting Austria with control of the Adriatic Coast.

With AH joining Russian side & Germany maintaining it's Neutrality Negotiations collapse
Ottomans begin collapse
European Great war of 1880.
Japan joins British-French Alliance attacks Sakhalin, Vladivostok,

So how long does the war last? ?Does the Russian Empire, or the AH, follow the Ottomans into Collapse?, ?How does the post war Map change?
 
Ever authoritarian? Intolerant? How about April Uprising just two years before? Russian overlords would be far preferable than the Ottomans who had perpetrated that massacre (most Bulgarians would be baying for Ottoman blood). And the type of government Bulgaria became after it gained its independence was an autocracy, ruled by, of all things, a Tsar (granted, even if it did take ten years).

You're listening too much to Victorian propaganda. Even Bulgarian historians will say that Bulgaria became an independent country through no action or particular desire on the part of the Bulgarians themselves.

The "massacres" you're referring to were the crushing of a peasant uprising launched by the Russians - 3,000 people died (you can't expect nobody to die in a peasant uprising), in which the rebels attacked and massacred the populations of several Turkish villages. During the actual war, Bulgarian participation was virtually nil.

The Ottoman reform efforts of the 19th c greatly benefitted the Bulgarians, as the Danube province was the "pilot" for provincial reform. The Bulgarians not only had legal equality to Muslims, they largely had real equality. Just a few years prior the Ottomans had created the Bulgarian Exarchate to liberate them from Greek control, and Bulgaria had been the recipient of heavy development and a great deal of the empire's rail program.

Almost all Bulgarian nationalists were in favor of pursuing national goals within the context of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Bulgaria much more lightly than the Russians would - remember that Christians received legal equality in 1839 whereas the Russians serfs weren't liberated until three decades later!

As for Russian-Bulgarian relations, they were terrible. In the 1880s the Russians demanded the Ottomans invade Bulgaria and overthrow the prince, and many Bulgars even advocated a Hapsburg-style dual monarchy with the Ottomans.

The Bulgar-Ottoman relationship after 1878 was actually pretty good, except for the Balkan Wars, and the two were able to quickly become formal allies shortly after that.

For that matter, the Ottoman-Russian relationship was actually fairly good after 1878.
 
Thing go better in '78-79 for the Russians and they take Constantinople [?What happened to AHP's TL where the Ottomans won]
The British/French/Austrians object
Russia enters negotiations, and begins courting Austria with control of the Adriatic Coast.

With AH joining Russian side & Germany maintaining it's Neutrality Negotiations collapse
Ottomans begin collapse
European Great war of 1880.
Japan joins British-French Alliance attacks Sakhalin, Vladivostok,

So how long does the war last? ?Does the Russian Empire, or the AH, follow the Ottomans into Collapse?, ?How does the post war Map change?

A-H already controls the Adriatic coast. The problem in this scenario is that it will involve a massive Russian controlled Bulgaria, the triumph of Pan-Slavism, and a mortal and immanent threat to the continued existence of the Hapsburg monarchy. There is just no way they can let this stand. There is no power that will be willing to allow this, especially since Russia announced to the powers that it had no designs on or intention to occupy, Istanbul.
 
I wonder if it's better to move the POD back to 1773, when the Russians had a fleet in the Aegean, and the Ottomans were relatively much, much weaker than they'd be a century later.

And because let's face it, if you're going to give a Czar Istanbul it might as well be Catherine.
 
You're listening too much to Victorian propaganda. Even Bulgarian historians will say that Bulgaria became an independent country through no action or particular desire on the part of the Bulgarians themselves.

The "massacres" you're referring to were the crushing of a peasant uprising launched by the Russians - 3,000 people died (you can't expect nobody to die in a peasant uprising), in which the rebels attacked and massacred the populations of several Turkish villages. During the actual war, Bulgarian participation was virtually nil.

The Ottoman reform efforts of the 19th c greatly benefitted the Bulgarians, as the Danube province was the "pilot" for provincial reform. The Bulgarians not only had legal equality to Muslims, they largely had real equality. Just a few years prior the Ottomans had created the Bulgarian Exarchate to liberate them from Greek control, and Bulgaria had been the recipient of heavy development and a great deal of the empire's rail program.

Almost all Bulgarian nationalists were in favor of pursuing national goals within the context of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Bulgaria much more lightly than the Russians would - remember that Christians received legal equality in 1839 whereas the Russians serfs weren't liberated until three decades later!

As for Russian-Bulgarian relations, they were terrible. In the 1880s the Russians demanded the Ottomans invade Bulgaria and overthrow the prince, and many Bulgars even advocated a Hapsburg-style dual monarchy with the Ottomans.

The Bulgar-Ottoman relationship after 1878 was actually pretty good, except for the Balkan Wars, and the two were able to quickly become formal allies shortly after that.

For that matter, the Ottoman-Russian relationship was actually fairly good after 1878.

Oh. I was unaware of that bit about the Russians demanding the Ottomans to overthrow the Bulgarian prince. I'm aware of some of the reform efforts of the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire, are they that extensive? Didn't large numbers of Bulgarian volunteers fight on the side of Russia during the Crimean War?
And yes, I think I have listened a lot to Victorian propaganda. It's very eloquent. :)
 
Oh. I was unaware of that bit about the Russians demanding the Ottomans to overthrow the Bulgarian prince. I'm aware of some of the reform efforts of the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire, are they that extensive? Didn't large numbers of Bulgarian volunteers fight on the side of Russia during the Crimean War?
And yes, I think I have listened a lot to Victorian propaganda. It's very eloquent. :)

Yes it is - people can't quite give a speech like they used to!

The reason that late 19th c Europeans viewed Ottoman reforms as shams or failures is because their intent in pushing reform was much different than the Ottomans' reasons. By "reform", the Powers meant "give up control to the Christians". The Ottomans intended reform to strengthen the state, and that meant economic and education reform, and increasing centralization.

The Danube province was one of the richest in the empire, and was more or less the "pilot province" for reform. It was thoroughly reorganized, its tax structure overhauled, a provincial administrative legislature introduced that included members of all creeds, substantial public works were undertaken, etc.

There were a number of Bulgarian volunteers that joined the Russians, but in miniscule numbers compared to the population. Most elite Bulgarians preferred to pursue their national ambitions within the empire, as this was more likely to result in statehood on their own terms, whereas under the Russians they were at serious risk of losing all freedom and Bulgarian identity to Russian pan-Slavism (which often meant Russification).

The Bulgarians had no intention of being Russian puppets, which led to serious friction between Russia and Bulgaria. As the Bulgarian prince was legally a vassal of the Sultan, the Russians demanded the Ottomans remove him by force because the Bulgarians chose a prince the Russians did not approve of. Relations between the two countries were actually rather poor - consider that there Bulgaria joined the CP in WWI, were a German ally in WWII, and sulked under Russian domination in the Cold War and joined the West and EU as soon as possible thereafter.

Being Orthodox or Slavic doesn't necessarily mean being friendly to Russia any more than being Latin and Catholic means Spain and France always have to get along.
 
I wonder if it's better to move the POD back to 1773, when the Russians had a fleet in the Aegean, and the Ottomans were relatively much, much weaker than they'd be a century later.

And because let's face it, if you're going to give a Czar Istanbul it might as well be Catherine.

I would think maybe the Napoleonic Wars are the best bet.
 
The Turks and Russians fought a war from 1806-1812 ending only days before Napoleon invaded Russia. You could have Napoleon intice the Russians into remaining in the Continental System in exchange for a free hand against the Ottomans. The British opposed Russian control of Constantinople, this could drive a wedge between the British and the Russians.
 
The Turks and Russians fought a war from 1806-1812 ending only days before Napoleon invaded Russia. You could have Napoleon intice the Russians into remaining in the Continental System in exchange for a free hand against the Ottomans. The British opposed Russian control of Constantinople, this could drive a wedge between the British and the Russians.

Napoleon would give them a free hand to what exactly? Continue to destroy their economy with the Continental System, while at the same time moving significant forces into a position where they couldn't oppose Napoleon's invasion of Russia?

The reason this didn't happen OTL is because the Russians correctly recognized that while they were always going to be stronger than the Ottomans, the Napoleon fellow and his European-wide ambitions posed a massive threat. Napoleonic policies were going to strangle the Russian economy. Constantinople could be seized at some later point.
 
Is there any chance of the Russians getting the Saudis to go to war against the Ottomans at the same time? Because if the Second Saudi State has sucessful campaigns while the Ottoman armies are being thrashed by the Russians, then the Russians could convince the Saudis to march on the Suez Canal once the British raise hell. Now, this just might make the British more angery, but if the Saudis actually are a threat to the Canal, then they might decide the stopping the Russians from gaining the straits isn't worth the loss of the Canal.

Otherwise, the Russians may be able to stop just the British, but I think many other nations may want to stop Russia, and after fighting a major war, I amdoubt Russia would win. You have to get the other powers distracted, like during the Napoleanic War, otherwise it will start a general European war. A scenario I always thought would be funny was a Russo-American Alliance against the British. Maybe if the treaty of Washington after the ACW doesn't pass, and an Anglo-American war starts over some territory or Monroe Doctrine violation, then the Russians would head south whie the Americans head North. That might stretch the British to the breaking point. Otherwise,even if it's just British v. Russians, I think the British would have the upper hand.
 
Is there any chance of the Russians getting the Saudis to go to war against the Ottomans at the same time? Because if the Second Saudi State has sucessful campaigns while the Ottoman armies are being thrashed by the Russians, then the Russians could convince the Saudis to march on the Suez Canal once the British raise hell. Now, this just might make the British more angery, but if the Saudis actually are a threat to the Canal, then they might decide the stopping the Russians from gaining the straits isn't worth the loss of the Canal.

Really wouldn't happen, sorry.
 
Top