I've always wondered what would be the actual effects of a Russian Constantinople? Denying Russia Constantinople, and therefore access to the Mediterranean, was a central tenet of 19th century British foreign policy, but I've never exactly been sure of what the British were afraid of. Did they really think Russia would challenge British naval dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean? Or was it fear of a threat to British influence in Egypt?
Effects of a Russian Constantinople?
- Thread starter UoBLoyalist
- Start date
I think this all depends on the circumstances of this hypothetical Russian Constantinople. When exactly does Russia take it, and by what means?
One possible way I see it being taken is in some variant of the Balkan wars where Bulgaria does even better than in otl, and thus forces Russia's hand in taking the city to avoid losing the prestige of not holding "Tsargrad" in the face of a Bulgarian takeover of the Ottomans' European territory.
That could work, although I doubt that Bulgaria would very much appreciate having their great victory stolen from them.
If Russia does take Constantinople in that way, do you think Russian leaders would want more in the general area?
They will want the Dardanelles. Controlling the Dardanelles is part of the package of getting the Bosporus. That is why they are called the Straits in plural.
I have great concerns for any Jew or Muslim living in the city. They are not in for a nice time.
I think the British were more fearful of Russia using the strategic position of Constantinople to dominate the Baltic region and become the strongest continental European power, therefore upending the balance of power. Britain's general strategy was to avoid any one power gaining the upper hand in Europe, and for a while Russia was the biggest threat to that, before the unified German state became much more of a problem. Basically, while Russian possession of Constantinople/Tsargrad wouldn't have been a direct threat to any of Britain's specific interests, it would have been a failure of Britain's grand strategy during the 19th century.
Indeed. Russian treatment of Jews especially was disgusting.
I suspect there will be many tickets first to Liverpool, and then on to New York, being purchased in their future.
I'd say influence heavily. Russia already had a lot of political influence in Greece and I can see that increasing with a Russian Constantinople or Tsargrad.
Depends how reliably they own it. Some sort of giga-Russia that maximizes it's development could just simply roflstomp the Ottomans and take it all. In that case, I say the other great powers do something real dumb and lose. Either way, epic butthurt levels previously never seen (nuking Jerusalem might be the only thing that could top it I think)
Well, more than once the Brits had been actually encouraging the Russian naval presence on the Med. The 1st time it was 1st Archipelago Expedition during the 1st Ottoman War of CII, then Mediterranean Expedition during the War of the 2nd Coalition, 2nd Archipelago expedition (3rd and 4th coalitions) and the Greek War of Independence.
With the exception of Mediterranean Expedition, the rest had been done by the Baltic fleet, which obviously required the British cooperation. The relations were so good that when Russia changed sides after the 4th Coalition there was a Lisbon Incident: commander of the Russian squadron refused to obey the imperial order to cooperate with the French against the Brits and then, when the Brits blocked Lisbon, there were negotiations as a result of which the Russian squadron was to be escorted by the Royal Navy to London without lowering the Russian flags and with the Russian admiral in command of the joint Anglo-Russian fleet.
So all that Mediterranean brouhaha is date by the later time when the Russian-British relations soured due to the Great Game. Basically, well before the CW the Russia was interested in the Ottomans not letting the foreign warships through the Straits, not in getting into the Med, because their navy became obsolete and could not compete with the Brits or French. With a continued Great Game the British attitude escalated into a full-scale paranoia: during the war of 1877-78 the British politicians had been seriously talking about penetration of the Russian Black Sea fleet into the Eastern Med (presumably) knowing that Russian Black Sea Fleet did not exist (there were few ships of a coastal defense including the round ironclad and few armed merchant steamships, construction of the fleet started only in 1880s).
What would Russia do with Constantinople? On a positive side - control access into the Black Sea. On a negative side - have countless problems with feeding its population. It can be imagined (if one has a well-developed imagination) that at some unidentified point in the future the Russian Black Sea Fleet (which has to be built) would be sailing on the Med. But how and why would it be able to compete with the Brits I can’t imagine. The same goes for the merchant fleet: in OTL it was under developed and majority of the traffic had been done by the foreign ships (mostly British).
Possible, but OTOH there were plenty of Muslims and Jews in the Russian empire and there is no reason to assume that those of Constantinople would be expelled (the Pale was invented to protect the traditional Russian areas from the Jewish economic competition but Constantinople would hardly fit the “truly Russian” criteria).
That's rather informative, thank you very much! So Anglo-Russian tensions were mostly a post San Stefano occurrence.
I avoid the "how?" Part. What I can say is: whatever Muslim and Jews there are will be kicked out, if not killed in the initial assault. It would be more a diverse Orthodox City with Greeks forming a plurality. The Russians will form no more than 15-20%. Addition of Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Armenians, Georgians and even Romanians. All Christians. Only a very small minority would be Catholic/Islamic.
No, they did exist earlier and led to the CW. But a proclaimed fear of the Russian naval dominance in the Eastern Med is mostly pre/post-SS: AII issued an explicit order than the Russian troops should not occupy Constantinople unless being asked by the Ottomans. The Brits sent a naval squadron to prevent such a capture with a resulting Russian threat to do it and a following agreement of the British withdrawal in exchange for the Russian guarantee that Constantinople would not be occupied. Attitude of the Russian high command at that point was even more relaxed: when AII ordered move of the troops into the suburbs, Russian c-in-c arrived there on a passenger train with a company of his personal escort. So basically Disraeli was playing a militant card for a domestic consumption and to justify getting Cyprus from the Ottomans for the services (not) granted.
Last edited:
This is sort-of a post-1900 question in a pre-1900 thread, but...
In 1915, with the "Constantinople Agreement", the UK agreed to Russian control of "Tsargrad" and the Straits...
Seriously? After 100 YEARS of trying to prop up the ailing Ottomans and keep Russia OFF of the Straits, they "flip"? Now, I know the short answer would be "WWI" and "Entente commitments" and all that (and not like the Brits really intended to honour all of the conflicting commitments they made during WWI - Treaty of London, Sykes-Picot, etc) but damn....
In 1915, with the "Constantinople Agreement", the UK agreed to Russian control of "Tsargrad" and the Straits...
Seriously? After 100 YEARS of trying to prop up the ailing Ottomans and keep Russia OFF of the Straits, they "flip"? Now, I know the short answer would be "WWI" and "Entente commitments" and all that (and not like the Brits really intended to honour all of the conflicting commitments they made during WWI - Treaty of London, Sykes-Picot, etc) but damn....
