France Stays Out of the Crimean War

CaliGuy

Banned
What if France would have stayed out of the Crimean War for the entire duration of this war?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Then there wouldn't be one? The war's immediate casus belli was the rights of Christians in the Holy Land and was more or less a pissing contest between Napoleon III and Nicholas I.

THAT SAID, if you mean "what if the Crimean War was Russians V British + Turks", then it's probably not called the Crimean War because the land fighting is done largely by Turks in the Caucasus and Balkans while the British just do naval raids.

Quite possibly the ironclad isn't invented for another year or two, but one suspects the Gunboat would still come about. Florence Nightingale would get involved if there was any substantial British land commitment. The logistics service for the British army might not be reformed, but the army's size would probably increase nevertheless. The riflemen would be as kickass as OTL because Hythe just about predated the Crimean War. We might not have the Armstrong gun and the first British rifles might be later but better.

...hopefully that helps?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Then there wouldn't be one? The war's immediate casus belli was the rights of Christians in the Holy Land and was more or less a pissing contest between Napoleon III and Nicholas I.
Really? Britain and the Ottomans wouldn't fight Russia without France?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Really? Britain and the Ottomans wouldn't fight Russia without France?
See above. (I edited my post, sorry!)

It's hard to get the collision you want, but probably not impossible. You just need a rather different casus belli, for a different war, that probably doesn't go near the Crimea and by that point "Crimean War" seems kind of an artifact.

Any clarification required, let me know.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
See above. (I edited my post, sorry!)

It's hard to get the collision you want, but probably not impossible. You just need a rather different casus belli, for a different war, that probably doesn't go near the Crimea and by that point "Crimean War" seems kind of an artifact.

Any clarification required, let me know.
Question--what exactly made Crimea so attractive with France in the war?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Question--what exactly made Crimea so attractive with France in the war?
It's not a case of attractiveness, so much.

See, OTL the idea of the Allies was to rush an army east to help the Turks. By the time both had assembled ~30,000 men, though, the Turks had already won some victories, so the Allies spent a bit of time wondering what to do with their armies and then decided to invade the Crimea and take Sevastopol - it wasn't that it was militarily important as such, a blockade with ships would suffice to prevent the Russians sallying, it was just so they didn't look like idiots.

Without France in the war, there's two effects. Firstly, the deployable manpower at short notice is pretty much halved - you get the British contingent only - and with only 30K troops invading Crimea is much less feasible. (The funny thing is that it would have worked, as far as we can tell, because the British wanted to move fast enough that they'd have taken Sevastopol before it was reinforced and the French slowed them down, while the British won all the early land victories for the most part - but that's hindsight they would not have.)
Secondly, the British are a naval power - the naval power - and so there's no expectation for them to get involved in a big land campaign like there is with France. They'd be free to handle things with naval raids, possibly in the Baltic.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It's not a case of attractiveness, so much.

See, OTL the idea of the Allies was to rush an army east to help the Turks. By the time both had assembled ~30,000 men, though, the Turks had already won some victories, so the Allies spent a bit of time wondering what to do with their armies and then decided to invade the Crimea and take Sevastopol - it wasn't that it was militarily important as such, a blockade with ships would suffice to prevent the Russians sallying, it was just so they didn't look like idiots.

Without France in the war, there's two effects. Firstly, the deployable manpower at short notice is pretty much halved - you get the British contingent only - and with only 30K troops invading Crimea is much less feasible. (The funny thing is that it would have worked, as far as we can tell, because the British wanted to move fast enough that they'd have taken Sevastopol before it was reinforced and the French slowed them down, while the British won all the early land victories for the most part - but that's hindsight they would not have.)
Secondly, the British are a naval power - the naval power - and so there's no expectation for them to get involved in a big land campaign like there is with France. They'd be free to handle things with naval raids, possibly in the Baltic.
Thanks for this information! :)

Also, though, how exactly does this war turn out without France and Crimea?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Also, though, how exactly does this war turn out without France and Crimea?
It is hard to see the Russians actually pulling this off, given OTL they had trouble with the Turks alone.

There's a lot of naval raiding, with the new British gunboats (but possibly no ironclads). If the Russians are being a problem on land then the Brits will deploy troops to fight alongside the Ottomans, but if not then it's entirely possible the British will go for Krondstadt with a land-naval assault.
 
Top