Great Britain, Russia and the Crimean War

Bytor

Monthly Donor
Imagine a closer relationship between Russia and Great Britain following Napoleon's defeat, starting with Alexander I not getting sucked into Klemens von Metternich's (and therefore Austria's) orbit but instead remaining friends with Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlreagh, the Foreign Minister and eventually (in this ATL) Prime Minister of Great Britain. OTL. This goes on, with Russia normally supporting Britain at the various congresses in Europe and an unofficial "military hands off" policy with Bukhara, Khiva, Kokand and Afghanistan in the 1830s and 1840s (only jockeying for trade agreements with them) so as to reduce antagonism with the other until 1853 when Alexander II tells British Ambassador that he is no longer interested in expanding Imperial Russia but he must protect the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and in return for past support in Europe he requires British support against the Ottomans.

Is this closer relationship an unofficial agreement in Central Asia enough to make the British believe Alexander's statement where the did not in OTL and do one or more of:

  • stay out of the Crimean War
  • try to convince the French to stay out of the Crimean War
  • Join the Crimean War on Russia's side?
 
Mmm... very interesting scenario, although I think that the Crimean war would be butterflied or it curcumstances would be very changed.
A Russia that is closer to Britain than to Austria might not remain a member of the Holy Alliance, which would have a very significant impact on the German and Italian unification in 48 or its equivalent. For example Russia ittl might not intervene in Hungary to uphold Habsburg rule there.
I am not sure if what you say woulfd be enough for England to ditch the Ottomans, but an example of closer collaboration could be the resolution of the Greek struggle for independence.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
One thing I realized earlier today while reading on the Crimean War is that a closer relationship between the Great Britain and Russia is going to affect The Great Game in Central Asia.

In the 1830s Russia apparently suggested that Afghanistan be neutral territory as a buffer between British and Russian interests, but that didn't really catch on and as a result we have the disastrous (for the British) First Anglo-Afghan War from 1838 to 1842, and the disastrous Russian attempt at invading the Khanate of Khiva over Russians being sold there as slaves.

A closer relationship might make that idea of a buffer work, especially if the Russians were to accept a counter-proposal to add Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand to the buffer zone, countries which Britain tried to gain influence in just like how the Russians tried to gain influence in Afghanistan.

Another OTL incident were the Abbott and Shakespear expeditions to Khiva in 1840, also over the slavery of Russians. Shakespear managed to convince the Khan to make slavery of Russians illegal and arrived in mid-August 1840 at Fort Alexandrovsk on the Caspian shore (now Fort Shevchenko, Kazakhstan) with all the freed Russians.

That incident was looked on very favourably by the Tsar in OTL, and that, combined with the closer relationship, would be very likely to make the buffer zone idea very attractive to Great Britain after they crash and burn in Afghanistan against Dost Mohammed. Especially if the British throw in the idea of Russian trade access down the Amu Darya and Indus rivers. (You know the British East India company would love access to Russian markets!)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
For example Russia ittl might not intervene in Hungary to uphold Habsburg rule there.

According to many, the Russian intervention was not strictly speaking necessary and the Austrians and Croatians were on their way to defeating the Hungarians themselves in 1848 and 1849.
 
Imagine a closer relationship between Russia and Great Britain following Napoleon's defeat, starting with Alexander I not getting sucked into Klemens von Metternich's (and therefore Austria's) orbit but instead remaining friends with Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlreagh, the Foreign Minister and eventually (in this ATL) Prime Minister of Great Britain. OTL. This goes on, with Russia normally supporting Britain at the various congresses in Europe and an unofficial "military hands off" policy with Bukhara, Khiva, Kokand and Afghanistan in the 1830s and 1840s (only jockeying for trade agreements with them) so as to reduce antagonism with the other until 1853 when Alexander II tells British Ambassador that he is no longer interested in expanding Imperial Russia but he must protect the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and in return for past support in Europe he requires British support against the Ottomans

There is an intrinsic contradiction ah the core of this what if.

Britain could not want to be closer to Russia because Russia was too big and too powerful.

Britain's strategy from at least 1688 on was to divide and rule, of at least to divide and weaken in order to retain maximum freedom of action and security for itself.

The bigger power was always a threat and an enemy for Britain.

This is why if went against France from 1688 on to 1814/1815 until France was definitly emasculated. And the idea that Britain could get on well with France was a nonsense in the meaning that It implied France renouncing becoming a world power, which means accepting strategic defeat without even fighting. Britain and France only became friends when France definitly accepted its strategic defeat and renounced challenging Britain.

Then the archrival for Britain was giant Russia, from 1815 on to the end of the 19th century. This was the time of the great game in Asia. Coming to terms could only mean Russia being contained and accepting Britain's red lines. And Britain changed attitudes towards Russia only when Russia was significantly weakened and when a new threat emerged : Germany.

Then It was Germany from the late 19th century on to 1945.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
There is an intrinsic contradiction ah the core of this what if.

Britain could not want to be closer to Russia because Russia was too big and too powerful.

Britain's strategy from at least 1688 on was to divide and rule, of at least to divide and weaken in order to retain maximum freedom of action and security for itself.

The bigger power was always a threat and an enemy for Britain.

This is why if went against France from 1688 on to 1814/1815 until France was definitly emasculated. And the idea that Britain could get on well with France was a nonsense in the meaning that It implied France renouncing becoming a world power, which means accepting strategic defeat without even fighting. Britain and France only became friends when France definitly accepted its strategic defeat and renounced challenging Britain.

Then the archrival for Britain was giant Russia, from 1815 on to the end of the 19th century. This was the time of the great game in Asia. Coming to terms could only mean Russia being contained and accepting Britain's red lines. And Britain changed attitudes towards Russia only when Russia was significantly weakened and when a new threat emerged : Germany.

Then It was Germany from the late 19th century on to 1945.

I get what you're saying, but you're describing OTL Britain, not a Britain where Viscount Castlereagh - who was friends with Tsar Alexander I - eventually becomes Prime Minister. Castlereagh, by all accounts, was the person who created the so-called "congress system" that defined the relations of the European Great Powers for the next century. Contemporaneous accounts portray him as being very intelligent, canny individual who was a staunch anti-interventionist who hated that he was required to support in the House of Commons the repressive measures of Lord Sidmouth and others, as well as being known for creative problem-solving and negotiating.

There a paragraph in Egerton's "British Foreign Policy to the End of the 19th Century" that is an interesting bit of insight:

"It used to be supposed by some that Castlereagh and Wellington truckled to the Holy Alliance ; and that Canning did a glorious work in unloosing the fetters of that odious system from the British body politic. But we shall see that both Castlereagh and Wellington recognised, from the first, the weak point in the creed of the Tzar Alexander ; and, if they held on as long as possible to the alliance with Russia, Austria and Prussia, it was not because they were reactionaries, but because, after their experience of war, they knew the value of peace, and believed — can we say wrongly ? — that in the maintenance of the Concert of Europe and of the settlement established in 1816 there lay the best chance of its preservation. It would be idle to deny that, in their opinions, Castlereagh and Wellington were much more out of sympathy with the national aspirations that were beginning to come to the fore, than were their successors."

Castlereagh was no fan of war and worked, through the creation of the congress system, to prevent it as much has he could. Combine that with these nationalist sentiments plus the fact that he was the president of the Board of Control of British East India Company, something which no Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary before him had been IIRC, then you have a very different reaction to Russia if he is Prime Minister at the conclusion of the Anglo-Afghan War in 1842.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
According to many, the Russian intervention was not strictly speaking necessary and the Austrians and Croatians were on their way to defeating the Hungarians themselves in 1848 and 1849.

My understanding was the Hungarians had an equal-sized army to the the Imperial one though I do not know much about how well the Hungarians were equipped. I do know, though, that Lajos Kossuth was not as skilled or inventive a commander as Artúr Görgei was, winning mostly when he had obvious advantages like surprise and losing when things were more equal. Had the Russians not intervened, Görgei may have done a lot better when not confronted with 200,000 Russian troops. Josip Jelaĉić, Ban of Croatia, was not overly popular with his troops and created a situation where the Croatian army fought mostly willingly but not terribly enthusiastically alongside the Austrians because the Hungarians were in many ways the same kind of jerks to their subordinate territories of the Crown of St. Stephen as the Habsburgs were to them.

Without Russian intervention the situation would sure have dragged on much longer to the advantage of the Hungarians as the Croatian support would have dwindled the harder they were pushed by Jelaĉić.
 
I get what you're saying, but you're describing OTL Britain, not a Britain where Viscount Castlereagh - who was friends with Tsar Alexander I - eventually becomes Prime Minister. Castlereagh, by all accounts, was the person who created the so-called "congress system" that defined the relations of the European Great Powers for the next century. Contemporaneous accounts portray him as being very intelligent, canny individual who was a staunch anti-interventionist who hated that he was required to support in the House of Commons the repressive measures of Lord Sidmouth and others, as well as being known for creative problem-solving and negotiating.

There a paragraph in Egerton's "British Foreign Policy to the End of the 19th Century" that is an interesting bit of insight:

"It used to be supposed by some that Castlereagh and Wellington truckled to the Holy Alliance ; and that Canning did a glorious work in unloosing the fetters of that odious system from the British body politic. But we shall see that both Castlereagh and Wellington recognised, from the first, the weak point in the creed of the Tzar Alexander ; and, if they held on as long as possible to the alliance with Russia, Austria and Prussia, it was not because they were reactionaries, but because, after their experience of war, they knew the value of peace, and believed — can we say wrongly ? — that in the maintenance of the Concert of Europe and of the settlement established in 1816 there lay the best chance of its preservation. It would be idle to deny that, in their opinions, Castlereagh and Wellington were much more out of sympathy with the national aspirations that were beginning to come to the fore, than were their successors."

Castlereagh was no fan of war and worked, through the creation of the congress system, to prevent it as much has he could. Combine that with these nationalist sentiments plus the fact that he was the president of the Board of Control of British East India Company, something which no Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary before him had been IIRC, then you have a very different reaction to Russia if he is Prime Minister at the conclusion of the Anglo-Afghan War in 1842.

I am not sure to understand your point. I did not mean Britain did not want peaceful relations. I meant that Britain went to war when It considered that peace was not in its interest and especially when a rival great power became too dangerous and Britain had the possibility to curb It down.

Of course, post congress of Vienna's Britain did not consider lightheartedly going to general war again. In 1815, Britain was indebted to an unprecedented and scary level.

But when it had recovered, It went to war when it felt It necessary or profitable (and of course if It was winnable).
 
The Crimean war changed everything is Russia,a scenario where Alexander II wouldn't implement reforms,no emancipation etc,would surely be one where war between Britian and Russia would be inevitable. The geopolitical situation and rivalry in the east would probably mean that Britain would pick the Ottaamans side in one of the many wars in the 19th century and Russia,failing to modernise would lose badly. I don't see how any Anglo Russian alliance could be sustained, but if this was the case,how would British politics develop TTL(more authoritian????)
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
I am not sure to understand your point.

My point is that of the essence of alternate history - with a different person in charge, a nation does different things. Do you think that Earl Bathurst or Viscount Wellesley would have come up with the congress system had they been Foreign Secretary in 1815?

I am not sure to understand your point.
I did not mean Britain did not want peaceful relations. I meant that Britain went to war when It considered that peace was not in its interest and especially when a rival great power became too dangerous and Britain had the possibility to curb It down.

Of course, post congress of Vienna's Britain did not consider lightheartedly going to general war again. In 1815, Britain was indebted to an unprecedented and scary level.

But when it had recovered, It went to war when it felt It necessary or profitable (and of course if It was winnable).

Like I said, you're thinking of how OTL Britain with the OTL people in charge would have reacted and you're not allowing for Viscount Castlereagh staying Foreign Secretary for longer or him becoming Prime Minister.

There are many different ways for Great Britain to meet its goals, and different people in charge will use those different ways.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
The Crimean war changed everything is Russia,a scenario where Alexander II wouldn't implement reforms,no emancipation etc,would surely be one where war between Britian and Russia would be inevitable. The geopolitical situation and rivalry in the east would probably mean that Britain would pick the Ottaamans side in one of the many wars in the 19th century and Russia,failing to modernise would lose badly. I don't see how any Anglo Russian alliance could be sustained, but if this was the case,how would British politics develop TTL(more authoritian????)

I'm not saying it would necessarily be sustained, just that it last long enough - 10-11 years - to have an effect on whether or not Britain enters the Crimean War.

Also, Russia is still likely to be broke and exhausted after the Crimean War and if not humiliated then at least embarrassed by the disorganization and ineptness of its military, and bribe-taking, theft and corruption are still likely to be everywhere. As such, Alexander II is still likely to engage in the reforms he did OTL. Perhaps he might even make more sweeping changes if he is influenced enough by the friendship of his father and uncle with the Foreign Secretary and later Prime Minister of Great Britain known for not only anti-interventionism and a sympathetic opinion of national self-determination but also an able negotiator who used his skills to set up a system to avoid wars as much as possible? I think so, based on the fact that OTL Alexander II had a mostly pacifist foreign policy and how huge his reforms were inside of Russia.
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
Another thing I realized about my alternate Crimean War specifically, rather than the lead-up for Anglo-Russian relations, is what the military involvement of Austria would mean. In my ATL, Austria never needed Russian help in putting down the Hungarian revolution as they were able to call General Radetzky from northern Italy has he had an easier time defeating a Piedmont-Sardinia that did not have French support.

We all know that Russia's army was crap in the 1850s, still run the old way with nobles who imagined themselves to be great tacticians buying their position and rank, compared to Great Britain, Prussia and France who were well along their way to a modern, professional army run by career soldiers who earned their ranks through merit. Now the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade showed how far they still had to go in that regard, but the Russians still hadn't even looked at that reorganisational road, much less ventured down it. Their only actual advantage was size and the Crimean War showed just how effectively that could be neutralized.

Now Austria was not as far along as the other three, but they were still better at it than the Russians. Radetzky's experience in Lombardy-Venetia against Sardinian forces who did admirably well while often being only 20% the size of the Austrian armies would have only served to underline this necessity.

Five years later with Austria taking the place of the British in the Crimean War, Russia now faces a war on two fronts - Crimea against French, Sardinian and Ottoman forces, and Bessarabia against Austrian and Ottoman forces. The graft, corruption and disorganization in the Russian army could make this an even worse disaster for Russia than it was in OTL.
 
Top