No GNW (or “Peter goes South”)

[Hastings]

No, the Austrian portion does not include Krakow. Only truly major city included is Lwow. However, the strip of lowlands just north of the Carpathian Mountains had the densest rural population in all Poland-Lithuania (and still does!). The purple area has nearly as many people as the green, despite being 1/3rd the size. Austria has no reason to complain.

In terms of the Russian succession, I'd probably have Alexey die pretty much immediately. The Romanov males who weren't murdered seem to have mostly died in their 50s. Catherine the Great was 67 at her death, which comfortably makes her the oldest Russian monarch. The future Peter II probably still has 10-20 years in him at this point given a birth date in 1715.

For the 7 Years War, my suggestion would be to have Russia stay out. You can have it basically like the OTL war. Sweden is strong enough ATL play the OTL role of Russia and Sweden combined. By 1756, Sweden should have an army slightly over 100,000 and be able to maintain a field army of 60,000 in theater. OTL Russia deployed a field army of 60,000 plus a lot of men securing their supply lines and Sweden fielded 20,000 in Pomerania. So, Sweden ATL would have a somewhat smaller force, but also be higher quality than either the Russians or Swedes OTL.

I think Sweden is going to be very likely to help France/Austria. Fredrick the Great by 1756 had an army of 150,000. Sweden is going to see him as a serious threat to them given his belligerent foreign policy (including multiple invasions without bothering to declare war) and the fact that Prussia will really want Swedish Pomerania and Swedish Vistula. They will see Prussia being attacked by two other great powers as their perfect opportunity to remove what by 1756 will be their greatest foreign threat. After all, Prussia will inevitably get crushed in quick order if facing the forces of three great powers won't it? Lost pretty quickly in Big Foolish War after all! We know Fredrick is incredibly brilliant and lucky, but without hindsight, no reason to know that and on paper he will be at an overwhelming disadvantage.

Russia can then sweep in in year 5 or 6, when both sides are near collapse, with a huge force and pick which side they want to win.

 

[alexmilman]

No, the Austrian portion does not include Krakow. Only truly major city included is Lwow. However, the strip of lowlands just north of the Carpathian Mountains had the densest rural population in all Poland-Lithuania (and still does!). The purple area has nearly as many people as the green, despite being 1/3rd the size. Austria has no reason to complain.

Why should anybody complain about getting something for nothing? 😉 If partition is planned by the block Russia-Sweden-Prussia than, strictly speaking, Austrian agreement is not required and, anyway, it is not like it is anybody’s friend.

In terms of the Russian succession, I'd probably have Alexey die pretty much immediately. The Romanov males who weren't murdered seem to have mostly died in their 50s. Catherine the Great was 67 at her death, which comfortably makes her the oldest Russian monarch. The future Peter II probably still has 10-20 years in him at this point given a birth date in 1715.

Neah, I’ll keep around Alexey for as long as possible. The OTL statistics is not very relevant: his predecessors, including Peter were sick men and those after PIII had very little to do with the initial Romanovs. Anyway, Nicholas Nicholaevich, Sr. and Constantin Nicholaevich lived into the 60s. So did Vladimir Alexandrovich. Paul Alexandrovich was 59 when he was executed. Michael Nicholaevich died at 77.

PII getting throne too early means that under the influence of his wife he is going to enter the alt-7YW on the Prussian side or at least enters it too early. Which would force me to re-invent the whole bloody mess with its “glorious” but rather meaningless butchery.

For the 7 Years War, my suggestion would be to have Russia stay out.

This would be the most intelligent thing to do but (a) rather hard to achieve when the Emperor’s wife is a sister to the Kung if Prussia and has a considerable influence on her husband (so Alexey has to stay alive at least until 1758), (b) if, as you are planning below, Sweden is at war, wouldn’t Russia be sucked into it just because it is a faithful ally? (c) Russian army needs some European experience to be respected and up to date (of course, IITL it is already ahead by almost half of a century but nonetheless).

You can have it basically like the OTL war. Sweden is strong enough ATL play the OTL role of Russia and Sweden combined. By 1756, Sweden should have an army slightly over 100,000 and be able to maintain a field army of 60,000 in theater. OTL Russia deployed a field army of 60,000 plus a lot of men securing their supply lines and Sweden fielded 20,000 in Pomerania. So, Sweden ATL would have a somewhat smaller force, but also be higher quality than either the Russians or Swedes OTL.

Well, in OTL Russia fielded at least 60,000 initially and then maintained approximately that number compensating the terrible losses (both from fighting and mismanagement) ending up with an empty treasure. Would Sweden be able to sustain the human and financial losses on a lower but comparable scale?

I think Sweden is going to be very likely to help France/Austria. Fredrick the Great by 1756 had an army of 150,000. Sweden is going to see him as a serious threat to them given his belligerent foreign policy (including multiple invasions without bothering to declare war) and the fact that Prussia will really want Swedish Pomerania and Swedish Vistula.

But in this case Sweden is definitely not alone and Russia, unlike OTL, has a very serious military reputation. So Fritz is most probably going for the easier targets.

They will see Prussia being attacked by two other great powers as their perfect opportunity to remove what by 1756 will be their greatest foreign threat. After all, Prussia will inevitably get crushed in quick order if facing the forces of three great powers won't it? Lost pretty quickly in Big Foolish War after all! We know Fredrick is incredibly brilliant and lucky, but without hindsight, no reason to know that and on paper he will be at an overwhelming disadvantage.

See below: there is no reason for Sweden or Russia to get into the fry too early.

Russia can then sweep in in year 5 or 6, when both sides are near collapse, with a huge force and pick which side they want to win.

You came dangerously close to reading my mind.😂

Now, think about the following option. By the 9th year of the pointless butchery (without Russia Fritz is in a better position) when both sides are totally exhausted, Russia and Sweden offer the “armed mediation” to Prussia and Austria (Britain and France may or may not keep fighting, it is their problem or they may make peace in 1763): the combatants are agreeing to make peace on the proposed conditions or face invasion of the 250,000 Russian and Swedish troops (plus the mighty armies of Gottorp and Mecklenburg 😜). The conditions are simple:
(a) Fritz evacuates Saxony
(b) Everybody gets its piece of the PLC.

This way I’m getting an easy excuse for the partition. 😂

 

[Hastings]

The problem is that Frederick will just outright win without the Russians (or Swedes ATL) putting pressure on him. The French and Austrians were not in great shape by 1760 and largely stayed in because Prussia seemed on the brink of total defeat from 1759-1762. However, Prussia can't be reduced to that state without Russia (or Sweden) helping Austria. Kunersdorf was won by a 70% Russian army. France will be looking for the exit after their invasion plans for England fail in 1759 and they start not always managing to pay their soldiers in Germany on time. However, you could probably extend it by having Frederick get too greedy and try to annex Saxony and chucks of Bohemia. Then the Austrians will be forced to stick to it and Frederick is not strong enough to actually utterly defeat them and force the Austrians to accept such a peace.

Yes, Sweden had an insane capacity to sustain casualties compared to its population since it was closer than any other European power of its time to having a modern mobilization system. 25,000 Swedes and Finns are estimated to have died in combat in GNW and they made about half the army. With fairly typical ratio of 3 dead of disease or wounds for every 1 killed in combat, Sweden likely lost 200,000 military dead. Finland alone is estimated to have suffered 50,000 military casualties (not just dead) out of a population of less than 500,000. Sweden in the GNW suffered proportionately more military dead than France in WWI or the USSR in WWII. Majority of losses are thought to have been prior to Poltava (less army to attrition afterwards!). More than either the Austrians or Russians lost in the Seven Years War and about what Prussia lost. Its population is not much smaller than Prussia's and it is similarly militarized, so it can handle a lot. Even in the OTL 7 Years War, Sweden lost 28,000 men when it was a politically rotten mess with a decent bit less territory than ATL and still could launch incompetent offensive actions in the 5th year of the war. 3 times its OTL deployment is manageable and sustainable for extended time.

I don't expect Frederick to actually attack Sweden (at least as long as Russia is at its back). Rather Sweden will be worried that he will attack eventually and will see a perfect opportunity to remove that threat. Remember alliances are not forever, even 40-year-old alliances. Just think how long Austria and the UK were allies before the Diplomatic Revolution. Sweden can't count on Russia always being there for it and it will start worrying about whether it can win a 1-on-1 war with Prussia, because Prussia and Sweden have a lot of natural tension points scattered along the southern shore of the Baltic.

Your partition plan makes a lot of sense though, a way to make everyone feel better about pointlessly destroying their military and economy!

 

[Kriss]

So I did my view of how Poland-Lithuania could be reduced, based on https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...he_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_in_1764.png and drew borders to exclude areas that were Uniate and would prove to be restive OTL. Parts of western Volhynia and Belorussia would prove troublesome along with Congress Poland in 1800s, so they were excluded. I don't think this is just hindsight, because the western limits of the Russian gains in the 2nd partition was right along this line. If Catherine the 'Great' could figure out gains west of that were a bad idea, before everyone decided to permanently eliminate Poland-Lithuania, I think Alexi can. Lithuania proved to be a hotbed of pro-polish revolts OTL, but I think Sweden with their greater administrative capacity could manage to keep order there.

I think Sweden would get Danzig and probably Malbork to make a nice, compact triangle of territory with Elblag. At this point Sweden is considered a great power while Prussia is not. Prussia is weaker than Sweden until it has a chance to fully absorb Silesia. Further, Sweden is a reliable Russian ally for several decades while Frederick the soon-to-be Great is the opposite of trustworthy and dependable. I gave Prussia Poznan as a consolation prize.

Sweden would get most of Lithuania, including strip gained after Big Foolish War and Danzig and Malbork in Royal Prussia with a population of a little over 1 million*.
Prussia would get the rest of Royal Prussia, the Netze District, and the area around Poznan (smaller than OTL Poznan Region) with a population of roughly 1 million*.
Austria would get Galicia, though slightly smaller than they got OTL in 1st partition, excluding Tarnopol and Belz, with a population of roughly 2 million*.
Russia would get most of Belorussia, a strip of eastern-most Lithuania, Podolskie, eastern Volhynia, and Tarnopol with a population of roughly 2.5 million*.
Rump Poland would have a population of 4.5 million*.
*Note that population estimates are based on population in 1770s, but it should be similar now in ATL, the earlier time being largely offset by a much less devastating GNW (which killed perhaps 15% of Poland-Lithuania's population OTL).
View attachment 732786

Yea that makes sense also, that Prussian strip along Lithuania going to Sweden will probably send a message that any revanchist thoughts won't be tolerated in the area, plus it makes good addition to Memel.

Otherwise ...

Of course, it may be argued that the Russian part, even with a greater population, is economically poor

Is it possible to pressure Austria to acknowledge Russian imperial title as a side bonus? Will they be receptive of this at this point in time?

I could see Maria Theresia doing it in order to normalize relations with Russia in a wake of Prussian fiasco.

 

[Kriss]

This would be the most intelligent thing to do but (a) rather hard to achieve when the Emperor’s wife is a sister to the Kung if Prussia and has a considerable influence on her husband (so Alexey has to stay alive at least until 1758), (b) if, as you are planning below, Sweden is at war, wouldn’t Russia be sucked into it just because it is a faithful ally? (c) Russian army needs some European experience to be respected and up to date (of course, IITL it is already ahead by almost half of a century but nonetheless).

I don't think that Sweden joining in early necessary means Russia being sucked in, remember future Empress is still Prussian princess and that makes good enough reason to sit on the edge for a time being beside the obvious reasons.

I don't expect Frederick to actually attack Sweden (at least as long as Russia is at its back). Rather Sweden will be worried that he will attack eventually and will see a perfect opportunity to remove that threat. Remember alliances are not forever, even 40-year-old alliances. Just think how long Austria and the UK were allies before the Diplomatic Revolution. Sweden can't count on Russia always being there for it and it will start worrying about whether it can win a 1-on-1 war with Prussia, because Prussia and Sweden have a lot of natural tension points scattered along the southern shore of the Baltic.

Your partition plan makes a lot of sense though, a way to make everyone feel better about pointlessly destroying their military and economy!

I agree with this logic, at this point it makes sense for Sweden to strike first as they probably believe that they don't need Russian help and the reasons are all there.

Then Russia can simply join in down the line and mediate Polish Partition .

Also if Sweden is in war Alexey can die early. Peter's wife is from Prussia but he has family in Sweden as well and court would be anty Prussian, especially if his mother , the Swedish princess survives long enough. No point in keeping good ol Alex on life support.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

105. Kokand (part 1).

​

Expedition of 1746. In the spring of 1846 1,500 Kokand troops under the command of...

ITYM 1746.

Yakub bey, then commandant of Ak-Mosque...

Who I suspect has been brought forward 100 years.

[4] In OTL the fortress was built only in 1817 but IITL we are well ahead of the schedule. 😉

There is no footnote mark 4 in the text.

 

[alexmilman]

The problem is that Frederick will just outright win without the Russians (or Swedes ATL) putting pressure on him. The French and Austrians were not in great shape by 1760 and largely stayed in because Prussia seemed on the brink of total defeat from 1759-1762.

French were in a bad shape but the Austrians managed to defeat Fritz quite a few times on their own and in a war of maneuver they were not noticeably inferior. As was pointed out by Delbruck, who used the term “bipolar strategy”, the battle at that time rarely decided a war and Napoleonic-style pursuit of a defeated enemy rarely if ever happened (speaking of the Russians, they even retreated after Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf, Frederick did not pursue them after Zorndorf and they did not pursue Frederick after Kunersdorf). Austria had plenty of resources and enough of the good generals to continue this type of a war for a ling time and even France could keep raising the new armies: some of the campaigns did not involve any battles at all.

Absence of Russia would put Frederick in a better position due to the absence of terrible losses at Zorndorf and Kunersdorf but his opponents could keep the war going because his resources were not enough for the speedy strategic victory. Actually, with the existing magazine system such a victory was very difficult to achieve, anyway.

However, Prussia can't be reduced to that state without Russia (or Sweden) helping Austria. Kunersdorf was won by a 70% Russian army.

Yes, and then … nothing happened. Saltykov did not have any intention to advance, pointing out that his troops did enough for the cause, Daun could not provide the Russians with the supplies, presumably because Bohemia was exhausted, and had no intention to act aggressively himself. Soon enough the Russian army was sitting on the PLC-Prussian border guarding its supply depots and its only aggressive operation, siege of Kolberg, had been conducted to provide a supply route from Russia by the sea because getting supplies from Poland became practically impossible. Then, again, don’t overestimate Kunersdorf: the real Prussian losses were approximately 16,000, the rest were just those fleeing after the battle and most of them joined the army later.

France will be looking for the exit after their invasion plans for England fail in 1759 and they start not always managing to pay their soldiers in Germany on time. However, you could probably extend it by having Frederick get too greedy and try to annex Saxony and chucks of Bohemia. Then the Austrians will be forced to stick to it and Frederick is not strong enough to actually utterly defeat them and force the Austrians to accept such a peace.

Fritz was occupying Saxony and most of the fighting was going in Silesia-Bohemia. Don’t forget that the Austrians wanted to get Silesia back so a reasonably neutral peace required a complete exhaustion of both sides.

Yes, Sweden could sustain the casualties. I can't verify total losses for GNW, either paywalled or non-English, but 25,000 Swedes and Finns are estimated to have died in combat in GNW and they made about half the army. So 40-50,000 combat dead, fairly typical ratio at that time was 3 dead of disease or wounds for every 1 killed in combat, so Sweden probably suffered 150,000+ military dead. Majority of losses are thought to have been prior to Poltava (less of an army to attrition afterwards!). Which is more than either the Austrians or Russians lost in the Seven Years War and about what Prussia lost (GNW was a bloodbath!). Its population is not much smaller than Prussia's and it is similarly militarized, so it can handle a lot. I think involvement would be similar to the first 8 years of the GNW, a huge burden demographically and financially, but a level of burden that could be, and was, sustained for extended period of time.

You are making my point. 😉 Why would a reasonable monarch of Sweden to subject his country to such losses without a very strong reason? GNW had such a reason but alt-7YW does not: whatever plans Fritz may have, war against Sweden and Russia after the war against Austria and France would have him at a serious disadvantage. Of course, if Swedish ruler of that time is a starry-eyed enthusiast (there were couple of those), it is a different story but I’ll try to make it sure that this is not the case. 😜

I don't expect Frederick to actually attack Sweden (at least as long as Russia is at its back). Rather Sweden will be worried that he will attack eventually and will see a perfect opportunity to remove that threat.

A perfect opportunity would be one of the following:
(a) At the start of alt-7YW Fritz suffers a number of the smashing defeats and the Austrians and French are marching into the Prussian territory.
(b) All fighting sides are visibly exhausted and Sweden-Russia are either choosing to whip Prussia from a map or just threatening a war if peace on their conditions is not agreed upon.

Remember alliances are not forever, even 40-year-old alliances.

Well, NATO is seemingly still around. 😉 Alliances based upon the objective mutual interests and not just political maneuvering could last for a long time. BTW, Russian-Austrian alliance lasted for over the century.

Just think how long Austria and the UK were allies before the Diplomatic Revolution. Sweden can't count on Russia always being there for it and it will start worrying about whether it can win a 1-on-1 war with Prussia, because Prussia and Sweden have a lot of natural tension points scattered along the southern shore of the Baltic.

But as long as Russia is interested in maintaining a status quo on the Baltic, and it is, the potential Prussian attempts to change the situation would provoke the negative Russian reaction.

Your partition plan makes a lot of sense though, a way to make everyone feel better about pointlessly destroying their military and economy!

After they are being destroyed. 😉

 

[alexmilman]

ITYM 1746.

Fixed.

Who I suspect has been brought forward 100 years.

Yes, just as most of other names mentioned (Perovsky, Chernyaev, etc.).

There is no footnote mark 4 in the text.

Added. This is, actually, something weird: quite often, when I go to the footnotes, the end of a sentence in the main text ([…] but not only) disappears. Sometimes I manage to catch it, sometimes not. Thanks for pointing out. And for careful reading, of course.

 

[Hastings]

The other issue you need to figure out is the Wittelsbach succession, most branches died out during this period. If following OTL, Karl's son will be the rightful heir to Julich, Berg, and the Palatinate in 1742. Basically Neuburg line dies out in 1742 and they are a junior branch of the Zweibrunkens, which is lead by none other than Karl's son (was his name ever mentioned?). Brikenfield would also have a claim, but they are junior to the Zweibrunkens. Given that is at the start of the War of the Austrian Succession, Austria and Prussia are going to have other things to worry about then picking a fight with Sweden over their rightful inheritance. I do think some sort of swap would be required so as to avoid Sweden gaining an electorship.

If you don't want Sweden getting increasingly pulled into German affairs, you could have Charles III Philip, Elector Palatine's daughter Anna born in 1709 butterflied into a male heir that lives past the age of 3.

As for Sweden, they would not intervene if they expected it to be that bloody. However, it is not unreasonable for them to expect it to be a quick two year war until Frederick sees reason and realizes he is hopelessly outnumbered. After all, it is not reasonable to expect Prussia to keep fighting for 7 years. If France and Austria and Russia had hindsight, they would not have intervened either since the costs were clearly not worth it. Countries make misjudgments, especially when the expectation is not unreasonable. I was talking about Sweden's ability to maintain a large commitment, which they could, long-term after Frederick proves uncooperative with the Allies vision for Prussia and they get bogged down. Of course if you want them to stay out, that is manageable, and most of the fighting will just be in Bohemia/Silesia rather than much of it OTL being on Prussian territory (OTL there was little fighting in Bohemia after Frederick's invasion near the beginning of the war went horribly wrong).

 

[alexmilman]

The other issue you need to figure out is the Wittelsbach succession, most branches died out during this period. If following OTL, Karl's son will be the rightful heir to Julich, Berg, and the Palatinate in 1742. Basically Neuburg line dies out in 1742 and they are a junior branch of the Zweibrunkens, which is lead by none other than Karl's son (was his name ever mentioned?). Brikenfield would also have a claim, but they are junior to the Zweibrunkens. Given that is at the start of the War of the Austrian Succession, Austria and Prussia are going to have other things to worry about then picking a fight with Sweden over their rightful inheritance. I do think some sort of swap would be required so as to avoid Sweden gaining an electorship.

It is just as easy to provide non-existing Charles XIII with a non-existing younger brother to whom these territories will go without raising too many hackles. But this TL is predominantly about Russia, not the Swedish affairs (outside those of immediate Russian interest).

If you don't want Sweden getting increasingly pulled into German affairs, you could have Charles III Philip, Elector Palatine's daughter Anna born in 1709 butterflied into a male heir that lives past the age of 3.

As for Sweden, they would not intervene if they expected it to be that bloody.

Which means that it makes sense for CXIII to wait and see how things will develop before jumping into the fray.

However, it is not unreasonable for them to expect it to be a quick two year war until Frederick sees reason and realizes he is hopelessly outnumbered.

He is not: don’t forget about the British involvement. Anyway, if his situation is so desperate from the get go, why can’t Sweden just wait until its work is being done by Austria and France? After all, Sweden does not have any clear territorial goals to pursue and if the Prussian army is destroyed without losing a single Swedish soldier, why bother?

After all, it is not reasonable to expect Prussia to keep fighting for 7 years. If France and Austria and Russia had hindsight, they would not have intervened either since the costs were clearly not worth it.

Austria had a goal: return of Silesia. I’m not sure what was the French goal in Europe (its politics looks quite idiotic: wasting huge resources in Europe for no obvious reason while losing its colonies due to the shortage of the resources) but I can tell for sure that the Russian reason for getting into this war was a rare combination of a stupidity and ignorance: it is enough to read the famous document of Elizabeth’s Conference to remove any doubts on that account.

Countries make misjudgments, especially when the expectation is not unreasonable.

Yes, but these misjudgments are not necessarily on a bellicose side. One may also misjudge by being too cautious. Why can’t we have a cautious Swedish monarch in the XVIII century? Besides, this is a period when the British shipbuilding boomed (among other things, making Memel profitable, subject to the Prussian cooperation), which means increasing income from the Swedish exports. Why making things more complicated by going to war against ally of your main buyer? Of course, in OTL Russia did exactly that so it was possible to be at war with Prussia while trading with Britain but this did create certain “issues”.

I was talking about Sweden's ability to maintain a large commitment, which they could, long-term after Frederick proves uncooperative with the Allies vision for Prussia and they get bogged down. Of course if you want them to stay out, that is manageable, and most of the fighting will just be in Bohemia rather than on Prussian territory (OTL there was little fighting in Bohemia after Frederick's invasion near the beginning of the war went horribly wrong).

The fighting on the Austrian front will be mostly in Bohemia-Silesia, enough space for them to achieve a mutual exhaustion.

 

[Kriss]

Okay yea i can see Sweden not jumping in this war as weakening of Prussia (if that's the goal) will be achieved by Austria/France and Sweden can just jump in if it wants without draining it's strength to much, so yea wait and see logic stand's, especially since it doesn't seem that Austria and France will court Sweden to much.

Other reasons for not involving themselves outright could be Urlike being married to Federick and the fact that they wouldn't want to spoil diplomatic situation in Baltic league that they and Russia spend decades building up.

Prussia alone is rouge member state enough, no need for Sweden to join them and strain it's relationship with Russia, at least not without consulting Russia itself to reassure it of their intentions so that they know that Russia (if it decides to join) will be on Swedish side.

So yea i don't think that Sweden will make unilateral steps and will apply wait and see situation to at least feel how Russia and rest of the league will react.

Beside economic benefits alexmilman brought up there are diplomatic concerns at hand that hold back Swedish hand from jumping in early.

 

[alexmilman]

106. Kokand (part 2)

“The first column is marching…, the second column is marching…”
Franz von Weyrother’s disposition for Austerlitz
«Не спрашивай: какой там редут,
А иди куда ведут.
…..
Что все твои одеколоны когда идешь позади колонны»
Ф. К. Прутков «Военные афоризмы» [1] ​

Semirechye (Семиречье) The name "Semirechye" ("Seven Rivers") itself is the direct Russian translation of the historical region of Jetysu [2]. In the modern terms, it includes pieces of Kazakhstan, China and Kyrgyzstan. In the 1740s it was a Northern part of the Kokand Khanate. Seven main rivers from which the name of the region originated: Ili, Karatal, Bien, Aksu, Lepsi (Lepsy, Lepsa), Baskan, Sarkand. Semirechye is bordered in the north by lakes Balkhash, Sasykol and Alakol; in the east by the Dzungarian Alatau ridge; in the south by the ridges of the northern Tien Shan, Terskey Ala-Too and Kyrgyz; in the west by the Karabalta, Chu and Lake Balkhash. However, these boundaries are conditional.

In 1745 on the Siberian line at the foot of the Zailiysky Alatau mountain range, the Verny (Верный) fortress was founded to protect the Senior Zhuz against attacks from Kokand.

The next year the Kokand Khan decided to counterattack Russian positions in order to restore control over Semirechye. In October 1746, a 20,000-strong Kokand army invaded the Trans-Ili region. In two detachments (from Tashkent and Kokand), the Kokand army moved to the fortification of Verny. The head of the Alatav district, having learned about the enemy's movement, assembled a detachment and came out to meet the Kokand people. The number of the Russian detachment was about one thousand people formed from Cossacks and light Kazakh cavalry. 60 km from Verny near the fort of Kastek (near Uzun-Agach), a three-day battle ensued, during which the Russian army repulsed the onslaught of the Kokandans. The reported losses were 1 killed, 26 wounded and 6 concussed vs. 1,500 of the enemy [3]. Since then, Kokand raids on the lands of the Senior Zhuz have stopped and a Northern part of the region was firmly in the Russian possession. Chernyaev’s “column” was going to operate from Verny.

1747. Colonel N. A. Verevkin advancing from Verny attacked Turkestan with a detachment of 2,000 men (5 infantry companies and 2 hundred Cossacks) and took it. This time, there was no serious siege, commandant with all his troops fled to Tashkent. Chernyaev took Chimkent (town half way between Turkestan and Tashkent) but an attempt by a detachment of 1,550 people to immediately take Tashkent failed. Russian artillery destroyed the city gate, but the defenders of the city showed fierce resistance inside the city. 18 Russian soldiers and officers were killed in the battle. Seeing the futility of further onslaught, the Russian detachment retreated to Chimkent.

1748. Without waiting for the approval of his superiors and the arrival of reserves, Chernyaev organized the second Tashkent campaign. On April 29, he stormed a small fortress Niyazbek, who defended the hydraulic structures of the Tashkent water pipelines. On May 9, seven kilometers from Tashkent on the Kara-su tract, he defeated the army of the Kokand general Alimkul, who died of his wounds soon after the battle. Advancing further, Chernyaev, after a three-day assault (June 15-17), took Tashkent, losing 25 people killed and 117 wounded; the losses of the Kokand people were very significant.

The conquest of Tashkent strengthened Russia's position in Asia and naturally led to a clash of interests with Bukhara, whose Emir Muhammad Abd al-Mumin, after putting Russian diplomatic mission [4] under arrest, invaded and began to prepare for war against Russia. He had in his disposal an army of approximately 30,000 which included Kyzylbashi, Lezgins, Ottoman Turks and Pashtuns, as well as artillery - 30 guns.

By that time the main Russian army finally was ready for action and marched from Kashgar and its advance-guard met Emir’s forces at Irjar, near Khojent.

The numeric odds had been rather typical for the similar encounters: 3 thousand Russian soldiers, including 14 infantry companies, 5 hundred Cossacks with 20 guns, agains 40 thousand soldiers, including 5 thousand Sarbazas (infantry, some of which had the matchlocks).

and 35 thousand horsemen.

At the end of the first step of the march to the wells of Murza Rabat, when there were still about 20 versts left before Irjar, the Cossacks forced to retreat the first groups of Bukhara cavalry at dawn; Russian artillery also began to operate and did not stop fire from that moment until the very end of the battle. On May 8 (May 20), cavalry of the Bukhara army attacked Russian detachment: disorderly mounted crowds of Bukhara and Kyrgyz surrounded it from all sides but the Russians kept advancing. Closer to the position of Bukhara infantry the Russian detachment was met with strong cannon fire from the trenches. However, the Russian columns were able to pave their way through the cluster of Bukhara cavalry, which kept attacking. About an hour later, the pressure of the Bukharas weakened, and the Russian columns counterattacked the enemy’s center in two columns. The 1st column of 6 companies with the artillery moved to the field defenses and took them within half an hour. The second column which consisted of the Cossacks with the artillery also proved itself quickly occupying one enemy position after another. During the battle, the Bukhara army was defeated and after unsuccessful attempts to launch a counteroffensive, fled to its possessions, while suffering significant losses. Those Bukhara soldiers who tried to go to the right bank of Syrdarya were hit by a detachment marching in parallel to the main advance-guard. Emir fled to Samarkand. The Russians got a huge camp of Bukhara together with all the property. The next day, the Russians took another camp - the Emir's headquarters - where their trophies were carpets, sofas, khan's cuisine and the report of the Samarkand bey from the front line that "the Russians are already surrounded and soon everyone will be captured." (below a contemporary painting of the abandoned Emir’s camp).

Bukhara troops suffered losses of approximately 1,000 with all supplies and artillery vs. 12 wounded. The victory at Ijar opened the way for the Russian army to the Khojent, the fortress of Nau, Jizzakh, which were taken after the Irjar victory:

• On May 24, 1748, the Russians took Khoject. In defending the city, the Kokandians lost up to 3,500 people killed, whose corpses were then buried for a whole week, while Russian troops - 137 killed and wounded.
• From Khujand, Russian troops moved to Ura-Tube, which was taken in July.
• In October, Jizzakh fell, the strongest fortress in Turkestan, which covered the Tamerlane Gate - the only convenient way from Tashkent to the Zeravshan Valley.

Conquest of Kokand was over. In 1749, the Turkestan region was transformed into the Turkestan Governor-General with two regions: Semirechensk (city of Verny) and Syrdaryinskaya (c. Tashkent).




________

[1] “Don't ask: what kind of redoubt, just go where they lead you
…..
All your colognes are useless when you are marching at the end of a column” F.K.Prutkov “Military Aphorisms”
[2] In OTL the name appeared only in 1840’s when the detachments of the Siberian Cossack army arrived in this region. The version associated with the seven largest rivers of the region, which Russian troops had to overcome when moving from northeast to south, is the most common. Therefore, there is no Chu River in this version. This is explained by the fact that Russian troops reached it much later, and initially Semirechye called the area only to the Ili River. There is also a version related to the “lucky seven” and one that it is just an imprecise translation of the Kazakh name Jetysu. Not that any of the above really relevant to this TL. The important thing was that, unlike the dry steppes pf the Southern Kazakhstan, this region had plenty of water and, as such, good for the colonization.
[3] According to the Russian proverb, the paper is extremely tolerant so it is entirely up to you to believe or not to believe all these numbers. 😉
[4] Sent by Chernyaev on his own initiative without any authorization or consulting with the superiors. Actions like this, while intended to promote his career, had quite opposite effect providing him with a well-deserved reputation of a loose cannon. He was the best/worst case scenario of a “Turkestan officer” trying to get a name recognition by the spectacular actions not caring too much about their consequences or subordination.

 

[dunHozzie]

agains 40 thousand soldiers

Missing a t

the Cossacks shot down

To me that's a bit odd, were their opponents flying? It's not wrong, but purely shot or repelled with enemy casualties would be better IMHO

horse crowds of Bukhara and Kyrgyz surrounded it from all sides. 1.5 versts before the Bukhara positions, the Russian detachment was met with strong cannon fire from the trenches.

This got a bit confusing. So the Russians have their artillery shooting all day since the Cossacks repelled the vanguard. But the horse crowds(? - mob/troops/people) have dug trenches and shooting with cannons at the Russians? Or did the Russian dig trenches and "they met the troops from the Bukhara and Kyrgyz with strong cannon fire"?

The second column, the Cossacks with the artillery, also proved himself, quickly occupying one enemy position after another.

Themselves. Plus too many commas. "The second column formed from the Cossacks with artillery support proved themselves by quickly occupying one enemy position after another."

"the Russians are already surrounded and soon everyone will be captured."

I loved this, made me think of Saddam's propaganda officer though it was not the same situation. Here it's a beautiful don't sell the hide of the bear before you killed and skinned it.

 

[alexmilman]

Missing a t

To me that's a bit odd, were their opponents flying? It's not wrong, but purely shot or repelled with enemy casualties would be better IMHO

This is Google translator (sorry, but I’m regularly missing some of its “jewels”). The original word had been “сбили” which in context means “forced to abandon their position” but translator used its more frequent modern meaning applicable to aviation. 😢

This got a bit confusing. So the Russians have their artillery shooting all day since the Cossacks repelled the vanguard. But the horse crowds(? - mob/troops/people) have dug trenches and shooting with cannons at the Russians? Or did the Russian dig trenches and "they met the troops from the Bukhara and Kyrgyz with strong cannon fire"?

You are confused (😜). Bukhara army consisted of 5,000 sarbazes (infantry and I even provided a painting from the late XIX) and 35,000 cavalry (which was acting in a disorderly fashion). Infantry with the cannons, judging by a quoted report, formed a center protected by some obstacles. The Russians, being an attacking side, dig nothing: they just kept advancing and shooting.

Report talks first about the trenches (окопы) and then about “zavals” (obstacles made out of the trees, bushes and whatever other available materials capable to stop or slow down the attacker). Besides a general idea that Bukhara infantry somehow fortified its position, I can’t say if there were both types of obstacles or one of them.

The Russian advance column met enemy’s cavalry with the cannon and rifle fire, repelled it and kept advancing and shooting toward the enemy’s center because the sarbazes were the only part of Bukhara army with at least some notion of a discipline and training.

Themselves.

Oops: in the original there was a name of the commanding officer which I removed and forgot to change single to plural. Anyway, the second column consisted of the Cossacks and artillery.

Plus too many commas. "The second column formed from the Cossacks with artillery support proved themselves by quickly occupying one enemy position after another."

I loved this, made me think of Saddam's propaganda officer though it was not the same situation. Here it's a beautiful don't sell the hide of the bear before you killed and skinned it.

The report is real including the letter.

I did some editing which hopefully makes report less confusing. To be honest, the original is somewhat confusing to me and the same applies to quite a few reports regarding the victories over the “Asians” including the Ottomans. However, one thing is reasonably clear: all these big mounted mobs had been lacking a discipline and elementary military organization. They could not maneuver and they could not even fire efficiently. As a result, even much smaller well-organized opponent could beat them. This was happening in Russia during various uprisings (Bashkirs, Pugachev, etc.), this was happening during the conquest of Turkestan and as far as I can tell, the British colonial experience in India was not too different.


Needless to say that in OTL the Russians were advancing from a direction opposite to one ITTL.

 

[alexmilman]

107. Bukhara (part 1)



[Actually, at that time Bukhara was still a khanate, it became an emirate only in 1785 when after the death of Atalyk Daniyal-biya and a puppet khan Abulgazi, the country began to be ruled by Atalyk’s eldest son, Shahmurad, who assumed this title.]

General background. Battle of Irjar was the first military confrontation with Bukhara. Prior to this relations had been relatively peaceful and while the rulers of Bukhara were quite reluctant to allow the Russian (or any other “infidel”) merchants on their territory, this did not apply to the Muslim subject of the Russian Empire. In turn, the merchants from Bukhara had been permitted to trade on the Russian territory and even maintained a big karavan-saray in Orenburg.

Bukhara has established ties with India, Afghanistan, Iran, China. Trade caravans loaded with goods of Bukhara production were sent to these states: cotton fabrics, plush, paper, horse saddles, weapons, fruits. Some caravans consisted of several hundred heads of camels. Foreign merchants came to the cities of Samarkand and Bukhara. There were even separate mahallas in Bukhara where merchants from India lived. They traded in fabrics, paints, spices, medicines and sugar.

The Turkmens had been selling their famous Akhal-Teke “golden” horse called Argamaks (divine or Sacred Horses) by the Russians and heavenly horses in ancient China.

Trade was also conducted with the population of the Russian vassals in the Kazakh steppes, which supplied Bukhara residents with the cattle and livestock products, and production of the local artisans, especially clothes made of a dyed sheepskin which were the most popular in the Bukhara markets.

However, the trade relations were only a part of the whole picture and another part was religion. Population of the Emirate was quite religious, both Bukhara and Samarkand had numerous medreses and the ulema played a very important role, hence a prohibition for the “infidels” to enter “The Noble Bukhara” and other restrictive measures for the non-Muslims.

Appearance of the “infidels” so close to the Emirate’s borders triggered a wave of the religious enthusiasm, which forced Emir to arrest the Russian diplomatic mission (well, to be fair, being sent by an obscure general, this mission had been lacking any diplomatic credentials) and then to march into the Kokand territory.

When the Emir arrived to Bukhara after the battle of Irjar, he was met by a hostile crowd accusing him of defeat. The Ulemas demanded to start a war, but the Emir hesitated and did not dare to do so. Then at the general council, the Ulemas opposed the Emir openly and declared him unworthy to occupy the throne of "great Tamerlane". Having left the capital, the Emir hoped to find support among the people, but this did not happen and in the end he had no choice but to declare a gazavat alone (Khiva and Afghanistan refused to fight against the Russian Empire and Kokand was on the last stages of its existence). He demanded from Russia evacuation of the conquered territory (historically, Kokand was a part of the Khanate of Bukhara), confiscated the property of the “Russian” merchants living in Bukhara (Muslim subjects of the Russian Empire) and kept under arrest the Russian mission sent for negotiations to Bukhara (of course, after this had been done, the Russians chose to consider the “mission” sent by Chernyaev as being a legitimate diplomatic mission).

This course of actions was considered by the Russian authorities as an extreme arrogance which could not be let unpunished.

Intermission. After Kokand had been dealt with, Rumyantsev had been recalled to Moscow. He was promoted to fieldmarshal and appointed governor-general of Malorossia [1] where he inherited the huge estates. Most of the troops initially engaged in the Dzungar wars and then in conquest of Kokand continued their march to the European Russia: it did not look like the regional military affairs are warranting a major Russian military presence. Operational leadership of the remaining troops had been assigned to Adjutant-General Nikolai Andreevich Kryzhanovsky who was also made governor-general of Orenburg (Perovsky, after his successful campaign in Kokand, was promoted to a full general and made a member of the Council of the State [2] ).

Taking of Ura-Tube. The Russian troops were ordered to concentrate Khojent, and the Bukhara ambassador was ordered to pay an indemnity within 10 days (which did not happen). On September 20 1748, the detachment marched from Khojent to the Bukhara fortress of Ura-Tube. This fortress, located on the northern slope of the Kashgar-Davan snow ridge, was a key point of defense of the Bukhara emirate in the valley of the Syr-Darya River.

The detachment that marched to Ura-tube had 20.5 infantry companies, 5 hundred Cossacks, 24 guns, and 4 mortars - a total of about 4,000 people. The head of the detachment was General Romanovsky supervised by Kryzhanovsky who recently arrived from Orenburg [3].

The siege started on September 27 1748. From the detachment two infantry companies had been blocking the road to Jizzakh and two more had been securing the road to Khojent.

It was planned to lay trenches and breach the walls by artillery fire on the night of September 29-30. On the 30th, the planners expected to break through the gaps, and storm the city at dawn on October 1. To attack the fortress walls from the south, at the suggestion of supporters of the assault ladders, two columns of two companies each were formed; the third column, also of two companies, with artillery, was to storm the city from the northeast, through a breach in the wall. All three columns were ordered to move to the assault at the same time, at the signal of the head of the third column, not before the artillery penetration.

The first two columns met a very strong resistance but the column that attacked the breach met almost none. Ot passed through the gap without losses and overturned the enemy units that met her behind the wall. Its commander sent part of his troops to the second breach and the rest along the western face of the wall where they captured 4 guns. As a result, in half an hour all three columns seized the walls and entered the city. After them, reserve troops entered the city. Residents stubbornly defended themselves on the streets, shooting and hand-to-hand combat in tight space threatened the Russians with heavy losses.
However, part of the reserves formed a separate column and when the main attack started, it broke the wall with a fire of its artillery and its sappers leveled the breach allowing to move the light artillery into the city and attack the defenders from the rear. [4] The Ura-Tube garrison fled, and the cavalry was sent to pursue it. The cavalry managed to block the path of retreat and cut down the bulk of the Bukhara.

The trophies during the capture consisted of: 4 banners, 16 guns (including one two-pood mortar), 16 pack guns, many muskets, large stocks of gunpowder and other ammunition. The losses on the part of Bukhara were large: there were at least 2,000 bodies left in the city and its environs.

The losses of the Russians were: 3 officers and 14 lower ranks were killed; wounded: 1 officer and 102 lower ranks; concussed: 6 officers, 101 lower ranks. A total of 10 officers and 217 lower ranks. [5]

_________
[1] This was the name of his official position in OTL so if somebody, based upon the modern history, is unhappy all complaints should be addressed to Catherine II. 😜
[2] As in OTL.
[3] The whole command structure looks weird because from a detailed description of the operation it is anything but clear who was responsible for what except that Romanovsky got credit for taking the fortress.
[4] In a report the attacking columns are multiplying as the rabbits: the plan mentions 3 of them, then one more appears out of a nowhere (one attacking at the rear) and then there is one more taking the Northern gates (this one I skipped). How the forth column managed to break the walls by starting shooting when the main attack began I have no clue: a spirit of general Kryzhanovsky refused to comment on wiki’s text (not that I blame him). 😜
[5] How could this happen in a fight involving a hand-to-hand combat and various nasty things being thrown from the walls I have no idea.

 

[Hastings]

I get the decided feeling that some generals are massaging the casualties downward and their contribution upward! Like, they are clearly winning, but hopefully the Tsar is smart enough to guess that the Russians are not actually space marines with plot armor.

It was interesting reading about the OTL campaigns in the 1800s on Wikipedia. Like the Khivan campaign of 1839. Loved the little footnote on the English version about the minor contradiction between the 600 claimed dead of disease and the 1050 dead overall claimed, keeping in mind that officially the Russians repulsed the Khivan attack with just 5 dead. I guess the other 450 died of depression at seeing how incompetent the Khivans were and how there was no hope of a real fight🤣?

Battle of Zerabulak was really impressive, Russians managed to get a chunk of their forces surrounded, but managed to rescue them with just 17 wounded. Also congratulations to the Bukharan infantry "defending itself according to all the rules." Unlucky for them that Russian solders are unkillable. Is this any less absurd-sounding in the original Russian alexmilman? Guessing not, since these updates seem to have a gently mocking tone about the official reports.

Like supposedly the Russians achieved far, far better casualty ratios than British in their Central Asian adventures. The British lost 1800 combat deaths in their successful Afghan War (the 2nd one). I am suspicious about the idea that the Russians shortly after the Crimean War were an order of magnitude more competent than the British. Conversely, I don't think Khiva, Bukhara were a magnitude more incompetent than the Afghans, given they somehow had managed to make it to the late 1800s without the Afghans accidently conquering them in a minor border raid. Less competent, yes, but not that much.

 

[alexmilman]

I get the decided feeling that some generals are massaging the casualties downward and their contribution upward!

Yes, for example certain Napoleon Bonaparte, George Patton and probably most of the rest. What is worse, even most of their subordinates were probably inclined to do the same. Except for the cases when the big losses are confused with a good generalship (sorry, forgot precise text by Montgomery). 😂

Like, they are clearly winning, but hopefully the Tsar is smart enough to guess that the Russians are not actually space marines with plot armor.

AFAIK, these reports usually had been received and everybody involved had been properly awarded. Look, if you are going to start analyzing the military reports throughout the history, you’ll find ‘miracles’ like these all over the place so they were mostly probably had been taken for granted because their publication was good for the public morale. For example, we do know that the Ottomans’ numbers had been routinely grossly exaggerated since they became an “European factor” and the same goes for their losses.

Anyway, the French public had been swallowing Nappy’s reports about his and enemy’s losses for years and later the presumably serious military historians had been repeating these numbers all the way to the XX century.

The Old Fritz was if not in the same league then close enough: he kept ‘upgrading’ the Russian losses at Zorndorf 2 or 3 times (the poor Russians would run out of an army) and probably was doing the same in other cases, etc.

It was interesting reading about the OTL campaigns in the 1800s on Wikipedia. Like the Khivan campaign of 1839. Loved the little footnote on the English version about the minor contradiction between the 600 claimed dead of disease and the 1050 dead overall claimed, keeping in mind that officially the Russians repulsed the Khivan attack with just 5 dead. I guess the other 450 died of depression at seeing how incompetent the Khivans were and how there was no hope of a real fight🤣?

Well, this definitely could be the case: being depraved of a military glory could be very damaging to professional military. 😂

Battle of Zerabulak was really impressive, Russians managed to get a chunk of their forces surrounded, but managed to rescue them with just 17 wounded. Also congratulations to the Bukharan infantry "defending itself according to all the rules." Unlucky for them that Russian solders are unkillable. Is this any less absurd-sounding in the original Russian alexmilman? Guessing not, since these updates seem to have a gently mocking tone about the official reports.

I have to disappoint you. There is nothing about “all rules” in the Russian version but there is a remark about the Russian artillery outranging one of the Bukhara army causing considerable losses. You should keep in mind that Bukhara army hardly was a regular European style army and could easily panic.

Actually, thanks to you I found an old book which mentions the battle (notice that it uses “loss”, not “wounded”) and contains some useful insights. Unfortunately, conversion into EPUB is absolutely terrible:
“The development of the offensive element in troops is the first condition of success in Asiatic warfare. In point of fact, no matter how many Asiatics there may be, they will evade the attack of the smallest column if it only acts with boldness; the sight of charge bayonets,^' and cries of hurrah ! produce a strong impression upon the enemy, and force him, as a rule, to seek safety in flight.
But the proneness of the Turkestan battalions to move straight from the position with the bayonet, despising the co-operation of skirmishers and artillery, has sometimes cost them dearly, and may endanger the success of the enterprise. In the engagement at Zerabulak on the 2nd June 1868, one of our battalions, dashing forward impetuously with the bayonet, was surrounded and so hidden by the dense crowds of the enemy, that the division of artillery in rear, being unable to distinguish it, dared not fire canister at these masses ; but luckily the galant companies made a fresh charge with the bayonet and opened a road for themselves, defeating the enemy with a loss of 15 men.
Of course the defeat of such a foe as the Bokhariots is not difficult ; …”

“In order to secure a decisive victory, it is by no means sufficient to put the enemy to flight ; it is necessary to inflict such loss upon him, that he cannot quickly recover from it ; and this is possible only by a heavy fire. Hence the reason that the most convenient order for our infantry is an extended front, even without a chain of skirmishers, as this formation gives a greater extent of fire, and at the same time, owing to the little steadiness of the enemy, is quite close enough for a good bayonet charge.”

Here is from the different one:
“The superiority of the discipline, organization, and armament of the Russians over that of the enemy is so great that, no matter how numerous the latter may be, the atcainment of success in the field, provided the dispositions be skilful, is no difficult matter. The troops, burning with the desire to measure swords with the enemy, seek only to get at him ; it is not the encounter that they fear, but the possibility that the enemy may elude them. Ill-success, it is plain, can never be their fate (!) The fire of the skirmishers, the sight of the fixed bayonets, the roll of the drum, and the mighty cries of “ Hurrah !” produce a disturbing effect on Central Asiatics, and constrain them to seek safety in flight. Owing to the absence of all steadiness in the enemy, the tactics of the Russians in Turkestan are peculiar. An attack is seldom prepared by skirmishers or artillery fire. Artillery sometimes remains either with no escort at all or a very weak one; if attacked, it can defend itself. Cavalry has been known to storm fortified points ; infantry charges hostile cavalry. Neither numerical superiority, nor strong positions, nor high walls —nothing in fact saves the enemy from the handful of Russian troops who dash manfully at the foe (!)
The disregard of tactical rules and the exclusive employment of the charge have more than once called down the condemnation of the critics of Central Asian campaigns. The Russian troops have been reproached for dashing too boldly at the foe without previously preparing the attack by artillery fire, often leaving that arm in rear. The critics say that such neglect of funda- mental tactical principles may have an unfavourable influence on the training of troops, and this influence in its turn may be perniciously reflected in Euro- pean campaigns. This criticism is partly justified, but, on the other hand, in the majority of cases the Russian troops were right. What is the use of thinking about the preparation of the attack with artillery fire when the enemy is preparing to bolt, and will not give the infantry the chance of coming up with him? “


As a side notice, the bayonet charges against the enemy not used to them and often not having the bayonets, was a big part of the Swedish success formula during the GNW and even the Russian infantry of 1700 was better trained than the infantry of Bukhara (which, BTW, did not have the bayonets to start with).

Like supposedly the Russians achieved far, far better casualty ratios than British in their Central Asian adventures. The British lost 1800 combat deaths in their successful Afghan War (the 2nd one). I am suspicious about the idea that the Russians shortly after the Crimean War were an order of magnitude more competent than the British. Conversely, I don't think Khiva, Bukhara were a magnitude more incompetent than the Afghans, given they somehow had managed to make it to the late 1800s without the Afghans accidently conquering them in a minor border raid. Less competent, yes, but not that much.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on both accounts. First, the Russian troops fighting in the CA had been staying in the area for many years and knew it and their opponents “intimately” while the Brits had been invading a relatively unknown territory and a much more hostile one than oasises of the CA.

Second, the Afghans had a much greater reputation as the warriors then the Uzbeks. Specifically, wherever I looked the Emir’s army was getting very low estimates in quality of both troops and weapons.

Turkmens were a slightly different story but they were predominantly the horsemen and (in)efficiency of the irregular cavalry against the regular army hardly was in question after the battle at the Pyramides.

The losses in some battles of the 2nd Afghan War (Brits on the left):

6 killed, 18 wounded

200 killed (Estimate)

18 killed, 70 wounded[1]

Over 300 killed[1]

17 dead 124 wounded [1]

Estimated 2,000–3,000 killed[2]

4 killed, 34 wounded[1]

c. 100[2]–200 killed[1]

100 killed 218 wounded

1,000 killed 2,000 wounded

Zerabulak

от 38[1][2] до 63 раненых и убитых (38-63 killed and wounded)

от 3,5[3] до 10 тысяч убитых (between 3.5 and 10,000 killed)

Not outrageously different if we take the lowest estimate for the Bukhara army (which is most probably exaggerated).

 

[Hastings]

That makes sense. I guess part of what is likely going on is that for the major European battles, there is lots of research on what the actual losses were. Like Napoleon claimed to have lost roughly 5,000 men at Wagram, when it was at least 25,000 (I personally think it was about 40,000 from when I looked into it). Then take into account that enemy casualties are often overreported. In a battle in Turkistan, those numbers probably largely get taken at face value. Very easy for a crushing victory, albeit one with a moderate amount of casualties, to turn into Pizarro vs the Incas numbers.

I wouldn't have a problem believing the Russians lost, say 50 dead, and a couple hundred wounded versus 2,000 Bukharan dead and thousands more wounded, which would be pretty in line with British Afghan numbers and other one-sided colonial battles (defeat of Zulus was 30-to-1 casualty ratio, Omdurman was 90-1, though that is not quite fair since it involved mass charges at Maxim machine guns), though those may well be exaggerated too (though British seem to have been pretty restrained with the fudging generally). Doesn't seem implausible after assuming fudging down of own casualties (convert dead to casualties and the wounded into noncausalities) and up of enemy (2-4X is good as a rule of thumb, enough to be impressive, but not so much as to be ludicrous on its face). That basic approach to calculating casualties is quite common straight to the modern day and is still annoying for trying to figure out the real toll.

Also, I'm sorry about sending you down a rabbit hole with the "all the rules" comment! Though I suppose you (or any of us) would not be on this site if we didn't like going down those rabbit holes!

 

[alexmilman]

That makes sense. I guess part of what is likely going on is that for the major European battles, there is lots of research on what the actual losses were. Like Napoleon claimed to have lost roughly 5,000 men at Wagram, when it was at least 25,000 (I personally think it was about 40,000 from when I looked into it). Then take into account that enemy casualties are often overreported. In a battle in Turkistan, those numbers probably largely get taken at face value. Very easy for a crushing victory, albeit one with a moderate amount of casualties, to turn into Pizarro vs the Incas numbers.

I wouldn't have a problem believing the Russians lost, say 50 dead, and a couple hundred wounded versus 2,000 Bukharan dead and thousands more wounded, which would be pretty in line with British Afghan numbers and other one-sided colonial battles (defeat of Zulus was 30-to-1 casualty ratio, Omdurman was 90-1, though that is not quite fair since it involved mass charges at Maxim machine guns), though those may well be exaggerated too (though British seem to have been pretty restrained with the fudging generally). Doesn't seem implausible after assuming fudging down of own casualties (convert dead to casualties and the wounded into noncausalities) and up of enemy (2-4X is good as a rule of thumb, enough to be impressive, but not so much as to be ludicrous on its face). That basic approach to calculating casualties is quite common straight to the modern day and is still annoying for trying to figure out the real toll.

Also, I'm sorry about sending you down a rabbit hole with the "all the rules" comment! Though I suppose you (or any of us) would not be on this site if we didn't like going down those rabbit holes!

To start from the end, I already thanked you for that “rabbit hole”: as a result I found a XIX century book which contained a meaningful explanation of how and why the things were done and sheds some light on the Russian casualties (unfortunately this site contains photo copies of the old books making even browsing quite difficult and conversion pf a download makes a resulting text practically unreadable).

Of course, the BS related to the numbers and losses existed forever: Delbruck made his name debunking the “everybody knows” huge numbers starting from the Greek-Persian wars. Nappy aside, AFAIK, it was more or less an European tradition to exaggerate the “Asiatic” numbers and the Russians were not an exception. In the cases like the CA a contributing factor was unreliability of the enemy’s troops. The initial size of an army could be reasonably well known and it could be evaluated how many troops a defeated opponent had left but the rest could quite well simply flee and never return because they would just go to their homes or form the small looting bands or whatever.

On the victorious side reports of the big enemy’s losses would be greeted and, anyway, who, how and why would go to check them? A top commander would receive reports from his subordinates giving their assessments, sum them up (probably adding his own ideas) and send the results up the chain of command to the people who even were not anywhere close to the battlefield. They would be looking for the “heroic” episodes (bayonet charges, taking enemy’s guns, etc.) and a list of those deserving an award with a short description of a reason.

 

[dunHozzie]

At the end of the first step of the march to the wells of Murza Rabat, when there were still about 20 versts left before Irjar, the Cossacks forced to retreat the first groups of Bukhara cavalry at dawn; Russian artillery also began to operate and did not stop fire from that moment until the very end of the battle.

This is 1 sentence. Perhaps: "First contact was made at dawn about 20 versts before Irjar at the end of the first leg of the march to the wells of Murza Raba. Here the first groups of Bukhara cavalry were forced to retreat by the Cossacks and this signaled the start of hostilities for the artillery, that did not stop firing from the moment they set up to the very end of the battle.

You are confused (😜). Bukhara army consisted of 5,000 sarbazes (infantry and I even provided a painting from the late XIX) and 35,000 cavalry (which was acting in a disorderly fashion). Infantry with the cannons, judging by a quoted report, formed a center protected by some obstacles. The Russians, being an attacking side, dig nothing: they just kept advancing and shooting.

Ahhh, that makes sense. So does the edit. Thanks!

And yes the victors write the history. That story is older than time.