Ottoman victory in 1877-78 :effects on Russia ?

Now Pasha had done this thread, but that thread had become to dragged off the main topic. Still a good thread though.

However I think we need a thread reserved specifically to discussed this topic.

Say, for whatever reason Ottomans managed to fend off Russian invasion. This will going to shake Russian polity for a quite, with losing to the under-credited Ottomans. It has been discussed about in the previous Pasha's thread, but we didn't go teribly in depth about Russia in that thread. I'd really like to know to where a defeat in their 1877-78 invasion into Ottoman Empire will bring them to. How will it change the internal nature, and how will it effect the later internal and external policies etc.
 
Now Pasha had done this thread, but that thread had become to dragged off the main topic. Still a good thread though.

However I think we need a thread reserved specifically to discussed this topic.

Say, for whatever reason Ottomans managed to fend off Russian invasion. This will going to shake Russian polity for a quite, with losing to the under-credited Ottomans. It has been discussed about in the previous Pasha's thread, but we didn't go teribly in depth about Russia in that thread. I'd really like to know to where a defeat in their 1877-78 invasion into Ottoman Empire will bring them to. How will it change the internal nature, and how will it effect the later internal and external policies etc.

Off the top of what people call my head, I am guessing that a defeat would serve to discredit the current system of government and could set off a period of liberal agitation with proto-revolutionary overtones. Things also won't be great in Poland, and though probably not immediately you could certainly expect to see another Polish rising at some time, perhaps looking towards the example of Austria-Hungary for a proper dual monarchy (not Alexander I's ill-fated example)

Its also a time of naval experimentation and if the OTL victories have occurred then it may be that instead of building a tradition fleet going forwards the modernists, who will be trying to drag the army into the current age, would get their way with the navy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Its also a time of naval experimentation and if the OTL victories have occurred then it may be that instead of building a tradition fleet going forwards the modernists, who will be trying to drag the army into the current age, would get their way with the navy

Sorry but what do you mean by the bolded part ?
 
By the way, by this time did expansion into Central Asia already reach Bukhara ?

Also I'd like to examine how their later foreign policies will be effected. Will the restructuring of the internal system inhabit their progress elsewhere ? For example....

I am also interested on how other parties will take on Russia's defeat. I know that European countries will later put Russia below Ottoman Empire in their ranking list, but I wonder about Asian countries. How will they interpret the result of the war, or whether they even care....
 
By the way, by this time did expansion into Central Asia already reach Bukhara ?

Also I'd like to examine how their later foreign policies will be effected. Will the restructuring of the internal system inhabit their progress elsewhere ? For example....

I am also interested on how other parties will take on Russia's defeat. I know that European countries will later put Russia below Ottoman Empire in their ranking list, but I wonder about Asian countries. How will they interpret the result of the war, or whether they even care....

A few years later Britain suffered defeat at the hands of the Boers, but it didn't impact greatly on her prestige or place in the world. I don't think Russia would be so quickly downgraded in international eyes, not least because of the Ottoman empire's Muslim nature, which meant many would always think of it as the least of modern powers.

As for Asia, I'm not really sure who would be impacted? China would be closest but is hardly a well power, whilst Japan who would later clash with Russia is only really just building up now - she might be inclined to try something on Sakhalin or the Kurils earlier

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Ottoman win in 1877 will cause a slight loss of face and the Russians deciding to re-examine themselves; losing to what one of their tsars called a sick man is not fun.
 
I would expect some form of revolution to result. The humiliating struggle with Japan had the same effect after all.

But 1905 occured after decades of rapid social change and rising economic tensions; factors not nearly so evident in 1878. I would expect the consequences to more closely resemble those of the Crimea.
 
1) A few years later Britain suffered defeat at the hands of the Boers, but it didn't impact greatly on her prestige or place in the world. I don't think Russia would be so quickly downgraded in international eyes, not least because of the Ottoman empire's Muslim nature, which meant many would always think of it as the least of modern powers.

2) As for Asia, I'm not really sure who would be impacted? China would be closest but is hardly a well power, whilst Japan who would later clash with Russia is only really just building up now - she might be inclined to try something on Sakhalin or the Kurils earlier

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

1) Boers were not known as people of sickmen, also they were European-descended white Christians.

Of course, European powers won't going to raise Ottomans' bar even after the victory, just that they will be baffled by Russia's poor performance against what they actually call a sickman. Though I won't be so pessimistic that people will later immediately re-examine Sickman label attach to the OE....

2) This part certainly hasn't been mapped out thouroughly. They maybe didn't care, but there has been no single evidence confirming it.
 
1) Boers were not known as people of sickmen, also they were European-descended white Christians.
True but they weren't even a proper state with a proper army, just a bunch of ragtag farmers. No major cities, not much territory or industry from what I remember and they still held out for a fair while. If the Russians lose against the Ottomans who even as the 'sick man of Europe' are at least an established European state then I think it would play out similarly to the British taking so long and many casualties to subdue the Boers. Without even the figleaf of eventual victory I think there'd be more consequences but not the scale some have predicted in similar threads in the past.
 
1) Boers were not known as people of sickmen, also they were European-descended white Christians.

Of course, European powers won't going to raise Ottomans' bar even after the victory, just that they will be baffled by Russia's poor performance against what they actually call a sickman. Though I won't be so pessimistic that people will later immediately re-examine Sickman label attach to the OE....

2) This part certainly hasn't been mapped out thouroughly. They maybe didn't care, but there has been no single evidence confirming it.

Not sure what your Point 2 is in reference to - China, Japan etc or something else?

Foreign-policy wise, of course, a set back in Europe for Russia often means a focus on East Asia instead, so you might actually see a more aggressive stance out East, a building up of Vladivostock and the stationing of a force out there

IIRC Russia took de facto control of Sinkiang for a while, but I can't recall when it evacuated all of it - IIRC it held onto Kashgaria longer, and maybe it still has it at this juncture? If so, maybe it never gives it back

I've got a headache

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Foreign-policy wise, of course, a set back in Europe for Russia often means a focus on East Asia instead, so you might actually see a more aggressive stance out East, a building up of Vladivostock and the stationing of a force out there.
If they build up Vladivoatok and station more troops out there might we logically expect to see an earlier start to the trans-Siberian and more resources put into it? Not knowing anything about railway building I've got no idea of if building a double track, one going in each direction, is automatically twice as expensive as a single track one or if there are some savings. Either way more troops in Siberia could make any future Russo-Japanese wars interesting.
 
If they build up Vladivoatok and station more troops out there might we logically expect to see an earlier start to the trans-Siberian and more resources put into it? Not knowing anything about railway building I've got no idea of if building a double track, one going in each direction, is automatically twice as expensive as a single track one or if there are some savings. Either way more troops in Siberia could make any future Russo-Japanese wars interesting.

I imagine it would cost more simply because you have to use twice as much raw material, and either twice as much time or twice as much labour, or a combination thereof. You probably make some percentage saving in that you're blasting one bigger cutting, laying one bigger trackbed, rather than doing two of each, but I imagine it won't be far off twice as much.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Gah, of course the main costs are going to for things like raw materials and labour. So unless they decide to invest really heavily in the railway, and in our timeline it was already pretty expensive, the best you could really hope for is probably starting earlier and taking less time to complete.
 
Top