Plausibility Check: An Expanded Crimean War

[Athena]

Since I graduated last year, I have had this idea for a timeline based on a Crimean War which continued on for longer and ultimately leads to Russia losing its Great Power status.

My primary sources for my work, and now this timeline Winfried Baumgarts was mainly “The Crimean War 1853 - 1856” by Winfred Baumgart, “Alexander II” by Edward Radzinskij and“The origins of the Crimean war” av David M Goldfrank.

I don't claim to be a pro historian and I am fully open to admitting if I get stuff wrong, I'll always gladly learn more about history

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The point of divergence will be that Czar Nicholas whom OTL died of a cold because he refused to seek medical help, instead he does and goes on to live a bit longer. Unlike his more moderate son, he refuses to believe that the war is being lost, even when his generals desperately plead towards him to stop. In OTL from what I have read, Nicholas seemed to have believed more in his version of reality than the one around him. For example he kept asking the british to aid in "putting down" the sick man of Europe and fully believed to have their support when he in reality didn't. In this timeline he retreats into himself, unable to see that the nation around him is collapsing.

As 1856 progresses, Prussia and Austria alongside Sweden, all three nations whom had been in negotiations with the British - French Alliance decides to join in on the war in exchange for territorial or other concessions. Sweden for example will receive Åland and the western coast/half of Finland with the largest contingents of swedish speakers and Helsinki. Prussia will take parts of Poland and establish a Polish puppet state and Austria mainly wants to create a buffer between Russia and itself.

As Serf Revolts, whom had heard of rumours about freedom following the war/service in the military grow in number. More and more of the Russian army has to be deployed for internal policing. Ultimately a coalition of Nobles assasinates Nicholas as he still refused to see reality. Alexander II is elected Czar and is literally forced to the negotiation table. Besides the abovementioned demands, Crimea is "demilitarized" and Sevastopol is turned over to international control like several other cities had been in the Wien Congress across Europe. Russia is still allowed to keep some of its territories gained in the Caucasus but has to cede border territories in the Balkan to the Ottomans and pay heavy reparations.

Napoleon the III dream of redrawing the European borders becomes a big theme of the peace conference as eastern Europe is carved up into small buffer states or ceded to the Prusso-Austrian nations. Alaska is also ceded to the UK and becomes integrated in their North American/Canadian colony.

OTL Alexander II once becoming Czar commissioned an investigation into the nations resources and stability. It turned out that Russia was on the verge of bankrupcy. They had no real infrastructure to transport any troops, relying on carriages that sometimes never got to the front. Their ammunition stores were depleted, they had almost no production of it either and the use exceeded the production several times over. This is worse in this timeline and widespread starvation has started breaking out by spring of 1857 with too few farmers and high unrest.

Ultimately peace is achieved, but Alexander II tries to press for the freedoms of serfs in this timeline aswell. OTL he managed but at a heavy compromise with the conservative nobles, in this timeline they already fear losing their power enough and refuses even more. Alexander doesn't back down and is ultimately assasinated.

Alexander III gets a short reign but is also ultimately assasinated, however this time by a group of more liberal moderate nobles who through the ideals of the French Revolution believes that the only way for Russia to restore itself is through revolution. Instead of a new Czar being elected, power is turned over to a conclave of Nobles who rule with a weak unofficial heir on the throne. Eventually the liberalminded nobles gather serfs around the country and demands their freedom causing a Russian Civil War that ends in the establishment of the weak, oligarchic but "democratic" Russian Republic.

Gradually the Republic slowly drags itself up from the ashes and try to industrialize and liberalize. At first no real democracy exists however as most people are still illiterate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Anyways this was my short summary. I mostly wanted to post this and ask what you think, is it bullshit? Would it work? Is it realistic in some matter? For example Sweden despite everything wouldn't be able to reconquer all of Finland but if Russia faced against basically every major european power, I doubt they would be able to come away without ceding some.

Anywho, looking forward to your feedback

 

[avernite]

Some remarks:

1) I don't think even a Russian Czar can mess things up so obviously and so totally; this is not WW1 where you can collapse your nation around yourself because you expect your allies to save your bacon (since Russia basically had none). So I expect Russia to cave VERY soon after Sweden, Prussia, OR Austria declares war.
2) If they were to win, I'm not sure the wargoals for Prussia and Austria are quite logical; I'd sooner think Austria would ask for a bigger slice of the Danubian pie (they'll be competing with the Ottomans and everyone else, but well, the Ottomans are basically asking), and Prussia might be more interested in the Germanophile Baltic than in yet more Poles (not entirely sure how; they might prefer them as independent states in the Prussian orbit).

 

[Athena]

Some remarks:

1) I don't think even a Russian Czar can mess things up so obviously and so totally; this is not WW1 where you can collapse your nation around yourself because you expect your allies to save your bacon (since Russia basically had none). So I expect Russia to cave VERY soon after Sweden, Prussia, OR Austria declares war.
2) If they were to win, I'm not sure the wargoals for Prussia and Austria are quite logical; I'd sooner think Austria would ask for a bigger slice of the Danubian pie (they'll be competing with the Ottomans and everyone else, but well, the Ottomans are basically asking), and Prussia might be more interested in the Germanophile Baltic than in yet more Poles (not entirely sure how; they might prefer them as independent states in the Prussian orbit).

Thanks!

1. Is a good point, would a peace like the one I proposed work even if the war didn't go on for much longer? Ignoring all the "post war" things about revolution etc that happened.

2. I agree, my main reason for Austria not wanting much was that they at the time had severe problems with ethnic tensions. Russia had to step in to even prevent the hungarians from revolting a few years prior but Balkan/Danubian territory probably still makes sense. My idea for a "Prussian" Poland was more that it would be sort of a Prussian dominated rump state with most of its territory going to Prussia proper and mainly act as a buffer. I didn't want to cede too much but Ukraine and the baltic states, how likely would it be for any of them to gain independence/made into client states?

 

[alexmilman]

Since I graduated last year, I have had this idea for a timeline based on a Crimean War which continued on for longer and ultimately leads to Russia losing its Great Power status.

My primary sources for my work, and now this timeline Winfried Baumgarts was mainly “The Crimean War 1853 - 1856” by Winfred Baumgart, “Alexander II” by Edward Radzinskij and“The origins of the Crimean war” av David M Goldfrank.

I don't claim to be a pro historian and I am fully open to admitting if I get stuff wrong, I'll always gladly learn more about history

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The point of divergence will be that Czar Nicholas whom OTL died of a cold because he refused to seek medical help, instead he does and goes on to live a bit longer. Unlike his more moderate son, he refuses to believe that the war is being lost, even when his generals desperately plead towards him to stop. In OTL from what I have read, Nicholas seemed to have believed more in his version of reality than the one around him. For example he kept asking the british to aid in "putting down" the sick man of Europe and fully believed to have their support when he in reality didn't. In this timeline he retreats into himself, unable to see that the nation around him is collapsing.

As 1856 progresses, Prussia and Austria alongside Sweden, all three nations whom had been in negotiations with the British - French Alliance decides to join in on the war in exchange for territorial or other concessions. Sweden for example will receive Åland and the western coast/half of Finland with the largest contingents of swedish speakers and Helsinki. Prussia will take parts of Poland and establish a Polish puppet state and Austria mainly wants to create a buffer between Russia and itself.

As Serf Revolts, whom had heard of rumours about freedom following the war/service in the military grow in number. More and more of the Russian army has to be deployed for internal policing. Ultimately a coalition of Nobles assasinates Nicholas as he still refused to see reality. Alexander II is elected Czar and is literally forced to the negotiation table. Besides the abovementioned demands, Crimea is "demilitarized" and Sevastopol is turned over to international control like several other cities had been in the Wien Congress across Europe. Russia is still allowed to keep some of its territories gained in the Caucasus but has to cede border territories in the Balkan to the Ottomans and pay heavy reparations.

Napoleon the III dream of redrawing the European borders becomes a big theme of the peace conference as eastern Europe is carved up into small buffer states or ceded to the Prusso-Austrian nations. Alaska is also ceded to the UK and becomes integrated in their North American/Canadian colony.

OTL Alexander II once becoming Czar commissioned an investigation into the nations resources and stability. It turned out that Russia was on the verge of bankrupcy. They had no real infrastructure to transport any troops, relying on carriages that sometimes never got to the front. Their ammunition stores were depleted, they had almost no production of it either and the use exceeded the production several times over. This is worse in this timeline and widespread starvation has started breaking out by spring of 1857 with too few farmers and high unrest.

Ultimately peace is achieved, but Alexander II tries to press for the freedoms of serfs in this timeline aswell. OTL he managed but at a heavy compromise with the conservative nobles, in this timeline they already fear losing their power enough and refuses even more. Alexander doesn't back down and is ultimately assasinated.

Alexander III gets a short reign but is also ultimately assasinated, however this time by a group of more liberal moderate nobles who through the ideals of the French Revolution believes that the only way for Russia to restore itself is through revolution. Instead of a new Czar being elected, power is turned over to a conclave of Nobles who rule with a weak unofficial heir on the throne. Eventually the liberalminded nobles gather serfs around the country and demands their freedom causing a Russian Civil War that ends in the establishment of the weak, oligarchic but "democratic" Russian Republic.

Gradually the Republic slowly drags itself up from the ashes and try to industrialize and liberalize. At first no real democracy exists however as most people are still illiterate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Anyways this was my short summary. I mostly wanted to post this and ask what you think, is it bullshit? Would it work? Is it realistic in some matter? For example Sweden despite everything wouldn't be able to reconquer all of Finland but if Russia faced against basically every major european power, I doubt they would be able to come away without ceding some.

Anywho, looking forward to your feedback

OK, the BS part definitely includes "group of more liberal moderate nobles" and the related fantasies (too similar to 'the Vera; or, The Nihilists' by Oscar Wilde in a complete divorce from a reality ).

"As Serf Revolts, whom had heard of rumours about freedom following the war/service in the military grow in number." belongs to the above category because Russia of Nicholas I did not have universal military service and a serf taken into an army was a free man after the term of his service was over.

It is absolutely not clear what would cause the mass starvation and the "farmers" had been very rare birds in the Russia of Nicholas I.

Nicholas I was delusional but not insane (is this Radzinski's "contribution")?

At least France was looking for the way out of war by 1856 after the Southern part of Sevastopol was taken: it was too costly and did not serve any further purpose and probably the last thing that Nappy #3 wanted was to give extra territories to Austria and Prussia.

Russia did not own any territories on the Balkans.

Alaska at that time was absolutely worthless (actually, its maintenance as the Russian colony worth money from the budget).

Russian situation was bad but an absence of the infrastructure made any serious invasion quite questionable.

Probably more.

 

[Athena]

OK, the BS part definitely includes "group of more liberal moderate nobles" and the related fantasies (too similar to 'the Vera; or, The Nihilists' by Oscar Wilde in a complete divorce from a reality ).

"As Serf Revolts, whom had heard of rumours about freedom following the war/service in the military grow in number." belongs to the above category because Russia of Nicholas I did not have universal military service and a serf taken into an army was a free man after the term of his service was over.

It is absolutely not clear what would cause the mass starvation and the "farmers" had been very rare birds in the Russia of Nicholas I.

Nicholas I was delusional but not insane (is this Radzinski's "contribution")?

At least France was looking for the way out of war by 1856 after the Southern part of Sevastopol was taken: it was too costly and did not serve any further purpose and probably the last thing that Nappy #3 wanted was to give extra territories to Austria and Prussia.

Russia did not own any territories on the Balkans.

Alaska at that time was absolutely worthless (actually, its maintenance as the Russian colony worth money from the budget).

Russian situation was bad but an absence of the infrastructure made any serious invasion quite questionable.

Probably more.

Feels bad that there was so much but let me atleast try to clarify my ideals. Also, regardless the talk about "revolution etc" can be mainly ignored as my main idea surrounds the war itself and its aftermath.

The Serf Revolts if I didn't misread was more that there was this idea that after the war, the serfs would gain their freedom. Usually a serf had to serve in the army for decades (if I am not wrong) normally to achieve freedom. And this spurred already growing unrest caused by forced drafts. Over the years the Russian government did draft large numbers of serfs which caused shortages in farming etc. It was one of the reason it started becoming hard to keep the war going by 1856 due to serfs revolting and too few farmers to go around. My idea but idk if it would be true was that a continued war would lead to this but like the rest of the "long term" post war stuff, I will ignore for now as that was mainly my own.

I didn't mean to say Nicholas I was insane. My idea was more that he deluded himself into thinking that the war was still going in his favour for longer, making an entry of Prussia, Austria and Sweden possible before the war was over. There wouldn't really be an "invasion" of Russia itself, mostly it would be the international pressure from so many Great Powers actively going against Russia that would lead towards them seeking peace but having to cede a lot more than in OTL. My idea was also that Nicholas III whom had originally really wanted to make big changes to the European map had a renewed ambition from more nations joining in on the war.

The reason britain would take Alaska would also mainly just be prestige/imperialist. There wouldn't be a big push for it but it would be one of the few territorial demands they would make, other than that it would mostly focus on reparations etc.

Though you are right, that peace would favour Prussia and Austria which wouldn't be in France's interest. Atleast it was worth a shot for a first proposal

 

[alexmilman]

Feels bad that there was so much but let me atleast try to clarify my ideals. Also, regardless the talk about "revolution etc" can be mainly ignored as my main idea surrounds the war itself and its aftermath.

The Serf Revolts if I didn't misread was more that there was this idea that after the war, the serfs would gain their freedom.

The expectation was there after the war of 1812 but why would it exist as related to the CW? Unlike 1812, the war was not going on on the truly Russian territory and the serfs had not been involved in any meaningful way.

Usually a serf had to serve in the army for decades (if I am not wrong) normally to achieve freedom.

This was a normal procedure since XVIII century.

And this spurred already growing unrest caused by forced drafts.

Term "forced drafts" does not make too much sense: any draft was "forced" and the CW was not long enough to involve too many of them and each draft involved only a limited percentage of the peasants.

Over the years the Russian government did draft large numbers of serfs which caused shortages in farming etc.

The CW did not last long enough to cause all these problems and percentage of the people drafted usually was low enough not to cause major issues with agricultural production.

It was one of the reason it started becoming hard to keep the war going by 1856 due to serfs revolting and too few farmers to go around.

Personally, I never heard that this was a major reason. Limited capacities of the Russian military industry, yes. International isolation, yes. Financial problems, yes.

I didn't mean to say Nicholas I was insane. My idea was more that he deluded himself into thinking that the war was still going in his favour for longer, making an entry of Prussia, Austria and Sweden possible before the war was over.

Nicholas had illusions prior to the war and became extremely disillusioned in the process ("betrayal" of Austria, etc.).

There wouldn't really be an "invasion" of Russia itself, mostly it would be the international pressure from so many Great Powers actively going against Russia that would lead towards them seeking peace but having to cede a lot more than in OTL. My idea was also that Nicholas III whom had originally really wanted to make big changes to the European map had a renewed ambition from more nations joining in on the war.

More countries going to war hardly was in Nappy's interest because he was losing a domineering position in the coalition and not gaining anything of a real value for himself/France. This is why, when the international pressure on Russia started mounting in 1856, he was quite agreeable to an idea of making peace as soon as the French troops achieved a victory by taking the main Russian fortification forcing them to evacuate Southern part of Sevastopol.

The reason britain would take Alaska would also mainly just be prestige/imperialist. There wouldn't be a big push for it but it would be one of the few territorial demands they would make, other than that it would mostly focus on reparations etc.

Though you are right, that peace would favour Prussia and Austria which wouldn't be in France's interest. Atleast it was worth a shot for a first proposal

Just keep in mind that none of the above would have anything to do with the status of Great Power: Austria did not lose it after being defeated by Prussia (or after being defeated by the French and Italians before that) and France did not lose it after defeat in 1870/71.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

In general, I'd argue that any scenario in which everybody in Europe and their mother dogpiles on one country who hasen't gone *guano* insane and is actively trying to establish absolute hegemony isen't very plausible. There are too many conflicting interests for a coalition of that size and composition to be remotely stable or come to anything resembling a coherent agreement of the post-war situation. For example; I doubt you'll be able to get both Prussia and Austria on the same side, to say nothing of Sardinia-Piedmont co-operating with the Habsburgs. The Ottomans too are likely to be far too leary of Austrian intentions to easily allow them into the coalition and make major gains. If you want a more realistic set of added countries, I'd limit it Sweden and one of the major German states (The later of which, like S-P, joining in to get international prestige and diplomatic brownie points with GB and France to allow for a little more flexibility in their moves to consolidate power in Germany proper in Prussia's case or consolidating hegemony over the Italian penninsula for the Habsburgs, with the other staying neutral), and maybe having S-P also stay neutral and remove the perception of a possible budding alliance between Paris and Turin if its Austria (Maybe with France taking up the cause of German romantic nationalism rather than Italian, siding with one of the secondary semi-Liberal German powers like Bavaria?)

 

[The Gunslinger]

I think that if Sweden and Austria enter the war it just turns into a free for all as everyone smells Russian blood in the water. But Poland will be the kicker here. Does Prussia want more Poles in Prussia, and does Prussia even want an independent Poland? We're in a strange place where everyone is ganging up on Russia and Prussia will want in on the action when the writing is on the wall. Would Prussia be bribed with the Baltics, or better yet, a free hand in northern Germany? Maximilian gets placed on the Polish throne, Moldavia gets Bessarabia, Sweden gets Finland, maybe a Crimean Khanate gets rebuilt, the Ottomans take Circassia and Persia gets retroceded the lands taken from it in the last few Russo-Persian wars. Austria might slice off western Ukraine, but it's tough to say. Would Austria attach Galicia to Poland, or opt to keep it?

Either way you're gearing up for another war in a decade or two. Any detente between Prussia and Austria will just be kicking the can down the road. I think a war between them erupts and Prussia cements itself in Germany, the Hungarians try to go their own way, and Poland switches sides and nabs Galicia. Even with a reinvigorated Ottoman state I still think they're losing the Balkans and Serbia might jump in too if they think can nab anything. Russia is still licking its wounds and sits the whole thing out waiting to see how the dust settles.