If such perfect storm takes place, you can be sure that the Tuileries Palace will resonate with cheers and laughing. It may be as well, that the great victor of the Eurasian War won't be the small Greek Kingdom but France.

That also means a russian victory. If Britain pulls completely out of the war, then the Ottoman Empire will be crushed in a matter of months. If Britain just pulls out the army, but maintains the naval blockade and supports the Ottomans financially, the Russians will prevail but not after an additional campaign season. In the dissertation I posted a few posts before, there was a description of the very low quality ottoman army of the Caucasus. In contrast, the Rumelian Army was a much better force and better lead. Out of 178k men, only 12k were basibozuk irregulars. The problem was that there were extremely few reservists once this army is wasted by a year long campaign and disease (as in OTL). Once this army is attrited, there is almost nothing that can stop the Russians advancing down to Constantinople.

In contrast , the russian standing army before the war had 1,170 million men. By the end of the Crimean War it was expanded at 2,5 million. Granted, Russia could not properly equip all of the expanded army or give them good training. In TTL they dont have to, as the standing army is more than enough. Any reservists can form garrisons, while the field army can use only regulars. Thats a great butterfly due to Austria not heing a factor and France being neutral.


The only non-ASB senario for stalemate in the Balkan Front, I can think off, goes as follows:
- The regular Ottoman field army has a pretty good 1st year of operations and the frontline is kept along the Danube, with its fortresses in ottoman hands.
- A massive british field army takes the brunt of the fighting during the 2nd year, while the Ottomans train a new army with british funds and weapons. At the same time they send only scraps in Caucasus, mostly irregular bands. It goes without saying that the british army has to fight the Russian to a stalemate.
- The new Ottoman army takes the field again in the 3rd year of the war, while the British can maintan their army at the same levels (at least 100k excluding logistics). All and all, it requires more than double the OTL British commitment (40k field army) and lots of luck.


Source: The Russian Army and Foreign Wars, by Gudrun Persson
[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Source: The Russian Army and Foreign Wars, by Gudrun Persson
The Link doesnt work
In contrast , the russian standing army before the war had 1,170 million men. By the end of the Crimean War it was expanded at 2,5 million. Granted, Russia could not properly equip all of the expanded army or give them good training. In TTL they dont have to, as the standing army is more than enough. Any reservists can form garrisons, while the field army can use only regulars. Thats a great butterfly due to Austria not heing a factor and France being neutral.
Actually Given that Austria's participation in the Crimean war and it involvement in it Otl meant that Russia stopped supporting Austria,here since Austria had no part in the conflict the two nations(Russia/Austria) still have good relations and Austria is not dependent on Britain and France

This somewhat changes the Dynamics of Central Europe,The German Empire has been Declared(in a very decentralised model),The Italian confederation has been formed and Hungary has become independent,The Only Viable expansion Path for the Austrians are either Colonies or the ottoman empire

France has gained the Resource Rich region of Wallonia and still has Alcase-Lorraine which will help in its industrialisation And has gone to do its Otl Colonial Ventures,Perhaps here it has already expanded and Modernised its army since that was what Napoleon III wanted to do but didnt manage due to opposition

Russia will manage to win the Crimean war albeit in probably a very blooody fashion and the various nobles and politicians of the Russian empire will see that Russia needs modernisation albeit it will be done in a slower fashion than otl but probably more methodical in its reforms given that it wont have suffered the humiliation of otl

The ottoman empire in otl suffered around 45.000 casualties here given that it figths Russia alone(along with 18.000 british forces) the death toll for the ottomans will be at least double in number given how much diseases killed the soldiers of the otl one and the battlefields that they figth in(the caucasus and the Danube)two very defensible terrains that are going to become a war of attrition
 
Last edited:
The Link doesnt work

Actually Given that Austria's participation in the Crimean war and it involvement in it Otl meant that Russia stopped supporting Austria,here since Austria had no part in the conflict the two nations(Russia/Austria) still have good relations and Austria is not dependent on Britain and France

This somewhat changes the Dynamics of Central Europe,The German Empire has been Declared(in a very decentralised model),The Italian confederation has been formed and Hungary has become independent,The Only Viable expansion Path for the Austrians are either Colonies or the ottoman empire

France has gained the Resource Rich region of Wallonia and still has Alcase-Lorraine which will help in its industrialisation And has gone to do its Otl Colonial Ventures,Perhaps here it has already expanded and Modernised its army since that was what Napoleon III wanted to do but didnt manage due to opposition

Russia will manage to win the Crimean war albeit in probably a very blooody fashion and the various nobles and politicians of the Russian empire will see that Russia needs modernisation albeit it will be done in a slower fashion than otl but probably more methodical in its reforms given that it wont have suffered the humiliation of otl

The ottoman empire in otl suffered around 45.000 casualties here given that it figths Russia alone(along with 18.000 british forces) the death toll for the ottomans will be at least double in number given how much diseases killed the soldiers of the otl one and the battlefields that they figth in(the caucasus and the Danube)two very defensible terrains that are going to become a war of attrition
Austria is arguably out of the great power business TTL. They are for every practical reason a German state in confederation with Czechs and Croats plus some occupied territory in Italy that they'd be better of if they did not have. I can see them wanting the Croatian areas in Herzegovina but that's about the maximum likely expansion in the Balkans. Beyond that they are going to be much more focused north antagonising Prussia, a south German confederation dominated by Vienna covering mostly Catholic areas of Germany like Bavaria looks a much more reasonable goal TTL without Austria being chained to Hungary...
 
Beyond that they are going to be much more focused north antagonising Prussia, a south German confederation dominated by Vienna covering mostly Catholic areas of Germany like Bavaria looks a much more reasonable goal TTL without Austria being chained to Hungary...
Two Germany's; a protestant north dominated by Prussia and catholic south dominated by Austria would be very interesting to see
 
If such perfect storm takes place, you can be sure that the Tuileries Palace will resonate with cheers and laughing. It may be as well, that the great victor of the Eurasian War won't be the small Greek Kingdom but France.

That also means a russian victory. If Britain pulls completely out of the war, then the Ottoman Empire will be crushed in a matter of months. If Britain just pulls out the army, but maintains the naval blockade and supports the Ottomans financially, the Russians will prevail but not after an additional campaign season. In the dissertation I posted a few posts before, there was a description of the very low quality ottoman army of the Caucasus. In contrast, the Rumelian Army was a much better force and better lead. Out of 178k men, only 12k were basibozuk irregulars. The problem was that there were extremely few reservists once this army is wasted by a year long campaign and disease (as in OTL). Once this army is attrited, there is almost nothing that can stop the Russians advancing down to Constantinople.

In contrast , the russian standing army before the war had 1,170 million men. By the end of the Crimean War it was expanded at 2,5 million. Granted, Russia could not properly equip all of the expanded army or give them good training. In TTL they dont have to, as the standing army is more than enough. Any reservists can form garrisons, while the field army can use only regulars. Thats a great butterfly due to Austria not heing a factor and France being neutral.


The only non-ASB senario for stalemate in the Balkan Front, I can think off, goes as follows:
- The regular Ottoman field army has a pretty good 1st year of operations and the frontline is kept along the Danube, with its fortresses in ottoman hands.
- A massive british field army takes the brunt of the fighting during the 2nd year, while the Ottomans train a new army with british funds and weapons. At the same time they send only scraps in Caucasus, mostly irregular bands. It goes without saying that the british army has to fight the Russian to a stalemate.
- The new Ottoman army takes the field again in the 3rd year of the war, while the British can maintan their army at the same levels (at least 100k excluding logistics). All and all, it requires more than double the OTL British commitment (40k field army) and lots of luck.


Source: The Russian Army and Foreign Wars, by Gudrun Persson
[/URL]
Not certain how accurate the Engels articles at the time of Crimea were but anyway here they are


They cite roughly half a million active troops at the time of the war, which seems to me reasonable without mobilisation. For the Ottomans I'd point to Zurcher''s articles on their conscription system cited here

 
@Lascaris, I think Engels is quite wrong. It doesnt make sense. Russia at that time had not liberated the serfs, so a huge standing army was needed as the reserves were limited compared to the actual population. 360k infantry for the whole Russian Empire in an era that Nicholas proclaimed that Russia is neither an agricultural nor an industrial state, but a military one? Something's off.

The thesis I quoted, cites as a source "'Considerations on the Defence of Russia'. 19 Jan. 1873." Apparently it is an original report in russian that I cannot find. The thesis also quotes a report by Milyutin to the Czar in 1862. Then, after 6 years of successive reductions of the standing army, it still stood at 765k men. Since the paper cites primary sources, it seems 1,170,000 men is correct.

Regarding the Ottoman forces, the other source I quoted mentioned several times tha the redif reservists had very low morale and were prone to desert. It seems that regarding the Ottomans, Engels presents a theoretical strength. The following book has a different estimation that the actual Nizam army had 105k men and the Redif army 103k during the Crimean War. The official theoretical strength should have been 150k for each army, for a total of 300k. Overall, it seems a very brittle force, as the Nizam army has already been basically wasted after just half a year of war.

 
Last edited:
4.5 million at turn of century means minimum of 13-15 million modern day in the current territories. Add Cyprus , thessolonika, Constantinople and other otl lands and you suddenly have a state which in modern times has perhaps 25-30 million people. A clear regional power , especially if it continues to have good governance.

Think otl Australia for a best case for Greece
 
In another paper, various estimations of the prewar Nizam army placed it between 85k-125k, with 105k most likely. The same paper states that the redif army may have had fewer than 103k men.

Thus, in TTL, Greece has a 80k army against a 208k Ottoman one, even before the new annexations. Not bad at all ! Of course the OE has massive manpower reserves that are not trained.

Source (if you google it you can download it)
OTTOMAN WAR ON THE DANUBE:
STATE, SUBJECT, AND SOLDIER
(1853-1856)
A Ph.D. Dissertation
by
İBRAHİM KÖREMEZLİ
 
Last edited:

Ganishka

Banned
The Raj has a military yes About 350,000 men IMS, 300,000 of these Indian. Which now has a direct war in its hands which means the general service act to make sepoy battalions operate overseas needs to come a couple of years early and had Enfield rifles just introduced to it. The grease used in the cartridges contains beef tallow and pig lard. Every Muslim soldier using them goes to hell and every Hindu using them gets defiled.

What am I leading to? In OTL the Indian Mutiny happened in 1857 conveniently right after the Crimean war was over and the British army had large numbers of Crimea veterans around. There is every chance TTL that it breaks out in 1854-55 during the Eurasian war. If it does its going to have massive consequences, it effectively throws Britain out of the war as they'll nd to concentrate in India above all else, while starting off worse.
Britain could lose India due to this.
 
One thing I noticed though about Ireland @Earl Marshal (and maybe @Lascaris):

The potato famine IOTL all but destroyed the Irish language, as many of the most devastated regions (and where many emigrated from to the U.S., Canada, and other places) were primarily in the western Irish-speaking regions. To basically quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
It is estimated that one and a half million people died during the Famine and that a million emigrated between 1846 and 1851. A large proportion of these were Irish speakers, and the poorest districts, from which emigration continued to flow, were generally Irish-speaking. The Famine was not the only reason for the decline of the language (the general exclusion of Irish from public life and the influence of the English-speaking clergy and middle classes also played a part) but it was a conspicuous element. This led to the creation of an Ireland which thought of itself as essentially English-speaking, though with a persistent and influential reaction in the form of organisations such as the Gaelic League and the growth of a network of urban Irish-speaking activists from the late nineteenth century on.

In pre-Famine Ireland Irish was the language both of a rich folk culture and a strong literary tradition. The latter persisted in the form of Irish language manuscripts containing both prose and poetry: a single collection would give the reader access to a substantial part of the literature.Many such manuscripts were taken to America by emigrants in the 1840s and after.

The emigration of numerous Irish speakers to America as an immediate or long-term result of the Famine led to a movement there for the maintenance of the Irish language. This was marked in part by the foundation of Philo-Celtic Societies and the founding of the monthly journal An Gaodhal in 1881, the first such publication anywhere in which Irish was extensively used.
Essentially, with the worst effects largely averted and a Dominion of Ireland (which may come about as a consequence to the Great Eurasian War) established, the Irish language may play a more significant role alongside English (probably along the lines of Welsh in this regard, at least by the 1920s or so)
 
The potato famine IOTL all but destroyed the Irish language, as many of the most devastated regions (and where many emigrated from to the U.S., Canada, and other places) were primarily in the western Irish-speaking regions. To basically quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Many Emigrated to England and Scotland as well, given that they were the industrialised sections of the kingdom of Great Britain
Thing is thougth from what i know Ireland's primary industry was agriculture as such the irish were always going to move to the more developed parts of the kingdom,or continental Europe or the America's,Even if the Potato Famine has had its effects lowered compared to otl a sizable population of Irish are still going to emigrate(now are they going to recover yes,but i can see a bilingual ireland,compared to the otl English Dominance,with English coming first given the advantages that it gives)
Essentially, with the worst effects largely averted and a Dominion of Ireland (which may come about as a consequence to the Great Eurasian War) established, the Irish language may play a more significant role alongside English (probably along the lines of Welsh in this regard, at least by the 1920s or so)
I can see a federal Britain where Ireland is a breadbasket of the kingdom(along with the lowlands)And its not even that there was not any support for the Home Rule Act,there was as can be seen in Gladstone favouring the Act,perhaps Ittl He will be able to pass the motion,Honestly i Rather quite like a United Britain even with all its faults
 
Last edited:
@Lascaris, I think Engels is quite wrong. It doesnt make sense. Russia at that time had not liberated the serfs, so a huge standing army was needed as the reserves were limited compared to the actual population. 360k infantry for the whole Russian Empire in an era that Nicholas proclaimed that Russia is neither an agricultural nor an industrial state, but a military one? Something's off.
I would not be in the slightest surprised if he was. That said... a standing army of 1,170,000 men compares favourably to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. How much of it was depot troops and garrisons that could not be used in the field?

The thesis I quoted, cites as a source "'Considerations on the Defence of Russia'. 19 Jan. 1873." Apparently it is an original report in russian that I cannot find. The thesis also quotes a report by Milyutin to the Czar in 1862. Then, after 6 years of successive reductions of the standing army, it still stood at 765k men. Since the paper cites primary sources, it seems 1,170,000 men is correct.

Regarding the Ottoman forces, the other source I quoted mentioned several times tha the redif reservists had very low morale and were prone to desert. It seems that regarding the Ottomans, Engels presents a theoretical strength. The following book has a different estimation that the actual Nizam army had 105k men and the Redif army 103k during the Crimean War. The official theoretical strength should have been 150k for each srmy, for a total of 300k. Overall, it seems a very brittle force, as the Nizam army has already been basically wasted after just half a year of war.

The redifs were not well thought off all the way to the early 20th century, they were incorporated to the main army only in 1912. Some of it I suspect had to do with the sources of the era generally underestimatic reservists but hardly all of it That said the Ottoman army of the Eurasian war is the one established by the Riza pasha regulations of 1843. Nizam army of 150,000 men with the men serving for 5 years, with a yearly troops contingent of 30,000 men, plus a redif service of 7 years with the reservists serving for a month every two years. This would mean a theoretical strength of the redif at 210,000 and a total (very) theoretical upper strength of 360,000. After the 1869 reforms this was altered to 150,000 nizam, 60,000 active reserves and 192,000 redif for 402,000 total. Plus another theoretical 300,000 in the mustavhiz the equivalent of the German landsturm, which even if not up to its paper strength at least allowed assigning the redif to the field, which before 1869 was problematic.

Now to start subtracting. Large number of furloughs were given to the Nizam. If we are to believe this, which has inaccuracies https://books.google.gr/books?id=_h7iYLjvQOsC&pg=PA62&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false the active force was in reality down to 123,000 men in 1851. Then the redif were also needed for internal security and garrisons. The figure of 103,000 men seems entirely logical to me if seen from that perspective, it meens that from a theoretical 210,000 men about half are what was either assigned to internal security duties garrisons and depots or was inevitable attrition through 12 years either in the colours or in reserve. So for this war the Ottomans would start at a minimum of 208-226,000 men in European style formations and I would put the upper practical strength at about 300,000 (150,000 Nizami plus about 2/3 of the redif), with about 250,000 (full 150,000 in the Nizam +103,000 redif) probably more likely.

Note that this forgets the matter of deployments of the army. You have 6 field armies HQ Constantinople, Shumla, Monastir, Erzerum, Baghdad, and Aleppo. The first 3 are the ones available for operations in Europe, the one in Erzerum is the Caucasus front and the other two... will be to a large extend unavailable. Not only because they need to watch Persia and Egypt but also due to the state of Ottoman communications. In OTL during the first Balkan war when the Greeks closed naval communications it took several months for reserves from Syria to reach Constantinople, and this with railroads and metal roads available to facilitate overland communications. Now you don't even have than, although at least for Syria you have open the sea lanes to ship troops.

Which brings us to the question of conscription and attrition. In OTL the Ottomans recruit, often with troubles, 30,000 men per year at this time and into the 1870s. To quote Zurcher as late as 1913-1914 the Ottomans for each yearly class could not recruit more than about 0.35% of the population. If we allow that something like 25-30% of the population was Christian, this increases to something like ~0.5% among the Muslim population at a time that Bulgaria (and Greece and Serbia I'll add) were recruiting 0.75% per class. To extend the comparison that's about on par with Prussia around 1850. If we extend the analogy the Ottomans at this time ore not organizationally capable to recruit more than 0.3-0.35% of their Muslims per year. This with a Muslim population around 12-14 million means an upper bound of 50,000 new recruits a year.

TTL we know the Ottomans by the end of 1854 have commited 156,000 men in the Balkans and another 130,000 in the Caucasus. 286,000 in total. That's stressing already Ottoman resources close to the theoretical maximums, if you add at least 30-40,000 men in Syria and Iraq. Which means both massive attrition and likely difficulty in keeping the numbers up as we go into 1855 and 1856. Not a good combination, not only for the war but also for the demographic future of the empire...
 
TTL we know the Ottomans by the end of 1854 have commited 156,000 men in the Balkans and another 130,000 in the Caucasus. 286,000 in total. That's stressing already Ottoman resources close to the theoretical maximums, if you add at least 30-40,000 men in Syria and Iraq. Which means both massive attrition and likely difficulty in keeping the numbers up as we go into 1855 and 1856. Not a good combination, not only for the war but also for the demographic future of the empire...
To add the Ottomans start with 68,000 men in the Danube, plus 130,000 in the Caucasus 198,000 total, so reinforce the Balkans with another 88,000. In the Caucasus they get 100,000 irregulars of all shorts when the revolts break out. Arguably the rest of the empire has been stripped off of nearly any field force that could be moved...

In comparison Egypt has available between 100,000 (the actual size of their OTL army at this time) to 130,000 men (the size of their army in the 1830s)
 
The Raj has a military yes About 350,000 men IMS, 300,000 of these Indian. Which now has a direct war in its hands which means the general service act to make sepoy battalions operate overseas needs to come a couple of years early and had Enfield rifles just introduced to it. The grease used in the cartridges contains beef tallow and pig lard. Every Muslim soldier using them goes to hell and every Hindu using them gets defiled.
But aren’t the New Enfield Rifles being made in Britain and still need to be distributed to the Regular British Army first? Britain’s armies don’t receive cutting edge gear as soon as possible, not like their navy counterparts do. So until this time lines Eurasian War it seems like British Army Command was dragging their feet about spending money on a new rifle when their hasn’t been a need for it.

After all natives in far flung parts of the world can’t exactly match the current British equipment so to them it was probably seen as a waste to buy new equipment when their wasn’t a major war that needs it.

So the Sepoy Army probably won’t be receiving any of the new rifles when the British are scrambling to rearm their own soldiers first, besides while India is important to Britain I don’t think anyone in the East India Company or London will take Persia’s threat seriously. Anyone whose been to border of Pakistan and Afghanistan will tell them the Persians will most likely bleed themselves against the Afghans before meeting a British or Sepoy soldier. And Persia doesn’t exactly have a crack military with cutting edge technology neither, the Sepoy’s with their outdated(and more importantly non-heretical ammo) can meet the Persians on the battlefield and win hands down.

I really think this is Persia just taking advantage of a distracted Britain to nab Herat and dig in so when the war ends and Britain focuses on them the idea of trying to force Persia from Herat becomes not worth the price in men, equipment and cost to remove them from the region. Of course if Persia gets cocky and decides to push further well... the Persians will quickly learn why that’s not a good idea.

On Russia I guess the question is how long can they economically afford this? The Ottoman Caucasus’s army was beaten back but it retreated in relatively good order and is still in formation and can fight again come Spring. The Ottoman European Front has done better and the Russians took some serious casualties on the Danube. And it’s Caucasus’s front... well the General did save that front his way too aggressive policy cost him way too much in my opinion. Russia has a large military but reinforcements to the frontlines means garrisons missing in other key regions, add in the Chechen and Azari rebellion, the wars against the Central Asian Khanates. And once again how much longer can Russia afford to do this?

Britain no doubt has gone to its tried and true method of blockades so nothing’s leaving the ports in the Baltic, and I doubt Russia has the capabilities or want to try and circumvent said blockade by shipping their goods north to sail around Norway and the Black Sea is a British/Ottoman lake. The Ottomans are no doubt receiving British monetary aid for its trouble but currently with Russia’s poor performance in the Balkans against the Ottomans(the front other European powers will actually pay attention too)and the recent landings of the British(small it may be but Britain’s reputation precedes itself)I would not be surprised if the Ruble was losing its value by the day.
 
But aren’t the New Enfield Rifles being made in Britain and still need to be distributed to the Regular British Army first? Britain’s armies don’t receive cutting edge gear as soon as possible, not like their navy counterparts do. So until this time lines Eurasian War it seems like British Army Command was dragging their feet about spending money on a new rifle when their hasn’t been a need for it.

After all natives in far flung parts of the world can’t exactly match the current British equipment so to them it was probably seen as a waste to buy new equipment when their wasn’t a major war that needs it.

So the Sepoy Army probably won’t be receiving any of the new rifles when the British are scrambling to rearm their own soldiers first, besides while India is important to Britain I don’t think anyone in the East India Company or London will take Persia’s threat seriously. Anyone whose been to border of Pakistan and Afghanistan will tell them the Persians will most likely bleed themselves against the Afghans before meeting a British or Sepoy soldier. And Persia doesn’t exactly have a crack military with cutting edge technology neither, the Sepoy’s with their outdated(and more importantly non-heretical ammo) can meet the Persians on the battlefield and win hands down.
India didn't rebel just on account of some rifles, these were the final straw arguably but no more than this. As for the availability of pattern 1853 Enfields. These start showing up in the Crimea in early 1855 and in the India army the next year. The Enfield though was preceded by the 1851 pattern rifle, which equipped already three quarters of the British army were the OTL war begun and TTL Britain is pushing towards war at least one or two years earlier than OTL. In OTL the British exported something in the order of 900,000 P53s to the American civil war besides what they were making for their own use and other export. That's about 225,000 rifles a year or about 600 a day... in addition to the 90,000 a year the Enfield armoury alone could make. Britain might have trouble finding men. It will have very little trouble arming them...

I really think this is Persia just taking advantage of a distracted Britain to nab Herat and dig in so when the war ends and Britain focuses on them the idea of trying to force Persia from Herat becomes not worth the price in men, equipment and cost to remove them from the region. Of course if Persia gets cocky and decides to push further well... the Persians will quickly learn why that’s not a good idea.

On Russia I guess the question is how long can they economically afford this? The Ottoman Caucasus’s army was beaten back but it retreated in relatively good order and is still in formation and can fight again come Spring. The Ottoman European Front has done better and the Russians took some serious casualties on the Danube. And it’s Caucasus’s front... well the General did save that front his way too aggressive policy cost him way too much in my opinion. Russia has a large military but reinforcements to the frontlines means garrisons missing in other key regions, add in the Chechen and Azari rebellion, the wars against the Central Asian Khanates. And once again how much longer can Russia afford to do this?

Britain no doubt has gone to its tried and true method of blockades so nothing’s leaving the ports in the Baltic, and I doubt Russia has the capabilities or want to try and circumvent said blockade by shipping their goods north to sail around Norway and the Black Sea is a British/Ottoman lake. The Ottomans are no doubt receiving British monetary aid for its trouble but currently with Russia’s poor performance in the Balkans against the Ottomans(the front other European powers will actually pay attention too)and the recent landings of the British(small it may be but Britain’s reputation precedes itself)I would not be surprised if the Ruble was losing its value by the day.
How long can they fight? At least 3 years given their OTL performance... and TTL the Ottomans and British declared war on them not the reverse so Russian propaganda will be calling this a defensive war.

As for Iran we don't know enough of it besides that the French were helping in its modernization and it lost a war with Britain. We do not know if for example with more extensive French involvement in Iran Amir Kabir remained in power and Iran has continued to reform which could have drastic effects on the size and quality of the Iranian army and even in OTL that numbered around 80,000 active troops when Nasser e Din Shah took the throne.
 
I honestly don’t know about the state of the Russian economy at this time but I suspect that the Ottoman economy is in a much worse state given their recent history, loosing Egypt etc. So it seems likely to me that the Ottoman economy will falter first even with British subsidies.
But I’ll defer to anyone with more detailed knowledge of their capacity to sustain war at this time period.
 
That said... a standing army of 1,170,000 men compares favourably to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. How much of it was depot troops and garrisons that could not be used in the field?
As far as I know, after the emancipation of the serfs and the army reforms, the Russian army tried to become a "modern" one with smallish standig army and a large reserve. At 1856, after the initial demobilization, the standing army stood at 1,7 million. For 3 years the Russians took no new recruits and by 1859, the army fell at 850k. By 1873 there was a trained reserve of 710k. The standing army in 1870 was around 700k in European Russia and Transcaucasia.

I don't know how many of these were depot troops and garrisons....



So for this war the Ottomans would start at a minimum of 208-226,000 men in European style formations and I would put the upper practical strength at about 300,000 (150,000 Nizami plus about 2/3 of the redif), with about 250,000 (full 150,000 in the Nizam +103,000 redif) probably more likely.
I think you overestimate the yearly recruitment. The papers I mentioned before, place it well below 25,000 before the Crimean War. So, 150,000 nizami is just a paper number, purely theoretical. They are already scrapping the bottom of the barrel in terms of regulars. In the winter of 1854-1855 cholera will kill more men than all the battles of 1854. I quite agree with the rest of your post, it is simply excellent and very well thought.

I would like to add one point in the demographic future of the empire. I cannot see a senario that doesnt involve at the very least 138k additional ottoman casualties (the otl french and sardinian ones) and this in a victorious almost asb war. The reality would be much worse than that and we have to take into account that the war is being fought in ottoman soil. But who would be included in the additional casualties? Not simply muslims, but specifically Anatolian and Balkan Turks, muslim Albanians and perhaps Bosnians, with the Turks being the vast majority of them. Recruitment of Arabs was challenging even in peacetime. In wartime it can lead to revolts. So, I expect Arab troops to be hold back in Syria and Iraq garrisons. The Kurds are irregulars and come for the loot and if they find challenging odds they will desert en masse. One can say the same for balkan irregulars. So, the demographic impact would be on the muslim subjects of the empire, but most importantly the Turks.
 
@Berat2beti, the OTL Ottoman Caucasus Army melted away in the first winter of the war due to malnutrition and disease. And they didnt suffer ttl's defeats. Come spring 1854 the otl Ottomans were defeated by a 20k Russian force that was 3 times smaller than them (60k).

The Azeris were loyal enough to provide irregular cavalry to the Russian army. Circassia was a side show that involved Russian irregulars and not regular army. What war against the Central Asians? In 1853 the Russians campaigned in the region with only 2,000 men!


Regarding economies... As I mentioned before an OTL expenditure of 17,3 million pounds destroyed the ottoman economy and the debt of the war strangled the ottoman economy for the rest of the century. In contrast, Russia paid 128,9 million pounds. And now there is no France to pay 127,9 million... Guess who has to cover the gap ...
 
Last edited:
I honestly don’t know about the state of the Russian economy at this time but I suspect that the Ottoman economy is in a much worse state given their recent history, loosing Egypt etc. So it seems likely to me that the Ottoman economy will falter first even with British subsidies.
I think the same.
 
Top