Why would the Austrians ever even get involved in a war against Russia? They have literally nothing to gain from it but helping their enemies.
It is an odd demand from the Swedes if you ask me.
Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline
- Thread starter Earl Marshal
- Start date
It is an odd demand from the Swedes if you ask me.
Seems it's stemming from a British notion of assembling abroad European coalition against what they perceive as outrageous Russia attempts to Upset the European balance of power. That just so happens to place Britain on top.
Seems that other powers are not as invested as Britain in this ITTL.
I will point out that this chapter takes place almost entirely in 1855, before the start of the Second Anglo-Persian War and the Indian Rebellion. Its also important to note that these are not the main theater of the war, which is in the south against the Ottoman Empire, that front is going much better for Russia.
That requirement is actually based off of one from the OTL Crimean War. Sweden simply doesn't have the manpower to face off against Russia on its own, they know this and Britain knows this. Basically, they wanted another country to divert attention away from them. Britain in contrast wants to build a coalition against Russia to stem what they see as unjust Russian expansion and aggression against its neighbors. The fact that a weakened Russia would benefit Britain, is conveniently left absent in all of this. In hindsight, I should have used a country other than Austria, with Hungary probably being a better choice.
Pretty much this in a nutshell.
Good all over but the subsidies both asked by the Swedes and given to the Ottomans look on the high end? Back in the Napoleonic wars British were subsidizing at 2 million pounds per 100,000 soldiers in memory serves. Here are some costs for the OTL Crimean war https://www.jstor.org/stable/27904414?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
10 million a year by US civil war rates is enough to pay for something like 250,000 men? And half the peak cost of the Royal Navy? I'd expect the British to offer loans preferably over free money...
10 million a year by US civil war rates is enough to pay for something like 250,000 men? And half the peak cost of the Royal Navy? I'd expect the British to offer loans preferably over free money...
Has the situation in the far east and Russian America much different from OTL? I'm interested how this could affect the eventual fate of Alaska, as a Canadian Alaska would be an interesting effect if Britain decides that due to a worse outcome in the war than OTL they may decide to keep peripheral Russian land like Alaska to shows that they got something out of their intervention.
Of course, Perfidious Albion at its finest!Britain trying to get others to fight their wars
I was under the impression that this was less than their financial commitments to their Sixth Coalition allies in 1813, which was around 22 million Sovereigns if I remember correctly. Either way, I agree with you that Britain would probably be more willing to give out loans rather than subsidies, so I'll change it accordingly.
As of now, the situation in the Far East and North America is slightly different from the OTL Crimean War.
Firstly, the British capture Petropavlovsk ITTL, unlike in OTL where they were defeated and forced to withdraw. In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really do anything for the British as most of the Russian Pacific Fleet managed to escape to Okhotsk where it will be blockaded for the remainder of the war. In OTL, Petropavlovsk was abandoned shortly after the OTL battle, as the Russians deemed it undefensible owing to its remoteness and British naval supremacy, effectively achieving the same result as a British victory. Overall, it puts a feather in Britain's cap, but a relatively small one at that.
The second major difference here is that Russian North America is occupied by Britain, unlike in OTL where it was largely ignored by both sides in the war. It isn't a massive loss for Russia since they only had a few hundred fur traders and fishers living there, so does little for the British strategically. Whether they keep it in the long run is totally dependant on how the rest of the war goes.
What else is new lol? Seriously that’s not a knock on Britain, but they haven’t had the ability to go toe to toe alone against another major European power since at least the Napoleonic War. Even now the Ottomans are being used as a shield and the one putting territory at risk.Britain trying to get others to fight their wars
Trying to get Prussia to do something against Russia especially when German unification is beating in German hearts is almost impossible.
Especially since Hungry is separate from Austria, which weakens the pool of manpower Austria can draw from.
However Bismarck is not yet involved in politics and how it happens is still up in the air. Or if Prussia screws up and Germany unifies under Austria With a rump Prussia.
Especially since Hungry is separate from Austria, which weakens the pool of manpower Austria can draw from.
However Bismarck is not yet involved in politics and how it happens is still up in the air. Or if Prussia screws up and Germany unifies under Austria With a rump Prussia.
Well, well the world ain't that stupid to know that doing that only strengthens the perfidous albion.
Seems like Britain is trying its damn best to form a broad European coalition against Russia with all those promises and bankrolling everyone that joins. Which brings us a meme:
A man of culture as i see
Seems like Britain is trying its damn best to form a broad European coalition against Russia with all those promises and bankrolling everyone that joins. Which brings us a meme:
So that is all the British could bring? The central Asian khanates? Pathetic!
Well all is gonna be decided on the Balkan Front and with the delaying of the Hungarians they got some really good time to both upgrade the Ottoman army ,bad for the Greeks down the line, and bring more British regulars there that they finally can make a difference. Still the Russians can barrel down with most of their might there, cause they need troops to guard the Baltic for an invasion that they think is coming so like 100k-200k troops or maybe more of mainly reservist forces. The Caucasus is a hard front to attack due to the terrain so attrition is going to were down the Russians.
The eastern front is gonna be fun and it's all on how fast can Persia take the Afghan forts and how long will it take the British to put down the rebellion. It's all about timing there.
A Canadian Alaska though? That is going to have some nice ramifications down the line. I like it! And of course I see a strong Scandinavian push which could make a difference in regional politics. But I don't see them joining the war without the Russians suffering a major blow, which could happen.
All and all a great update that sets the stage for the final act of this World War , well Africa and Oceania are missing still so hope they join just to make it official!
Well all is gonna be decided on the Balkan Front and with the delaying of the Hungarians they got some really good time to both upgrade the Ottoman army ,bad for the Greeks down the line, and bring more British regulars there that they finally can make a difference. Still the Russians can barrel down with most of their might there, cause they need troops to guard the Baltic for an invasion that they think is coming so like 100k-200k troops or maybe more of mainly reservist forces. The Caucasus is a hard front to attack due to the terrain so attrition is going to were down the Russians.
The eastern front is gonna be fun and it's all on how fast can Persia take the Afghan forts and how long will it take the British to put down the rebellion. It's all about timing there.
A Canadian Alaska though? That is going to have some nice ramifications down the line. I like it! And of course I see a strong Scandinavian push which could make a difference in regional politics. But I don't see them joining the war without the Russians suffering a major blow, which could happen.
All and all a great update that sets the stage for the final act of this World War , well Africa and Oceania are missing still so hope they join just to make it official!
formion
Banned
The problem is that with France neutral, the Russians know what exactly the British can invest in both the Baltic and Black Sea. In OTL, the RN ships could have carried a french corps onboard. Now at best there can be battalions of marines capturing a fort and blowing it up. Russia doesn't need to invest the OTL 200 battalions for such threat.
Likewise, Hungary is not a threat comparable to the OTL Habsburg Empire. It is newly minted country that can barely keep the Slavs and Romanians from breaking away.
I would argue that in TTL the Ottoman Army has received less material help than in OTL, while its commitments are many many more. The Imperial Government is bound to ask for more loans compared to OTL as: war expenses are much higher, no egyptian tribute, no income from the southern Levant and the profitable routes to the holy cities of the Abrahamic religions, war fought on ottoman soil and not Crimea, less income from the provinces pledged to Greece.
To quote "The Political Economy of Ottoman Public Debt: Insolvency and European Financial Control in the Late Nineteenth Century" , there were 2 major loans:
-1854: £3,000,000 , 7,9% effective interest
- 1855: £5,000,000, 3,9% effective interest
These loans used the egyptian tribute as collateral. They were enough to pretty much destroy ottoman public economics for the rest of the century. To pay back these loans, a series of loans were floated after 1858, almost every single year, until the empire was bankrupt and the OPTA was enforced by the creditors.
en.wikipedia.org
In TTL it is bound to be much worse, as more hard currency is needed and there is less collateral.
Likewise, Hungary is not a threat comparable to the OTL Habsburg Empire. It is newly minted country that can barely keep the Slavs and Romanians from breaking away.
I would argue that in TTL the Ottoman Army has received less material help than in OTL, while its commitments are many many more. The Imperial Government is bound to ask for more loans compared to OTL as: war expenses are much higher, no egyptian tribute, no income from the southern Levant and the profitable routes to the holy cities of the Abrahamic religions, war fought on ottoman soil and not Crimea, less income from the provinces pledged to Greece.
To quote "The Political Economy of Ottoman Public Debt: Insolvency and European Financial Control in the Late Nineteenth Century" , there were 2 major loans:
-1854: £3,000,000 , 7,9% effective interest
- 1855: £5,000,000, 3,9% effective interest
These loans used the egyptian tribute as collateral. They were enough to pretty much destroy ottoman public economics for the rest of the century. To pay back these loans, a series of loans were floated after 1858, almost every single year, until the empire was bankrupt and the OPTA was enforced by the creditors.
Ottoman Public Debt Administration - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In TTL it is bound to be much worse, as more hard currency is needed and there is less collateral.
Last edited:
The problem is that with France neutral, the Russians know what exactly the British can invest in both the Baltic and Black Sea. In OTL, the RN ships could have carried a french corps onboard. Now at best there can be battalions of marines capturing a fort and blowing it up. Russia doesn't need to invest the OTL 200 battalions for such threat.
Likewise, Hungary is not a threat comparable to the OTL Habsburg Empire. It is newly minted country that can barely keep the Slavs and Romanians from breaking away.
I would argue that in TTL the Ottoman Army has received less material help than in OTL, while its commitments are many many more. The Imperial Government is bound to ask for more loans compared to OTL as: war expenses are much higher, no egyptian tribute, no income from the southern Levant and the profitable routes to the holy cities of the Abrahamic religions, war fought on ottoman soil and not Crimea, less income from the provinces pledged to Greece.
To quote "The Political Economy of Ottoman Public Debt: Insolvency and European Financial Control in the Late Nineteenth Century" , there were 2 major loans:
-1854: £3,000,000 , 7,9% effective interest
- 1855: £5,000,000, 3,9% effective interest
These loans used the egyptian tribute as collateral. They were enough to pretty much destroy ottoman public economics for the rest of the century. To pay back these loans, a series of loans were floated after 1858, almost every single year, until the empire was bankrupt and the OPTA was enforced by the creditors.
Ottoman Public Debt Administration - Wikipedia
In TTL it is bound to be much worse, as more hard currency is needed and there is less collateral.
From the link in my previous post the OTL war cost the Ottomans something like 16 million pounds. Piedmont costs were a bit over 2 million, Britain's 74 million and French 66 million. Here the Ottomans already took a 10 million loan for 1855 and need a much larger army that OTL. Very roughly each year of war costs the Ottomans 40 pounds per soldier (16 million for 165,000 men committed OTL) TTL in 1854 they committed 286,000 men to the fight nevermind the Greek revolts. Call it a round 300000. That's 8 million for 1854, another 12 million for 1855 and at least a million per month after that. If the war goes to the end of 1856 which looks entirely likely it would cost 32 million to the Ottomans and require 24 millions in loans.
Or in other words the Ottomans would reach their unaffordable 1876 public debt 20 years early from a smaller economy. Oops.
Looks like the Megali Idea isn't far fetch at all in this TTL.
I do have to wonder if there were portions of the Muslim population of India that would voluntarily go to the Balkan Front, as the Ottomans declared Jihad.
formion
Banned
The call for jihad in TTL is interesting to say the least. In OTL, the sultans refrained from calling a jihad in the Crimean, Russo-Turkish, Italian and Balkan wars. I don't think any Indians would travel to the OE, as they didn't join the Caliph as WW1 POWs and they have a major war at home.
The Maghreb or Egyptian volunteers would make poor soldiers, as it is usually the case with zealot volunteers. Moreover, I don't think there is much time to train them and form regular units. Most likely they would be used as irregulars. That is good news for the Russians but not so great news for the Bulgarian civilians. I am afraid that this call, may mean an earlier Hamidian Era, with the accompanied atrocities.
As @Lascaris described, this war will completely bankrupt the Empire, 20 years early. Hamidian policies started when the OTL economy went belly up. Combine this with more religious fervor and the OTL recipe for disaster is here.
Greeks are perfidious rayahs, but their independent brethren have a strong navy and a decent army. Easier victims can be found in political sensitive areas. My guess would be that Armenians and Bulgarians will suffer...