Russia wins Crimean War

Russia was having enough difficulty holding Georgia down, it was still fighting the clans in Circassia, and the Caucasus "front" such as it was was hardly the major one in this war.

Delusions of grandeur, which is what "Great Armenia" is, are not reflected by realities on the ground, and quite why Russia would even decide to set up independent states when everywhere else they annexed territories I can't see. If by some combination of miracles they broke out to Erzerum, Erzincan etc the Empire would have looked to annex the area. Holding them would have been as major a headache as Georgia was proving to be.

The war was fought and won or lost in the West, and whilst Istanbul could be seen as the ultimate goal, the real aims of the war were being fought over in the Principalities

This is where Austria was vital - its threat of war was enough to force Russia to withdraw, which ended Russia's aims. Now, HAD Austria taken a different attitude, Russia might have fought on the defensive there, and the war might have taken a different course

But what would have made Vienna act differently ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Hnau

Banned
I always thought that maybe a bloodier Hungarian Revolution would require more Russian assistance... which could possibly mean Vienna feels more indebted to the Russian Tsar. But, that might be a round-about way of doing it.

Interesting perspective on the situation, Grey Wolf.
 
But what would have made Vienna act differently ?


Grey Wolf,

An easier to handle or easier squashed Hungarian revolt in 1848-9 perhaps? Didn't the Hapsburgs have to "borrow" hundreds of thousands of Russian troops to put down the Hungarian rebellion?

I read a political biography of Franz Joseph several years back and was struck at how he and his governments were essentially on their back foot for most of his reign. They were constantly reacting, they were never quite able to act in advance of or even direct events. There was always some domestic crisis which usually involved Hungary in some manner that hobbled foreign policy, rearmament plans, and anything else you care to name.

From what I understand, Hungary was essentially in the grip of a low level passive resistance movement between 1849 and the Compromise in 1867 further complicating anything Austria contemplated doing.

If we smash the 1848-9 Hungarian revolt more easily or buy off Hungary ahead of schedule, perhaps Austria would be inclined to put itself about in the 1850s?


Bil
 
No.

I'm in the middle of writing a blog post about this. The Russians sailed in with 6 Ships of the Line with 612 guns, of which on 38 were Paixhans shell guns. They were all heavy guns (mostly 68 and 36 pdrs, with some 24's on the upper decks). The 472 guns the Ottomans opposed them with were mostly light, the heaviest were 24 pdrs, and they couldn't pierce the Russian armour*. The Russians simply outgunned this frigate force with conventional weapons. The shell guns were totally ineffective.

In the face of overwhelming firepower the Ottomans beached their ships and, when a Russian landing party came to take off prizes, they set them afire rather than allow them to be captured. In one case (Navek-i-Bahri) the Captain blew his own powder magazine rather than by taken by boarding.


* Yes armour, it just happens to be made out of wood.

very interesting,
new my question: did RE have technical/technological advantage over OE at that time, or not?
 
Top