Russia wins the Crimean War?

Let's say Austria decided to side with Russia or remain fully neutral in the war and also if Russia took advantage of France and Britain's slow landing on Crimea, weakening the allied forces. The Ottomans have some success but are not able to hold against the Russians and fall in the Balkans. Would the allied forces surrender once Russia defeats the Ottomans at the Caucasus and Balkans? Would the British and French continue the war after disaster at Crimea? What would happen and how would this effect history?
 
I can't see Austria being allied with Russia. Full neutrality is more likely, but is it enough for Russian victory?
Anyway-Austria could save a lot of cash not keeping army mobilized for 2 years. And Russia would not be antagonised by Austrian mobilization so Napoleon III doesn't have free hand in Italy with possibility of Russian intervention on Austrian side. So Italian unification is delayed or butterflied away, as well as Ausgleich.
 
Let's say Austria decided to side with Russia or remain fully neutral in the war and also if Russia took advantage of France and Britain's slow landing on Crimea, weakening the allied forces. The Ottomans have some success but are not able to hold against the Russians and fall in the Balkans. Would the allied forces surrender once Russia defeats the Ottomans at the Caucasus and Balkans? Would the British and French continue the war after disaster at Crimea? What would happen and how would this effect history?

How? The Russian navy fled the scene as soon as the British navy arrived. The Russians can try to fight the British navy in the Black Sea to slow them down. It isn't gonna help to crush the allies.

Austria supporting Russia is a hard one. At this point in time, the Austrians fear the Russian influence more than Ottoman existence. Helping a future threat is not a smart thing to do.

A better option is not to piss off France and fight the Ottomans alone. No guarantee for a victory but odds are more in Russia's favor than in OTL Crimean War.
 
I can't see Austria being allied with Russia. Full neutrality is more likely, but is it enough for Russian victory?
Anyway-Austria could save a lot of cash not keeping army mobilized for 2 years. And Russia would not be antagonised by Austrian mobilization so Napoleon III doesn't have free hand in Italy with possibility of Russian intervention on Austrian side. So Italian unification is delayed or butterflied away, as well as Ausgleich.
Russia and Austria were allies since the 1700s or the 1600s I do not remember when the alliance started / edit: Russia and Austria allied in the 1740s, war of Austrian Succession
 
How? The Russian navy fled the scene as soon as the British navy arrived. The Russians can try to fight the British navy in the Black Sea to slow them down. It isn't gonna help to crush the allies.

Austria supporting Russia is a hard one. At this point in time, the Austrians fear the Russian influence more than Ottoman existence. Helping a future threat is not a smart thing to do.

A better option is not to piss off France and fight the Ottomans alone. No guarantee for a victory but odds are more in Russia's favor than in OTL Crimean War.
The British and French took about 5 days to land, about enough time for Alexander Sergeyecjch Menshikov to prepare for battle against the British and French mid landing, I exaggerated at crushed but definitely weakening their invasion, the allied forces landed on a beach 30 miles north of Sevastopol
 
there are those in Austria who favor backing Russia. It was after all the Russian Army that had saved the Austrian Empire in 1848 and a hostile Russia could and did prove fatal in the end to the Hapsburgs. As late as the 1890s Franz Ferdinand and Beck, commander of the Army, among others were arguing in favor of a Balkan partition along the lines Nicholas I had proposed

Such an alliance would easily carry the Balkans and the Straits. Once the Straits are taken and the Black Sea becomes a Russian lake, they can move at will on the Turks
 
The Russians might lose at sea, but with Austrian neutrality perhaps the Russians could dig into their positions and prepare for sieges. The Allies brought only enough siege guns for one army. If fortifications can't be breached and the defender stocked months of food, it's a huge force multiplier. Remember they were in Ottoman Territory when the allies counterattacked, all they need to do is hold on to what they have. Their supply lines are mostly porter and horse based at this time, but it's capable of brining the nesccary supplies if they knew where to bring them (and they didn't, communications between combat units and logists one was horrible)
 

trurle

Banned
Let's say Austria decided to side with Russia or remain fully neutral in the war and also if Russia took advantage of France and Britain's slow landing on Crimea, weakening the allied forces. The Ottomans have some success but are not able to hold against the Russians and fall in the Balkans. Would the allied forces surrender once Russia defeats the Ottomans at the Caucasus and Balkans? Would the British and French continue the war after disaster at Crimea? What would happen and how would this effect history?
Winning Crimean war will be definitely a tactical victory and strategic defeat for Russian Empire.
1) The emancipation of serfs would be delayed (OTL happened in 1861), crippling Russian economy
2) The introduction of rifled weapons will be delayed because Gorloff and Hunius will likely be not sent abroad (as the result of their mission, OTL Berdan rifle introduced since 1868, among many other rifled designs), crippling Russian military
3) Expansion to heavily populated and rebellious Carpatian mountains - stretching logistics and dispersing army

Overall, winning Crimean War would harbinger a crippling, devastating defeat for Russian Empire in the following 10-20 years, with large territorial losses and may be partial fragmentation of state. Imagine Russian army with essentially muskets against Gatling guns.
 
Imagine Russian army with essentially muskets against Gatling guns.

But wouldn't the Russians eventually observe that times are changing in the West and that they have weapons that could kill them in the tens? Especially when reformers like Witte and Stolypin come along and after their defeat in the Russo-Japanese War?
 

trurle

Banned
But wouldn't the Russians eventually observe that times are changing in the West and that they have weapons that could kill them in the tens? Especially when reformers like Witte and Stolypin come along and after their defeat in the Russo-Japanese War?
Some of Russians were reasonable as evidenced by 5 assassination attempts on czar Alexander II (ruling 1855-1881). Unfortunately, in 19th century Russian history demonstrated also a powerful xenophobic party opposing any innovation (technical or social) not originating in Russia.
 
Russian defeat in Crimean War was seen as proof of Russia's weakness, would there still be January Uprising if Russia is victorious?
And about abolition of serfdom-if it is delayed a bit but done better than IOTL (no mir, no land for every peasant) Russia would benefit from it.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
Russian defeat in Crimean War was seen as proof of Russia's weakness, would there still be January Uprising if Russia is victorious?
And about abolition of serfdom-if it is delayed a bit but done better than IOTL (no mir, no land for every peasant) Russia would benefit from it.
Likely January Uprising of 1863 still happens, but been suppressed with even more determination. About emancipation - imho, no reform improvement can compensate for several years of delay.
 
Russian victory would change the internal situation so much I wouldn't be expecting an uprising in early 1860s - OTL it was post-Sevastopol Thaw that to a large extent allowed organisation of would-be-partisans.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
For Austria and Russia to be allied they need a interest they can better pursue together or a common enemy worrying both. At this point in time Austria and Russia didn't really have that, instead they had competing ambitions in the Balkan. However Bismarck managed to make them both join the League of the Three Emperors, so it's not impossible.
 
For Austria and Russia to be allied they need a interest they can better pursue together or a common enemy worrying both. At this point in time Austria and Russia didn't really have that, instead they had competing ambitions in the Balkan. However Bismarck managed to make them both join the League of the Three Emperors, so it's not impossible.

They have common interests, a few examples:
-Both are holding polish territory
-Both are absolutistic regimes (Austria more or less at this time) and multiethnic empires: both are interested in opressing liberalism and a bunch of national movements
-In the Balkans: they are both interested in keeping everyone else out of the Balkans. Meaning the Balkan is theirs and making the Italians, British, etc stay out of the affairs of the Peninsula. They agreed on a division of the Balkans but in the end always ended up not respecting the agreement and pressing for more than their 'share'. See Russia in 1878 and Austria in 1885.
 
Top