Russian Victory in the Crimean War

Is Russian victory possible in the Crimean War? Victory does not necessarily have to mean the conquest of Constantinople and the Dardanelles but at the least territorial gains in the Danube region and/or Caucasus. It doesn't seem very difficult to keep at least some of the intervening western European powers out of the war, and perhaps with an Austrian guarantee of neutrality Russia can ignore their naval defeats and push on for a more land-based bid for victory.
 
The problem is that Russia was also facing colossal defeats on land. The defeat in Crimea that gave the war its name for example.

Russia could beat the Ottoman Empire, but against Britain or France they were incredibly outmatched. Western rifles managed to outrange Russian artillery, just to emphasis how lopsided things were.
 
The problem is that Russia was also facing colossal defeats on land. The defeat in Crimea that gave the war its name for example.

Russia could beat the Ottoman Empire, but against Britain or France they were incredibly outmatched. Western rifles managed to outrange Russian artillery, just to emphasis how lopsided things were.
Admittedly my knowledge of the war is less than stellar, but didn't both sides take the majority of their casualties just from disease? It seems to me that the political climate in either Britain or France wouldn't be especially favorable to any exceptionally bloody war to defend the Turks. Especially if they were alone in their defense of them. While Russia would certainly bleed as well, would Britain really have the will to stay in the war if they were alone in their defense of the Ottomans? (This is of course supposing France does not become involved). I'm not suggesting Russia would be able to gobble up the Straits and everything in between, but a more limited victory involving territorial gains around the Danube for instance doesn't seem to far-fetched.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
In regards to the Crimean War, can anyone

point to reliable numbers on the number of troops each of the five combatants mobilized, deployed, and sustained into (for example) the Crimean theater?

My understanding is that the French expeditionary force was substantially larger than the British, Turkish, and Sardinian elements - I think Farwell suggests an initial force of 25,000 or so British troops in 1854, but that the numbers declined significantly by the end at Sebastopol, to the point that the effective French OOB was 4-5 times that of the British at the Malakoff/Redan actions.

I also have read the British recruited something like 9,000 German mercenaries, and another 6,000 Swiss and Italians. Anyone have a good source?

Best,
 
Nicholas I believed that the allied fleet would not be a problem even if the capture of Sevastopol. He wrote to his brother, Michael, "What they all did, if after three months, our army will be on the Bosphorus?"
But three months later Russian army was on the borders of Austria and the German states. Now, if Austria's strong neutrality, then Russia would have a chance to capture Constantinople and block the allied fleet in the Black Sea. The numerical advantage was on the side of the Russian army. In the Crimea, because of the difficulties with the supply could not throw a large number of troops.
 
The numerical advantage was on the side of the Russian army. In the Crimea, because of the difficulties with the supply could not throw a large number of troops.
Because they were moving troops by sea, the British and the French forces were strategically more mobile.

On the other hand if the Russians had been more canny diplomatically they could have kept the British out the war. Whilst I can see why the French and Austrians were involved but not Britain. Apart from slapping other great powers down, I can not see a British interest involved.
 
Because they were moving troops by sea, the British and the French forces were strategically more mobile.

On the other hand if the Russians had been more canny diplomatically they could have kept the British out the war. Whilst I can see why the French and Austrians were involved but not Britain. Apart from slapping other great powers down, I can not see a British interest involved.
Of course, the bullock cart to the ships were far away.
But what is happiness of England as the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean? Me more it is not clear what got into this war France? To avenge the capture of Paris?
Another option: the lack of Russian army rifled muskets was not caused by the backwardness of Russian industry (had a capsule detonator muskets), and with an error when assessing the merits of rifles. And it can make the right choice.
 
Didn't Austria send troops into "the Danubian principalities" (the future Rumania) to keep the Russians out, too, even though it never actually declared war on Russia?
 
But what is happiness of England as the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean? Me more it is not clear what got into this war France? To avenge the capture of Pariis.
My understanding is that the Russians wanted the French priviledges in protecting Catholics in the Ottoman Empire and the French resisted. In addition, that well known military genius and conqueror of foreign lands, Napoleon III wanted a war for the glory of France. Perhaps if the Russians had paid an assassin to dispose of him they might have avoided a war. You never know, the Mexican might have chipped in.
 

Avskygod0

Banned
The problem with Russia is that they were not very advanced technologicaly at the time

If it was it would just end in a nasty bloodbath with nobody making progress anywhere.
 
The UK was involved because the UK government was run by fanatical Russophobes at that point. Not that it mattered, because the British Army was arguably the least effective of the Allied armies in actual combat during the war. The French (who had equally illogical reasons for intervening) would have been sufficient to win.

I agree that you need firm Austrian neutrality (or even assistance, if you can pull that off) in order for Russia to win.

But handwaving the victory into being, what are the effects on Russia? In particular, without the Russians being humiliated, does Alexander II still implement his reforms, and how are they different?

Likewise, what happens in the Ottoman Empire? Do you get further reforms (maybe an acceleration of the Tanzimat reforms)? Do the defeats mean reform gets discredited (a la 1878)?
 
The problem with Russia is that they were not very advanced technologicaly at the time

If it was it would just end in a nasty bloodbath with nobody making progress anywhere.

For the production of rifled muskets to the war powers would be enough.
The problem was the Russian government's reluctance to rely on the private producer. Before the war it was considered unrealistic production in Russia steam engines. During the war, betrayed the order of the private factories and steam engines are quickly made​​.
 
Another thing that would need to be fixed would be the Russian Roads. Supplies couldn't be moved up, because every time it rained or snowed, or if the roads became worn down by constant traffic, then they would become almost unusable.

Logistics was a problem that plagued both sides, but once the French and British installed a railway from Balaklava to Sevastopol, that problem was mitigated. Not so for the Russians, and it was the problem with Russia's inadequate transportation infrastructure that became one of the targets of Alexander II's 'Great Reforms', following the death of his father (Nicholas I)
 
Another thing that would need to be fixed would be the Russian Roads. Supplies couldn't be moved up, because every time it rained or snowed, or if the roads became worn down by constant traffic, then they would become almost unusable.

Logistics was a problem that plagued both sides, but once the French and British installed a railway from Balaklava to Sevastopol, that problem was mitigated. Not so for the Russians, and it was the problem with Russia's inadequate transportation infrastructure that became one of the targets of Alexander II's 'Great Reforms', following the death of his father (Nicholas I)

You do not. At the time, has just been completed the longest while the railway St. Petersburg and Moscow. Projected railway to Warsaw. In the Crimea did not make it.
The best option, to the best of conditions, not to hide the Black Sea Fleet (which had better combat training than the Baltic Fleet) in Sevastopol, and to try to intercept the Allied fleet in the transition. Even dying, the Black Sea Fleet could inflict such damage, after which neither of which landing in Crimea could not even dream of.
 
Top