Russians take Constantinople, what happens to the rest of the Ottoman Empire?

What if they gave it too greece but forced them too guarantee rights for the russians. Best of both world greece gets the city its been pining over russia gets some military and economic bonuses without have to administer it or deal with so much diplomatic backlash
 
@alexmilman have a good point, further expansion didn’t really benefit Russia. But as Russia never did try to stop expanding, it raise the question where would Russia try to expand, if it did control Constantinople and who would it bring Russia into conflict with and could Russia expand places where it was a real benefit, instead of just a way to come into conflict with its neighbors.

Good questions and I wish I had good answers. :)

OK, up to the early XIX Russia was expanding:
1. Swedish Baltic provinces - opening ports for a direct access of the foreign traders to Russia plus the areas were generally more developed than Russia and did provide the useful cadres.
2. Poland - Belorussia and Ukraine had been more or less pushed down Catherine’s 5hroat by Austria and Prussia, Poland proper was economically attractive (and to a great degree this part of annexation was forced by ill-timed Polish patriotism).
3. Finland - need to protect St-Petersburg (and to improve PR after Tilsit fiasco)
4. Black Sea coast - need to stop the Crimean raids and to make available the good agricultural lands. You may notice that even the future wars were not considering a direct annexation of the European Ottoman Empire beyond Moldavia (more or less a “natural border”)
5. Caucasus - Russia got stuck with getting Georgia and a need to have secure communications with it so everything in between had to be conquered from Ottomans or Persia but conquests at the Persian expense stopped in Azerbaijan with the following trade agreements and “soft influence” (the Brits had been competing for 8nfluence there by the 1830s or maybe earlier). Persia was a trade partner well before Romanovs came to power.
6. Central Asia - markets for the Russian goods and stopping raids on the Russian territories
7. Far East - trade with China

During the wars of CII Russia was quite comfortable with an idea of the Austrians getting Principalities, which excludes grand schemes of getting Constantinople, etc. (Austria would be in between). War of AI against the Ottomans had been started by the Ottomans encited by Nappy and his main goal was to force the Turks to sue for peace so that he would have free hands against Nappy: the peace treaty was signed in 1812 and prior to that, even with the dramatic growth of the size of the Russian army, this theater got only limited number of troops because bulk of the forces was on the Western border. Which means that for the whole scenario to have a realistic chance all policy of AI had to be drastically changed with the impact on the rest of Europe being so serious that any speculations about British, French and Austrian attitudes are pointless: there are multiple possible scenarios which would be shaping short and long term situation in Europe.

Now, in the best case scenario (Russia conquers Western coast of the Black Sea, gets land connection to the Straits and does not face an immediate opposition) what would be Russian gain outside of a mantra “the bigger, the better” (actually, even PI expressed an opinion that Russia is already too big to be efficiently governed and does not need further expansion)? Not sure if there is anything serious enough to justify the trouble.

On a positive side, Russia gets a direct access to the Med. Sounds great but “access” means “access for the navy” because Russia does not have a merchant fleet worth noticing and is not going to have it for a foreseen future. So, while the British navy is sailing here and there providing security for opening the new markets, the Russian navy is simply sailing here and there to no obvious purpose: who on the Eastern Med needs Russian grain, timber, iron, hemp, etc.? Its textile industry is on the early stages of growing and woolens are imported from Britain (there is some domestic production but it is not competitive even within Russia) and manufactured goods are of a poor quality and do not cover even the domestic market. Slave trade coming through Istanbul would be over.

Eventually, with Odessa growing into a major port (post 1819), Constantinople may become a transit port but Odessa would be a terminal and all the way to the end of the XIX the merchant ships would be predominantly British and French but not Russian so what is the point?

What else? Short of a genocidal scenario, Russia is getting city with more than a half of its population being hostile and, unlike Warsaw, not too skilled in producing anything useful from the Russian perspective. However, there is a need to fed them, which means that a portion of the Russian grain is not bringing in the British gold. Then goes a beauty: restoration of St. Sophia as an Orthodox Church with the obvious need to deal with a resulting revolt and future outbreaks of a religious fanaticism. Plus, there is a need to spend considerable money for the massive fortifications on both European and Asiatic side and permanently keep considerable number of troops there.

Potential gain from possession of the land bridge to Constantinople is one more question mark: the area is not wealthy (and Russia never even tried to conquer it) and ethnically diverse, which is going to produce more administrative problems. Creation of the rump states of Bulgaria and Walachia would mean eventual border issues which are going to appear in the worst moment possible.
 
Prestige and influence over Europe.
.

Russia had more prestige than it could safely digest (hence the idiotic adventures like the 2nd and 3rd Coalitions) and its influence in Europe would not noticeably change due to conquest of the Straits: in the early XIX nobody cared too much about them being otherwise occupied. In OTL the whole CW adventure was triggered by the notion that Russia has too much influence on the European affairs.

Not that, unlike Britain, Russia could use its prestige and influence for some tangible gain.
 
Russia had more prestige than it could safely digest (hence the idiotic adventures like the 2nd and 3rd Coalitions) and its influence in Europe would not noticeably change due to conquest of the Straits: in the early XIX nobody cared too much about them being otherwise occupied. In OTL the whole CW adventure was triggered by the notion that Russia has too much influence on the European affairs.

Not that, unlike Britain, Russia could use its prestige and influence for some tangible gain.

The latter which Russia would try to use by dismantling much of the Ottoman Empire.
 
As the OP, I should be clear that I was envisioning a POD a decade or two in advance, so the cast of monarchs involved could be very different, and likely no Napoleon. I agree there would be much more strategically beneficial territories. But if there was an Ottoman military collapse, the Russians went for the jugular and ended up conquering the place, I think holding on to the once greatest city in Christendom would be too hard to pass up.
 
As the OP, I should be clear that I was envisioning a POD a decade or two in advance, so the cast of monarchs involved could be very different, and likely no Napoleon. I agree there would be much more strategically beneficial territories. But if there was an Ottoman military collapse, the Russians went for the jugular and ended up conquering the place, I think holding on to the once greatest city in Christendom would be too hard to pass up.

The Ottoman military collapse was not easily achieved prior to the late 1820s. To start with prior to the military buildup of 1810 - 12 Russia did not have an army big enough to accomplish the task and the same goes for the logistics, which became more efficient in the course of the Napoleonic Wars. Enough to say that in the 1st Ottoman War of CII just crossing the Danube was considered unbelievable achievement and the rest of the war had been spent mostly on “holding the line” and struggling with providing food an footage in not too hospitable area. And this required the best Russian general of that period OTOH, during the war of 1828 Russian troops under rather mediocre command reached Adrianople and the same goes for 1878.

So, if you still want it to be in TL reasonably close to OTL, accomplishing the task in the early XIX is technically difficult while doing it later is politically difficult. Unless, of course, Britain agrees to the proposal of NI to deal with the sick man in Europe, which would save a lot of efforts (and considerable embarrassment) during WWI, if it still happens.
 
The Ottoman military collapse was not easily achieved prior to the late 1820s. To start with prior to the military buildup of 1810 - 12 Russia did not have an army big enough to accomplish the task and the same goes for the logistics, which became more efficient in the course of the Napoleonic Wars. Enough to say that in the 1st Ottoman War of CII just crossing the Danube was considered unbelievable achievement and the rest of the war had been spent mostly on “holding the line” and struggling with providing food an footage in not too hospitable area. And this required the best Russian general of that period OTOH, during the war of 1828 Russian troops under rather mediocre command reached Adrianople and the same goes for 1878.

So, if you still want it to be in TL reasonably close to OTL, accomplishing the task in the early XIX is technically difficult while doing it later is politically difficult. Unless, of course, Britain agrees to the proposal of NI to deal with the sick man in Europe, which would save a lot of efforts (and considerable embarrassment) during WWI, if it still happens.

The timeline I am thinking of does have an Anglo-Russian alliance, yes. :)
 
The timeline I am thinking of does have an Anglo-Russian alliance, yes. :)

Then it would probably make practical sense to move TL to the 1830s when the military part of the operation becomes practical and make a major (but not unrealistic) change in the British-Russian relations. Let’s say that the British politicians are possessing better long-term analytical skills (or whatever) and can see the eventual advantages in breaking down the Ottoman Empire while also having a more realistic assessment of the true (as opposite to imaginable) Russian power or rather weaknesses with a resulting understanding that Russia is not a threat to India and even not a serious commercial competitor in Persia. Then they are coming to unescapable conclusion that NI is an useful idiot willing to do the job which is going to benefit Britain (just as his brother did earlier). Then everything goes just fine. NI is getting Constantinople and a coastal stretch connecting it to Russia and Britain is getting whatever it wants. Russian possession of Constantinople changes little in the terms of the British commerce and due to the fact that the Russian commerce is pretty much non-existent the British sphere of interests is not impacted in any way.

Additional benefit for the Brits is that France is practically cut off from the Levant (now controlled by the Brits) and if it starts getting ambitious Britain always can rely upon the Russian help (not sure that the Brits gave a damn about which church has which rights in the Holy Places).

Austria can be thrown a bone, some Balkan territories, to have an additional assurance against France and everybody lives happily ever after. :)
 
Then it would probably make practical sense to move TL to the 1830s when the military part of the operation becomes practical and make a major (but not unrealistic) change in the British-Russian relations. Let’s say that the British politicians are possessing better long-term analytical skills (or whatever) and can see the eventual advantages in breaking down the Ottoman Empire while also having a more realistic assessment of the true (as opposite to imaginable) Russian power or rather weaknesses with a resulting understanding that Russia is not a threat to India and even not a serious commercial competitor in Persia. Then they are coming to unescapable conclusion that NI is an useful idiot willing to do the job which is going to benefit Britain (just as his brother did earlier). Then everything goes just fine. NI is getting Constantinople and a coastal stretch connecting it to Russia and Britain is getting whatever it wants. Russian possession of Constantinople changes little in the terms of the British commerce and due to the fact that the Russian commerce is pretty much non-existent the British sphere of interests is not impacted in any way.

Additional benefit for the Brits is that France is practically cut off from the Levant (now controlled by the Brits) and if it starts getting ambitious Britain always can rely upon the Russian help (not sure that the Brits gave a damn about which church has which rights in the Holy Places).

Austria can be thrown a bone, some Balkan territories, to have an additional assurance against France and everybody lives happily ever after. :)

A timeline I am mapping out features an early Anglo-Russian alliance and Britain being pulled into an Ottoman-Russian war in the 1790s. The Ottomans get screwed by Russian military reforms and British naval bombardment. Was envisioning Cyprus and Crete to Britain, Bulgarian puppet to Russia and condominium over the Straits. Plus something thrown in for the Habsburgs. Ottomans hang on for 5-10 years before facing Greece rising in revolt, Austria and Russia moving in to the Balkans, Tunis & Algiers declare independence, Ottomans put down revolts in Egypt and Syria, fail to deal with Wahhab-Saudi alliance in Arabia.
 
A timeline I am mapping out features an early Anglo-Russian alliance and Britain being pulled into an Ottoman-Russian war in the 1790s. The Ottomans get screwed by Russian military reforms and British naval bombardment. Was envisioning Cyprus and Crete to Britain, Bulgarian puppet to Russia and condominium over the Straits. Plus something thrown in for the Habsburgs. Ottomans hang on for 5-10 years before facing Greece rising in revolt, Austria and Russia moving in to the Balkans, Tunis & Algiers declare independence, Ottomans put down revolts in Egypt and Syria, fail to deal with Wahhab-Saudi alliance in Arabia.


Time table of the 1790s would require earlier Russian military reforms allowing to at least double the size of a field army and providing a much better logistic services. There also would be a need to have Potemkin out of the picture (in OTL died in 1791). Other that that the timing is close to perfect:
(a) Two of the greatest Russian generals, Rumiantsev and Suvorov, are still alive and at least Suvorov is still very energetic
(b) The Black Sea fleet has the best Russian admiral ever, Fedor Ushakov, who already scored more than one victory over the Ottomans (and used tactics similar to one that made Nelson famous).

I’m not quite sure how condominimum arrangement would go to work but perhaps making Constantinople porto franco may be OK: at that time in OTL the Brits had been quite comfortable with the Russian presence on the Med (which became possible only due to their help) and even offered to CII Majorca as a payment for help against the colonies. During the 1st Ottoman War there was Russian administration of some of the Greek islands (with which the Brits had been OK), during the war of the 2nd Coalition Ushakov took Corfu and established Greek Republic under the join Russian-Ottoman protectorate, there were joined Russian-British operations in Naples, etc. To make the long story short, most of the hostility belongs to post-Napoleonic period and the same goes to the interest to the Straits (before Odessa became a major port, the British interest on the Black Sea was pretty much absent and, as I said, the Brits did not have serious problems with the Russian presence on the Med.

So, within this framework, the main question is how Russia provides a secure access to the Straits (I think that getting all the coast is more realistic and practical) and size of a bone thrown to the Hapsburgs: in OTL they usually wanted both the Principalities and Serbia but a joined British-Russian pressure combined with the military failures against the Ottomans could limit their appetite to “Yugoslavian” part of the Balkans. AFAIK, historically they conducted a considerable trade with the Ottomans by the Danube, which may explain interest in the Principalities but with the Ottomans practically out of Europe the reason may not be there (or there can be arrangements regarding freedom of shipping by the Danube, etc.).

Probably in your TL the Brits may start having earlier ideas regarding control over Egypt.
 
Last edited:
Time table of the 1790s would require earlier Russian military reforms allowing to at least double the size of a field army and providing a much better logistic services. There also would be a need to have Potemkin out of the picture (in OTL died in 1791). Other that that the timing is close to perfect:
(a) Two of the greatest Russian generals, Rumiantsev and Suvorov, are still alive and at least Suvorov is still very energetic
(b) The Black Sea fleet has the best Russian admiral ever, Fedor Ushakov, who already scored more than one victory over the Ottomans (and used tactics similar to one that made Nelson famous).

I’m not quite sure how condominimum arrangement would go to work but perhaps making Constantinople porto franco may be OK: at that time in OTL the Brits had been quite comfortable with the Russian presence on the Med (which became possible only due to their help) and even offered to CII Majorca as a payment for help against the colonies. During the 1st Ottoman War there was Russian administration of some of the Greek islands (with which the Brits had been OK), during the war of the 2nd Coalition Ushakov took Corfu and established Greek Republic under the join Russian-Ottoman protectorate, there were joined Russian-British operations in Naples, etc. To make the long story short, most of the hostility belongs to post-Napoleonic period and the same goes to the interest to the Straits (before Odessa became a major port, the British interest on the Black Sea was pretty much absent and, as I said, the Brits did not have serious problems with the Russian presence on the Med.

So, within this framework, the main question is how Russia provides a secure access to the Straits (I think that getting all the coast is more realistic and practical) and size of a bone thrown to the Hapsburgs: in OTL they usually wanted both the Principalities and Serbia but a joined British-Russian pressure combined with the military failures against the Ottomans could limit their appetite to “Yugoslavian” part of the Balkans. AFAIK, historically they conducted a considerable trade with the Ottomans by the Danube, which may explain interest in the Principalities but with the Ottomans practically out of Europe the reason may not be there (or there can be arrangements regarding freedom of shipping by the Danube, etc.).

Probably in your TL the Brits may start having earlier ideas regarding control over Egypt.

Thanks for the input. What if Russian reforms weren't as strong? Surely a combined force of Britain + Austria + Russia would be able to get to Constantinople if the war goes on long enough? The Ottomans were collapsing against Austria and Russia in 1791 in OTL and that was without the Royal Navy bombarding the coast. I also have no Prussia in my timeline to intervene.

Which principalities are you talking? The Romanian ones? That seems too much for the Russians. How wide would a Russian coastal strip be? Is a strip necessary if the two navies can protect food imports coming in from sea?
 
Thanks for the input. What if Russian reforms weren't as strong? Surely a combined force of Britain + Austria + Russia would be able to get to Constantinople if the war goes on long enough? The Ottomans were collapsing against Austria and Russia in 1791 in OTL and that was without the Royal Navy bombarding the coast. I also have no Prussia in my timeline to intervene.

Which principalities are you talking? The Romanian ones? That seems too much for the Russians. How wide would a Russian coastal strip be? Is a strip necessary if the two navies can protect food imports coming in from sea?

You need the numbers to secure the space between Russian border and the Straits because otherwise you have campaign in the style of Charles XII and not a conquest. You also need a reform to allow advance all the way to Istanbul: in 1791 the allies were victorious but advancing all the way to the Straits was out of question due to both inadequate numbers and lousy logistics.

Austria, based on the experience of the Russian-Austrian campaigns of the XVIII (Ottoman wars and Italian Campaign) was useful when its troops had been fighting under Suvorov’s command: somehow on their own they either managed to get defeated or had been plagued by the epidemics and other disasters. Anyway, to avoid conflict of interests, they could be operating on the Serbian “front”. The Brits are trickier outside ability to occupy some islands.

As far as the British navy is involved, which coast exactly would they be bombarding? In OTL the British attempt to pass through the Dardanelles failed and operation ended with the blockade established by Seniavin’s squadron and defeat of the Ottomans trying to break the blockade (and revolt in Istanbul caused by the food shortages).

“Principalities” is a commonly used name for Moldavia and Walachia. Question about the strip is a valid one (and one that makes the whole idea close to impractical). It should also include a coast of Bulgaria to be uninterrupted. So ether all these Ottoman territories are going annexed by Russia, which probably would be too much even for CII (she never planned acquisition of the whole region) or you have 3puppet states bitching about losing the parts of the historic territories. OTOH, possession of just the Straits definitely creates a lot of problems but what are the advantages? Start with the “food imports”. They would be brought from where and by whom? As I understand, the Ottomans had been supplying Istanbul from across the Med (Egypt?) so the blockade of the Dardanelles was causing the food shortaged. The Brits definitely had a fleet on the Med but no food sources. Russian settlement on the Black Sea coast only started, the new lands has to be developed and surplus of food is a matter of future. The Black Sea fleet exists but there is no merchant fleet and no big trade ports (Odessa is just founded and will became a major commercial port only couple decades later ). So the issue would be not the naval protection of the food carrying convoys but an absense of these convoys. Unless you are concocting a schema in which the OTL food suppliers are willing to keep sending food to Constantinople (for gold). Which brings an obvious question about ROI: does the whole adventure worth the trouble?

As an alternative, I’d suggest some newly-created state (Greece or whatever) holding both sides of the Straits, providing a free sailing through them and solving the problem of feeding Constantinople (taking into an account history of the region, solution could be quite genocidal or involving massive expelling of the Turks). State would have to be nice to both “benefactors” to guarantee protection against the Ottomans and the issue of too extensive Russian expansionism is gone (Russia gets some territories but even annexation of the Principalities may not raise the British hackles as long as the Straits are not involved). CII may want to make her grandson Constantine the king of Greece. Austria would be unhappy (it always was) but it gets a big piece of “Yuogoslavia” (term used just as identification of a region). Prussia is not involved. Britain gets islands of her choice.
 

gurgu

Banned
total OE collapse, since Napoleon they proved to be the "sick man of Europe".
Losing Constantinople will result in no protests to the santo stefano Treaty( the target was to avoid giving Russians a free access to the Mediterranean, which is useless if they control Constantinople). The city would be renamed to Tsarigrad as Slavs call it ( city of zars). Bulgaria develops as Russian ally and is the Balkan regional power, Serbia and Greece are not able to win a war against, neither if they are helped from Romania( in OTL in the second Balkan war the 3 together had 800k while Bulgaria alone 500k, in TTL it would be 700kvs 700k, and Bulgaria would have better generals and equipment so, guess who would win)
The collapse of the OE means Albania, Iraq, Kurdistan, Armenia,Yemen,Arabia,Syria,Palestine all declare their Independence thus reducing the empire to modern day turkey with no European land.
No Balkan war( maybe only one all vs Bulgaria), AH takes Bosnia as OTL and WW1 triggers anyway( it's inevitable) but different alliances:
-Bulgaria is with Russia so neutral-entente( hate for Serbians if there was a Balkan war and no possible gains)
-OE/Turkey Neutral, one collapse was enough to make them understand that maybe after 200 years it was time for changes
-Russia will defend Serbia as Slav defender( worse relation with Bulgaria by a bit) and will focus to make Bulgaria join as well or at least grant access to resupply Serbia)
-Same entente
-CP or 2 powers( Germany and AH alone).
-Italy might force AH to give trieste and tyrol since they would desperately need a third ally, and italy is the only available on the market
-Russia will resist more( no resupply problem, Bosporus is under control) but i think it would sovietize anyway so loses the same territories as Brest litovsk+Tsarigrad given back to Turkey seeking alliance( no use)
ww1 ends with entente victory:
- same penalties on Germany and AH.
- if italy joins CP looses dodecanese(Greece), Somalia ( Britain), Eritrea(50/50 france Ethiopia) and Libya( France?).
Interwar period:
as OTL in western Europe
South-Eastern Europe:
Bulgarian-Turkish war for tsarigrad( renamed Istanbul, thus the song "Istanbul not Constantinople neither tsarigrad") which the first wins( Balkans Prussia) and again renamed tsarigrad with Muslims forced to convert or emigrate so OE loses the claims
New Balkan pact: all the Balkans except Albania make a defensive alliance against Bulgaria( no reason, Bulgaria has accomplished all it's claims, except restoring the byzantine Empire which is considered useless in XX century).
Everywhere else as OTL.

WW2:
- Benny more supported for italian recover invades Greece( no Turkish war TTL no army reform).
- Romania joins axis and Yugoslavia(no macedonia/pirot) as well.
- Bulgaria attacked joins allies and helps Greece but both are going to capitulate after a while.
- no Africa campaign( few more troops in Russia after Balkan campaign).
- German collapse anyway( they can't win with Hitler madness) maybe may 1943 instead of February.
- Italian change team as allies land in Sicily

Peace:
- as OTL for Italy/Germany
-Yugoslavia ceases to exist, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia,Serbia released( the first 2 stay democratic while the latter becomes 2 commies)
-Romania Commie as OTL but looses al the southern river of Danube to Bulgaria
-Greece and Albania merges( with guarantees on Albanian authonomy)
-Bulgaria was with the Allies, thus keeps monarchy and gains southern delta of Danube( official reason is for compensation for participating while de facto is for better defense from soviet land invasion rom north)

from 50's to modern day:
- Good relation between greece/bulgaria they both join the ECSC/EU in the 70/80's
- anything else as OTL
 
Top