Russia's Nightmare, No Peace in 1856

I agree with your analyze, but: :)

Are you sure that the allies would be so smart that they do not follow? Would that be compatibel with strategic thinking in those days?

And even if you are right about the crimean front and Baltic front, what about the Austrian-Hngarian front?

Even tough I agree with you, Im not so sure that the allies does not need a final victory at the peace negotiation table. Peacet reaties were rather important in those days.

Oddball

They may not have been smart enough, although I suspect a few would have. However as an alliance with their differing interests it would be difficult getting all or most of them to agree to a march on Moscow. Not to mention a lot of their senior officers will have been around at the time of Napoleon's trip in 1812.

By defeating the Russians in the Crimean the allies have both achieved their primary aim and shattered the image of Russian dominance in eastern Europe. The Russian empire is struggling economically with its trade crippled and its richest agricultural areas are very vulnerable as is its capital. Also its vulnerable and prominent Pacific territories may well become tempting targets. Those are of minimal economic importance but significant in terms of prestige, which the empire has very little left by this point.

If, under this situation, the Russian empire doesn't make peace its weaknesses are likely to led to widespread unrest and even greater decay in its political and military position.

Steve
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Oddball

They may not have been smart enough, although I suspect a few would have. However as an alliance with their differing interests it would be difficult getting all or most of them to agree to a march on Moscow. Not to mention a lot of their senior officers will have been around at the time of Napoleon's trip in 1812.

By defeating the Russians in the Crimean the allies have both achieved their primary aim and shattered the image of Russian dominance in eastern Europe. The Russian empire is struggling economically with its trade crippled and its richest agricultural areas are very vulnerable as is its capital. Also its vulnerable and prominent Pacific territories may well become tempting targets. Those are of minimal economic importance but significant in terms of prestige, which the empire has very little left by this point.

If, under this situation, the Russian empire doesn't make peace its weaknesses are likely to led to widespread unrest and even greater decay in its political and military position.

Steve

I still agree with you, but... :D

If the Russkies chooses to withdraw to the interior instead of accepting peace talks, does that not directly indicate a change in Russian thinking?

And without further similarity, look at conflicts today were there does not excist a part to have an peace agreement with. Things tend to turn ugly if a formal and accepted government does not exists.

So I tend to think that if the Russians just withdraws but refuses peace talk, the allies would just not have the capasity or the will to pacify a large swat of territory were there even exict a hostil Russia behind.

My basic point is just that IMHO the allies needs to force the Russians to come to the peace conference. Without a formal treaty, all bets are off.
 
In the proposed invasion of Estonia in 1856, Denmark agreed to send 16,000 troops...

Where did this info come up? I've been through the Danish History of Foreign Affairs regarding the Crimean War - nothing about any Danish agreement to supply troops for invasion of Estonia.
Denmark had a serious reason to invoke everybody's consent of it's neutrality and especially Russias: the succession of the throne of Denmark. The Zar had a claim on Sleswig-Holstein and as a side-line of the Danish royal family holding a Ducal title in S-H was wanted to succeed the throne, the Zar's approval and resignment of claim had to be ensured.
So NO Danish involment in the Crimean War or it's AH prolongment, exept of course if you come up with a POD for another succession.
 

Stalker

Banned
If it came to direct invasion, the Russians would just pull back and watch their enemies make a mistake of Napoleonic proportions, if you catch my drift.;)
Yep. Moltke Doctrine. Russia aways wins home! Often with the help of General Winter but mainly due to awful logistics for invading armies are to fight amid vast stretches of Russian homeland, desperate guerilla warfare and extremely high morale of Russian soldiers who fight with all their courage for Holy Mother Russia.
St. Petersburg can be bombarded only after you suppress the batteries of Kronstadt (that aone is next to impossible) and mainand batteries in the Gulf of Finland that boast formidable cannons and, I'd say, are one of the most fortified places in the world (in WWII, the Wehrmacht was unable to catch them even from the rear). Add to this the Russian Baltic Fleet (26 ships-of-the-line, 9 steam frigates and 9 old frigates (it's, of course, no match to British and French Fleets but being in defensive position, it will only add its firepower to the batteries). Add to this minefields that no enemy in history was able to come through and then you may think you've got the picture. Even having sunk all Grand Fleet together with all the French Fleet, you will get no result all the same, and any attempt of landing marines will end in disaster. All the shore down to "Kingdom of Poland" is guarded by 179 batallions, 144 dragoon, hussar and uhlan squadrons and Cossack hundreds, with 384 field cannons.
You may seize some of distant forts (in OTL it was Bomarsund) but it will be all.
Al other attacks may be as doubtfuy successful. Remember aied attack on Petropavovsk-Kamchatskiy in August 1854 under command of Admiral Price.
The Ango-French allies' arses were kicked off hard by the Russian garrison under command of major-general Zavoiko. That means that even allies can hardly expand their ines of communications in attempt to end up with miserabe resuts or with no result at all.
And that all happens when Russia has miserable railroad network at that time!
 
Assuming that you can turn whole Europe against Russia (which is pure ASB in 1856), you can repeat Napoleon's success (I'm serious, he enjoyed the greatest success of all Europeans who ever invaded Russia), but that's about it. Russian industry of the day is concentrated in St. Petersburg (good luck storming it), Greater Moscow Region (not exactly close to border, although Napoleon did reach it) and Urals (where no foreign invader ever reached). So, ultimate result of successfull foreign invasion of Russia will be seriously depopulated Europe and greatly improved (by the French and British engineers) Russian railway network (Allies would have to build it to supply their troops in Russian heartland). I would not dare to call it a success.
 
Doubtful the Allies bother to invade the Russian heartland anyway.

If they can get Austria AND Prussia on board then Russia loses Finland and the 1815 Poland but not much more.

There is also no chance of the Russians holding anything on the coast that the British determine to take. That includes St Petersburg.

Pardon me while I whistle up a specialist...:D
 
There is also no chance of the Russians holding anything on the coast that the British determine to take. That includes St Petersburg.
Correction. There's no chance for Russians to hold anything in the sea that the British determine to take. Coast... Well, I'm not so sure. British took Alands, but suffered royal whooping on Kamchatka once they dared to land. St. Petersburg? Might be doable in several years time, but that would have an unexpected consequence of Northwestern Russia turning into worthy agricultural province (hundreds of thousands of British corpses will fertilize it well). IOTL allies made half-hearted attempt to attack SPb in hope to scare Tsar, but it arguably just strengthened Russian resolve (Russians laughed so hard at Britons fumbling at Kronstadt's batteries).
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Correction. There's no chance for Russians to hold anything in the sea that the British determine to take. Coast... Well, I'm not so sure. British took Alands, but suffered royal whooping on Kamchatka once they dared to land. St. Petersburg? Might be doable in several years time, but that would have an unexpected consequence of Northwestern Russia turning into worthy agricultural province (hundreds of thousands of British corpses will fertilize it well). IOTL allies made half-hearted attempt to attack SPb in hope to scare Tsar, but it arguably just strengthened Russian resolve (Russians laughed so hard at Britons fumbling at Kronstadt's batteries).

I'll call your attention to the bombardment of Sveaborg (9-10 Aug 1855).

The attack on Kronstadt is interesting *because it never happened*. Napier recce'd the fortress, determined it couldn't be approached except by shallow draught ships, and so simply blockaded it (and was censured for it). However, the RN and MI built several hundred new light draught gunships with heavy guns, the type that had proved so effective against Kinburn and Sveaborg. The mere existence of this force forced the Tsar to sue for peace, since it enabled the allies to smash Kronstadt and take St Petersburg.

Also, you're massively overestimating Russian Army strength in the theatre. The forces in the Baltic essentially break down as:

In Poland: 1st Corps and Guards Cavalry Corps
In the Baltic States: 2nd Corps
At St Petersburg: Guard Corps and Grenadier Corps
Finland: 22nd Infantry Division
(See: http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/Ruscrimea.htm )

Realistically this is a force of maybe 130,000 infantry, but spread very thinly. 22nd Division is going to have a hard time dealing with the Swedish thrust, and 1st Corps and Guards Cavalry need to hold Poland and guard against Prussia. The Tsar isn't going to release Guards or Grenadier Corps from St Petersburg which leaves 2nd Corps to deal with the main allied thrust. Even if they get 2nd Reserve Infantry Division up they're badly outnumbered.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Would Russia still be able to annex Outer Manchuria in such a turn of events? If not, there go Vladivostok and probably the Transsiberian. Manchuria will be Japan's for the taking a few decades later, assuming the butterflies don't revert the Qing dynasty's decline.
 

Thande

Donor
Would Russia still be able to annex Outer Manchuria in such a turn of events? If not, there go Vladivostok and probably the Transsiberian. Manchuria will be Japan's for the taking a few decades later, assuming the butterflies don't revert the Qing dynasty's decline.

I can see this going two ways.

Either Russia's position in the East is not affected (and it certainly wouldn't be directly affected) and things proceed as OTL. In fact, maybe more so than OTL, if the Tsar tries to recoup national pride from the lost Crimean War by trumpeting about the latest round of annexations in the east: the Cossacks, the Uzbeks, the Tatars, the...Manchus? All of them?

If you wanted to pull a rosier outlook for China out of that situation, you could say that losing more of what is after all the original homeland of the ruling dynasty would be enough to shock the fossilised system into reform earlier on. (On the other hand, if the Opium Wars didn't do it...)

Alternatively, you could say that Britain and France pursue an anti-Russian policy everywhere (Great Game, but with the French as well) and block Russian expansion in the east, perhaps by more directly puppetising the Qing after another round of Opium Wars-type wars and then backing them against the Russians.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Alternatively, you could say that Britain and France pursue an anti-Russian policy everywhere (Great Game, but with the French as well) and block Russian expansion in the east, perhaps by more directly puppetising the Qing after another round of Opium Wars-type wars and then backing them against the Russians.

General point of order, "Opium War" is a 1930's invention as part of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere propaganda justification for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. It had very little to do with, at least specifically, the Opium Trade.

Anglo-Chinese War is a better description.
 
I don't think in any case that this war would drag on too much longer. The Russians are in a bad position, with little ability to support forces logistically in the South. They still had this problem to some extent in 1877.

And financially, neither side could have carried it on for too long. The Ottomans already had to assume a heavy debt load and Britain and France would have had to finance them heavily if the war had dragged on, not to mention their own expenses. The Russians, on the other hand, were in dire straights, since the only real capital markets at the time were Paris and London.

A drive north might have led to the reconstitution of the Crimean Khanate, or perhaps a direct Ottoman province there, and a drive into the Caucasus might have transferred a small amount of territory back to the Ottomans and probably Persia.

Other than that, there wouldn't be much difference.
 
If the Crieam War expands, Russia is in a bad place. Assuming Austria joins, a new Poland will be on the books for sure, and they might even go for part of the Ukraine. Sweden will take the chance to grab Finland, and maybe the Baltics, that one is less certain. A Crimean state, and perhaps a TransCaucasian one might emerge, and Britain might go for the the Russian Far East and Alaska. All in all, Russia is trounced and takes a long time to recover.

Russia will not just retreat this time, because of what they are fighting for, they aren't fighting for the survival of Russia, they're essentially fighting for bits and pieces here and there, largely on the frontier. If the Russians retreat, the Allies win.
 
Top