Ricardolindo
Banned
What if Sweden had joined the Crimean War, on the Ottomans, the British and the French's side, to retake the Aland Islands, from Russia?
What if Sweden had joined the Crimean War, on the Ottomans, the British and the French's side, to retake the Aland Islands, from Russia?
Taking land from Russia opens the path for future conflicts with Russia, though, and just because Russia's performance during the Crimean War wasn't great (which the Swedish couldn't have known at the outbreak of the war in any case), Sweden's chances of fending off the Russians in the long term until Russia gives up on whatever lands lost or grudges created from the war are close to nil as one can get. Conquering land requires keeping said land, after all, and it's hard to do that when the land belonged to a Great Power manifold times more populous than one's own country.Sweden my not have had the man power but Russia wasn't exactly the abtomen of military success during the Crimean War.
Very true, was was gust considering the cirmian war not after.Taking land from Russia opens the path for future conflicts with Russia, though, and just because Russia's performance during the Crimean War wasn't great (which the Swedish couldn't have known at the outbreak of the war in any case), Sweden's chances of fending off the Russians in the long term until Russia gives up on whatever lands lost or grudges created from the war are close to nil as one can get. Conquering land requires keeping said land, after all, and it's hard to do that when the land belonged to a Great Power manifold times more populous than one's own country.
Sweden my not have had the man power but Russia wasn't exactly the abtomen of military success during the Crimean War.
Britain hoped to have Sweden join the war so they could take a shot at Kronstadt in 1855-56. With the French and British armies largely tied down at Sevastopol, the British wanted to try a 'knock out' blow aimed at St. Petersburg. To do that they needed better ports in the Baltic to prepare, and would have needed Swedish assistance and manpower for this proposed maneuver.
Didn't the Russians keep a fairly large force in Karelia to forestall the possibility?
So far as I'm aware yes. They kept more troops on the coasts of the Baltics than in the Crimea because the threat of an Allied landing was a potent thought in the tsar's mind.
You can also get pretty far up into the Russian heartland by the Neva and Duna/Daguva rivers quickly from the Baltic Sea, the same is not the case with Crimea.
Of course, Sevastopol was far removed from ‘mainland’ and there were not only railroad (very few existed in Russia of that time) but just a decent land road, the area was quite short of any type of the resources, far away from the centers or weapons production and getting anything to that location by land was a monumental task.
Just curious, you an get far by what? A boat? Surely, this was not a very practical way to invade in mid-XIX century.
Of course, Sevastopol was far removed from ‘mainland’ and there were not only railroad (very few existed in Russia of that time) but just a decent land road, the area was quite short of any type of the resources, far away from the centers or weapons production and getting anything to that location by land was a monumental task.
But it was the base for Russian power projection into the Black Sea and thus towards the Balkans and into the Straits, ...
Riverine transport is an excellent way to move supplies and in some cases even troops and their equipment. The Britishhad some experience with riverine gunbjoat warfare, and both them and the French brought such vessels to the siege of Bomarsund at Åland.
You are seemingly missing the difference between Russia of mid-XIX and China of the Opium Wars. The idea is completely impractical and so is reference to Bomarsund: an isolated unfinished fortress in which only 2 out of 12 towers were completed and which did not have adequate artillery and assailants with a numeric advantage 10:1. If anything, a purely naval bombardment (1st battle) failed and the 2nd assault had been won by the landing force (12,000 vs 2,000 defenders) with a heavy artillery. How this can be compared to the fortifications guarding St. Petersburg and Riga?
And what is also completely absent is an explanation why would Sweden join the war just to fight for the British and French interests?