Tho Oriental Crisis of 1840: what went wrong?

What happened in 1840, a short history lesson:

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840)
On the verge of total collapse and defeat to Muhammad Ali, an alliance of European powers comprising the United Kingdom, the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Russian Empire intervened on behalf of the young Sultan Abdülmecid I.
So in summary, Muhammad Ali was close to forging his own personal empire at the expense of the Ottomans, when the latter were bailed out by a coallition of european powers lead by Great Britain. There was howewer one european country that supported the Egyptians: France.
The crisis in Egypt also coincided with a flare-up of tensions on the Franco-German border. It is possible that the French were looking for a casus-belli to reoccupy the Rhineland and restore the border from the revolutionary and napoleonic age. In the end, the French were diplomatically isolated and could not do anything.
What is however extremely bizzare in this episode is the support that Russia gave to its traditional enemy, the Ottoman Empire. This gave me an ideea for an AH scenario:

What should have happened:

French diplomats convince the Russians that it's time to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, like the Russians allways wanted. Russia will get the Balkans including Constantinople and will annex these terittories or set up puppet states. Muhammad Ali will get all the middle-east plus the titles of Sultan and Caliph and whatewer else he wants. He will have to give political and economic concessions to Russia and especially to France. The French will obtain economic privileges in Egypt and maybe annex some more land in North-Africa. But more important, they will secure from their newfound allies support for expansion in the Rhineland. Austria may or may not be brought into the plan, depending on how much sympathy the Austrians feel for Prussia and other west-german states. They will of course be promised Bosnia and other lands in the western Balkans. Britain will be humiliated and diplomatically isolated, and France will regain it's prestige in Europe.

So what went wrong? How did the French screw up diplomatically? Why did the Rssians pass-up on the opportuinty to destroy their rivals and seize Constantinople, like they allways wanted?
I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter.
 
I can answer this question, but my answers could be wrong. For instance, in order for France and Russia to support Muhammad Ali and Ibrahim Pasha's desires for an independent Egyptian Caliphate, something has to go wrong with the alliance which intervened on behalf of the Ottoman sultan. Moreover, Britain may have already seen Russia as a menace to the British East India Company's control and also, the collapse of the Ottoman empire would have devastating results for Europe, in which Russia would become the clear winner. (Yes, Constantinople would be theirs, plus more independent Balkan nations gravitating towards Russia's orbit)
 
give it some time. It can take a while for interest in a topic to pick up.
Thanks for the encouragement. I was afraid that it would fall to the second page with 0 replies.

I something has to go wrong with the alliance which intervened on behalf of the Ottoman sultan.
What I don't understand is how did that alliance ever go right in the first place? How did the British, in spite of French opposition, convince Russia and Austria to bail out their tradidional enemy, when they could have finished it off right there and then?
 
Fear of Ottoman collapse means a nasty aftershocks for Europe. Even though no one likes the Ottoman Empire after the Greek War of Independence, the main point was to prevent Russia from moving into the Mediterrenean Sea.
 
Less than 2 months old, so I'll ask here...

1. Suppose instead France tries to play Russia and Austria against each other to break up the coalition? Arguing that if Russia is allowed to befriend the Ottomans too much they'll be allowed to send their ships through the Dardenelles anyway. Or that their military occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia pose a threat to Austria?

2.Suppose instead that France decides to join the coalition but goes further and tries to crush Muhammad Ali and his son? Thereby gaining some kind of control over Egypt from whoever is placed on in the family's stead out of gratitude.

Admittedly, both are longshots, and France and Austria against all the others might still be a problem, but I'm debating what to have the ruler of France do in my TL and want to explore all options.
 
During this period it would have taken at least three of the other powers working together to beat the Royal Navy, if that they could actually have managed to coordinate their fleets effectively without getting defeated separately first, and they all knew this: that's one big reason why the idea of "humiliating" Britain -- if that had tempted a few leaders -- would have been widely understood at the time to be a no-goer. Add to this some lingering international distrust of the French (this being so soon after Napoleon's time), the fact that the Russians had already fought alongside the British (and French) against Muhammed Ali at Navarino in 1827, and the fact that King Louis-Philippe of France was fairly pro-British, and I don't see much plausible opportunity for a major change of policy such as has been suggested here.
 
Hooray! It's alive!

Suppose instead France tries to play Russia and Austria against each other to break up the coalition
That seems like a rather contrieved plan.
A better ideea might be to play Austria against Prussia. France had designs on German terittory, but they were limited to the Rhineland where Prussia would have been affected, but Austria had no longer any interests. And there was little love between Austria and Prussia.

During this period it would have taken at least three of the other powers working together to beat the Royal Navy, if that they could actually have managed to coordinate their fleets effectively without getting defeated separately first, and they all knew this: that's one big reason why the idea of "humiliating" Britain -- if that had tempted a few leaders -- would have been widely understood at the time to be a no-goer. Add to this some lingering international distrust of the French (this being so soon after Napoleon's time), the fact that the Russians had already fought alongside the British (and French) against Muhammed Ali at Navarino in 1827, and the fact that King Louis-Philippe of France was fairly pro-British, and I don't see much plausible opportunity for a major change of policy such as has been suggested here.
Why would it be necessary to beat the Royal Navy? Sure, it can disrupt transport by sea, but would that have any impact on my hipothetical coalltion? Mohammed Ali has enough troops in Efypt allready, and does not need reinforcements. Russia can send troops by land in the Balkans. France can send troops by land in the Rhineland. No need for sea transport.

Your other points however do sound like a plausible explanation for why this wasn't actually attempted.
 
The problem is that Russia at that point did not really care about dismantling the OE, especially if the result was a French-dominated Middle East. Stauts quo appeared more appealing to the Russians.
 
Nassirisimo wrote a TL where France managed to (by handwave, I think) delay the other powers long enough for Ali to defeat the Ottomans. It was getting quite interesting.
 
The problem is that Russia at that point did not really care about dismantling the OE, especially if the result was a French-dominated Middle East. Stauts quo appeared more appealing to the Russians.
And what about the "traditional"Russian goal of seizing Constantinople and the straits?
 
Why would it be necessary to beat the Royal Navy? Sure, it can disrupt transport by sea, but would that have any impact on my hipothetical coalltion? Mohammed Ali has enough troops in Egypt allready, and does not need reinforcements.
If he wants to get to Constantinople then he needs sea transport, for supplies at least even if his army actually marches north along the Palestine-Syria coastal belt and then into Anatolia. Read that wiki article about the crisis again, with particular reference to events at Acre and Alexandria... both of which the Royal Navy could in fact have managed if Austria had been an enemy rather than an ally.
 
If he wants to get to Constantinople then he needs sea transport, for supplies at least even if his army actually marches north along the Palestine-Syria coastal belt and then into Anatolia. Read that wiki article about the crisis again, with particular reference to events at Acre and Alexandria... both of which the Royal Navy could in fact have managed if Austria had been an enemy rather than an ally.
The events of Acre and Alexndria were a show of force which convinced Mohammed Ali that there was no point in fighting several great powers all by himself. But if England is alone in opposing him, he might feel bolder.

As for marching all the way to Constantinople: he could just let the Russians take the city, after which the empire will colapse and he can take most of it's remains without a fight.
 
If it meant the Russians taking Constantinople for good then they will likely turn a blind eye to the French dominating a region filled with sand.

Well, yas, but their point at the time was not TAKING the Straits, was more about PREVENTING anybody else to control them in hostile ways. Collapse of the OE was risky about such a thing. Nicholas I just preferred caution and status quo. Moreover, turmoil there meant turmoil in Austria. "They" were REALLY scared about the Revolution in Europe Again. Revolution was supposed to be a French thing, though not exclusively so.
Russia was the pillar and bastion of the Conservation of the Old European Order, and the OEO was about keeping the stauts quo.
Russia was perfectly happy with the status quo, as long as the Straits were not under control of any other great power. Their moves in the area were meant as defensive. Russia feared Muhammad Ali (=France) taking Constantinople MORE than not having it herself.
Britain feared and loathed Russian activity in the area because Britain feared Russia would take the place, but in this context feared France more too.
It was a mess, and for the Powers, it was diplomatic free for all.
Neither France, Britain or Austria could let Russia take the Straits. Russia could not afford any of them to do so. Prussia just didn't care. The Ottomans were reasonably satisfying to everybody in this context.
Of course Russia would have loved to have the place, but not at the price of a hostile coalition to the west. This would be dangerous.
 
Top