What was Persia's Role in the Crimean War?

It always wondered me why Persia didn't decide to go to war with Russia during the Crimean War to reverse the Turkmenchay. Seems like it would've been a safe bet considering they'd have the British, Ottomans, and French on their side, and they could have fielded at least a sizeable enough army to halt the Russians, and maybe get Britain as an "ally" as the Great Game is still going on, or at least give Persia some economic privilege as well.

But besides that, what was the overall role of Persia in the Crimean War? Any help with Sources would also be very much appreciated.
 
Wikipedia has this for 1854


1854: The British and French declared war on 3 January. Early in the year the Anglo-French fleet appeared in the Black Sea and the Russians abandoned the Black Sea Defensive Line from Anapa south. N. A. Read, who replaced Vorontsov, fearing an Anglo-French landing in conjunction with Shamyl and the Persians, recommended withdrawal north of the Caucasus. For this he was replaced by Baryatinsky. When the allies chose a land attack on Sebastopol any plan for a landing in the east was abandoned.

In the north Eristov pushed southwest, fought two battles, forced the Turks back to Batum, retired behind the Cholok River and suspended action for the rest of the year (June). In the far south Wrangel pushed west, fought a battle and occupied Bayazit. In the centre the main forces stood at Kars and Gyumri. Both slowly approached along the Kars-Gyumri road and faced each other, neither side choosing to fight (June–July). On 4 August Russian scouts saw a movement which they thought was the start of a withdrawal, the Russians advanced and the Turks attacked first. They were defeated, losing 8,000 men to the Russian 3,000. 10,000 irregulars deserted to their villages. Both sides withdrew to their former positions. About this time the Persians made a semi-secret agreement to remain neutral in exchange for the cancellation of the indemnity from the previous war.
 
Seems like it would've been a safe bet considering they'd have the British, Ottomans, and French on their side.
Even though Persia would be on the same side as Britain, France, and Turkey, that doesn't mean that any of them would be willing to give Persia anything in return. If, for example, Persia intervened and snatched territory from Russia, Russia would probably try to take it back within a couple years and Persia would find no support from any of the countries it fought with before. If anything, Britain would probably take the opportunity to force some concessions from Persia at that critical moment.
 
Even though Persia would be on the same side as Britain, France, and Turkey, that doesn't mean that any of them would be willing to give Persia anything in return. If, for example, Persia intervened and snatched territory from Russia, Russia would probably try to take it back within a couple years and Persia would find no support from any of the countries it fought with before. If anything, Britain would probably take the opportunity to force some concessions from Persia at that critical moment.

I don't know, Britain might back the Qajar's, after all the Great Game is at full speed, and Russophobia is at an all-time high. Britain might try to get a weaker Russia in the Caucasus. The Ottomans might agree, as the Qajars could be useful against the Russians, and they are Turkic, so there might be a brotherhood between them. If Britain is pro-Qajar Napoleon III is soon to follow.
 
I don't know, Britain might back the Qajar's, after all the Great Game is at full speed, and Russophobia is at an all-time high. Britain might try to get a weaker Russia in the Caucasus. The Ottomans might agree, as the Qajars could be useful against the Russians, and they are Turkic, so there might be a brotherhood between them. If Britain is pro-Qajar Napoleon III is soon to follow.

The British went to war with the Qajars a few years after this, actually, and it wasn't even the first time they'd done so in recent years. Herat was a major sticking point, and Britain was quite insistent that the Persians not have it.
 
Just an Update, I found out information, and the Persians were actually closer to siding with Russia than Britain. Had the British not intervened, and it was either the French or just the Ottomans, The Persians would have joined Russia and went to war with the Ottomans. On September 27th, the Russians and Persians signed a secret treaty stating that Persia wouldn't in anyway support the Allied Powers of Britain, France, and the Ottomans, in exchange for the Russians completely wiping all Persian Debt, which was 500,000 tomens.
 
Just an Update, I found out information, and the Persians were actually closer to siding with Russia than Britain. Had the British not intervened, and it was either the French or just the Ottomans, The Persians would have joined Russia and went to war with the Ottomans. On September 27th, the Russians and Persians signed a secret treaty stating that Persia wouldn't in anyway support the Allied Powers of Britain, France, and the Ottomans, in exchange for the Russians completely wiping all Persian Debt, which was 500,000 tomens.

A Crimean War without France means there is no war. Napoleon III pressed for war the Ottomans had to fight it.
 
A Crimean War without France means there is no war. Napoleon III pressed for war the Ottomans had to fight it.

Oh, right I forgot about that. But if Britain were not to join, Persia most certainly would have joined the Russians and brought a second front to the Ottomans.

But either way of the Persians entering the war or not, the Crimean War was a major benefit to the Persians in all fronts.
 
Top