WI Austria allied with Russia in Crimean War?

WI Austria allied with Russia in Crimean War?

  • a) Britain and France go after Austria hard

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • b) Britain and France mainly ignore Austria, it’s only Russia that matters

    Votes: 24 64.9%

  • Total voters
    37

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Austria allied with Russia in the Crimean War out of loyalty to past Austro-Russian cooperation?

What would their operations, mainly in the Ottoman Balkans, look like?

Would Austria come out of the experience significantly worse for wear?

Would Britain and France and the Ottomans seek to go after Austria with major force in retaliation? Could this lead to early dissolution of the empire?

Or would the British, French and Russians mainly ignore Austria as Russia was their prime concern at the time?
 
Since the war was isolated to the Crimea, I don't see direct military aide by the Austrians so far away from their base and without decent naval support, it would be limited. Should the Austrians try and open a second front in Northern Italy to aide the Russians against France, the Sardinians would most likely help in Italy. This would only speed up even more Cavour's plan to gain French support against the Austrians in that area in his goal to expand and eventually unify Italy under Sardinian rule.

With France possibly needing to divert troops to protect its borders and support Sardinia, it might put a larger role for the British army which was not performing well. Because of the isolated location, and the ineffectiveness of the logistical abilities of the Russian army in the area as well, I see British Naval power in the end being the main tool to ultimate victory in what may end up being a longer war.

The best for the Austrians would be their saving face in Germany where they lost support for their lack of aid to Russia.
 
Since the war was isolated to the Crimea, I don't see direct military aide by the Austrians so far away from their base and without decent naval support, it would be limited. Should the Austrians try and open a second front in Northern Italy to aide the Russians against France, the Sardinians would most likely help in Italy. This would only speed up even more Cavour's plan to gain French support against the Austrians in that area in his goal to expand and eventually unify Italy under Sardinian rule.

With France possibly needing to divert troops to protect its borders and support Sardinia, it might put a larger role for the British army which was not performing well. Because of the isolated location, and the ineffectiveness of the logistical abilities of the Russian army in the area as well, I see British Naval power in the end being the main tool to ultimate victory in what may end up being a longer war.

The best for the Austrians would be their saving face in Germany where they lost support for their lack of aid to Russia.

The first is a misconception based on the major role the Seige of Svestapol took up in the mythos of the war, as well as a general lack of international press coverage of the Ottoman operations. In actuality there was quite a bit of fighting in the Caucuses and especially in the Balkans; it's just the Western European weren't involved in the successful Ottoman efforts to repel the Russian invasion

However, the issue with Austria entering the war is the rather banial issue of finances; Vienna can't afford to fight an extended war. If they try,the treasury is going to be strained in a matter of months and the highly centeralized program of administrative reforms they were pushing through would crumble. The minorities were still pretty surely at the betrayal of the April Laws, and if the Habsburgs try to mobalize the economy and population for a war effort may suffer some... unintended consequences.
 
The first is a misconception based on the major role the Seige of Svestapol took up in the mythos of the war, as well as a general lack of international press coverage of the Ottoman operations. In actuality there was quite a bit of fighting in the Caucuses and especially in the Balkans; it's just the Western European weren't involved in the successful Ottoman efforts to repel the Russian invasion

However, the issue with Austria entering the war is the rather banial issue of finances; Vienna can't afford to fight an extended war. If they try,the treasury is going to be strained in a matter of months and the highly centeralized program of administrative reforms they were pushing through would crumble. The minorities were still pretty surely at the betrayal of the April Laws, and if the Habsburgs try to mobalize the economy and population for a war effort may suffer some... unintended consequences.
I was aware of the Ottoman campaigns and failed to mention that. Thank you for including that. And you are right in that still a few years away from the Revolutions of 1848, which the Austrian Empire bore the brunt of, I probably should have said that any military efforts to join in would have had to be more localized like in Northern Italy, because they could not have sustained the cost of sending troops to aid the Russians in the east. (It would have had to be a short war as well.)

Despite their legitimate reasons for not being able to join the war and help the Russians, the whole of Germany still looked on the Austrian Empire with disappointment. A point the up and coming Prussians took advantage of. Many felt the Austrians were ungrateful to the Russia, especially after the Russians helped put down revolutions in 1848-49 in both Austrian held Poland and of course Hungary. It should be remembered, that partly, Russia did all that in the name of the Concert of Europe and the old post-Congress of Vienna alliance which pledged not only to put down liberal and nationalist revolutions, but also to maintain the balance of power. The defeat of Russia in the Crimean war was the "long" beginning of the end of that delicate balance of power that finds its results in 1914 and the outbreak of the Great War.
 
Last edited:
Since the war was isolated to the Crimea,

It was not isolated to the Crimea. It started with the Russian offense into the Danubian Principalities in 1853. In 1854 Austria had 280,000 on Principalities' border and then advanced forcing Russians to lift the siege of Vidin and evacuate the Principalities. Russian force after retreat to the left bank of the Danube was approximately 120,000 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дунайская_кампания_Крымской_войны)


Of course, there was a Caucasian theater as well.

I don't see direct military aide by the Austrians so far away from their base and without decent naval support, it would be limited.

See above. A combined Russian-Austrian force of approximately 300,000 could advance from the Principalities to Bulgaria and potentially threaten Istanbul making the whole CW quite different because the prime goal of the French-British expedition would be dealing with a possibility of the Russian-Austrian control of the Straits.

Franco-British force that initially landed at Warna was approximately 60,000 strong (40,000 French and 20,000 British) but in this scenario it is unlikely that it would sail to Warna with a risk of being cut off in the case of a successful Russian-Austrian advance on Istanbul.
 
Austria is knocked out easily when a front is opened in Lombardy and maybe to be extra punitive the RN bombards Trieste. Italy is lost, the state is bankrupt and the unitary state is toast. The period of constitutional experimentation starts early. Prussia during this time is docile so at least there is no threat in Germany.

Austria was in a delicate position of course. But couldn’t they have gotten away with strict neutrality or even benevolent neutrality toward Russia? Wouldn’t the Russians have understood this? Was it not the mobilization and threats on behalf of the allies that truly was the last straw for Russia? And of course said actions also failed to satisfy the Allies.
 
Austria is knocked out easily when a front is opened in Lombardy and maybe to be extra punitive the RN bombards Trieste.

This assumes that the French are completely re-oriented in their goal in a war and have to abandon support of the Ottomans. Aka, the Crimean War is not happening and Nicholas is winning "by default" by having to fight just the Ottomans with a good chance of a victory regardless unsuccessful OTL operations on Bulgarian border. The open question is about specifics of Austrian involvement and what Austria is trying to get out of the alliance with Russia.

If the agreed upon scenario is Austria getting Walachia (and whatever else on the Balkans) while Russia is getting Moldavia and whatever it can grab in Caucasus region then Austria may reasonably limit its military involvement on the Balkans by strengthening its Italian theater. If it really had 280K in the Principalities in 1954 and Russians had around 120K there against something like 100K Ottomans then Austrians could easily move at least 3/4 of their force to strengthen their position in Italy ending most probably with noticeably more than 198K they did have in 1859.

Potential loss in Italy (which happen in OTL 5 years later without destroying Austria as unitary monarchy) is being compensated, at least superficially, by the acquisitions on the Balkans.

OTOH, the major French involvement in Italy 5 years ahead of the schedule pretty much dooms its involvement on the Ottoman side delivering a serious blow to the international ambitions of Napoleon III and displeasing a Catholic party in France (control of the "holy places" remains in the Russian hands, etc.). On its own Britain can't do too much on land so the Crimean war is not happening especially if there are joined Austro-Russian operations on the Balkans with the allied armies marching toward Istanbul as happened (with just Russian armies) in 1828 - 29 and will happen in 1877 - 78. Ottomans are losing parts of their territory with the Franco-British naval force perhaps acting as a "moral factor" helping to make a peace without a loss of Istanbul.


Austria was in a delicate position of course. But couldn’t they have gotten away with strict neutrality or even benevolent neutrality toward Russia? Wouldn’t the Russians have understood this? Was it not the mobilization and threats on behalf of the allies that truly was the last straw for Russia? And of course said actions also failed to satisfy the Allies.

Austrian neutrality means:

Continued Russian occupation the Danube Principalities with a possible invasion of Bulgaria. In OTL Paskevich ordered retreat from the Principalities due to the Austrian position. The Principalities were occupied by Austria for the duration of war and Russian army of at least 120K remained on the border. With Austrian threat gone it is reasonable to assume that the Russians could continue advance into Bulgaria which, depending upon timing, could make allied landing in Varna unlikely or impossible: in OTL the Russian troops crossed the Danube and started siege of Silistria in March of 1854, their removal from the Principalities happened in the end of June and Franco-British troops landed in Varna in July of 1854. Without "Austrian factor" and with a minimal luck by July the Russians could either took Varna or to be too close to make allied landing very risky. Also, with the advancing Russian army of 120K already in Bulgaria the Crimean operation would be a risky enterprise because a successful Russian advance toward the Straits could leave the Allied force trapped and cut from supply lines. As a result, the most probable Allied strategy would be to join the Ottoman army in Bulgaria (approximately 100K), push the Russians back across the Danube (perhaps further, taking into an account the sorry state of the Russian army of that time, this was quite possible) and limit activities on the Black Sea to the raiding and bombardment of the ports. With the bulk of the allied land forces being deployed on that theater, the landing operations look unlikely (but not impossible, especially on a limited scale).


1920px-Crimean-war-1853-56.png
 
If you combine this with my "Archduke Friedrich lives, Austria gets a modern navy" POD, this has the possibility of really changing the Crimean War.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This assumes that the French are completely re-oriented in their goal in a war and have to abandon support of the Ottomans.

It also assumes the Piedmontese are ready for a third war against Austria within five years after the Austrians beat them twice. It was one thing for the IPiedmontese to send an "expendable" expeditionary force to the Black Sea when Austria was a hostile neutral towards Russia. If Austria is instead a Russian ally, taking on Austria means risking Piedmontese defeat right at home. Not a risk they will take without major demonstrated French support.

OTOH, the major French involvement in Italy 5 years ahead of the schedule pretty much dooms its involvement on the Ottoman side delivering a serious blow to the international ambitions of Napoleon III and displeasing a Catholic party in France (control of the "holy places" remains in the Russian hands, etc.). On its own Britain can't do too much on land so the Crimean war is not happening especially if there are joined Austro-Russian operations on the Balkans with the allied armies marching toward Istanbul as happened (with just Russian armies) in 1828 - 29 and will happen in 1877 - 78. Ottomans are losing parts of their territory with the Franco-British naval force perhaps acting as a "moral factor" helping to make a peace without a loss of Istanbul.

So where do we expect the sides to stand when the war is all over - the Russians and Austrians occupying the Balkans, including northern Bulgaria, north of the Rhodope mountains, while the Ottomans, French and British hold the southern slopes of the Rhodope mountains preventing Russian or Austrian penetration into southern Bulgaria/Thrace, keeping Istanbul, Dedeagach, Salonika, etc. safe from them.

Without "Austrian factor" and with a minimal luck by July the Russians could either took Varna or to be too close to make allied landing very risky. Also, with the advancing Russian army of 120K already in Bulgaria the Crimean operation would be a risky enterprise because a successful Russian advance toward the Straits could leave the Allied force trapped and cut from supply lines. As a result, the most probable Allied strategy would be to join the Ottoman army in Bulgaria (approximately 100K), push the Russians back across the Danube (perhaps further, taking into an account the sorry state of the Russian army of that time, this was quite possible) and limit activities on the Black Sea to the raiding and bombardment of the ports. With the bulk of the allied land forces being deployed on that theater, the landing operations look unlikely (but not impossible, especially on a limited scale).

In this scenario with Austria as a friendly neutral toward Russia, not impeding Russian movements, where do you see the line of control sitting by the time the "Danubian" war is over. I have 6 different colored lines represented below, with the extreme northern one at the Dniester and the extreme southern ones at the south shore of Thrace.

Crimean-war-1853-56 with Austria as a Russia-friendly neutral.gif
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Despite their legitimate reasons for not being able to join the war and help the Russians, the whole of Germany still looked on the Austrian Empire with disappointment. A point the up and coming Prussians took advantage of. Many felt the Austrians were ungrateful to the Russia, especially after the Russians helped put down revolutions in 1848-49 in both Austrian held Poland and of course Hungary.

So let me get this straight - German national opinion was grateful to Russia for suppressing revolutions and making the Prussians back down from the Erfurt Union?

But couldn’t they have gotten away with strict neutrality or even benevolent neutrality toward Russia? Wouldn’t the Russians have understood this?

I would hope everyone would have understood this. An Austrian strict neutrality or pro-Russian neutrality seems like a much less financially expensive, and probably less politically expensive, option compared with what they chose in OTL.

On the political consequences of such neutrality, they could fall out any of the following ways:

WI Austria provided nonbelligerent, moral, support for Russia in the Crimean War?

a) Russia remains supportive of Austria later

b) Russia becomes anti-Austrian because its support is considered insufficient

c) Britain and France forgive Austria

d) Britain and France become anti-Austrian

If you combine this with my "Archduke Friedrich lives, Austria gets a modern navy" POD, this has the possibility of really changing the Crimean War.

Indeed it would change things quite a bit!
 
So where do we expect the sides to stand when the war is all over - the Russians and Austrians occupying the Balkans, including northern Bulgaria, north of the Rhodope mountains, while the Ottomans, French and British hold the southern slopes of the Rhodope mountains preventing Russian or Austrian penetration into southern Bulgaria/Thrace, keeping Istanbul, Dedeagach, Salonika, etc. safe from them.

In this scenario with Austria as a friendly neutral toward Russia, not impeding Russian movements, where do you see the line of control sitting by the time the "Danubian" war is over. I have 6 different colored lines represented below, with the extreme northern one at the Dniester and the extreme southern ones at the south shore of Thrace.

I'd risk to assume something like "Line #5". The Russian-Austrian side has a serious advantage in the numbers (probably at least 2:1) which should compensate for the better weapons of the British and French troops. AFAIK, neither side had the military genius leading an army (well, with at least one British enthusiast coming with a positive assessment of the Charge of the Light Brigade, we can easily expect violent objections to such an assumption as far as the British army is involved :winkytongue:) but there were some good subordinate figures like Joseph Bosquet, Stepan Khrulev or Eduard Totleben (presumably the most capable engeneering officer of the whole CW) so I would not expect anything drastic on any side. However "Line #4" is also a distinct possibility in the case when something is going wrong on the Austrian-Russian side: Danube serves well as a "natural" front line and, strictly speaking, it does not damage either Austrian or Russian interests while making logistics much easier.

Much more could happen on the Caucasus theater: Russians would be able to use more troops there with a resulting greater success.

Which leaves an open question: what's at the end in the terms of the peace conditions.
 
You tell us. Especially as I have less knowledge of details of expansion in the Caucasus and how it might have gone faster.

One thing we can say for sure, this would not be Palmerston's plan because this insanity was not realized even in OTL: Aland Islands and Finland go to Sweden, Baltic provinces to Prussia, independent Kingdom of Poland, Danubian Principalities to Austria, Lombardy-Venetia to Sardinia, Crimea and Georgia to the Ottoman Empire and "Circassia" forms a separate state vassal to the Ottomans. ;)

Potential "issue" between Austria and Russia would be the Danubian Principalities so perhaps Austria ends with Walachia and Russia with Moldavia. OTOH, I'm not sure if Nicholas really wanted them: they were occupied as a way to pressure the Ottomans (at least Nicholas claimed that their occupation was strictly temporary), Nicholas' main concern in the area was enforcement by the Ottomans the conditions of the London agreement regarding the Straits (1841) violated by France when «Charlemagne» was allowed to come to Istanbul. If this issue is settled, then Russia could get Batum and Pashalik of Kars and perhaps some other pieces of land nearby. In OTL Kars was taken and used as a bargaining chip during the peace talks. In the best case scenario Russia ends up with the whole Turkish Armenia.

As an option, depending upon the general situation (how things are going in Bulgaria), the Ottomans may retain sovereignty over the Principalities with Austria getting some other piece of a land on the Balkans. Guarantees regarding the Straits could be confirmed (why not? they did not worth a paper on which they were written) and this leaves a conflict of interests between France and Russia to be resolved: ownership of the holy places and Nicholas' claim to be protector of the Turkish Orthodox subjects. Probably, especially if Nicholas is doing everybody a favor and dies earlier, these issues could be resolved to the mutual satisfaction and the same goes for the annoying to Napoleon III matter of addressing (which was easily qualified as "misunderstanding" by Alexander II).

IMO, a spectacular Austro-Russian success (rather unlikely), defeat of the Ottomans and their allies and march close to Istanbul could make things worse because both France and Britain would be forced to mobilize more forces to prevent a humiliating defeat. OTOH, if there is a stalemate (say, along the Danube) with few limited successful actions on each side and some allied raiding on the Black and Baltic Seas (more or less along the OTL lines) then there is no loss of face, which is especially important for Napoleon III, and the peace talks can start.
 
Top