WI: Austria allies itself with Russia in Crimea?
- Thread starter Flashman
- Start date
67th Tigers
Banned
It wouldn't be called the "Crimean War", but this is a later retcon anyway. See the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, but add the British.
The 1859 war is actually a good point. You could expect the Piedmont-Sardinians to get involved sooner on the side of France, Britain and Turkey.
Interesting possibility. How does this effect the Franco-Prussian War later?
Well in all likely hood the now independent Austria would become a part of Germany.
If Austria is the loser in any broadened war it would still be in a similar position to that it experienced several years later after the Franco-Austrian War. There will still be the potential for a Schleswig-Holstein Crisis with Denmark.
The critical thing is not so much winners and losers in a UK, France, Piedmont, Ottoman Empire -v- Russia and Austria (though my money is on the former, I still can't see a lot of territory chaing hands outside of Italy so we have a Crimean War combined with the outcome of the Franco-Austrian War), but how Bismark reacts to the escalation. What opportunities are there for Prussia in all this?
The critical thing is not so much winners and losers in a UK, France, Piedmont, Ottoman Empire -v- Russia and Austria (though my money is on the former, I still can't see a lot of territory chaing hands outside of Italy so we have a Crimean War combined with the outcome of the Franco-Austrian War), but how Bismark reacts to the escalation. What opportunities are there for Prussia in all this?
Why the hell would they do that? They were pretty damned threatened by Russia's occupation of the Danubian principalities as it is, and I really don't see the Austrians putting their asses on the line to help Russia expand in the Balkans.
67th Tigers
Banned
Not Bismarck in 1854. Prussia in 1854 is still getting over the shockwave of 1848.
Good point - he's only emissary to Frankfurt at this point. I always feel Bismark is omnipresent but its another 8 years before he comes into any real power...
If Austria was firmly in Russia's corner, then it is very unlikely that the focus of the British/French/Ottoman war against the Austrians/Russians would involve land fighting on the Crimean Peninsula. A major reason Crimea, and particularly Stevastopol was the focus of the campaign was that it was the logistical hub of most Russian action against the Ottoman Empire. With Austria in the war, it becomes possible to supply Russian armies in the Balkans by land, albeit rather inefficiently.
That would put PM Russell and Napoleon III in a rather difficult situation, since to stop Russia's advances in the Balkans they would have to either face Russia's armies directly in that theater (Moldavia and Wallachia, and likely Bulgaria if Austria is involved) or undertake a campaign in the Baltic to force Russia to come to terms.
A war in the Balkans would be logistically challenging to the alliance, and they would find themselves engaged in a good deal of irregular warfare against the local opponents of the Ottoman Empire, which will eventually filter home and create a bit of bad press. Also, it would be necessary for the British/French commanders to work with their Ottoman counterparts, something that would be very difficult to do in that day and age given the vast cultural differences that existed between them.
A Baltic Campaign would initially focus on reducing Sveaborg and Kronstadt, as well as the Aland Islands using the Allies powerful navy. However, after this was accomplished, they would either have to stand fast, hoping that a blockade would eventually wear down the Russians, or introduce ground troops. A ground campaign in that region would be drawn out and bloody, since Russia would have a much easier time moving troops to St. Petersburg, and the Tsar would be less likely to come to terms with the Allies if he views their actions as presenting an existential threat, rather than an embarrassing, far off defeat.
As for Austria, they might very well come out mostly unscathed. A blockade of the Adriatic would put a damper on their trade, but its seaborne trade was relatively limited. And the House of Savoy might very well stay out of the war, as they were not in a good position to confront Austria so soon after their last defeat. And while Napoleon III might not mind imitating his uncle and campaigning in Northern Italy and Germany, Great Britain would be very hesitant to support any campaign that would see French troops campaigning across Continental Europe.
That would put PM Russell and Napoleon III in a rather difficult situation, since to stop Russia's advances in the Balkans they would have to either face Russia's armies directly in that theater (Moldavia and Wallachia, and likely Bulgaria if Austria is involved) or undertake a campaign in the Baltic to force Russia to come to terms.
A war in the Balkans would be logistically challenging to the alliance, and they would find themselves engaged in a good deal of irregular warfare against the local opponents of the Ottoman Empire, which will eventually filter home and create a bit of bad press. Also, it would be necessary for the British/French commanders to work with their Ottoman counterparts, something that would be very difficult to do in that day and age given the vast cultural differences that existed between them.
A Baltic Campaign would initially focus on reducing Sveaborg and Kronstadt, as well as the Aland Islands using the Allies powerful navy. However, after this was accomplished, they would either have to stand fast, hoping that a blockade would eventually wear down the Russians, or introduce ground troops. A ground campaign in that region would be drawn out and bloody, since Russia would have a much easier time moving troops to St. Petersburg, and the Tsar would be less likely to come to terms with the Allies if he views their actions as presenting an existential threat, rather than an embarrassing, far off defeat.
As for Austria, they might very well come out mostly unscathed. A blockade of the Adriatic would put a damper on their trade, but its seaborne trade was relatively limited. And the House of Savoy might very well stay out of the war, as they were not in a good position to confront Austria so soon after their last defeat. And while Napoleon III might not mind imitating his uncle and campaigning in Northern Italy and Germany, Great Britain would be very hesitant to support any campaign that would see French troops campaigning across Continental Europe.
wolf_brother
Banned
The next great European conflict between two large rival factions breaks out in the 1850s instead of the 1910s.
Vienna likely doesn't sway many, or even any, of the German states to join her in this war. Prussia is definitely going to sit on the sidelines; however the war might bring about German unification quite a bit earlier, as Bismarck was the Prussian Ambassador to the German Confederation at the time, and with Austria distracted by war with the Entente allies, and the Zollverein in full-swing, Berlin may try to resurrect the Erfurt Union, or something similar. Certainly a proto-North German Confederation, which would be a more federal, and equal, framework under Prussian leadership rather than out-right Prussian domination and annexation as per OTL is certainly in the cards.
Expect this to be a repeat of 1848 in many ways. The Hungarians are very likely to take another chance to rise up, as are the Italians (an earlier Campagne d'Italie is very likely). This however also means that the Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Romanians are all likely to rise up as well, and for the latter groups their nationalistic revolutions will be more complicated in their loyalties towards both the Entente and the Imperialists.
Importantly considering the alliances and states involved in the war the Piedmontese aren't likely to join the war from the get-go with Austria involved, as Cavour was opposed to the war even IOTL and will have more sway in court if there's a threat of having to face-down with Vienna again without strong allies (France will, understandably, be more interested in fighting in the Crimean than she will in the North Italian plain) and will only be dragged into it after the Italian radicals start to rise up once again in the Central Italian states and Venetia-Lombardy; just as in 1848. This means that the Savoyards likely won't secure their OTL position as the main focal point of Italian unification. This is especially important due to the timing - the Garibaldian, Mazzinian, and Guerrazzian factions of the radical Italian nationalistic republicans have yet to have their falling out, and will be as united, or even more so, as they were in 1848.
Expect things to take on a truly world war-esque scope if this conflict drags out even longer than the Crimean War did IOTL, and the Anglo-Persian or Second Opium wars, or the Indian Rebellion, happen on schedule as per OTL.
Vienna likely doesn't sway many, or even any, of the German states to join her in this war. Prussia is definitely going to sit on the sidelines; however the war might bring about German unification quite a bit earlier, as Bismarck was the Prussian Ambassador to the German Confederation at the time, and with Austria distracted by war with the Entente allies, and the Zollverein in full-swing, Berlin may try to resurrect the Erfurt Union, or something similar. Certainly a proto-North German Confederation, which would be a more federal, and equal, framework under Prussian leadership rather than out-right Prussian domination and annexation as per OTL is certainly in the cards.
Expect this to be a repeat of 1848 in many ways. The Hungarians are very likely to take another chance to rise up, as are the Italians (an earlier Campagne d'Italie is very likely). This however also means that the Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Romanians are all likely to rise up as well, and for the latter groups their nationalistic revolutions will be more complicated in their loyalties towards both the Entente and the Imperialists.
Importantly considering the alliances and states involved in the war the Piedmontese aren't likely to join the war from the get-go with Austria involved, as Cavour was opposed to the war even IOTL and will have more sway in court if there's a threat of having to face-down with Vienna again without strong allies (France will, understandably, be more interested in fighting in the Crimean than she will in the North Italian plain) and will only be dragged into it after the Italian radicals start to rise up once again in the Central Italian states and Venetia-Lombardy; just as in 1848. This means that the Savoyards likely won't secure their OTL position as the main focal point of Italian unification. This is especially important due to the timing - the Garibaldian, Mazzinian, and Guerrazzian factions of the radical Italian nationalistic republicans have yet to have their falling out, and will be as united, or even more so, as they were in 1848.
Expect things to take on a truly world war-esque scope if this conflict drags out even longer than the Crimean War did IOTL, and the Anglo-Persian or Second Opium wars, or the Indian Rebellion, happen on schedule as per OTL.
I don't think Austria is quite so fragile in the early 1850's. Not until the end (c. 1918) did the various ethnic groups in the empire decide to revolt en mass. Unless Austria's performance is truly abysmal, most of its subjects would still remain loyal. The Hungarians, in particular would probably not revolt very soon; they remained mostly loyal after Magenta, Solferino and Sadowa. A series of Austria defeats that called into question the viability of the Empire would prompt them to revolt, but the existence of a war, and even some major defeats might not be enough. Minorities living within the lands of the Crown of St. Stephan had much to fear from a Hungarian dominated state, and they would be less likely to revolt against Austrian rule for that reason. And the Romanians and Serbs would be unlikely to revolt when their victory would mostly favor the Ottoman Empire
Besides, it was GB and France's intent the preserve, not overturn the balance of power with their intervention against Russia. Stirring up the various nationalists the Austrian Empire would accomplish anything but that. This would be a war that ended far from Vienna; once Franz Joseph realized he was losing, he would agree to peace, surrendering part, but not all of his empire. More than that was not in France/GB's interest.
This is the reason that the conflict, while it might be "global" in the sense that it involves land and sea action in vastly distant theaters, would more resemble the Seven Years' War than WWI. Russia's empire might be attacked in the White Sea, the Far East and even Alaska, but in a conflict where neither side is really seeking to eliminate the other, the war is more likely to end in some kind of compromise or limited victory than the utter defeat or destruction of one side.
wolf_brother
Banned
1848 seems to disprove your thesis re: Austria. The Empire nearly collapsed in less than two years of ethnic-nationalistic uprisings, and the fact that it didn't, at least, lose a considerable chunk of territory was due to the interference of an outside power - nothing Vienna did prior to Russian intervention was stopping or would have been able to stop the Magyars. Now for round two add in Franco-British-Turkish assistance and voilà. Let us try to remember that the Crimean War started in 1853 - only four years after the end of the Springtime of the Peoples. Most of the revolutionaries are still alive and kicking, and those that aren't are now martyrs to the cause.
The AH.com counter-meme of 'Austria was stronger and more stable than it looked' is only true after 1867.
The AH.com counter-meme of 'Austria was stronger and more stable than it looked' is only true after 1867.
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
I would have to side on Wolf for this one. By the time of the Crimean War, Austria just came out of the revolution by the skin of their teeth. The only reason why they did not support either faction was because Russia supported Austria in containing the revolution on one hand, and then they did not want to risk war so soon against Britain, France or the Ottomans, lest they wind up collapsing so soon.
But even then, Antipater is right on one thing, it was actually GB's intent, not France's to overturn the balance of power. Remember one of the causes that led to the Crimean War was France making the Ottoman Empire get them to be the protectors of the Christians in the Holy Land and the Empire, a position disputably claimed by Russia by the 1774 Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji. So the war will not end in a full scale collapse of the Empire...should Austria lose, they might lose a few concessions, (perhaps to Sardinia in the form of Lombardy) but nothing major.
It sounds like a story I could really back myself on if given the chance, considering I've recently did a powerpoint on a Battle during the war.
But even then, Antipater is right on one thing, it was actually GB's intent, not France's to overturn the balance of power. Remember one of the causes that led to the Crimean War was France making the Ottoman Empire get them to be the protectors of the Christians in the Holy Land and the Empire, a position disputably claimed by Russia by the 1774 Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji. So the war will not end in a full scale collapse of the Empire...should Austria lose, they might lose a few concessions, (perhaps to Sardinia in the form of Lombardy) but nothing major.
It sounds like a story I could really back myself on if given the chance, considering I've recently did a powerpoint on a Battle during the war.
Last edited:
As an Austrian I think it was Austrias BIGGEST mistake to stay neutral. They did not gain goodwill with UK and France and angered a dformer staunch ally (Russia).
The best Austrian strategy would have been a friendly neutrality to russia (support with weapons and food, horses,...)
I doubt that Austria would have been attacked by UK and France. And Russia would have been in a slightly better position by not having to worry about an open flank.
This might have kled to a more friendly disposition between Austria and Russia (which could have led to a better cooperation on the Balkans - divvy the spoils up...
OTOH if Austia had joined the war against the ottomans the cration (expansion) of national states on the Balkans which were grateful to Russia AND Austria could have helped to defuse later nationalist conflicts on the Balkans.
Who knows
The best Austrian strategy would have been a friendly neutrality to russia (support with weapons and food, horses,...)
I doubt that Austria would have been attacked by UK and France. And Russia would have been in a slightly better position by not having to worry about an open flank.
This might have kled to a more friendly disposition between Austria and Russia (which could have led to a better cooperation on the Balkans - divvy the spoils up...
OTOH if Austia had joined the war against the ottomans the cration (expansion) of national states on the Balkans which were grateful to Russia AND Austria could have helped to defuse later nationalist conflicts on the Balkans.
Who knows
As an Austrian I think it was Austrias BIGGEST mistake to stay neutral. They did not gain goodwill with UK and France and angered a dformer staunch ally (Russia).
The best Austrian strategy would have been a friendly neutrality to russia (support with weapons and food, horses,...)
I doubt that Austria would have been attacked by UK and France. And Russia would have been in a slightly better position by not having to worry about an open flank.
This might have kled to a more friendly disposition between Austria and Russia (which could have led to a better cooperation on the Balkans - divvy the spoils up...
OTOH if Austia had joined the war against the ottomans the cration (expansion) of national states on the Balkans which were grateful to Russia AND Austria could have helped to defuse later nationalist conflicts on the Balkans.
Who knows
This. And even though Russia might lose the Crimean War, the Austrians will not lose them. They will be essential in curbing Prussian influence in Germany, which will severely ruin Bismarck's timetable because the Austrians have the Russians backing them up in case of a conflict. Thus, more of a disunited Germany rather than earlier Grobdeutschland.
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
As an Austrian I think it was Austrias BIGGEST mistake to stay neutral. They did not gain goodwill with UK and France and angered a dformer staunch ally (Russia).
The best Austrian strategy would have been a friendly neutrality to russia (support with weapons and food, horses,...)
I doubt that Austria would have been attacked by UK and France. And Russia would have been in a slightly better position by not having to worry about an open flank.
This might have kled to a more friendly disposition between Austria and Russia (which could have led to a better cooperation on the Balkans - divvy the spoils up...
OTOH if Austia had joined the war against the ottomans the cration (expansion) of national states on the Balkans which were grateful to Russia AND Austria could have helped to defuse later nationalist conflicts on the Balkans.
Who knows
Now there is a grand idea there, a Friendly Neutrality to Russia and support probably would help, I doubt it would turn the tide though. Even though Austria had more modern weapons than Russia (who was still using Flintlocks rather than Muzzle-Loaders or Breech-Loaders, I'm not familiar with weaponry of the period). You're arming a force of nearly three-quarters of a million troops, now that would probably help put some revenue in Austrian coffers. But, I doubt weaponry and supplies will keep the Russans afloat for long.
Now if Austria helped Russia directly, as in a direct war with the Ottomans, Britain, and France (and possibly Sardinia) it might prolong the war just as well, but I'm just not convinced of a victory on the Austro-Russian side.
This could seriously put a dampener on things. But the question is, if Austria does support Russia in the Crimean War, whether through Friendly Neutrality or active participation, and it does succeed in screwing with Bismarck's timetable, how long will that last? Prussia (maybe even during Bismarck's time) will find a way around that and find a way to create a united German state.
Last edited:
Grey Wolf
Donor
One thing to note about the Sevastopol siege and Crimea campaign is that it was the LOGICAL place to campaign - Lazarev had seen it coming in the 1830s, see his letters to Nesselrode and reports to Nicholas I.
Now, things would have had to go differently for Austria for it to make this decision in 1854. Possibly when Ferdinand is abdicated the crown goes to Franz Josef's father, who was legally next in line, rather than skipping him for an 18 year old. Franz Karl would then choose different ministers, may be personally more supportive and grateful to Russia for Hungary 1848-9, and then may be in a better position to back them up in 1854
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Now, things would have had to go differently for Austria for it to make this decision in 1854. Possibly when Ferdinand is abdicated the crown goes to Franz Josef's father, who was legally next in line, rather than skipping him for an 18 year old. Franz Karl would then choose different ministers, may be personally more supportive and grateful to Russia for Hungary 1848-9, and then may be in a better position to back them up in 1854
Best Regards
Grey Wolf