WI: Austria allies itself with Russia in Crimea?

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
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

Well, Franz Karl would be an interesting candidate. I suppose his lack of ambition would make him supportive of the friendship between Austria and Russia come 1854. However, how they would back them up would probably depends on who the pro-Russian ministers may be and how high their support for their friendship with Russia is.
 
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.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Sevastopol was a logical target for a campaign against Russia that aimed to cripple its ability to carry on a war against the Ottoman Empire by destroying its naval power in the Black Sea and its ability to supply armies. But I don't think capturing that city would achieve the later goal with Austria in the war. Russian armies could be easily supplied by their Austrian allies, meaning that they could very well march through Bulgaria and into Rumelia, if not Constantinople itself. In fact, the further to the West Russian armies marched, the more their supply situation might improve as they came to rely upon Austria, not Russia for supply.

If the Tsar decided that the best way to end the war was to knock out the Ottomans by taking their capital, the Allies would not be able to stop him by besieging Sevastopol, meaning they would have to introduce troops into the Balkans (as they initially did at Varna IOTL).

In my opinion, a more aggressive Russian posture would be the most logical thing to do if Austria was in the war on their side. It would give Russian forces the initiative, and minimize the ability of the Allies to make use of their naval strength. With a minimal degree of luck, Russians/Austrians, aided by Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian nationalists could very well drive the Ottomans out of the Balkans. While Austria may have been lacking in internal cohesion at this point, the Ottoman Empire was extremely weak in 1853, even worse off than in 1878 IMHO. Though its tech gap was not great, its organization and leadership were severely lacking.


A final thought: a war against the "Turks" would not solve Austria's nationalities problem, but it may go some ways towards quieting it down for a bit. A main source of the Habsburg empire's legitimacy in the east came from being seen by its subjects as a bastion of Christianity against the infidel Turk. If there was one thing that the various groups in the Empire could agree upon was the need to drive out the infidel. After all, there were still plenty of Croats, Serbs, Hungarians and even some Poles under the rule of the Sultan at this time.

Any ideas on how the Germans in the Empire would respond to another great campaign against the Turks after almost a century hiatus?
 
As it was quite difficult in 1914/1915 to promote the alliance with the porte it would be viewed as an great idea in mid 19th century to bash some Turkish heads I assume.

Turkey was still a large Empire directly south of Austria. Many Serbs and other nations were living (quite) happily under Habsburg rule. Only after the Crimean war they became more discontent (with help from Russian agitators).

I would say (as being an Austrian myself) - in 1850 I would have supported an "ottoman adventure".
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Sevastopol was a logical target for a campaign against Russia that aimed to cripple its ability to carry on a war against the Ottoman Empire by destroying its naval power in the Black Sea and its ability to supply armies. But I don't think capturing that city would achieve the later goal with Austria in the war. Russian armies could be easily supplied by their Austrian allies, meaning that they could very well march through Bulgaria and into Rumelia, if not Constantinople itself. In fact, the further to the West Russian armies marched, the more their supply situation might improve as they came to rely upon Austria, not Russia for supply.

If the Tsar decided that the best way to end the war was to knock out the Ottomans by taking their capital, the Allies would not be able to stop him by besieging Sevastopol, meaning they would have to introduce troops into the Balkans (as they initially did at Varna IOTL).

In my opinion, a more aggressive Russian posture would be the most logical thing to do if Austria was in the war on their side. It would give Russian forces the initiative, and minimize the ability of the Allies to make use of their naval strength. With a minimal degree of luck, Russians/Austrians, aided by Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian nationalists could very well drive the Ottomans out of the Balkans. While Austria may have been lacking in internal cohesion at this point, the Ottoman Empire was extremely weak in 1853, even worse off than in 1878 IMHO. Though its tech gap was not great, its organization and leadership were severely lacking.

Well that may be true in that regard. The only way Russia was able to wage war was through Sevastopol. Cut off Sevastopol and you're logistics die like weeds. I think what you have said on the matter of how to go about this may just be the thing that convinces me that Russia might have a shot at winning. But that only depends on how goot the Turk's logistics are, and also if they are able to stomach a two front war (since they would already be fighting in the Caucasus)

A final thought: a war against the "Turks" would not solve Austria's nationalities problem, but it may go some ways towards quieting it down for a bit. A main source of the Habsburg empire's legitimacy in the east came from being seen by its subjects as a bastion of Christianity against the infidel Turk. If there was one thing that the various groups in the Empire could agree upon was the need to drive out the infidel. After all, there were still plenty of Croats, Serbs, Hungarians and even some Poles under the rule of the Sultan at this time.

Any ideas on how the Germans in the Empire would respond to another great campaign against the Turks after almost a century hiatus?
Well, I don't know how that would work out tbh. I know Austrian-Ottoman relations were cold, and at one point between 1849-1853, withdrew their ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. I think the people would be supportive of this.
 
Except that both Nicholas I and Alexander II were extremely cautious men when it came to foreign policy. You're not very likely to get a more 'aggressive' Russia ITTL with either at them at the helm in St. Petersburg, and certainly not one interested in even attempting to push the Turks completely out of the Balkans utilizing revolutionary nationalists.
 
Except that both Nicholas I and Alexander II were extremely cautious men when it came to foreign policy. You're not very likely to get a more 'aggressive' Russia ITTL with either at them at the helm in St. Petersburg, and certainly not one interested in even attempting to push the Turks completely out of the Balkans utilizing revolutionary nationalists.

Nicolas I was not a supporter of revolutions, but he saw himself, and his country as the protector of the Orthodox flock. To that end, he was willing to support revolutions so long as they did not oppose "legitimate" monarchs, and the Sultan and Caliph was not one of them in his book. He had already stripped the Sultan of nearly half his Balkan territories when he gained suzerainty over Wallachia and Moldavia in 1829

At the beginning of his reign he had supported the Greek revolution against the Ottomans. Now, Greece obviously held a special place in his heart, but in practice he saw the Bulgarians and Serbs in the same light: oppressed Christians who properly belonged under his protection. In Nicolas' mind booting the Ottomans out of the Balkans was not so much a revolutionary action as a re-establishment of the natural order of things as he saw it.

Now, to gain Austrian support Nicolas would have to make some compromises, probably along the lines of making the Principality of Serbia a protectorate of Austria, granting Austria Bosnia, and possibly expanding the borders of Hungary a bit. In exchange for such concessions, Nicolas would seek to establish a larger Greece, a subordinate Kingdom of Bulgaria, and independant, though subordinate kingdoms of Moldavia and Wallachia at the very least.

What this conversation has been ignoring, however, was that Nicolas began what would become the Crimean War under the assumption that it would be a limited war against the Ottoman Empire after he believed he had gained tacit British acceptance for his actions. You are correct about his caution, if Nicolas had understood that his actions would entail a general war, he probably would not have taken the steps that led to war with the Ottoman Empire.

But if Nicolas had believed from the start that his conflict with the Ottoman Empire would entail war with Britain and France, and decided somewhat against his personality to proceed regardless, he probably would have adopted a more aggressive posture, since there would be no point in restraint in the Great Powers were going to be at war against him regardless. He also might have engaged in a some serious diplomacy with Austria, rather than assuming that Franz Joseph "Had" to support him for reasons of honor.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Well of course, just because Russia supported Austria in the revolution would not have helped "return the favor" But then, wasn't Austria and Russia already in an alliance to begin with?
 
Well of course, just because Russia supported Austria in the revolution would not have helped "return the favor" But then, wasn't Austria and Russia already in an alliance to begin with?

Yes, and it ended when Austria ditched Russian attempts to draw them to war.
 
The strength of Austria at this point is really being under-estimated (by some of the posts above), and the major problem Austria would have is Russia would undoubtedly leave the war too powerful (Danube provinces, Bulgaria, and a larger Greece as protectorates). Austria would get maybe Bosnia and Serb protectorate tops. Thereby messing up any plans Austria might of had in the Balkans. Austria stayed out because she did not really see how she would get anything to come out ahead. Though in hindsight staying allied to Russia would of definitely changed the Italian Wars of Independence and the Austro-Prussia war. At the time Austria did not see herself losing the dominate position in Italy or Germany, she enjoyed for centuries.

Unlike in 1859 and 1866 Austria's enemies have no technological advantages. Also, Austria still has competent and battle-tested commanders in charge. In Italy you have Joseph Radetzky not Ferenc Gyulay, so any French force backed up by Sardinia (who would probably of stayed out rather than fight Radetzky again) would not be able to practically walk to Milan unchallenged like what happened in 1859.

In regards to the Hungarian revolt in 1848 it really was the fact Windisch-Gratz was so over-cautious and his replacement Welden was not a very good general. That the revolt lasted as long as it did and the Russians even came in. As soon as Haynau stepped in the Austrians were slicing and dicing (literarily the guy was nicknamed Hyena of Brescia and Hangmen of Arad) their way through Hungary. Haynau was still alive, though in the reserves. He can always be called back (he lived until 1860s) so he could add nicknames like (Butcher of Sarajevo or some such to his list).

Archduke Albrecht was also in charge of Hungary at the time, so he would probably of been overall Commander of the Balkan forces. He did manage to keep beating the Italians in 1866, but was very bad at following up his victories. However, with Haynau underneath him following up victories is not really a problem.

Lastly, though a few of the revolutionary leaders had escaped, a large number of the soldiers they would draw for a revolt had just died in the previous revolt a few years earlier. Hungary did not even feel strong enough to make a play for a change in the government after the loss in 1859. So, they definitely would be even weaker in 1854.
 
Just to nitpick, but Arad was well after the Russian Intervention. Also, I'm not quite sure how you can describe the Austrians as "slicing and dicing their way across Hungary" when the Magyars had driven the Hapsburgs completely out of Hungary, and the majority of the fighting was happening in Austria.
 
Similar topic here with my thoughts on Austrian particpation. Quite unlikely IMO, just given Austria's position in the early 1850s. She had Hungary under a virtual military occupation and also had troops in the Habsburg stem duchies in Central Italy at the time. There were at least 10,000 or so Austrian troops in Florence, alone. She's just not in a position to do anything but sit it out. There's a reason a certain statesman said that Austria would shock the world with it's ingratitude when Russia had so easily lent a hand in subduing Hungary.
 
Though Austria has its hands full in keeping Hungary and Italy quite the south slavs would participate in such a war with overwheliming zeal and that war if nothing to bad comes out of it far Austria could be a healing point where Hungarians remain as the only troublesome group that can be stomped upon my others if they try anything.
 
I'm sorry, but the only way an Austrian entry into the Crimean War doesn't result in the collapse of the empire in at least Italy and Hungary is if the imperial war effort is built on fairy dust and the blood of the innocent.
 
Though Austria has its hands full in keeping Hungary and Italy quite the south slavs would participate in such a war with overwheliming zeal and that war if nothing to bad comes out of it far Austria could be a healing point where Hungarians remain as the only troublesome group that can be stomped upon my others if they try anything.

Why would the South Slavs particpate? If anything, they were just as pissed off too. Sure, they didn't see their revolution crushed ala Hungary,but Vienna did renege on promises of autonomy to Croatia and immediately revoked it, re-instituting centralized rule. Ditto with the Congress in Prague being shut down. Aiding Russia takes away troops from Hungary and Italy -- more important fronts at this time. Leave them exposed, especially Hungary, and you risk another uprising. Especially in Hungary, who had chaffed under Haynau who's reputation was so bad as to be remembered during the civil war by a Confederate Officer. Even though Haynau was dismissed, he wasn't forgotten.

Austria also had a chronic deficit in the 1850s. I'm curious where she'll get the funds to fight on Russia's side. Britain and France aren't going to float her any loans, that's for sure.
 
I'm sorry, but the only way an Austrian entry into the Crimean War doesn't result in the collapse of the empire in at least Italy and Hungary is if the imperial war effort is built on fairy dust and the blood of the innocent.

I agree with this post completely. You have to change post-war Austria to make it even capable. Which besides Schwarzenburg being out of the picture, would mean a differeny revolution. A world where some of the Hungarian demands are fulfilled, preventing a total revolution in the Habsburg Empire, for instance. Otherwise in the 1850s she's just too overstretched.
 
As it was quite difficult in 1914/1915 to promote the alliance with the porte it would be viewed as an great idea in mid 19th century to bash some Turkish heads I assume.

Turkey was still a large Empire directly south of Austria. Many Serbs and other nations were living (quite) happily under Habsburg rule. Only after the Crimean war they became more discontent (with help from Russian agitators).

I would say (as being an Austrian myself) - in 1850 I would have supported an "ottoman adventure".

I must remind you that the Austrian empire was far more disheviled and living on borrowed time then the Ottoman's at that point, the Ottomans could probably have done pretty well against Austria in the war.
 
Top