WI Russia Loses the Crimea War Hard

Inspired by this thread, https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=311715.

While Russia did lose the war, it led to the first steps towards democracy and modernisation in the reaction to the defeat. My question to you guys, what happens if Russia loses the war but harder. Not just a defeat, but as close to a total and steamroll as possible.

Is this possible?

What are the ramifications of this in Europe and Russia long term?

How does this play out for the Russian Ruling Class?

How harsh are the terms in the Treaty of Paris?

I largely agree with BigDave1967. If the British, French and Ottomans are winning very swiftly and decisively at first, the Tsar will decide that this latest attempt to increase Russia's influence in the region was a bad idea and stop the war very soon after its beginning, probably with some concessions to the British and French if they want it. That might lead to Russia being actually less inclined to change than it was IOTL, since it will have suffered a defeat in a very brief war rather than in a long, drawn-out war that cost lots and lots of Russian lives.

In which case, how do you keep the war drawn out? I'm assuming that for Russia to suffer a worse defeat, all you really need it to draw the war out a bit further?
 
Last edited:

BigDave1967

Banned
I don't think France,Great Britain,Ottoman Empire and Sardinia had the will to totally crush Russia. If it did happen it would rapidly speed up reforms in society and the military.
 
I largely agree with BigDave1967. If the British, French and Ottomans are winning very swiftly and decisively at first, the Tsar will decide that this latest attempt to increase Russia's influence in the region was a bad idea and stop the war very soon after its beginning, probably with some concessions to the British and French if they want it. That might lead to Russia being actually less inclined to change than it was IOTL, since it will have suffered a defeat in a very brief war rather than in a long, drawn-out war that cost lots and lots of Russian lives.
 
I largely agree with BigDave1967. If the British, French and Ottomans are winning very swiftly and decisively at first, the Tsar will decide that this latest attempt to increase Russia's influence in the region was a bad idea and stop the war very soon after its beginning, probably with some concessions to the British and French if they want it. That might lead to Russia being actually less inclined to change than it was IOTL, since it will have suffered a defeat in a very brief war rather than in a long, drawn-out war that cost lots and lots of Russian lives.

In which case, how do you keep the war drawn out? I'm assuming that for Russia to suffer a worse defeat, all you really need it to draw the war out a bit further?
 
In which case, how do you keep the war drawn out? I'm assuming that for Russia to suffer a worse defeat, all you really need it to draw the war out a bit further?
Maybe mediocre success or at least holding their ground at first? Would a Pyrrhic victory fit what you're looking for?
 
Maybe mediocre success or at least holding their ground at first? Would a Pyrrhic victory fit what you're looking for?


Preferably I'm looking for a case of horrible medicine. The Crimea war needs to be so bad that all of Russia from the lowest Serf, to the highest Noble knows that changes have to be made. If a Phyric version could achieve this then yes.

Longterm I want to see a radically more progressive Russia by WW1. At the least I want the Communist revolution to be stunted by the reforms passed following Russian Defeat. I would also like to see how the Austrian Empire would react to this defeat?

I read on Wiki that Russia stopped the war due to the fact it recognized that it had lost most of it's experienced soldiers and what remained would just lead to worse casualties. That was in the last year of the war, I want to know what will happen if you extend it another year.
 
The best way to do it would be Austria entering the Alliance.
However, the consequences of such a thing in Germany would be so big to change the picture entirely.
 

BigDave1967

Banned
The best way to do it would be Austria entering the Alliance.
However, the consequences of such a thing in Germany would be so big to change the picture entirely.

Prussia would strike out on it's own sooner. Before 1866 Austria was sort of like an overlord to the German states.
 
Austria joining up with the Alliance against Russia could prevent Prussia from ever getting the chance. Historically Austria was diplomatically isolated after the Crimena War, which was what let France and Prussia take pot shots at them. In this situation, at the very Least Austria would have made friends in Britain, and possibly France as well.

France will probably still be Austria's Rival, but Austria Joining and aiding in a decisive victory could get Britain firmly in Austria's camp. This is especially true if Austria make a significant showing, as Britain could start to see Austria as their best tool for containing Russia, or at least of keeping them out of the Mediterranean. I suspect that if Britain is strongly aligned with Austria then France won't try anything significant, and neither will Prussia.

This could outright prevent Italian and German Unifications.
 
The Allied main purpose was to destroy Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Black Sea fortresses. The goal was achieved, what more could you want?
Social structure of Russia and the position of Russian peasants they hardly cared.:)
 
The Allied main purpose was to destroy Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Black Sea fortresses. The goal was achieved, what more could you want?
Social structure of Russia and the position of Russian peasants they hardly cared.:)

You need something to escalate the conflict beyond the Black Sea. Austria or Prussia entering the war might be a way to do it.
 
You need something to escalate the conflict beyond the Black Sea. Austria or Prussia entering the war might be a way to do it.

I do not need. Russia and lost so much in the war. A liberation of the peasants would have happened anyway, well, maybe five years later.
 
I read on Wiki that Russia stopped the war due to the fact it recognized that it had lost most of it's experienced soldiers and what remained would just lead to worse casualties. That was in the last year of the war, I want to know what will happen if you extend it another year.
I agree with some of the others on here that Russia would need a good ally in such an instance. That could provide the higher-ups in Russia the will to continue on with the war if they think an alliance would ease the pressure off of them and sees mediocre success. I'll defer to others more knowledgeable on the subject as to whether Austria filling that role is appropriate or even possible.
 
There was a Europe-wide coalition brewing when the Russians decided to throw in the towel. If the Russians are stubborn, they could end up at war with Sweden, Prussia and Austria as well.

Russia loses the Ålan islands to Sweden - it is possible they might lose all of Finland (to the 1721 border). Congress Poland might be broken free as a French-Austrian client state (Habsburg ruler, high French influence), with British approval - it would keep France and Austria interested in keeping Russia contained. Prussia might get Lithuania and Latvia.

The Circassians might be allowed a full state under Ottoman and British protection while Britain gets Alaska. Crimea might be broken away as a Tartar state.

Russia is severely humiliated and might have lost most of her Baltic and Black Sea fleets and forts. Peasant revolutions might spring up.
 
Top