WI: Russia wins the Crimean War and carved up the Ottoman Empire?

First of all: The Russian army of the crimean war was so ridiculously bad it's borderline impossible for them to win the war.

Second: Something as ridiculous as attempting to annex the entire Ottoman Empire would immideatly have lead to a war with Austria, which would also bring at least Prussia and Sweden in the war too.

Last of all: Trying to annex such an enormous amount of territory riddled with a hostile population would be simply insane. Even when the Russians still thought that they could win the war their maximal war aim was a slavic and orthodox satellite on the balkans with control over constantinople. No one ever wanted to annex pieces of anatolia.
 
First of all: The Russian army of the crimean war was so ridiculously bad it's borderline impossible for them to win the war.

Second: Something as ridiculous as attempting to annex the entire Ottoman Empire would immideatly have lead to a war with Austria, which would also bring at least Prussia and Sweden in the war too.

Last of all: Trying to annex such an enormous amount of territory riddled with a hostile population would be simply insane. Even when the Russians still thought that they could win the war their maximal war aim was a slavic and orthodox satellite on the balkans with control over constantinople. No one ever wanted to annex pieces of anatolia.

I've done a lot of research into the russian army in the crimean war and what you're saying is inded true. But one has to remember that while the Russian's couldn't produce enough ammunition, had corrupt officers who stole supplies etc, the British army was also not without fault ie the charge of the light brigade.

Why sweden though?
 
If Britain and France never join against russia we would see some new Balkan states, bigger greece, and maybe some Russian gains in the east
 
What if Russia won and proceeded to annex the Ottoman empire.

Well, it would basically anger every single country in Europe. Austria wants a Danubian basin that isn't challenged by Austria, France has interests in the Levant, Britain doesn't want Russian expansion into the Middle East, Prussia doesn't like an aggrandized Russia, and nobody wants the Russians to get out of the Black Sea. If Russia annexes the whole Ottoman Empire, we'd probably see a powerful coalition form with the express intent of having the Russians back off their war aims, or war will ensue. A war that will end, most likely, with a humiliating Russian defeat.

Which is why Russia never aimed for that, even at the very beginning of the Crimean Crisis where Britain and France's intervention wasn't exactly clear. Russia gains more by having the Ottomans as a protectorate/diplomatic satellite (i.e. such as the position at Hunkar Iskelesi) than by occupying it entirely.
 
I've done a lot of research into the russian army in the crimean war and what you're saying is inded true. But one has to remember that while the Russian's couldn't produce enough ammunition, had corrupt officers who stole supplies etc, the British army was also not without fault ie the charge of the light brigade.

Why sweden though?

The chance to get Finland back.
 
i'm quite sure the OTL outcome of the crimean war was almost the best the russians could expect. they even were able to increase their balkan influence in the russo-turkish war of 1877/71.
as already mentioned, if austria, prussia and sweden joined, they would have lost a LOT more territory. maybe they would've even failed as a state and collapsed.

also a conquest of anatolia would've triggered a jihad and boosted the ottomans morale insanely. being subject of the russians was the worst things imaginable back then.^^

If you consider inflicting high casualties to the allies some sort of victory, the classic russian combination of winter and scorged earth would do it. which was already the case during the siege of sewastopol e.g.
if the russians can't defeat the allies, the motherland and father frost will.
 
The chance to get Finland back.

Most Swedish governments would probably think such idea more trouble than it was worth.

Let's remember that in Finland, the Crimean War caused a small upsurge in nationalism and prompted people to volunteer to take up arms... for the Russian cause. Some of the few successful small scale military actions against the Anglo-French fleet on the Finnish coast had a small Finnish volunteer component involved, like the so-called "Halkokari scuffle" where a volunteer unit of circa 100 men, organized by the local factory-owner Anders Donner, succesfully defended Kokkola against the landing parties sent from the HMS Vulture and the HMS Odin to confiscate or destroy "Russian government property" there.

The Finns were quite inflamed because of the Anglo-French policy of destroying a great number of Finnish ships and warehoused trade goods like lumber or tar (often actually enroute to Britain) in the Finnish port towns - these actions caused major economic losses to the Finns rather than to the Russians. So there was a real feeling in Finland of being on the same side with the Russians, seeing the attackers as the enemy. Under those conditions, I would deem it unlikely for the Finns to rise against the Russians in great numbers during the war - and this would be the necessary condition for any successful Swedish campaign in Finland.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Finns were quite inflamed because of the Anglo-French policy of destroying a great number of Finnish ships and warehoused trade goods like lumber or tar (often actually enroute to Britain) in the Finnish port towns - these actions caused major economic losses to the Finns rather than to the Russians. So there was a real feeling in Finland of being on the same side with the Russians, seeing the attackers as the enemy. Under those conditions, I would deem it unlikely for the Finns to rise against the Russians in great numbers during the war - and this would be the necessary condition for any successful Swedish campaign in Finland.

Wasn't that the actions of one total moron, though? I seem to recall that he was sent out with a brief to raid Russian towns, and torched huge amounts of British property...
 
Wasn't that the actions of one total moron, though? I seem to recall that he was sent out with a brief to raid Russian towns, and torched huge amounts of British property...

It did have a great impact on the local economy nonetheless, as well as the Finnish morale during the war. Given how much Finnish capital was tied up in shipbuilding, shipping and the export of lumber and tar at the time, it is quite understandable the Finns didn't much like it. Being part of the Russian Empire was, tradewise, pretty OK anyway, even in comparison to the last parts of the Swedish rule - or especially in comparison with those times.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It did have a great impact on the local economy nonetheless, as well as the Finnish morale during the war. Given how much Finnish capital was tied up in shipbuilding, shipping and the export of lumber and tar at the time, it is quite understandable the Finns didn't much like it. Being part of the Russian Empire was, tradewise, pretty OK anyway, even in comparison to the last parts of the Swedish rule - or especially in comparison with those times.

Oh, I don't doubt it. I just wasn't sure it was actual British *policy* - he got a lambasting for it.
 
Oh, I don't doubt it. I just wasn't sure it was actual British *policy* - he got a lambasting for it.

It did look like that to the Finns, which is relevant to the local perception of the war - most of them didn't have access to Parliament records or the British newspapers at the time.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It did look like that to the Finns, which is relevant to the local perception of the war - most of them didn't have access to Parliament records or the British newspapers at the time.

Right. So it would take some kind of change in *his* actions to alter the course of events up there - but it wouldn't particularly take a change in the government's actions.
(I was mainly correcting your description of it as Anglo-French policy - it may have looked like that, but it wasn't entirely...)
 
Right. So it would take some kind of change in *his* actions to alter the course of events up there - but it wouldn't particularly take a change in the government's actions.
(I was mainly correcting your description of it as Anglo-French policy - it may have looked like that, but it wasn't entirely...)

I understand the destruction (or capture) of Finnish ships and trade goods was only one side of the general aim to blockade Russia and to disrupt Russian trade - given this, it might be possible any British commander (at least one who couldn't see the difference between a Finn and a Russian) could have taken broadly similar action against the Finnish port towns, even if in a different way or in a different scale. This might also be expected because of the obsolete Russian fleet staying in port, with the ships (and troops) available in the Baltic any officer in command wouldn't have much different realistic (or easy) options than what Napier (and Plumridge) had - to show any initiative and concrete action in the theatre, also other officers might follow a similar path. The alternative might be not doing anything of note, which London would also frown upon.

It might have been different if enough troops and (suitable) ships would be committed to take Sveaborg, say, but that would require several things done differently by the Admiralty as well as both the British and French commanders, and it would be a costly undertaking anyway - which the men in charge knew well.
 
Last edited:
Russia win the Crimean War? Practically impossible. They were lucky to finish in the top two.
 
Last edited:
Top