Causes of the Crimean War
objective
***
The rivalry between European states and Russia in the issue of control over the numerous possessions of the weak, crumbling Ottoman Empire (Turkey)
On January 9, 14, February 20, 21, 1853, at meetings with British Ambassador G. Seymour, Emperor Nicholas I suggested that England should divide the Turkish Empire together with Russia (History of Diplomacy, Volume One, pp. 433 - 437. Edited by V.P. Potemkin)
*** Russia's desire for leadership in managing the system of straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles) from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean
“If England thinks in the near future to settle in Constantinople, then I will not allow this .... For my part, I am equally disposed to accept the obligation not to settle there, of course, as a proprietor; as a temporary guard is another matter ”(from the statement of Nicholas the First to the British Ambassador to Seymour on January 9, 1853)
*** The desire of Russia to include in the sphere of its national interests affairs in the Balkans and among the South Slavs
“Let Moldavia, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria come under the protectorate of Russia. As for Egypt, I fully understand the importance of this territory for England. Here I can only say that if, in the distribution of the Ottoman inheritance after the fall of the empire, you take possession of Egypt, then I will have no objection to this. I will say the same about Candia (the island of Crete). This island, perhaps, suits you, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t become an English possession ”(Nicholas the First’s conversation with the British Ambassador Seymour on January 9, 1853 at an evening with Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna)
subjective
*** Turkey's weakness
“Turkey is a “sick person”. Nicholas did not change his terminology all his life when he spoke about the Turkish Empire ”((History of Diplomacy, Volume One, pp. 433 - 437)
*** Confidence of Nicholas I in his impunity
“I want to speak with you like a gentleman, if we manage to come to an agreement - me and England - the rest doesn’t matter to me, I don’t care what others do or do” (from a conversation between Nicholas I and British Ambassador Hamilton Seymour on January 9, 1853 at the evening Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna)
***
Nicholas' suggestion that Europe is incapable of presenting a united front
“the tsar was sure that Austria and France would not join England (in a possible confrontation with Russia), and England would not dare to fight him without allies” (History of Diplomacy, Volume One, pp. 433 - 437. OGIZ, Moscow, 1941)
*** Autocracy, the result of which was the wrong relationship between the emperor and his advisers
“... Russian ambassadors in Paris, London, Vienna, Berlin, ... Chancellor Nesselrode ... in their reports distorted the state of affairs before the tsar. They almost always wrote not about what they saw, but about what the king would like to know from them. When one day Andrey Rozen urged Prince Lieven to finally open the eyes of the king, Lieven answered literally: “So that I should say this to the emperor ?! But I'm not stupid! If I wanted to tell him the truth, he would have thrown me out the door, and nothing else would have come of it ”(History of Diplomacy, Volume One)
*** The problem of "Palestinian shrines":
It became apparent as early as 1850, continued and intensified in 1851, weakened in the beginning and middle of 1852, and again became unusually aggravated just at the very end of 1852 - the beginning of 1853. Louis Napoleon, while still president, told the Turkish government that he wanted to preserve and renew all the rights and advantages of the Catholic Church confirmed by Turkey back in 1740 in the so-called holy places, i.e. in the temples of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Sultan agreed; but on the part of Russian diplomacy in Constantinople, a sharp protest followed, pointing out the advantages of the Orthodox Church over the Catholic Church on the basis of the terms of the Kuchuk-Kainarji peace. After all, Nicholas I considered himself the patron saint of the Orthodox
*** The desire of France to split the continental union of Austria, England, Prussia and Russia, which arose during the Napoleonic wars n
“Subsequently, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Napoleon III, Drouey-de-Luis, stated quite frankly: “The question of holy places and everything related to it has no real significance for France. This whole Oriental question, which stirs up so much noise, served the imperial government only as a means to upset the continental alliance, which for almost half a century paralyzed France. Finally, the opportunity presented itself to sow discord in a powerful coalition, and Emperor Napoleon seized it with both hands ”(History of Diplomacy)
Events preceding the Crimean War of 1853-1856
During his short stay in London, the Emperor decisively charmed everyone with his chivalrous courtesy and royal grandeur, charmed with his cordial courtesy Queen Victoria, her spouse and the most prominent statesmen of the then Great Britain, with whom he tried to get closer and enter into an exchange of thoughts.
The aggressive policy of Nicholas in 1853 was also due to the friendly attitude of Victoria towards him and the fact that at the head of the cabinet in England at that moment was the same Lord Aberdeen, who listened to him so affectionately in Windsor in 1844
Menshikov was met with extraordinary honor. The Turkish police did not even dare to disperse the crowd of Greeks, who gave the prince an enthusiastic welcome. Menshikov behaved with defiant arrogance. In Europe, much attention was paid even to Menshikov's purely external provocative antics: they wrote about how he paid a visit to the Grand Vizier without taking off his coat, as he spoke sharply with Sultan Abdul-Majid. From the very first steps taken by Menshikov, it became clear that he would never yield on two central points: firstly, he wanted to achieve recognition for Russia of the right to patronize not only the Orthodox Church, but also the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan; secondly, he demands that Turkey's consent be approved by the Sultan's Sened, and not by a firman, i.e., that it be in the nature of a foreign policy agreement with the king, and not be a simple decree
However, Nicholas issued a manifesto stating that he, like his ancestors, should protect the Orthodox Church in Turkey, and that in order to ensure the fulfillment by the Turks of the previous agreements with Russia that were violated by the Sultan, the tsar was forced to occupy the Danubian principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia)
For the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the 4th and 5th infantry corps numbering 81541 people were prepared. On May 24, the 4th Corps advanced from the Podolsk and Volyn provinces to Leovo. The 15th division of the 5th infantry corps approached there in early June and merged with the 4th corps. The command was entrusted to Prince Mikhail Dmitrievich Gorchakov
But Stratford-Redcliffe forced Sultan Abdulmecid to reject the Vienna Note, and even before that he hastened to draw up another note, allegedly on behalf of Turkey, with some reservations against the Vienna Note. The king, in turn, rejected her. At this time, Nikolai received from the ambassador in France news about the impossibility of a joint military action by England and France.
The course of the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Briefly
led by admirals Kornilov, Nakhimov, Istomin, who died during the siege
Peace conditions
The return of Turkey to Kars in exchange for Sevastopol, the transformation of the Black Sea into a neutral one: Russia and Turkey are deprived of the opportunity to have a navy and coastal fortifications here, the cession of Bessarabia (cancellation of the exclusive Russian protectorate over Wallachia, Moldavia and Serbia)
Reasons for Russia's defeat in the Crimean War
-
Russia's military-technical lag behind the leading European powers
-
Underdevelopment of communications
-
Embezzlement, corruption in the rear of the army
“By the nature of his activity, Golitsyn had to recognize the war as if from the bottom. Then he will see heroism, holy self-sacrifice, selfless courage and patience of the defenders of Sevastopol, but, hanging around in the rear on the affairs of the militia, at every step he came across the devil knows what: collapse, indifference, cold-blooded mediocrity and monstrous theft. They stole everything that other - higher - thieves did not have time to steal on the way to the Crimea: bread, hay, oats, horses, ammunition. The mechanics of the robbery was simple: suppliers gave rot, it was accepted (for a bribe, of course) by the main commissariat in St. Petersburg. Then - also for a bribe - army commissariat, then - regimental, and so on until the last spoke in the chariot. And the soldiers ate rot, wore rot, slept on rot, shot rot. The military units themselves had to buy forage from the local population with money that was issued by a special financial department. Golitsyn once went there and witnessed such a scene. An officer in a faded, shabby uniform arrived from the front line. The feed has run out, hungry horses are eating sawdust and shavings. An elderly quartermaster with major's epaulettes adjusted his glasses on his nose and said in an everyday voice:
- We'll give you money, eight percent get along.
“For what reason?” the officer was outraged. We shed blood!
"They've sent a novice again," the quartermaster sighed. - Just small children! I remember that Captain Onishchenko came from your brigade. Why wasn't he sent?
Onishchenko died...
- God rest him! The quartermaster crossed himself. - It's a pity. The man was understanding. We respected him and he respected us. We won't ask too much.
The quartermaster was not even shy about the presence of a stranger. Prince Golitsyn went up to him, took him "by the soul", pulled him out from behind the table and lifted him into the air.
"I'll kill you, you bastard!"
“Kill,” the quartermaster croaked, “I won’t give you without interest anyway.”
- Do you think I'm joking? .. - The prince squeezed him with his paw.
“I can’t… the chain will break…” the quartermaster croaked with the last of his strength. “Then it’s all the same for me not to live ... Petersburg will strangle ...
“People are dying there, you son of a bitch!” the prince cried out in tears and disgustedly threw the half-strangled military official away.
He touched his wrinkled throat like a condor's and croaked with unexpected dignity:
“If we were there ... we would have died no worse ... And you, be kind,” he turned to the officer, “meet the rules: for artillerymen - six percent, for all other branches of the military - eight.
The officer pitifully twitched his cold nose, as if he were sobbing:
- Sawdust is eating ... shavings ... to hell with you! .. I can’t return without hay ”
- Poor command and control
“Golitsyn was struck by the commander-in-chief himself, to whom he introduced himself. Gorchakov was not that old, a little over sixty, but he gave the impression of some kind of rottenness, it seemed, poke a finger, and he would crumble like a completely decayed mushroom. Wandering eyes could not focus on anything, and when the old man released Golitsyn with a weak wave of his hand, he heard him humming in French:
I am poor, poor pualu,
And I'm not in a hurry...
— What's that! - said the colonel of the quartermaster service to Golitsyn, when they left the commander-in-chief. - He at least leaves for positions, but Prince Menshikov did not remember at all that the war was going on. He just joked everything, and to confess - caustically. He spoke of the Minister of War as follows: "Prince Dolgorukov has a triple relationship with gunpowder - he did not invent it, did not sniff it and does not send it to Sevastopol." About commander Dmitry Erofeevich Osten-Saken: “Erofeich has not become strong. Exhale." Sarcasm anywhere! the Colonel added thoughtfully. - But he gave to put a psalmist over the great Nakhimov. For some reason, Prince Golitsyn was not funny. In general, he was unpleasantly surprised by the tone of cynical mockery that reigned at headquarters. These people seemed to have lost all self-respect, and with it, respect for anything. They did not talk about the tragic situation of Sevastopol, but with relish they ridiculed the commander of the Sevastopol garrison, Count Osten-Saken, who only knows what to do with priests, read akathists and argue about divine scripture. “He has one good quality,” the colonel added. “He doesn’t interfere in anything” (Yu. Nagibin “Stronger than all other decrees”)
Results of the Crimean War
The Crimean War showed
The political reason for the defeat of Russia during the Crimean War was the unification of the main Western powers (England and France) against it with the benevolent (for the aggressor) neutrality of the rest. In this war, the consolidation of the West against a civilization alien to them was manifested. If, after the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, an anti-Russian ideological campaign began in France, then in the 1950s the West turned to practical actions.
The technical reason for the defeat was the relative backwardness of the weapons of the Russian army. The Anglo-French troops had rifled fittings that allowed the loose formation of rangers to open fire on the Russian troops before they approached at a distance sufficient for a volley of smoothbore guns. The close formation of the Russian army, designed mainly for one group volley and a bayonet attack, with such a difference in armaments, became a convenient target.
The socio-economic reason for the defeat was the preservation of serfdom, which is inextricably linked with the lack of freedom of both potential hired workers and potential entrepreneurs, which limited industrial development. Europe west of the Elbe was able to break away in industry, in the development of technology from Russia, thanks to the social changes that took place there, contributing to the creation of a market for capital and labor.
The war resulted in legal and socio-economic transformations in the country in the 60s of the XIX century. The extremely slow overcoming of serfdom before the Crimean War prompted, after the military defeat, to force reforms, which led to distortions in the social structure of Russia, which were superimposed by destructive ideological influences that came from the West.
From the Historical Encyclopedia:
CRIMEAN WAR 1853-1856 - one of the most acute stages in the implementation by Russia of the southern direction of its foreign policy and in the process of its participation in resolving the Eastern question.
Participated in the war: on the one hand - Russia, on the other - the Ottoman Empire, England, France and the Sardinian kingdom.
The war was caused by a complex of international causes, all its participants had their own interests.
Russia sought to restore partly lost in the 40s of the XIX century. influence in the Middle East and the Balkans, to ensure a more favorable navigation regime of the Black Sea straits for Russian military and merchant ships, violated by the London Conventions of 1840 and 1841.
The Ottoman Empire hatched revanchist plans, hoping to return part of the territories in the Black Sea and Transcaucasia lost as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars of the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries.
England and France intended to crush Russia as a great power, whose prestige had grown tremendously, to reduce it to the level of a minor state, tearing away the Transcaucasus, Finland and Poland.
For the Kingdom of Sardinia, participation in the anti-Russian coalition has become one of the means of strengthening its international position.
The aggravation of the situation in the Middle East caused a conflict between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in Palestine. It arose in 1850 in connection with disputes over who would have the Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. In fact, the conflict reflected sharp contradictions in the Middle East between Russia, which supported the Russian Orthodox Church, and France, which defended the rights of Catholics.
The unleashing of the war was facilitated by the mission of the special representative of Emperor Nicholas I, PRINCE A. S. Menshikov, to Constantinople, who demanded special privileges for the Orthodox Church throughout the Ottoman Empire, making Russia their only guarantor. Porte, relying on England and France, rejected this ultimatum. In response, Russian troops were brought into the Danubian principalities.
On October 4 (16), 1853, Sultan Abdulmejid declared war on Russia. October 20 (November 1) Nicholas I signed the Manifesto "On the war with the Ottoman Porte."
Entering the war, the king hoped for the power of his army (more than 1 million people). As it turned out during the war, the Russian economy and the military industry lagged far behind the Western one. The armaments of the Russian army (small arms, artillery, fleet) were of the old type. There were no established communications with the theater of future military operations, which prevented the provision of the army with a sufficient amount of ammunition, reinforcements and food.
Nicholas hoped for the support of England and Austria, but miscalculated. Russia found itself in political isolation: England and France entered into an alliance with Turkey, Austria took a position of "unfriendly neutrality."
The history of the Crimean War is divided into two stages: the first (November 1853 - April 1854) - the Russian-Turkish campaign, the second (April 1854 - February 1856) - the struggle of Russia against the European coalition and Turkey.
Two main theaters of military operations were formed - on the Crimean peninsula and in Transcaucasia. The main event of the first stage is the Battle of Sinop on November 18 (30), 1853, in which Vice Admiral II. S. Nakhimov defeated the Turkish Black Sea Fleet.
In March 1854 England and France declared war on Russia. The goal of the combined Anglo-French command was to capture the Crimea and Sevastopol, the Russian naval base. On September 2 (14), 1854, the Allies landed an expeditionary force in Evpatoria. The Russian army under the command of A.S. Menshikov, having lost the battle near the river. Alma, in September 1854, withdrew deep into the Crimea to Bakhchisaray.
In October 1854, the 11-month heroic defense of Sevastopol began under the leadership of V. A. Kornilov, P. S. Nakhimov and V. I. Istomin. It was carried out by the garrison of the fortress and sea crews taken from several obsolete ships flooded in the Sevastopol Bay.
The main forces of the Russian army tried to undertake distracting operations: the battle of Inkerman (November 1854), the attack on Evpatoria (February 1855), the battle on the Black River (August 1855). These military actions did not bring success to Russia and did not help Sevastopol. In August 1855, the last assault on Sevastopol took place, which led to the fall of the Malakhov Kurgan and the capture of the southern part of the city by the allies.
The situation was more successful for Russia in the Caucasian theater of operations: Russian troops repelled the Turkish invasion in Transcaucasia, crossed into Turkish territory, took the fortresses of Bayazet (July 1854) and Kare (November 1855).
The operations of the allies in the Baltic, the bombardment of the Solovetsky Monastery on the White Sea, and the military demonstration in Kamchatka had a local character and did not give them military or political success. The extreme exhaustion of the Allied forces in the Crimea and the Russian victories in the Caucasus forced England and France to stop hostilities. Russia, due to the military defeat in the Crimea and the difficult internal state of the country, also strove for peace.
The war ended with the Paris Peace Treaty signed on March 18 (30), 1856 at the Paris Peace Congress.
Crimean War 1853-1856 Causes of war, causes of defeat, terms of the Paris Peace Treaty
Russia's participation in the Crimean War was due to Russia's geopolitical interests.
By the middle of the XIX century. Russia was pushed out of the markets of the Middle East ka England and France, who subjugated Turkey to their influence. The Russian monarchy did not want to lose its advantages gained in the victorious wars with Turkey in 1735-1739, 1768-1774, 1787-1791, 1806-1812, 1828-1829. In these wars, Russia secured Southern Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia, and the Caucasus. Russia mastered the Black Sea lands. As a result of the successes of Russian weapons, the autonomy of Serbia was ensured in 1829, the power of the Sultan over Moldavia and Wallachia was limited, and in 1830 the independence of Greece was proclaimed.
In the first half of the 19th century, there was weakening of the Ottoman Empire. Russia sought
To the division of the Ottoman Empire,
Creation of independent states in South-Eastern Europe
Achieve a protectorate over the Danubian Principalities
Establish control over the Black Sea straits
Strengthen the country's influence in Europe
Secure the Russian Black Sea coast
Do not let someone else's fleet into the Black Sea.
In the middle of XIX. intensified struggle for spheres of influence in the Balkan Peninsula and the Middle East.
Britain - n Russia's most powerful rival. Britannia
Feared the strengthening of Russia
Seeked to limit Russia's influence in Europe,
It sought to oust Russia from the Balkans.
England was not interested in dividing the Ottoman Empire, because she hoped to put it under her financial, political, economic control
England hatched plans for the military defeat of Russia in order to achieve its own conquest goals in the Middle East.
London drew closer to Paris, and in the future, these powers acted jointly on the Eastern question.
France announced the Russian threat in the Middle East. Palmerston, Prime Minister of England, declared that the aim of England's policy in the Middle East was to resist the despotic governments of the East.
Austria. Hostile position in relation to the eastern claims of Nicholas I took Austria
She could not come to terms with the transition of the Balkan Peninsula under the economic and political control of Russia. Austria itself sought to bring the Balkan peoples under its control.
There was a deep antagonism between Russia and Austria in the Eastern question
Nicholas I, after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution by Russian troops in 1849, believed that the Habsburg monarchy owed its salvation to Russia. He considered Austria his reliable ally in Europe and the Balkans. Nicholas I was mistaken in his assessment of the position of Austria.
Prussia was not yet interested in the Eastern question and preferred to evade European disputes over the Ottoman Empire. In the struggle between England and Russia, Prussia could not play the role of a reliable and active ally of Russia.
Nicholas I made a number of serious diplomatic miscalculations, incorrectly defining the interests of England, France, and Austria. He was sure that they would not interfere in the military conflict between Russia and Turkey. In fact, these countries were interested in weakening Russia's influence on the solution of European problems.
Russia suffered defeat in the Crimean War. Main reasons steel damage:
Russia's military-economic lag behind England and France;
Excessive centralization of government; low efficiency of the bureaucracy; among the ministers at that time mediocre and irresponsible persons prevailed. Embezzlement reigned at all levels. The army was supplied ugly: the soldiers were half-starved, and in Sevastopol the army and the population were starving; the quartermasters plundered everything that could be appropriated.
The low level of military art of the Russian command; among the senior officers, persons who held positions by seniority or patronage prevailed, they did not have military talents, and were poor strategists. This applies to Gorchakov, Menshikov, Paskevich. The command made strategic and tactical mistakes. Minister of War V.A. Dolgorukov (1852-1856), preoccupied with his career, misinformed Nicholas I, falsified data on the position of the Russian army and its combat readiness.
The officers were afraid to take the initiative and act according to the situation;
The army lacked modern weapons. In the 1840s, new types of artillery pieces were developed, but they were not taken into service. The War Department hampered the introduction of new technology. Most of the guns were old. The army was armed with smooth-bore guns, which were inferior in range (120-150 m) to rifled guns (fitting) (800 m), which were in service with the British and French armies. Rifled guns in the Russian army accounted for 4.6% of all guns. The Black Sea Fleet was sailing, while England and France had a steam-powered navy. The reasons for the military-technical weakness were the economic backwardness of Russia.
Bad communications. The delivery of military supplies on dirt roads was slow. In spring and autumn, it was impossible to drive along these roads. England and France, having entered the war in 1854, laid a railway from Balaklava, the landing site of their troops, to Sevastopol. In Russia there was not a single railway connecting the central provinces with the Black Sea coast. The Crimean army was left without rear support. In the Crimea, Sevastopol, there were not enough hospitals, doctors, medicines. Mortality among the wounded was very high.
Target it is to deprive Russia of its exclusive position and dominant influence in the East. To this end
The Ottoman Empire was recognized as equal with other European states in international relations
Russia lost the right to patronize the Orthodox peoples of the Balkan Peninsula
The Allies returned their conquests in the Crimea, and Russia returned its conquests in the Caucasus to Turkey
Russia ceded the mouth of the Danube and the southern part of Bessarabia, which was annexed to the Principality of Moldavia
Russia, together with Turkey, was deprived of the right to keep a navy in the Black Sea
Both powers undertook to destroy the naval arsenals on the shores of the Black Sea and not to keep other warships in this sea, except for six steam and four light ships. The Black Sea was declared neutral. Access to its waters was forbidden to the military courts of all powers.
The Bosporus and Dardanelles were declared closed to all warships in peacetime. In case of war, Turkey could bring its squadron into the Black Sea. She could be accompanied by warships of Western European countries. The Black Sea straits were controlled by Turkey.
Peace conditions were not beneficial for Russia. Russian influence in the Middle East and the Balkans was undermined. The international prestige of Russia has decreased. The most important consequence of the war was the reforms of the 1960s and 1970s.
Russian society It was outraged by the defeats Russian army. The defeats offended the national feelings of the Russian people. WITH. M. Solovyov wrote: "We painfully accepted the information about the defeats of Russia, knowing that the news of the victories would lead us to the abyss." The intelligentsia believed that defeats would force the government to reform. Thinking people believed that Russia's victory in the war would strengthen the Nikolaev political system. The Russian people rooted for their homeland with their souls, but they understood that the defeats would force the authorities to think about the question of their causes and understand that Russia had lagged behind.
from Western European countries. The Crimean War summed up the previous version of development and showed the need for change. The thinking part of society demanded freedom of speech, the abolition of serfdom, the development of education, and judicial reform.
Russia's defeat in the war forced AlexandraII think about causes of injury and conduct reforms. Society demanded expand freedom of speech. Even conservatives understood that reforms were needed. Pogodin, who previously supported the ideas of Uvarov, after the death of Nicholas I spoke about freedom of speech. Everyone is tired of administrative and police arbitrariness.
Crimean War 1853−1856 (or the Eastern War) is a conflict between the Russian Empire and coalitions of countries, the cause of which was the desire of a number of countries to gain a foothold in the Balkan Peninsula and the Black Sea, as well as to reduce the influence of the Russian Empire in this region.
Basic information
Participants in the conflict
Almost all the leading countries of Europe became participants in the conflict. Against the Russian Empire, on the side of which was only Greece (until 1854) and the vassal Principality of Megrel, a coalition consisting of:
- Ottoman Empire;
- French Empire;
- British Empire;
- Sardinian kingdom.
Support for the coalition troops was also provided by: the North Caucasian Imamat (until 1955), the Abkhazian principality (part of the Abkhazians sided with the Russian Empire and waged a guerrilla war against the coalition troops), and the Circassians.
It should also be noted that friendly neutrality to the countries of the coalition was shown by the Austrian Empire, Prussia and Sweden.
Thus, the Russian Empire could not find allies in Europe.
Numerical aspect ratio
The numerical ratio (ground forces and navy) at the time of the outbreak of hostilities was approximately as follows:
- Russian Empire and allies (Bulgarian Legion, Greek Legion and foreign voluntary formations) - 755 thousand people;
- coalition forces - about 700 thousand people.
From a logistical point of view, the army of the Russian Empire was significantly inferior to the armed forces of the coalition, although none of the officials and generals wanted to accept this fact . Moreover, the team, in terms of its preparedness, was also inferior to the command staff of the combined forces of the enemy.
Geography of hostilities
For four years, hostilities were conducted:
- in the Caucasus;
- on the territory of the Danube principalities (Balkans);
- in Crimea;
- on the Black, Azov, Baltic, White and Barents Seas;
- in Kamchatka and the Kuriles.
This geography is explained, first of all, by the fact that the opponents actively used the navy against each other (the map of hostilities is presented below).
Brief History of the Crimean War of 1853−1856
Political situation on the eve of the war
The political situation on the eve of the war was extremely acute. The main reason for this exacerbation was, first of all, the obvious weakening of the Ottoman Empire and the strengthening of the positions of the Russian Empire in the Balkans and the Black Sea. It was at this time that Greece gained independence (1830), Turkey lost its Janissary corps (1826) and fleet (1827, the Battle of Navarino), Algeria retreated to France (1830), Egypt also renounced historical vassalage (1831).
At the same time, the Russian Empire received the right to freely use the Black Sea straits, sought autonomy for Serbia and a protectorate over the Danubian principalities. By supporting the Ottoman Empire in the war with Egypt, the Russian Empire is seeking a promise from Turkey to close the straits for any ships other than Russian ones in the event of any military threat (the secret protocol was in effect until 1941).
Naturally, such a strengthening of the Russian Empire instilled a certain fear in the European powers. In particular, UK has done it all so that the London Convention on the Straits would come into force, which prevented their closure and opened up the possibility for France and England to intervene in the event of a Russian-Turkish conflict. Also, the government of the British Empire achieved from Turkey "most favored nation treatment" in trade. In fact, this meant the complete subordination of the Turkish economy.
At this time, Britain did not want to further weaken the Ottomans, as this eastern empire became a huge market in which to sell English goods. Britain was also worried about the strengthening of Russia in the Caucasus and the Balkans, its advance into Central Asia, and that is why it interfered in every possible way with Russian foreign policy.
France was not particularly interested in affairs in the Balkans, but many in the Empire, especially the new emperor Napoleon III, longed for revenge (after the events of 1812-1814).
Austria, despite the agreements and common work in the Holy Alliance, did not want the strengthening of Russia in the Balkans and did not want the formation of new states there, independent of the Ottomans.
Thus, each of the strong European states had its own reasons for unleashing (or heating up) the conflict, and also pursued its own goals, strictly determined by geopolitics, the solution of which was possible only if Russia was weakened, involved in a military conflict with several opponents at once.
Causes of the Crimean War and the reason for the outbreak of hostilities
So, the reasons for the war are quite clear:
- the desire of Great Britain to preserve the weak and controlled Ottoman Empire and through it to control the mode of operation of the Black Sea straits;
- the desire of Austria-Hungary to prevent a split in the Balkans (which would lead to unrest within the multinational Austria-Hungary) and the strengthening of Russia's positions there;
- the desire of France (or, more precisely, Napoleon III) to distract the French from internal problems and strengthen their rather shaky power.
It is clear that the main desire of all European states was to weaken the Russian Empire. The so-called Palmerston Plan (the leader of British diplomacy) provided for the actual separation of part of the lands from Russia: Finland, the Aland Islands, the Baltic states, the Crimea and the Caucasus. According to this plan, the Danubian principalities were to go to Austria. The Kingdom of Poland was to be restored, which would serve as a barrier between Prussia and Russia.
Naturally, the Russian Empire also had certain goals. Under Nicholas I, all officials and all the generals wanted to strengthen Russia's positions in the Black Sea and the Balkans. The establishment of a favorable regime for the Black Sea straits was also a priority.
The reason for the war was the conflict around the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the keys to which were the introduction of Orthodox monks. Formally, this gave them the right to "speak" on behalf of Christians around the world and dispose of the greatest Christian shrines at their own discretion.
Emperor of France Napoleon III demanded that the Turkish Sultan hand over the keys to the representatives of the Vatican. This offended Nicholas I, who protested and sent His Serene Highness Prince A. S. Menshikov to the Ottoman Empire. Menshikov was unable to achieve a positive solution to the issue. Most likely, this was due to the fact that the leading European powers had already entered into a conspiracy against Russia and in every possible way pushed the Sultan to war, promising him support.
In response to the provocative actions of the Ottomans and European ambassadors, the Russian Empire breaks off diplomatic relations with Turkey and sends troops to the Danubian principalities. Nicholas I, understanding the complexity of the situation, was ready to make concessions and sign the so-called Vienna Note, which ordered the withdrawal of troops from the southern borders and the release of Wallachia and Moldova, but when Turkey tried to dictate the terms, the conflict became inevitable. After the refusal of the emperor of Russia to sign the note with the Turkish sultan's amendments made to it, the ruler of the Ottomans announced the beginning of the war with the Russian Empire. In October 1853 (when Russia was not yet fully ready for hostilities), the war began.
The course of the Crimean War: military operations
The whole war can be divided into two large stages:
- October 1953 - April 1954 - this is directly a Russian-Turkish company; theater of military operations - the Caucasus and the Danube principalities;
- April 1854 - February 1956 - military operations against the coalition (Crimean, Azov, Baltic, White Sea and Kinburn companies).
The main events of the first stage can be considered the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Sinop Bay by PS Nakhimov (November 18 (30), 1853).
The second stage of the war was much more eventful.
It can be said that failures in the Crimean direction led to the fact that the new Russian emperor, Alexander I. I. (Nicholas I died in 1855) decided to start peace negotiations.
It cannot be said that the Russian troops were defeated because of the commanders-in-chief. On the Danube direction, the talented prince M. D. Gorchakov commanded the troops, in the Caucasus - N. N. Muravyov, the Black Sea Fleet was led by Vice Admiral P. S. Nakhimov (who also led the defense of Sevastopol later and died in 1855), the defense of Petropavlovsk was led by V S. Zavoyko, but even the enthusiasm and tactical genius of these officers did not help in the war, which was waged according to the new rules.
Treaty of Paris
The diplomatic mission was headed by Prince A. F. Orlov. After long negotiations in Paris 18 (30).03. In 1856, a peace treaty was signed between the Russian Empire, on the one hand, and the Ottoman Empire, coalition forces, Austria and Prussia, on the other. The terms of the peace treaty were as follows:
Results of the Crimean War 1853−1856
Causes of defeat in the war
Even before the conclusion of the Paris Peace the reasons for the defeat in the war were obvious to the emperor and the leading politicians of the empire:
- foreign policy isolation of the empire;
- superior enemy forces;
- the backwardness of the Russian Empire in socio-economic and military-technical terms.
Foreign and domestic consequences of the defeat
The foreign and domestic political results of the war were also deplorable, although somewhat mitigated by the efforts of Russian diplomats. It was obvious that
- the international prestige of the Russian Empire fell (for the first time since 1812);
- the geopolitical situation and the alignment of forces in Europe have changed;
- weakened Russian influence in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East;
- the safe state of the southern borders of the country has been violated;
- weakened positions in the Black Sea and the Baltic;
- disrupted the financial system of the country.
Significance of the Crimean War
But, despite the severity of the political situation inside and outside the country after the defeat in the Crimean War, it was she who became the catalyst that led to the reforms of the 60s of the XIX century, including the abolition of serfdom in Russia.
In the spring of 1854, Britain and France declared war on the Russian Empire. This was the beginning of a radical turning point in the Crimean War. It was from this moment that the record of the end and decline of the once mighty Russian Empire began.
Reassessment of power
Nicholas I was convinced of the invincibility of the Russian Empire. Successful military operations in the Caucasus, Turkey and Central Asia gave rise to the Russian emperor's ambitions to separate the Balkan possessions of the Ottoman Empire, as well as faith in the power of Russia and its ability to claim hegemony in Europe. Baron Stockmar, friend and tutor of Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria, wrote in 1851: “When I was young, Napoleon ruled over the continent of Europe. Now it looks like the Russian emperor has taken the place of Napoleon, and that for at least a few years he, with other intentions and other means, will also dictate laws to the continent. Nikolai himself thought about the same. The situation was aggravated by the fact that he was always surrounded by flatterers. The historian Tarle wrote that at the beginning of 1854 in the Baltic states in noble circles, a poem in German was distributed in numerous copies, in the first stanza of which the author addressed the king with the words: “You, with whom not a single mortal disputes the right to be called the greatest man that the earth has only seen. The vain Frenchman, the proud Briton, bow before you, blazing with envy - the whole world lies in adoration at your feet. It is not surprising, therefore, that Nicholas I burned with ambition and was eager to carry out his plans, which cost Russia thousands of lives.
Rampant embezzlement
The story about how Karamzin was asked in Europe to tell in a nutshell about the situation in Russia became commonplace, but he didn’t need two words, he answered with one: “They are stealing.” By the middle of the 19th century, the situation had not changed for the better. Embezzlement in Russia has acquired total proportions. Tarle quotes a contemporary of the events of the Crimean War: “In the Russian army, which stood in Estland in 1854-1855 and was not in contact with the enemy, hunger typhus, which appeared among the soldiers, caused great devastation, as the commanders stole and left the rank and file to starve to death.” In no other European army was the situation so dire. Nicholas I knew about the scale of this disaster, but he could not do anything about the situation. So, he was stunned by the case of the director of the office of the disabled fund Politkovsky, who stole more than a million rubles from the budget. The scale of corruption during the Crimean War was such that Russia managed to restore the treasury deficit only 14 years after the signing of the Paris Treaty.
The backwardness of the army
One of the fatal factors in the defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War was the backwardness of the weapons of our army. It manifested itself as early as September 8, 1854 during the battle on the Alma River: the Russian infantry was armed with smoothbore guns with a firing range of 120 meters, while the British and French had rifled fittings with a firing range of up to 400 meters. In addition, the Russian army was armed with guns with various calibers: 6-12-pound field guns, 12-24-pound and pood siege unicorns, 6,12,18,24 and 36-pound bomb guns. Such a number of calibers greatly complicated the supply of ammunition to the army. Finally, Russia had practically no steam ships, and the sailing ships had to be sunk at the entrance to the Sevastopol Bay, which was obviously an extreme measure to deter the enemy.
Negative image of Russia
During the reign of Nicholas I, the Russian Empire began to claim the title of "gendarme of Europe." In 1826-1828, the Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates went to Russia, the next year, after the war with Turkey, the eastern coast of the Black Sea and the mouth of the Danube were annexed to Russia. The advance of Russia in Central Asia also continued. By 1853, the Russians came close to the Syr Darya.
Russia also showed serious ambitions in Europe, which could not but irritate the European powers. In April 1848, Russia and Turkey, by the Baltiliman Act, liquidated the autonomy of the Danube Principalities. In June 1849, with the help of a 150,000-strong Russian expeditionary army, the Hungarian revolution in the Austrian Empire was suppressed. Nicholas I believed in his power. His imperial ambitions turned Russia into a bogey for the advanced European powers. The image of an aggressive Russia became one of the reasons for the rallying of Britain and France in the Crimean War. Russia began to claim hegemony in Europe, which could not but rally the European powers. The Crimean War is considered to be "pre-world".
Russia defended itself on several fronts - in the Crimea, Georgia, the Caucasus, Sveaborg, Kronstadt, Solovki and the Kamchatka front. In fact, Russia fought alone, on our side were insignificant Bulgarian forces (3000 soldiers) and the Greek Legion (800 people). Having set everyone against herself, showing insatiable ambitions, in fact Russia did not have the power reserve to resist England and France. During the Crimean War, there was still no concept of propaganda in Russia, while the British used their propaganda machine with might and main to inject a negative image of the Russian army.
Failure of diplomacy
The Crimean War showed not only the weakness of the Russian army, but also the weakness of diplomacy. The peace treaty was signed on March 30, 1856 in Paris at an international congress with the participation of all the warring powers, as well as Austria and Prussia. The peace conditions were frankly unfavorable for Russia. Under the terms of the agreement, Russia returned Kars to Turkey in exchange for Sevastopol, Balaklava and other cities in the Crimea, captured by the allies; conceded to the Moldavian Principality the mouth of the Danube and part of Southern Bessarabia. The Black Sea was declared neutral, but Russia and Turkey could not keep a navy there. Russia and Turkey could only maintain 6 steam ships of 800 tons each and 4 ships of 200 tons each for guard duty.
The autonomy of Serbia and the Danubian Principalities was confirmed, but the supreme power of the Turkish Sultan over them was preserved. The previously adopted provisions of the London Convention of 1841 on the closure of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles for military vessels of all countries except Turkey were confirmed. Russia pledged not to build military fortifications on the Aland Islands and in the Baltic Sea. The patronage of the Turkish Christians was transferred into the hands of the "concern" of all the great powers, that is, England, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia. Finally, the treaty deprived our country of the right to protect the interests of the Orthodox population on the territory of the Ottoman Empire.
Ignorance of Nicholas I
Many historians associate the main reason for the defeat in the Crimean War with the figure of Emperor Nicholas I. Thus, the Russian historian Tarle wrote: “As for his weaknesses as the head of the empire’s foreign policy, one of the main ones was his deep, truly impenetrable, comprehensive, if possible so to speak, ignorance”. The Russian emperor did not know life in Russia at all, he valued cane discipline, and any manifestation of independent thinking was suppressed by him. Fyodor Tyutchev wrote about Nicholas I as follows: “In order to create such a hopeless situation, the monstrous stupidity of this unfortunate man was needed, who during his thirty-year reign, being constantly in the most favorable conditions, did not take advantage of anything and missed everything, managing to start a fight under the most impossible circumstances." Thus, it can be said that the Crimean War, which turned into a disaster for Russia, was caused by the personal ambitions of the emperor, who was prone to adventures and seeking to maximize the boundaries of his power.
Shepherd's ambition
One of the main causes of the Crimean War was the conflict between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in resolving the issue of "Palestinian shrines." Here the interests of Russia and France clashed. Nicholas I, who did not recognize Napoleon III as a legitimate emperor, was sure that Russia would have to fight only with a “sick man,” as he called the Ottoman Empire. With England, the Russian emperor hoped to negotiate, and also counted on the support of Austria. These calculations of the "pastor" Nicholas I turned out to be erroneous, and the "crusade" turned into a real disaster for Russia.
