Military Review

Paris Battle of the Crimean War

49
When they talk about the heroes of wars, the fighters of the secret, diplomatic front are forgotten. Meanwhile, their services to the Fatherland are hard to overestimate.


In the Crimean War, we were opposed by the British, French and Ottoman empires, as well as the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont. At the end of the confrontation, Austria and Prussia declared their readiness to join the anti-Russian coalition in our country. At any moment, Sweden, which led secret negotiations with Napoleon III, could join them, concluded an alliance with France and undertook to attack us with 60 numbers of thousands of people. With the filing of Istanbul, Russian fortified points in Central Asia were subjected to raids by detachments led by local “authorities”. It was not ruled out that Iran would begin hostilities in the Transcaucasus.

Paris Battle of the Crimean War

Louis Edouard Dubuffe. "The signing of the Paris Peace Treaty". Xnumx

The Russian army bristled with bayonets along a giant border. Our troops stood in the Kingdom of Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, the Crimea and Novorossia, in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia. Total 784 general, 20 thousands of officers, 974 556 lower ranks, and in reserve 113 generals, 7763 officer and 572 158 lower ranks. In the militia were 240 thousand, Cossacks - 120 755 people.

Is it a lot or a little? The estimation of General Bogdanovich is well known: “By the spring of 1856, we could meet the enemy at any point of our borders with considerable forces.”

But did Russia need a war with a coalition of the world's strongest countries? To discuss this issue, Alexander II convened a council of the first persons of the state. Chancellor KV Nesselrode, Adjutant General MS S. Vorontsov, Minister of State Property P. D. Kiselev, Chief of the Gendarmes and Chief Head III of the Imperial Chancellery, Count A. F. Orlov, and President Academy of Sciences D. BC Bludov. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, diplomat P. K. Meyendorf, and war minister Prince V. A. Dolgorukov were additionally invited to the second meeting in two weeks.

Alexander II knew in general what concessions the European coalition would require from him. If at the beginning of hostilities the enemy set a goal to dismember Russia, tearing away vast territories of present-day Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, Crimea, the Caucasus, Finland and even Petersburg, then in 1856 the issue of dividing Russia was no longer there and the king agreed to negotiations .

February 25 congress of representatives of the great powers gathered in Paris. The discussion itself shows that Russia did not behave like a broken country. Thus, for example, the Austrians demanded Bessarabia from us, which was followed by a threateningly harsh answer from Count Orlov: “Mr. Austrian Commissioner does not know what kind of sea of ​​tears and blood such a correction of borders will cost his country.”

Then Orlov, in a mocking form, laid siege to the Foreign Secretary of England, Count Clarendon. Russia agreed to “neutralize the Black Sea”, that is, not to keep naval arsenals on its shores and not to restore the fleet here. But besides Sevastopol, Russia had another Black Sea base, Nikolaev, which also had shipyards and a military arsenal. The British believed that the city should be disarmed, and its shipyards would be destroyed in accordance with the peace treaty. However, Orlov said: Nikolaev is not on the Black Sea coast, but on the Bug River and the terms of the contract do not apply to it. Everyone knew that the Bug estuary is part of the Black Sea, it is navigable even for large ships, which means that Orlov scoffs, but could not do anything. Moreover, Russia defended the right to keep several ships in the Black Sea and Orlov, for the sake of fear, assured the “Western partners” that, if necessary, Petersburg would build these ships in Nikolaev.

During negotiations, a dispute broke out regarding the Russian forts on the east coast of the Black Sea. Some of them were blown up during the war, and Clarendon declared that the forts are essentially the same arsenals, only called differently. Therefore, Russia has no right to restore them. Orlov did not agree with him: in his opinion, the fort and the arsenal are different things and Russia is not going to fulfill the demands of Britain.

The British tried to raise the economic issue, demanding to make Sevastopol a duty-free zone, but they did not achieve anything here either. Of course, our country did not pay indemnity either.

Klarendon is one of the best, trying to get Russia to recognize the independence of Circassia. He used all sorts of ways to put pressure on the Russian delegation, but Orlov showed firmness here too.

The anti-Russian coalition has returned to us all the territories that it managed to occupy during the war, in exchange for Kars with the environs captured by Russia from Turkey. The only loss for us was a small section of Bessarabia at the mouth of the Danube, which was relegated to the Moldavian principality. Formally, it was part of the Ottoman Empire, but at the Paris Congress it was confirmed (and also of Wallachia and Serbia) the broadest autonomy. Accordingly, the land did not even go to the Ottomans, but to the Moldavian principality.

This is all that the huge European coalition has achieved from Russia, having paid for the insignificant concessions a huge price in the form of enormous human losses and astronomical sums of money.

Moreover, Orlov forced Istanbul to agree not to keep arsenals on its Black Sea coast, to give guarantees to the rights and privileges of the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire.

So for Russia, the treaty that ended the war turned out to be not shameful. When, in London, they learned how insignificant the concessions made by Russia had erupted a grand scandal. In the House of Lords, they indignantly and mercilessly criticized not only their diplomats, but also Prime Minister Henry Palmerston. The degree of indignation of venerable gentlemen is clearly visible from the angry speech of Lord Manners: “They say that there is a map on which many of these places are marked as independent lords as independent ... did we have any chance at the moment to make them independent? If we have to make them independent, then I cannot find words to characterize the baseness of the policy of England in this case. You supply Circassians weapons, you campaign in alliance with them, you do not regret any weapon or ammunition so that they can vigorously fight against a common enemy, and after they saved Kars fortress for you, which you couldn’t save by your own strength, you refuse and allow Russia to fulfill its conquest plans in Asia. ”

Ratification of the Treaty of Paris was in question, and yet the ruling circles of England put up with the inevitable. The agreement with Russia entered into force.

Let us pay tribute to the Russian delegation at the Paris Congress, especially to Count Orlov, who in difficult conditions firmly defended the interests of the Motherland, setting a fine example for the modern generation of our diplomats.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/34638
49 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. captain
    captain 15 January 2017 15: 50
    +8
    There have always been people in Russia who are ready to stand up for the interests of our Motherland.
  2. Dart2027
    Dart2027 15 January 2017 16: 12
    +11
    So for Russia, the treaty that ended the war turned out to be far from shameful.

    Strictly speaking, this is precisely why our "enlightened and educated freedom fighters", recalling that war, always talk only about the siege of Sevastopol and the rejection of the Black Sea Fleet, and at the same time shout about "shameful defeat". In fact, RI was at war with the coalition, whose forces were superior to what Napoleon Bonaparte had at his disposal, and all this force, straining and puffing, pulled out several glasses, which made it possible to somehow justify the failure of their grandiose plans.
    Nicholas I was such a "bad" tsar.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 15 January 2017 22: 05
      +1
      England had enough balance and no admission to the Mediterranean RI. And then the race from Orenburg. and to the meeting - from the Indus to Kabul and further to the Amu Darya. The main England defended India and overtook the Pacific (there was no Trans-Siberian, only the sea - the Baltic and the Black Sea)
      The sea is closer and covered. Is the victory not 100%, but 57%?
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 15 January 2017 22: 17
        +1
        Quote: antivirus
        Victory is not 100%, but 57%?

        Read Lord Palmerston’s plans for what the victory should have been.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 16 January 2017 08: 57
          +1
          Yes. I have not read ("but I condemn"), but there are mines and maxims of the goal. I have already written my vision. The expansion of the Republic of Ingushetia was stopped: Tsar- grad. Caucasus, Persia, Greece., Slavs of the Balkans (Stalin occupied the Balkans - a huge achievement). In the mid-19th century, they could, but broke off to walk through the Balkans
          The limits of RI were set from the outside.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 16 January 2017 20: 32
            +2
            Quote: antivirus
            but there are min and max goals

            In this case, the minimum goal is just the shameful loss for the coalition. Given their resources, both human and other, just stopping the expansion of RI is not 57%, but rather 1-5%.
            A similar result could be a victory for England, Austria or France alone, but not for the whole of Europe.
          2. co-creator
            co-creator 23 January 2017 22: 21
            0
            Quote: antivirus
            Ser 19v could, but broke off walk in the Balkans
            The limits of RI were set from the outside.

            So it was Austria that didn’t let us into the Balkans first of all, this her position did not allow us to withdraw the most combat-ready armies from the western borders. So here is collective creativity, so to speak, and not exclusively of England.
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 24 January 2017 07: 52
              0
              Without a war with Britain-France, with Austria, they sorted it out somehow.
              Austria was called a "Catholic" monarchy, and the Center was given over to Europe.
              And RI is an "Orthodox" monarchy and all Orthodox in the Balkans would be "protected".
              Another 20-30 years would have passed and Turts would have moved the empire, and the Republic of Ingushetia would have been called the "Orthodox-Muslim" empire.
              If, if only, then ... mushrooms would grow.
              The state’s capabilities were clearly defined by the tsar himself (as he directed his forces and budget, he got the result).
              Extensive development did not turn into intensive. And now there is no "INFRASTRUCTURE" and a single people (in terms of "what is good and what is bad") and many other regional differences.
              Sometimes it’s good, and sometimes it’s bad.
    2. Sergey S.
      Sergey S. 31 January 2017 22: 41
      +1
      Quote: Dart2027
      In fact, RI fought with a coalition whose forces were superior to what Napoleon Bonaparte possessed, and all this power, tearing and puffing up some points that made it possible to at least somehow condone the failure of his grandiose plans. That was such a “bad” king Nikolai I.

      The last conclusion is correct.
      Nicholas I was a knight, imagined himself the successor of Peter, slept in the Winter Palace in clothes under his greatcoat, as if on a campaign ...
      But ...
      In 1834 he saved the Turkish Sultat from losing the throne when he was threatened by Egyptian Pasha. Admiral Lazarev then removed part of the guns from the ships and in three throws delivered 27000 Russian bayonets to the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​Marmara.
      Our troops stood in the sun ... But they did not enter Constantinople. Moreover, the threat to the Sultan passed, and Lazarev took the troops to Russia.
      In 1848, Nicholas saved the crown of the Austrian emperor ... And he also didn’t take anything for himself, he didn’t even bargain ...
      The French dreamed of washing away the shame of 1812-1815 ...
      England has always intrigued against Russia.
      As a result, all the "friends" gathered, and provoked a war that could essentially turn into a world war.
      But Nicholas and his government slept through everything ... For it didn’t come to their head that knighthood is already stupidity and straightforwardness.
      In general, after mother Catherine, we were not lucky with the kings, and this is mildly said.
      For some years, by inertia, Catherine's heroes still supported the prestige of Russia.
      And then it was time to the Nikolaev officials. Read Gogol ... Pushkin too ...
      Another thing, after Nicholas it got worse ... And so until Nicholas II ...
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 1 February 2017 05: 52
        0
        Quote: Sergey S.
        For it didn’t come to their head that chivalry is already stupidity and straightforwardness.

        As they say, simplicity is worse than theft. It really is.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 15 January 2017 16: 32
    +7
    But then, the same coalition won back to Russia during the Berlin Congress, while Russia at that Congress acted as the winning side ...
  4. murriou
    murriou 17 January 2017 10: 31
    +2
    The article needs a fair amount of commentary, in order to translate into Russian from the bakery, and to make it meaningful.

    1. Diplomacy is a trade in which the goods are the real state of affairs.
    And if the goods are rotten, it is profitable to sell them only to idiotic simpletons, which even the most seedy colonies do not hold in diplomacy.

    2. Count Orlov, of course, well done. He seems to have been able to reduce Russia's losses from a lost war.
    But this is not enough to turn defeat into victory.

    3. To assess the outcome of the war, it is necessary to compare it not with the claims of the parties, but with the pre-war status quo.
    Then it turns out that after the Crimean War and after the RYAV, Russia had ONLY losses, and all the so-called. “concessions by opponents” is nothing more than a reduction in their starting claims.

    4. Claims and claims.
    In an oriental bazaar, it’s even impolite to immediately name a price that is less than 3-5 times different from the real one — but after all the cries and oaths, after a stormy bargaining, the price is still set close to reality.
    In diplomacy, about the same laughing
    = * =
    1. Sergey S.
      Sergey S. 31 January 2017 22: 46
      +1
      Quote: murriou
      Here it turns out that after the Crimean War and after the REV, Russia had ONLY losses,

      Unfortunately, the true truth.
      The inability to have fortresses on the Black Sea.
      It is impossible to have a Black Sea Fleet at all.
      Only 10 small corvettes for customs.
      And is this close to victory for someone?

      Is that how we argue as Ukrainians? Right under Illovaysk ...
      1. murriou
        murriou 1 February 2017 03: 43
        +1
        When a person tries to spit on reality for the sake of pleasantness, he considers lies to be the glory of his country / nation more correct than real facts unpleasant for this glory, and believes that this lies enhances the honor of his country / people. but doesn’t drop it - it turns out exactly the same for ukropiteks-protoukrov and leavened patriots-crystal bakers, no matter how they poked their fingers at each other, accusing others of their own behavior. "Than to consider the gossips ..." (C)
  5. murriou
    murriou 17 January 2017 10: 45
    +2
    = * =
    This is all that the huge European coalition has achieved from Russia, having paid for the insignificant concessions a huge price in the form of enormous human losses and astronomical sums of money.


    5. And now, for symmetry, let us recall the claims from the Russian side.

    Russia's victory over Napoleon in 1812, quite deservedly, raised the world rating of Russia and Russians very high.
    However, this turned the kings to the kings until the complete loss of an adequate idea of ​​reality.
    Tsarist Russia played a leading role in the creation of an ultra-reactionary "holy alliance", aspired to the role of gendarme of all Europe, climbed to suppress uprisings in foreign countries and to impose on these countries its obscure opinion on all issues.

    The result was clear: bourgeois revolutions won in France and Belgium, and sympathy for them grew throughout Europe.
    Russia was isolated, and in the Crimean War it was opposed by the WHOLE WORLD in fact.
    If not everyone was ready to fight against Russia, then at least diplomatically no one wanted to support her.

    6. The Crimean War showed Russia's deep backwardness in many ways.
    England, which was very far from the theater of war, had fewer problems with the supply of its troops and the entire coalition than Russia on its own territory.
    Rifles, steam engines - with all the advanced military-technical solutions, we were lagging behind.
    This led to the defeat of Russia even on its own territory.

    7. Defenders of Kamchatka, of course, well done. But were the British going to attack Moscow or Petersburg from Kamchatka? laughing Even the occupation of this wilderness did not appeal to them.
    The British achieved much more important: they showed that they are able to attack Russia along all its borders to the most distant, and organize a complete blockade, i.e. completely block Russia’s foreign trade.
    They stopped the expansion of Russia for a long time where Russian interests clashed with English.
    And this, too, was part of the Crimean War. Although it was not reflected in the peace treaty.
    = * =
    1. sibirak10
      sibirak10 17 January 2017 14: 50
      +1
      That's right. To a greater extent for this reason, Alexander II agreed to cede the USA to Alaska. Better to sell for money than the British come and take everything for free
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 17 January 2017 19: 38
      0
      Quote: murriou
      The British achieved much more important: they showed that they are able to attack Russia along all its borders to the most distant, and organize a complete blockade, i.e. completely block Russia’s foreign trade. They stopped the expansion of Russia for a long time where Russian interests clashed with English.

      Provided that with them will be the whole of Europe. But in 1885, when a conflict arose in Afghanistan, they, making sure that RI was ready to fight, and that they had no allies, quickly began to negotiate in a good way.
      Quote: murriou
      I climbed to suppress the uprisings in countries alien to her and to impose her clumsy opinion on all issues to these countries.

      At the invitation of the governments of these countries. By the way, the USSR also did this.
      Quote: murriou
      To assess the outcome of the war, it is necessary to compare it not with the claims of the parties, but with the pre-war status quo.
      Then it turns out that after the Crimean War and after the RYAV, Russia had ONLY losses, and all the so-called. “concessions by opponents” is nothing more than a reduction in their starting claims.

      That is, to refute the fact that all the great plans of the coalition were covered with a copper basin does not work, then it must be argued that they did not want this?
      Quote: murriou
      But were the British going to attack Moscow or Petersburg from Kamchatka? laughing Even the occupation of this wilderness did not appeal to them.

      So what did they do there?
      Quote: murriou
      Diplomacy is a trade in which a commodity is a real state of affairs.
      And if the goods are rotten, it is profitable to sell them only to idiotic simpletons, which even the most seedy colonies do not hold in diplomacy.

      That is, contrary to all kinds of arguments about the backwardness and weakness of the Republic of Ingushetia, its opponents were afraid of the continuation of the war.
      1. murriou
        murriou 17 January 2017 23: 06
        +3
        Quote: Dart2027
        Provided that with them will be the whole of Europe.

        Naturally. For example, England was definitely not ready to fight at the same time against Russia and Germany.

        But just during the Crimean War, tsarist politics was the very condition, the unity of Europe against Russia, provided completely.
        This is by the way about the diplomatic successes of tsarist Russia. lol

        Quote: Dart2027
        By the way, the USSR also did this.

        Well then, about Syria at the same time, remember laughing
        But in the zeal of the gendarmes, Russia from the time of the Holy Union can only be compared with the current USA, and not with the USSR or the current Russian Federation.

        Quote: Dart2027
        That is, to refute the fact that all the great plans of the coalition were covered with a copper basin does not work

        And what was such a fact ?! Straight even EVERYTHING ?! laughing

        We look: it turned out to put together an anti-Russian coalition (although the tsar’s main merit is here).
        It turned out to save Turkey from defeat and fulfilling Russian requirements.
        Invade the Russian territory by the armed forces - it turned out.
        To force Russia to withdraw troops from all recently captured territories - it turned out.
        To force Russia to admit military defeat - it turned out.
        For a long time to deprive Russia of the navy and part of the military fortifications on the Black Sea - it turned out.
        For a long time to stop the Russian expansion in Asia - it turned out.

        And small specifics, such as under-capture of half of Sevastopol, against this background, does not matter.

        And statements like yours about the VICTORY of Russia in the Crimean War or RYAV look absolutely nonsense. "We were beaten, but they could have beaten more, which means we won, hurray!" laughing laughing laughing

        Quote: Dart2027
        So what did they do there?

        As I already wrote: they demonstrated their presence and their capabilities. The usual such intimidation. It seems like the thugs come in "just to talk", but at the same time they show that they know your address and can, if anything, come in not only with conversations.

        Quote: Dart2027
        That is, contrary to all kinds of arguments about the backwardness and weakness of the Republic of Ingushetia, its opponents were afraid of the continuation of the war.

        A war even with a backward and weak opponent, which Russia unequivocally proved to be in 1854-56, costs a lot of money.
        If the goals of the war have already been fulfilled, why continue?
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 18 January 2017 19: 58
          +1
          Quote: murriou
          Naturally. For example, England was definitely not ready to fight at the same time against Russia and Germany.

          She was not ready alone either.
          Quote: murriou
          the unity of Europe against Russia, fully ensured. This is by the way about the diplomatic successes of tsarist Russia.

          For example, the fact that she saved the Austrian emperor. It was difficult to predict that he would turn out to be a straight-headed Russophobe.
          Quote: murriou
          But in the zeal of the gendarmes, Russia from the time of the Holy Union can only be compared with the current USA

          And in how many countries did she impose her orders? Is there a list? By the way, the Syrians themselves invited us to Syria.
          Quote: murriou
          And what was such a fact ?! Straight even EVERYTHING ?!

          We open plans of Lord Palmerston and read.
          Quote: murriou
          As I already wrote: they demonstrated their presence and their capabilities.

          There is complete darkness near Sevastopol, an easy walk is covered with a copper basin and they have to fight in earnest, and instead of concentrating on vital areas, somewhere "go to visit"
          Quote: murriou
          The war, even with a backward and weak enemy, which Russia unequivocally showed itself in 1854-56.

          and which sent "forward and strong winners" when they began to demand something serious enough. Characteristically, they got up and went.
        2. co-creator
          co-creator 23 January 2017 22: 53
          +1
          Quote: murriou
          And small specifics, such as under-capture of half of Sevastopol, against this background, does not matter.

          How small it is) Initially, the tasks were to deprive RI of Poland, Bessarabia, the Caucasus, part of the Far East. In order to unite the whole of Europe. RI under such conditions has lost only part of Bessarabia. The remaining mortars of a purely political plan turned out to be that RI moved its expansion to the SA and approached India.
          Why does this mean nothing to you?
          Quote: murriou
          A war even with a backward and weak opponent, which Russia unequivocally proved to be in 1854-56, costs a lot of money.

          Give another such example when the whole world fought against a backward enemy and could not inflict a military defeat on him? If it’s not difficult, of course.
        3. antivirus
          antivirus 24 January 2017 08: 01
          0
          I agree . The goals of the anti Russian coalition have been achieved. and ran away to take a run, ahead of her, before her stopped by Russia, her possible possessions (t / h Hawaii) had been stolen for 30 years, the world was finally divided.
          Moreover, RIA RI lost. RYAV - the first imperialist (1st redistribution of the world) or old (divided-seizure) for the division of residues (Manchuria and Korea)?
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 24 January 2017 12: 11
            0
            Quote: antivirus
            and ran away to take a run, ahead of her, before her stopped by Russia, her possible possessions (t / h Hawaii) had been stolen for 30 years, the world was finally divided.

            What the hell . RI never sought to own overseas colonies.
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 24 January 2017 12: 16
              0
              and alaska? not an overseas, but a seaside colony? and California? bananas and i love. not so much as a colony to name only those lands where bananas grow.
              What about Hawaii? until 1894 there was an opportunity to grow islands. And the discovery of Antarctica? only far and cold (no bananas) And the islands of Polynesia? -Racing for control of the center of the Pacific Ocean !!! The Japanese with amers, in WWII, 2 years from island to island jumped.
              State overstretched.
              Horses and carts were not enough for such transportation, and the travel time was too long.
              The risks had to be considered before the start of the Crimea war !!! Only railway then could provide the required traffic volume.
              w / d and not enough.
              Even the delivery of the militia (it is better to quickly and not get tired than under its own power) from Samara (was there a train there?).
              Where else and where?
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 24 January 2017 13: 45
                +1
                Alaska and California are a purely private initiative. The state took these territories de facto and practically did not develop them.

                Where can I read about the fact that RI claimed islands in the Pacific Ocean? There were no more studies. Hawaii themselves abandoned the same, although no one pressed on RI in this matter.

                In fact, in the Crimea, the military was enough, only the generals (with the exception of the naval) were called ... Well and most importantly, the most combat-ready units had to be kept on the western borders, since Austria had betrayed Nicholas. It betrayed.
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 24 January 2017 15: 16
                  0
                  since Austria betrayed Nicholas. It betrayed.
                  there is no "betrayal" in politics. there is a benefit and expediency. Otherwise, it is not politics.
                  By the possession of the Pacific Ocean. Of course there are no papers (I have not read it myself) and I will not refer to the OBS. Personal opinion: because there is no decision that it was immediately clear that the cut chunk was not possible to protect and master. In those years where milk or hemp was transported, there and the center of gravity. How many months to bring the collected taxes from Alaska?
                  I wrote in other comments "about Nikolay1 lost the war, there is no railway" in the east, etc.
                  And boxers always know the time until the end of the round and the strength of the opponent (the trainer inspires, from the outside it is better known). RI in KrV turned out to be against everyone (the prospects are not clear, the fate of the empire is at stake because of the "ordinary" war with Turkey) The Britons had more troops and Austria and all of Europe would have pulled up. Surrendered in time. We took a break.
    3. co-creator
      co-creator 23 January 2017 22: 30
      0
      There was nothing to do with technical backwardness, although it was not as big as you write. The main reason is that all European monarchs, kings and others opposed RI. Someone joined the coalition, while others simply threatened (Austria and Prussia).
      1. Sergey S.
        Sergey S. 31 January 2017 23: 08
        +2
        Quotation: blooded man
        There was nothing to do with technical backwardness, although it was not as big as you write. The main reason is that all European monarchs, kings and others opposed RI. Someone joined the coalition, while others simply threatened (Austria and Prussia).

        Technical backwardness was egregious.
        Under Alma, our gunners were shot for the first time in history from rifles.
        This is from the tale of the Lefthander: “The British don't clean their guns with bricks” ...
        Artillery was fine.
        But with steam engines, a complete shack.
        The famous ships of the Black Sea Fleet were ordered by Admiral Lazarev in England after the lifting of the ban on the export of steam engines from England in 1943.
        The ban was lifted due to the fact that steamboat-frigates with paddle wheels were considered obsolete and were no longer built for the English fleet ...
        The British and French began to build screw battleships and frigates ...
        But in Russia there was not a single screw ship ...
        In addition, the combined squadron of adversaries in Varna numbered 92 pennants and about 300 transports from memory ...
        In the picture of Aivazovsky 15 Black Sea sailing battleships in the ranks - to the horizon ...
        For the first and only time in history, landing forces landed in one throw ...
        And we had nothing to answer ...

        So mediocre preparations for war ... having, in general, not a bad position in 1815 ...
        But the rejection of freethinking, that is, a different opinion, hatred, disbelief in their own people ...
        This was the complete oblivion of the rules of administration under Catherine and the complete disregard for the covenants of A.V. Suvorov.
        Strictly speaking, the latter is a betrayal of national interests for the sake of personal pride.
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 1 February 2017 04: 45
          +1
          Quote: Sergey S.
          Quotation: blooded man
          There was nothing to do with technical backwardness, although it was not as big as you write. The main reason is that all European monarchs, kings and others opposed RI. Someone joined the coalition, while others simply threatened (Austria and Prussia).

          Technical backwardness was egregious.

          If she was a blatant RI, she would have suffered a crushing defeat of what was not. Despite the fact that the RI army did not have an advantage in people over the coalition.
          Quote: Sergey S.
          Under Alma, our gunners were shot for the first time in history from rifles.

          here is the only real advantage against which the "antidote was found."
          Quote: Sergey S.
          But with steam engines, a complete shack.

          there were steamboats on the Volga, there was no will and mind to transport them to the Sea of ​​Azov.
          Quote: Sergey S.
          But in Russia there was not a single screw ship ...
          In addition, the combined squadron of adversaries in Varna numbered 92 pennants and about 300 transports from memory ...

          So they had about a dozen screw ships. Even if the RI empire had screw ships, they would not have decided anything. Can ONE Black Sea Fleet withstand the combined fleets of 4 states. Your figure only confirms this.
          Quote: Sergey S.
          In the picture of Aivazovsky 15 Black Sea sailing battleships in the ranks - to the horizon ...

          And how many ships do you think should be at the Black Sea Fleet? 100? 50? We had two fleets do not forget.

          Quote: Sergey S.
          For the first and only time in history, landing forces landed in one throw ...

          And someone prevented them from doing this? The trouble is that nobody. Just watched thousands of people planted for several days. What is the fault or lack of talent of Menshiҡov to blame for this "backwardness"?

          Quote: Sergey S.
          This was the complete oblivion of the rules of administration under Catherine and the complete disregard for the covenants of A.V. Suvorov.

          So, the reason is, first and foremost, the rotten elite and mediocrity at the head of the army. Technical superiority was not overwhelming and was not the cause of Porzhein.
          1. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 1 February 2017 17: 20
            0
            Quotation: blooded man
            If she was a blatant RI, she would have suffered a crushing defeat of what was not. Despite the fact that the RI army did not have an advantage in people over the coalition.

            The defeat that was was crushing for Russia.
            Overnight, Russia fell from a Great Power to a mediocre one, which is not even able to resolve issues of peace treaties in the event of military victories.
            In all subsequent wars, up to the era of the USSR, wars and losers for Russia ended with international congresses, at which anyone, and most of all England, decided what Russia could and what couldn’t.
            And this is in addition to that. I'll post it. in the Black Sea there should be no Russian fleet. and on the banks - Russian fortresses.
            And also, in order for Sevastopol to be returned to Russia, it was necessary to give up all the conquests in the Caucasus - Kars. Ardagan, that is, Greater Armenia, the territory of the Kurds ...
            Can. Of course, to consider it trifles, but for me it is one of the greatest tragedies of the Motherland.
            And no diplomats were able to eliminate these losses.

            By the way, it is believed that if it were not for the revolution, Russia would have won the Bosphorus as a winner in the WWI.
            I do not presume to say. that this is a complete lie ...
            Maybe this raved and awake ...
            But no one says that the British were simultaneously preparing to occupy the Dardanelles ...
            They even for this purpose built a series of 10 armadillos like Canopus. This is twice as much as the entire Black Sea Fleet of the period before the First World War ... And how would we prevent them ...
            Dreamers...
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 1 February 2017 19: 44
              +1
              Quote: Sergey S.
              The defeat that was was crushing for Russia.

              What was this expressed in? Losses of one city of Sevastopol?
              Quote: Sergey S.
              In all subsequent wars, up to the era of the USSR, wars and losers for Russia ended with international congresses, at which anyone, and most of all England, decided what Russia could and what couldn’t.

              These are the problems of Alexander II, who agreed to the Berlin Congress. In addition, there were no congresses.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              The Black Sea should not be the Russian fleet. and on the banks - Russian fortresses.

              This is a political limitation no more. Russia then canceled it unilaterally.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              And also, in order for Sevastopol to be returned to Russia, it was necessary to give up all the conquests in the Caucasus - Kars. Ardagan, that is, Greater Armenia, the territory of the Kurds ..

              That is, they returned foreign lands instead of their city? Is that bad? What does RI and Great Armenia have to do with it?
              Quote: Sergey S.
              Can. Of course, to consider it trifles, but for me it is one of the greatest tragedies of the Motherland.

              This is your tragedy, but not a crushing defeat. Lost in a warrior is part of Bessarabia and the time restrictions on the Black Sea. Quite a bit in a lost war against the whole world of a “backward” state.

              Quote: Sergey S.
              By the way, it is believed that if it were not for revolution, Russia would have won the Bosphorus as a winner in the WWI

              This does not apply to the topic.
              1. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 2 February 2017 22: 47
                0
                Quotation: blooded man

                Quote: Sergey S.
                And also, in order for Sevastopol to be returned to Russia, it was necessary to give up all the conquests in the Caucasus - Kars. Ardagan, that is, Greater Armenia, the territory of the Kurds ..

                That is, they returned foreign lands instead of their city? Is that bad? What does RI and Great Armenia have to do with it?

                If Russia, then your sentence is clear. And there is nothing for us to protrude, to consider Russia as the guardian of the Orthodox shrines in Jerusalem ...
                If you write about the Russian Empire, then this cannot be without the possession of such. how Great Armenia is the birthplace of the closest branch of Orthodoxy and the guardian of Orthodoxy.
                Quotation: blooded man

                Quote: Sergey S.
                Can. Of course, to consider it trifles, but for me it is one of the greatest tragedies of the Motherland.

                This is your tragedy, but not a crushing defeat. Lost in a warrior is part of Bessarabia and the time restrictions on the Black Sea. Quite a bit in a lost war against the whole world of a “backward” state.

                Parting with the status of a Great Power is a tragedy, for that. who understands ... what is a Great Power and what is a tragedy ...
                And awareness of the motherland in a backward state is also a tragedy ...
          2. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 1 February 2017 17: 31
            0
            Quotation: blooded man
            there were steamboats on the Volga, there was no will and mind to transport them to the Sea of ​​Azov.

            ... ??? ...
            I agree that there was no mind, no will ...
            As for the Volga and Perebourg steamboats, these little ships had nothing to do with steamboat-frigates.
            A steamboat-frigate is a ship of the largest size, in size, like a battleship or a frigate, seaworthy, armed with bombing guns, respectively, with a side thickness of more than 50 cm, and even up to 1 m, with a machine of hundreds of horses.
            There were no such steamboats in rivers and lakes in Russia ... The trouble was that our factories and shipyards could not build steam ships at the level of world novelties.
            Problems with steam engines in terms of power density and reliability will not be resolved even in the Russo-Japanese war.
            It is for this reason that we were very sensitively dependent on our "enemy" of England. For building ships against England, we bought steam engines and boilers in England ...
          3. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 1 February 2017 18: 13
            0
            Quotation: blooded man
            And someone prevented them from doing this? The trouble is that nobody. Just watched thousands of people planted for several days. What is the fault or lack of talent of Menshiҡov to blame for this "backwardness"?

            And how to meet on the shore. if the airborne salvo of the support squadron was more than 1100 guns ???
            This is a new generation fleet!
            This fleet razed the coastal fortifications of Sevastopol from the sea ... for one bombing ... so that every time after the bombing it was necessary to literally dig out guns, repair or replace machines and build parapets ...

            Therefore, a position was chosen on a hill beyond Alma where the road to Sevastopol passes a few kilometers from the sea ...
            Everything can be attributed to the incompetence of Menshikov.
            His military successes were far behind - at Kulm and Paris ...
            But then maybe. the main culprit is the person who appointed the mediocre Menshikov, that is, Emperor Nikolai?
            Apparently, this is the truth.
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 1 February 2017 19: 58
              0
              Quote: Sergey S.
              And how to meet on the shore. if the airborne salvo of the support squadron was more than 1100 guns ???

              To put the guns at a distance where the ships do not finish off and to fire at the landing force, how else. Make a night or evening attack. There are many ways. This would at least delay the landing by a week and allow to tighten reserves and prepare the defense line.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              This is a new generation fleet!

              So what? How does this affect the landing.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              This fleet razed the coastal fortifications of Sevastopol from the sea ... for one bombing ... so that every time after the bombing it was necessary to literally dig out guns, repair or replace machines and build parapets ...

              How scary . Why didn’t this fleet help take Sevastopol in one bombing?
              Quote: Sergey S.
              Therefore, a position was chosen on a hill beyond Alma where the road to Sevastopol passes a few kilometers from the sea ...

              That is, to give unhindered landing is the right tactic?) Well, well.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              Everything can be attributed to the incompetence of Menshikov.

              So this is just a fact.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              But then maybe. the main culprit is the person who appointed the mediocre Menshikov, that is, Emperor Nikolai?

              This is certain. The defeat in the warrior is entirely the fault of Nicholas. If it weren’t for the Russian soldiers to lose the Caucasus. Poland, etc.
              The fact that the Republic of Ingushetia was technically lagging behind, but if a normal system of government would be built could reduce this warrior to a draw.
              1. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 2 February 2017 22: 32
                0
                Quotation: blooded man
                To put the guns at a distance where the ships do not finish off and to fire at the landing force, how else. Make a night or evening attack. There are many ways. This would at least delay the landing by a week and allow to tighten reserves and prepare the defense line.

                Theoretically - all this could be done ...
                But while they were building a new sea fortress, the adversaries would have sailed, for example, to the beach 15 kilometers away, and ... landed unhindered ...
                By the way, very soon the Kinburn fortress will be destroyed on the day of the battle ... with three French floating "Love" batteries ...
          4. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 1 February 2017 18: 21
            0
            Quotation: blooded man
            So, the reason is, first and foremost, the rotten elite and mediocrity at the head of the army. Technical superiority was not overwhelming and was not the cause of Porzhein.

            And was there a case in history when, with incompetent leadership and a rotten elite, a country would have been economically wealthy and possessed technical superiority, or at least not far behind?
            Such cases are unknown to me ...
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 1 February 2017 19: 59
              0
              Quote: Sergey S.
              Such cases are unknown to me ...

              I agree with that.
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 1 February 2017 05: 58
          0
          Quote: Sergey S.
          Technical backwardness was egregious.
          Under Alma, our gunners were shot for the first time in history from rifles.

          Contrary to popular belief, armament with long-range rifles in the Allied armies was far from XNUMX%. The British could arm them with half of their army, but the rest did not even get it. They were also in RI.
          Quote: Sergey S.
          The British and French began to build screw battleships and frigates ...
          But in Russia there was not a single screw ship ...

          Really? As far as I remember, the first battle of the ships was just in that war. The Allies had corny more ships, due to the fact that they had more resources.
          1. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 1 February 2017 18: 26
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            Contrary to popular belief, armament with long-range rifles in the Allied armies was far from XNUMX%. The British could arm them with half of their army, but the rest did not even get it. They were also in RI.

            You are right.
            There were no insurmountable problems ...
            But ... A bullet is a fool, a bayonet is well done!
            In a loose formation, so that everyone would choose a target, the moment of firing, to execute not a primitive command, but an order to fight, our leaders could entrust only a very limited number of soldiers. Those then were the huntsmen ...
            And the simple infantry units were lined up with officers on the flanks and simply kept the line ...
            Heroically!
            Soldiers from the serfs ...
          2. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 1 February 2017 18: 46
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            Really? As far as I remember, the first battle of the ships was just in that war. The Allies had corny more ships, due to the fact that they had more resources.

            Yes.
            Even before entering the Black Sea, the Anglo-French fleet, in November 1953, the steamboat-frigate "Vladimir", an English-built, under the command of Captain Lieutenant G.I. Butakov at the senior aboard Vice Admiral V.A. Kornilove, after a 4-hour battle, was captured by the Turkish armed steamer Pervaz-Bahri.
            On the Russian ship there were bombing guns, the Turks did not have such. The battle was in the form of a lazy chase. Each time the Turk tried to light the board and fire a salvo, he received .... and was forced to run on. When Kornilov got tired of it, the Valadimir took off, caught up and quickly forced the Turk to lower the flag.

            But these were wheeled steamers, not screw ships!
            The fact is that the resource then was skill ...
            If Russia could make only three dozen marine steam installations, the alignment would be completely different ...
            And if at least a dozen - the strategy and tactics of war would be different ...
            Could not, not one ...

            Speaking of resources. As for the materials, there were plenty of them in Russia for cars and boilers of that time ...
            But already in the Turkish campaign of 1877, already with steels and tubes, bearing alloys ... the latest in mechanical engineering will be new points of no return to the category of advanced powers ...
            The topic is sad.
            Understand correctly.
            I own information. I'm worried. I don’t want to write a book about this. I am ashamed. And I don’t see any reason to oppose the official version of the history of new Russia. But experts are required to know the truth. Otherwise, they will now make the same mistakes.
            That is already done ...
            Sanctions bl.in. we hinder ... Kuram laugh ...
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 1 February 2017 21: 20
              0
              Quote: Sergey S.
              In a loose formation, so that everyone would choose a target, the moment of firing, to execute not a primitive command, but an order to fight, our leaders could entrust only a very limited number of soldiers. Those then were the huntsmen ...
              And the simple infantry units were lined up with officers on the flanks and simply kept the line ...

              The British until the second Boer War followed the same tactics - with lines, officers, and more. And this is much later than the Crimea. The transition to the loose system took place after all the troops switched to multiple-charged rifles and machine guns, so in this sense the Republic of Ingushetia did not stand out for anything special and it was not about the peasants.
              Quote: Sergey S.
              If Russia could make only three dozen marine steam installations, the alignment would be completely different ... And if at least a dozen, the strategy and tactics of the war would be different ...

              No were not. I mean, the united coalition, even taking into account the colonies, had guaranteed it would have gained an advantage in the sea, as a matter of fact, the ships of that time didn’t outperform sailboats in terms of firepower and armor, the era of armadillos has not yet arrived, but their number and shipbuilding capacities have not left a chance to win, so the decision not to get involved in a hopeless confrontation was correct.
              Here is the fact that they didn’t try to arrange a blood bath for a landing, this is another matter. As well as the fact that during the battle part of the Russian troops, armed with rifled weapons, was never thrown into battle. In general, thanks to Menshikov. Could Nicholas II have foreseen this? I don’t know, before the start of the war he did not have the opportunity to verify the commander, so the question is complex.
              1. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 2 February 2017 22: 06
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                RI did not stand out in anything special and it was not the peasants

                ... ??? ...
                In the Far East, both sides acted without ranks ...
                But among the British and French it was the military personnel ...
                And Russia was represented by local Cossacks, sailors and hunters ...
                By the way, the success of the actions of the small garrison of Sevastopol for 8 months can be explained only by relying on that. that in the fleet everyone was taught to execute commands individually. Sailors were accustomed to initiative actions ... Peter Koshka ... Fedor Zaika ...
                So the backwardness of the peasants in education is one of the reasons for the defeat in the Crimean War.
                And in the future troubles of Russia and Russian industry.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 2 February 2017 22: 25
                  0
                  I mean the actions of the personnel armies in general.
                  As for the training of sailors, because they were from the same peasants as the soldiers, so the difference was precisely in training in the army.
                  1. Sergey S.
                    Sergey S. 3 February 2017 00: 49
                    0
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    I mean the actions of the personnel armies in general.
                    As for the training of sailors, because they were from the same peasants as the soldiers, so the difference was precisely in training in the army.

                    In this I completely agree.
                    But that's the trouble. that in our army, in principle, they did not bother to teach battle tactics and independent actions.
                    And in the Navy, in principle, all actions are qualified and independent.
                    And in the long voyages sailors were brought in daily to teach ... At least in the Guards crew.
                    As a result, it was the sailors who were the most advanced part of the people.
                    As a result, the sailors and on the land front fought well.
              2. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 2 February 2017 22: 23
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                ... the united coalition, and even taking into account the colonies, would have guaranteed it would have gained an advantage in the sea, as a matter of fact, the ships of that time didn’t exceed sailing ships in terms of firepower and armor, the era of battleships had not yet arrived, but their number and shipbuilding capacities did not leave any chances for victory, so the decision not to get involved in a hopeless confrontation was correct.

                The war began more than six months.
                If the Black Sea Fleet had modern dozen ships in the amount of a dozen and another dozen steam frigates and corvettes, then having gathered as many forces as possible, the coalition would not have risked a landing operation without giving a general battle.
                And as if the pupils of Admiral Lazarev showed themselves in open battle, one can guess ... There are still reasons for the true Faith.
                PS
                Warning comment.
                With a small firing range and relatively low speed of the ships, it was possible to apply a large numerical superiority, but it was impossible to quickly realize it.
                A classic example of this is the Russo-Japanese War and Tsushima ...
                Quote: Dart2027

                Here is the fact that they didn’t try to arrange a blood bath for a landing, this is another matter.

                Already explained that when trying to attack the landing site, ours would be hit by about 1100 guns ... And there is no prospect of damaging the enemy ...
                And when the adversaries landed, they moved in orders close to the battle formation.
                Quote: Dart2027
                As well as the fact that during the battle part of the Russian troops, armed with rifled weapons, was never thrown into battle.

                What regiment is this ???
                Or do you mean a few dozen (a total small number of hundreds) of plastunas = huntsmen = hunters?
                Quote: Dart2027
                In general, thanks to Menshikov. Could Nicholas II have foreseen this?

                He was obliged.
                And then Stalin is to blame for 1941, and St. Nicholas ...
                Everyone is to blame for such provisions to the fullest.
                By the way, to the honor of Nicholas I, he not only understood, but also severely blamed himself for the Crimean War.
                It is believed that this was the true cause of his early death.
                Quote: Dart2027
                I don’t know, before the start of the war he did not have the opportunity to verify the commander, so the question is complex.

                ... ??? ... And he is appointed commander in chief ...
                So you have given the most correct answer to the most important question.
                Totally agree with you.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 2 February 2017 22: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Sergey S.
                  If the Black Sea Fleet had modern dozen ships in the amount of a dozen and another dozen steam frigates and corvettes, then having gathered as many forces as possible, the coalition would not have risked a landing operation without giving a general battle.
                  But sooner or later it would have given him, and then the enemy would have recovered all his losses faster than RI.
                  Quote: Sergey S.
                  And when the adversaries landed, they moved in orders close to the battle formation.
                  Any landing is a mess in which you can, if not defeat, then prettyly pat the enemy.
                  Quote: Sergey S.
                  What regiment is this ???

                  Inkerman battle - there wasn’t even a regiment, but they didn’t do anything properly.
                  Quote: Sergey S.
                  And then Stalin is to blame for 1941, and St. Nicholas ...

                  The head of state is not clairvoyant, so in both cases, something can be blamed, something did not depend on them.
                  1. Sergey S.
                    Sergey S. 3 February 2017 00: 52
                    0
                    I don’t see any fundamental problems.
                    It's time to make peace.
    4. antivirus
      antivirus 24 January 2017 08: 06
      +1
      I agree .
      HIGHLIGHTS-showed the impossibility of developing RI without help from outside. development prospects. lives were closed after 10-30 years.
      The United States is now bringing everything down for itself (it stops only "why do I need it"). and this is the reason for the discord at the top (Trump for another policy of "sufficiency of seizures")
  6. nnz226
    nnz226 28 October 2017 20: 00
    0
    But the results of the victorious war with Turkey 1877-78 years ineptly profiled at the Berlin Congress ...