Military Review

Destruction of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Sinop

46
“By exterminating the Turkish squadron under Sinope, you have graced the Russian chronicle fleet a new victory that will forever remain a memorial in the sea stories».
Emperor Nicholas

“The battle is glorious, above Chesma and Navarin ... Hooray, Nakhimov! M.P. Lazarev rejoices with his student. ”
V. A. Kornilov


December 1 is the Day of Military Glory of Russia, the day of the victory of the Russian squadron under the command of Vice Admiral Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov over the Turkish squadron at Cape Sinop.

In March 1995, the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On the days of military glory (victory days) of Russia” established the Day of military glory of Russia - the Victory Day of the Russian squadron over the Turkish squadron at Cape Sinop. The date of the Day of Military Glory is the law mistakenly set December 1. The battle itself took place on November 18 of the year 30 (1853) and went down in history as the last major battle of sailing fleets.

prehistory

The Eastern (Crimean) War arose as a result of the Great Game - the contradictions between England and France on the one hand, and Russia - on the other, during the struggle for influence in the Middle and Near East, in the Balkans and in the Black Sea region. The Western masters tried to stop the advancement of the Russians in the Balkans, in the Black Sea region, where Russia could get the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, and in the Caucasus with the further expansion of Russia's influence in the eastern countries.

Russia was interested in expanding its sphere of influence in the Caucasus, on the Balkan Peninsula. Military strategy and the development of the national economy demanded the occupation of the straits and Constantinople. In order to secure the southwestern strategic direction forever - to exclude the possibility of the passage of the enemy fleet to the Russian (Black) Sea and to obtain free access to the Mediterranean Sea.

France had its own claims to the Ottoman Empire, especially in Syria and Egypt, and acted as Russia's rival in the Turkish possessions. London sought to include the Middle and Middle East in its sphere of influence, to turn Turkey and Persia into its semi-colonies. The British did not want the Russian Empire to strengthen at the expense of the rapidly degrading Ottoman Empire. Moreover, the masters of England cherished the plans for the dismemberment of Russia, the rejection of the Crimea, the Caucasian regions, the Northern Black Sea region, Little Russia, the Kingdom of Poland, the Baltic states, Finland. Russian wanted to cut off from the seas, push back to the east.

His weapons in the fight against Russia, the Westerners once again made Turkey. The Turks acted as "cannon fodder" in a thousand-year confrontation between the West and Russia (Russian civilization). To use the Turkish armed forces as a striking avant-garde in the fight against Russia, the leading circles of Britain, France and Austria provided enhanced military support to Turkey. Long before the war, it was flooded with British, French and Austrian military advisers who trained Turkish troops, built fortifications, and led the development of military plans. The Turkish troops actively used foreign military specialists, some of them converted to Islam, became “Ottomans”. Under the guidance of foreign experts, the construction of the Ottoman military fleet was carried out, which was replenished with ships built in Marseilles, Venice, Livorno. Almost all of the Turkish fleet artillery was of English production; English advisers and instructors were located at the headquarters and commanders of Turkish units.

Relying on the support of England and France (Austria was also afraid of strengthening the Russian positions in the Balkans and supported Porto), Turkey hoped for success in the Black Sea theater. Port was planning to return the lost possessions in the Caucasus, in the Northern Black Sea region, including the Crimean peninsula. England and France, setting Turkey on Russia, could not allow its military collapse and cardinal strengthening of the positions of the Russian Empire at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the regional conflict went global - world war with the participation of leading world powers.

The outbreak of war

The formal reason for the war was a dispute between Catholics and Orthodox about the right to own holy places in Palestine, which was then part of the Turkish Empire. Great powers intervened in the dispute: Russia was on the side of Orthodox Christians, and France was on the side of Catholic Catholics. In order to push Turkey towards the opening of military operations against Russia, the Anglo-French fleet in May 1853 headed for Besiksky Bay, located at the entrance to the Dardanelles. There was a rupture of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Russia.

14 June 1853 Tsar Nicholas I ordered the Russian troops commanded by Prince M. D. Gorchakov to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia (Danube principalities). Nikolai Pavlovich, who had rather successfully led Russian foreign policy, this time made a strategic mistake. He hoped that with England it was possible to agree on the division of the inheritance of the Turkish “sick person”. France itself is not dangerous. And Austria and Prussia were considered close allies of St. Petersburg. It seemed that the time had come for the partition of the Turkish Empire. However, the owners of the West wanted to get the whole "Turkish pie", not allowing Russia to come to it. Moreover, use the war with Turkey for a decisive defeat and weakening of Russia.

Turkey presented an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of the Russian army from the Danube principalities. October 4 Port declared war on Russia. Turkish troops bombarded our forces on the Danube, attacked the Russian garrison of the post of St. Nicholas on the Black Sea coast between Poti and Batum. October 20 Petersburg announced the state of war with Turkey. Later, England, France and Sardinia entered the war against Russia. Military operations were conducted in the Balkans and the Caucasus, in the Black, White and Baltic seas and in the Pacific Ocean. But the main theater of the war was the Black Sea.

The plan of the Turkish command was to oust the Russian troops from Moldavia and Wallachia and hold defenses on the Danube front until the approach of the Anglo-French forces. In the Caucasus was supposed to conduct offensive operations.

Black Sea Fleet

The Russian Black Sea Fleet had 14 sailing battleships, 6 sailing frigates, 16 corvettes and brigs, 7 steamer frigates and 138 small ships. Despite the fact that it did not include a single steam ship of the line, it was a serious fighting force. Sailing ships were distinguished by high speed and strong armament. The fleet had qualified officers and well-trained privates. The fleet was commanded by experienced and determined commanders who were not afraid to take the initiative.

In the prewar period, the Russian fleet on the Black Sea was headed by great people — Mikhail Petrovich Lazarev, Vladimir Alekseevich Kornilov, Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov, Vladimir Ivanovich Istomin. They were representatives of the advanced school of Russian naval art. For many years Nakhimov, Kornilov and Istomin were elected directors of the Sevastopol Maritime Library, one of the oldest in the country. Thanks to their educational activities, the book collections of the library have increased several times. Nakhimov widely popularized among the sailors the Sea Collection magazine, which had begun to appear since 1848,. The main attention of Lazarev, Kornilov, Nakhimov and other advanced commanders - the heirs of the school of Suvorov, Ushakov and Senyavin - focused on combat training of the fleet, training sailors in the techniques and methods of naval combat. The activities of D. N. Senyavin, that commanders “would communicate with their subordinates more often, would know each of them and know that their service is not only to command people during work, but that they they must also enter into their private life ... The chief and the officer must be able to stir up the competition for diligent service in their subordinates with the encouragement of the best. They must know the spirit of the Russian sailor, to whom sometimes thanks are most precious. ”

“A sailor controls the sails, and he directs the gun at the enemy. Sailor rushes to the boarding. If necessary, the sailor will do everything, ”said P. S. Nakhimov. In recognition of the primary role of an ordinary sailor in ensuring victory over the enemy, Lazarev, Nakhimov and Kornilov saw the success of combat training, the basis for increasing the combat capability of the fleet. They understood the sailors, brought up in them not a “serf on the ship”, but a sense of dignity and love for their native land. Kornilov and Nakhimov in every way sought to improve the living conditions of the sailors, who for years 25 carried heavy service. All contemporaries unanimously emphasized the care of Paul Stepanovich of the sailors. “Nakhimov’s care of the sailors,” wrote one of the Black Sea people, “reached pedantry.” In response, the sailors loved their commander.

Nakhimov clearly understood that the combat training system, aimed at flashy shine, would lead to disastrous results in real combat operations. He was an opponent of ceremonial drill and taught sailors what is needed in the war. He brought up initiative, decisiveness, endurance in sailors, strictly demanded the execution of all necessary and useful things. Personal example of the commander Nakhimov considered the best method of education. As a result, the authority of Nakhimov among the Black Sea sailors was very high. In the same vein educated sailors and Kornilov.

The first half of the XIX century. was an important stage in the development of technical progress in the fleet. Surveys in the field of naval artillery led to the creation of bombing (bombing) guns. These guns fired explosive bombs, which were extremely dangerous for wooden sailing ships. The viability of such weapons was first evaluated on the Black Sea Fleet. On the initiative of Lazarev, Kornilov and Nakhimov, such weapons were installed on many battleships. The greatest importance in the development of the fleet was the use of steam power for the movement of ships. In shipbuilding and naval affairs, a revolution took place. Ships with a steam engine acquired fundamentally new navigation, technical and combat qualities. In 1820, the military ship Vesuvius built in Nikolaev entered the Black Sea Fleet.

Before the 40s, many military experts still believed that sailing battleships with powerful artillery - 100 - 120 guns would remain the basis of military fleets. The first steamers had a small capacity, they could install all 10 - 20 guns. However, the development of scientific and technological progress led to the rapid improvement of ships. Lazarev, Kornilov and Nakhimov quickly appreciated this perspective. On the initiative of Lazarev at the end of the 1830-x-1840-s in Nikolaev, the first in Russia iron military steamers and the first steam-frigates were laid and built. They had both sailing equipment and a steam engine. Kornilov was an active supporter of the deployment of the construction of screw ships. From the very first years of his tenure as chief of staff of the fleet, he raised the question before the commanders of the maritime department about the rearmament of the Black Sea Fleet and the widespread introduction of the steam engine on ships. The construction of screw ships and the refurbishment of the shipbuilding base, he wrote, "are in my eyes items of paramount importance for the Black Sea Fleet, on the solid decisions of which all its future depends."

Advanced scientific and technical thought in Russia often went ahead of foreign science. However, many Russian discoveries and inventions did not find practical application in Russia (some later successfully mastered in the West). The Russian Empire began to lag behind the advanced Western powers in technical and economic development, which could not adversely affect the armed forces of the country, including the Black Sea Fleet.


The deck of the battleship "Empress Maria" during the battle at Sinop. 1853 year. Hood A. D. Kivshenko

The beginning of the fighting at sea

In the strategic plans of the Turkish command, an important role was assigned to the Caucasus. 20-thousand was concentrated in Batumi airborne troops and a large flotilla from 250 coastal vessels intended for the landing of airborne forces in the areas of Sukhumi, Poti, Gagra, Sochi and Tuapse. To ensure the landing of troops in Constantinople formed a squadron of the best ships. Commander was appointed Vice-Admiral Osman Pasha, the second flagship - Rear Admiral Hussein Pasha. The reconnaissance was carried out by a detachment of three steam-frigates under the flag of Vice Admiral Mustafa Pasha. The chief adviser of the Turkish command in this operation was the English captain A. Slade, who in the Ottoman fleet had the rank of rear admiral. Meanwhile, the Anglo-French fleet passed from the Dardanelles to the Bosphorus and was preparing to throw into the Black Sea.

In September, a squadron under the command of Vice Admirals V. A. Kornilov and P. S. Nakhimov brought 1853 Infantry Division (13 thousand people) to the Caucasian coast with the entire wagon train and monthly food supply. At the same time, a detachment of ships redeployed the 16 Infantry Division (14 thousand people) from Odessa to Sevastopol. Then the fleet began to cruise at the Bosporus and along the entire Anatolian coast of the Turkish Empire with the task of disrupting its communications.

The fighting in the Black Sea began with two battles, the result of which vividly demonstrated the high effectiveness of the Lazarev, Kornilov and Nakhimov schools of combat training of personnel. The first fight took place on November 5. The steamer frigate "Vladimir" under the command of Lieutenant Commander G. I. Butakov was searching for an enemy from the Turkish coast. On board was Vice-Admiral Kornilov. Early that morning, observers spotted the silhouette of an unknown ship in the north-west. Kornilov advised the commander to change course and go for rapprochement. An hour later, an unknown ship was overtaken. It turned out to be the Turkish military ship Pervaz-Bahri. A two-hour battle began, during which, according to Kornilov, the commander of the frigate Butakov "disposed of as if on maneuvers." “Pervaz-Bahri”, having received significant damage and suffered losses in people from the well-aimed fire of Russian sailors, lowered the flag. So the first in the history of wars, the battle of steam ships ended in a brilliant victory for the Russian steamboat frigate.

On the night of 9 (21) in November, according to other data, 6 (18) in November - the Russian sailing 44-gun frigate “Flora” by Lieutenant Commander A. N. Skorobogatov in the area of ​​Cape Pitsunda met with three Turkish steamers - “Taif” , "Fezi-Bahri" and "Saik-Ishade" under the general command of Vice-Admiral Mustafa Pasha and the English military adviser A. Slade. A total of enemy ships had 6 10-inch guns, 12 36-pounders, 44 18-pounders. The battle began at 2 in the morning and continued intermittently until 9 in the morning hours. The frigate "Flora" skillfully maneuvered and by the end of the battle managed to inflict damage on the flagship steamer of the enemy. Turkish steamers hurried to the west. The Russian frigate with a victory returned to its base. At the heart of this success, on the one hand, lay the composure and courage of Captain Skorobogatov, who was not afraid of superior forces of the enemy, courage and knowledge of the case of the sailors, who skillfully maneuvered and fought. On the other hand, the unsatisfactory actions of the enemy commanders, who failed to take advantage of either the steam ships for simultaneous attacks from different sides, nor the large-caliber bomb guns that could be attacked while out of reach of the Russian frigate, as well as poor training of Turkish artillerymen.


A.P. Bogolyubov. Night attack on 44-gun frigate Flora from 5 to November 6 1853

Sinop

At the beginning of November 1853, a Russian squadron commanded by Vice Admiral P. S. Nakhimov cruised off the coast of Turkish Anatolia. During the brutal 8 - 10 storm in November, the battleships of the “Brave” and “Svyatoslav” squadrons and the frigate “Kovarna” were severely damaged and were sent for repair to Sevastopol. In the squadron of Nakhimov remained 3 battleships and one brig. Continuing to search for the enemy, she 11 November approached Sinop Bay and found an enemy squadron under Osman Pasha, consisting of 7 frigates, 3 corvettes, 2 steamboats, 2 brigs and 2 transports. The ships were protected by six coastal batteries. In service with the Turkish ships were 476 guns, on coastal batteries were 44 guns.

Despite such a significant numerical superiority of the enemy, the Russian commander decided to block the Turkish fleet in the bay. Brig "Aeneas" was sent to Sevastopol for reinforcements. The Turks showed weakness and did not dare to break through the positions of the weak Russian squadron and began to expect the approach of the Anglo-French fleet. On November 16, the 3 battleship and the 2 frigate from Rear Admiral F. M. Novosilsky’s squadron arrived to help Nakhimov. Now it was possible to begin the attack, although the tactical advantage and this time remained for the Turkish squadron. With the armed steamers, the Turks could strike the Russian ships from any direction. In addition, the enemy was protected by coastal batteries. 17 November Nakhimov convened the commanders of the ships and acquainted them with the plan of the upcoming battle. In an order given just before the battle, the admiral wrote that Russia expects "glorious feats from the Black Sea Fleet. It is up to us to live up to expectations. ”

In 9 hours 30 minutes 18 (30) November on the Russian flagship "Empress Maria" a signal was raised: "Prepare for battle and go to the Sinop raid." The squadron was removed from the anchor. By noon she entered the Sinop raid in two columns. At the head of the first was the 84-gun ship “Empress Maria” under the flag of Nakhimov, and at the head of the second - the 120-gun ship “Paris” under the flag of Novosilsky. In the wake of the "Empress Maria" went 120-gun "Grand Duke Constantine" and 80-gun "Chesma". The ship "Novosilsky" was followed by the 120-gun "Three Saints" and the 80-gun "Rostislav". The Turkish fleet stood in the bay in the ranks in the form of a crescent, repeating the outline of the coast. The left flank of this system relied on the battery number 4, and the right flank relied on the battery number 6. In the center of the battle order, the Turks installed a 8 large-caliber gun battery No. 5. From all the ships, the flagship was tensely watched, waiting for the signal to start the battle. At 12 hours on the "Empress Maria" flag hoisted, meaning noon. Admiral and in such an alarming moment before the battle decided to observe the custom of the sea. This episode, which emphasized the exceptional calmness of Nakhimov, made a strong impression on the crews of the courts.



Around 12 hours 30 minutes, when the Russian ships approached the designated places, the Turkish squadron and the coastal batteries opened heavy fire. In the first minutes the Russian ships were literally bombarded with a hail of nuclei, knissels and grapeshot. However, the Ottoman gunners, as in the battle of Navarin in 1827, repeated the same mistake: instead of concentrating the fire on the hulls, they again beat on the spars and sails. With a fair and fairly strong wind, this fire often did not reach the goal. In addition, Nakhimov had foreseen that the enemy would not hit on the decks, but on the spars. This technique was used by the Turks in the calculation to disable as many Russian sailors as possible when they set sail before anchoring. But Russian sailors, thanks to the orders of the Russian admiral, were downstairs. Nakhimov decided to anchor, not fixing the sails, thereby saving the lives and health of many sailors, retained the combat capability of the Russian ships at a critical moment of the battle.

Having anchored, the Russian ships engaged almost all along the line. The Turks immediately felt the power and accuracy of the fire of the Russian ships. Half an hour later, the flagship frigate Avni Allah, unable to withstand the fire of the Empress Mary, broke off the anchor chain and ran aground. Several Turkish ships and coastal batteries brought the power of their guns to Nakhimov's ship: they killed most of the spars and standing rigging, only one full guy was left at the mainmast. But the Russians continued to fight. Having settled with the Turkish flagship, Nakhimov transferred fire to another frigate - "Fazli-Allah". Unable to bear the fire, and on this frigate the Turks riveted the anchor chain. The current and the wind quickly carried the frigate to the shore, and soon the Fazli-Allah was already burning.

The sailors of the battleship "Paris" under the command of the captain 1 of the rank of V.I. Istomin fought heroically. They defeated three enemy ships. Delighted with this success, Nakhimov ordered to send a signal of gratitude to the gallant crew. But on the "Empress Maria" all signal halyards were killed. Then the boat was sent to "Paris". Having destroyed four frigates and one corvette, the "Empress Maria" and "Paris" transferred fire to the most powerful battery number 5. After a few minutes from the battery there were piles of debris. The maid fled in panic.


I. K. Aivazovsky. "Sinop fight"

No less bravely fought and the crews of other Russian ships. “Grand Duke Constantine” stood up against two 60-gun frigates “Navek-Bahri” and “Nesimi-Zefer” and 24-cannon corvette “Nedzhmi-Feshan”. These ships were covered by the battery battery number 4. Initially, the full power of 68-pound bombardment "Constantine" brought down on the frigates. The Chesma that soon came up, despite shots from the battery number 3, sent its guns to the frigate Navek-Bahri. Twenty minutes later, the Turkish frigate blew up. The fragments of the frigate poured the battery number 4. Having finished with one frigate, “Konstantin”, turning to the spring, began to shoot “Nesimi-Zefer” and “Nedzhmi-Feshan”, and “Chesma” turned its guns against batteries No. 3 and 4 and soon razed them to the ground. Meanwhile, "Constantine" dealt with the frigate and the corvette. Enveloped in flames, both enemy ships were thrown onto the shore.

No less fierce was the battle on the left flank. On the ship "Three Saints" at the very beginning of the battle the Turks interrupted the spring. The remaining ship at one anchor turned stern to the battery number 6. The Turks, however, managed to produce only a few volleys. To the rescue of the "Three Saints" approached "Rostislav", who transferred the fire to the battery. Meanwhile, with the help of the barge, the position of the ship was restored. Together, the Rostislav and the Three Hierarchs first destroyed the frigate Qaidi Zefer and the corvette Feyze-Meabur, and then the battery No. 6. In an exchange of fire, the enemy core landed directly in the Rostislav battery: a powder box caught fire, the fire began to spread towards the side of the camera. “Rostislav” was in danger: he could fly into the air. But the brave midshipman Nikolai Kolokoltsev saved his ship from destruction. He received the rank of lieutenant and the Order of St. George 4 degree. In the same year, he was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir 4 degree, and for participation in the defense of Sevastopol - with golden weapons.

The close range of shooting, excellent artillery preparation, the courage and heroism of the squadron sailors quickly decided the outcome of the battle. Under their fire, Turkish ships were stranded, burned and flew into the air. By 16 hours the battle was over. 15 Turkish ships and shore batteries were destroyed. Only one “Taif” steamer escaped, on which the Englishman A. Slade, the chief adviser to the Turkish admiral, was stationed. Having rushed to their heels at the most critical moment, he brought to Constantinople the news of the complete defeat of the Turkish squadron.


Sinop battle. Artist A.P. Bogolyubov

I. K. Aivazovsky. Sinop. The night after the fight 18 November 1853 of the year

Results

In the Battle of Sinop, the Turks lost thousands of people killed and drowned 3. Several hundred sailors and officers were taken prisoner, including the commander of the Osman Pasha squadron. The Russian fleet has not lost a single ship. Personnel losses were: killed - 38 people and wounded - 233.

The Battle of Sinop was the last major battle of sailing ships. The actions of the Russian squadron were an outstanding example of active offensive tactics. Nakhimov at the very beginning of the battle seized the initiative and held it until the last moment. Ship artillery was effectively used. An elaborate artillery attack plan was developed by Nakhimov with the maximum use of bombing weapons, which played an important role in defeating the enemy. The decisive force that determined the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Sinop were Russian sailors and officers, their excellent training, high morale and self-control.

The Sinope victory of the Russian fleet was of great political and military importance. The defeat of the Turkish squadron in Sinop significantly weakened the naval forces of Turkey and thwarted its plans for landing troops on the coast of the Caucasus. After the battle, the Russian fleet was able to contribute to the maritime flanks of the ground forces in the Danube and Caucasian theaters. Turkish troops on the Danube and the Caucasus were deprived of the support of their fleet.

Sinop defeat meant the failure of the traditional English policy of warfare by proxy. The mask was torn from the true organizers of the Eastern War. Turkey suffered a decisive defeat at the very beginning of the war. To save her from collapse, England and France entered into open war. 23 December 1853 English and French squadrons entered the Black Sea. 15 March 1854 England and France declared war on Russia. The forerunner of world war began, where Russia was the main enemy of the collective West.


Return of the Russian squadron to Sevastopol after the Sinop battle. Artist N.P. Krasovsky
Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox 1 December 2017 07: 05 New
    +3
    Wonderful victory! It is a pity that the war was ultimately lost as a result of technological backwardness and arrogance of command.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 1 December 2017 08: 13 New
      +2
      The Battle of Sinop was the last major battle of sailing ships (from the text).

      It is very gratifying that the Russian Imperial Navy put a bullet in this romantic "sport"! drinks
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 1 December 2017 12: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Proxima
        It is very gratifying that the Russian Imperial Navy put a bullet in this romantic "sport"!

        It is very sad that soon obsolete ships had to sink their teams.
        And in addition to the famous siege of Sevastopol, there were also:
        Sveaborg bombing
        White Sea Campaign
        Peter and Paul Defense
        Azov Campaign (Siege of Taganrog)
        Capture of Urup (Kuril Islands)
        The Battle of Kinburn (1855)

        There is no point in rejoicing over one victory - when the war was lost and the conditions of the world - were very shameful.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 1 December 2017 12: 58 New
          +3
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          There is no point in rejoicing over one victory - when the war was lost and the conditions of the world - were very shameful.

          This is GREAT HAPPINESS that took place (albeit "shameful"), but PEACE. The plans of the Coalition included - complete sea isolation of Russia, with its subsequent dismemberment into semi-colonies (as China was torn apart at the end of the 19th century).
          Only the heroic defense of Sevastopol saved Russia from collapse.
          1. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 1 December 2017 14: 34 New
            +2
            Quote: Proxima
            Only the heroic defense of Sevastopol saved Russia from collapse.


            C'mon - the losses of the coalition were such that they did not even know how to end the war without losing their face :))
            Russia was forced, in view of the threat of intervention in the war of Austria, Prussia and Sweden, to keep a significant part of the army on the western border, and in connection with the Caucasian War of 1817-1864, to divert part of the ground forces to fight the highlanders.
            Read - the war has gone no no lack of forces of all parties.

            But the war led
            to the breakdown of the financial system of the Russian Empire (Russia spent 800 million rubles on the war, Britain £ 76 million): to finance military spending, the government had to resort to printing unsecured credit cards, which led to a decrease in their silver cover from 45% in 1853 to 19% in 1858, that is, in fact, more than double the depreciation of the ruble (see the reforms of E.F. Kankrin)
            Again, Russia was able to reach a deficit-free state budget only in 1870, that is, 14 years after the end of the war
            1. Proxima
              Proxima 1 December 2017 15: 28 New
              0
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              Read - the war has gone no no lack of forces of all parties.

              What are you trying to prove to me? Personally, I want to convey the idea that if the Russian Empire did not undergo "immunization" in the form of the Crimean War, if a similar war happened 10 years later, then there would definitely be nothing left from the Russian Empire. And so .....
              Quote: Proxima
              .... the defeat in the Crimean War greatly accelerated the economic processes in the Russian Empire. The global modernization of the army and navy, the construction of railways, the abolition of serfdom, etc. .

              The Sinope naval battle was precisely the CATALYST OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROCESSES!
              1. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 4 December 2017 10: 07 New
                +1
                Quote: Proxima
                What are you trying to prove to me?


                That defeats in wars bring neither fame nor economic benefits.
                The defeat in the Eastern (Crimean War) led to the dire financial situation of Russia over the next 15 years!
                So I regard Sinop as the greatest tactical success, and the whole company as the mediocre rule of Nicholas I and his diplomacy.
                The prelude to the war was the conflict of Nicholas I with Napoleon III, who came to power in France after the coup on December 2, 1851. Nicholas I considered the new French emperor illegitimate, since the Bonaparte dynasty was excluded from the French succession by the Vienna Congress. In order to demonstrate his position, Nicholas I in a congratulatory telegram addressed Napoleon III “Monsieur mon ami” (“dear friend”), instead of the permissible protocol “Monsieur mon frère” (“dear brother”). This liberty was regarded as a public insult to the new French emperor

                But the “question of keys” from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was not a successful negotiation, it became the stone from which the avalanche began.

                Nicholas I was quite confident in his power, guaranteed by the coalition with England, Austria and Prussia, which had developed during the years of the anti-Napoleonic wars. He could not have imagined that the Allies would act in their personal interests and change their priorities, speaking on the side of France and Turkey.

                Here a little more about the "question of keys" and the development of events http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/article/200837/
                There are more in-depth and detailed historical sources.
                Describing the failure of the mission of the emergency embassy, ​​headed by Prince Alexander Menshikov, which in February 1853 arrived for negotiations in Istanbul.
                Those. a chain of events and an incorrect assessment of their capabilities and forces led to the fact that all of Europe united against Russia - a sort of "Putin" of its time - without allies, overestimating its own capabilities and finding itself in isolation ...
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 1 December 2017 07: 32 New
    +5
    The Russian Empire began to lag behind the advanced Western powers in technical and economic development, which could not but adversely affect the country's armed forces, including the Black Sea Fleet
    .
    “- Tell the emperor that they don’t clean their guns with the British: let them not clean them with us, otherwise, God bless the war, they are not good to shoot,” Levsha distinctly said, crossed himself and died. ... the emperor was never told ..
  3. Korsar4
    Korsar4 1 December 2017 07: 39 New
    +1
    Russian glory. And how everything changes - just a little bit more and the sailing ships will leave completely.
  4. kalibr
    kalibr 1 December 2017 10: 10 New
    +4
    From a military point of view, victory is absolute. From the political ... it would be better if it weren’t! The author writes: "Sinop defeat meant the failure of the traditional English policy of waging war by outsiders. The mask was torn from the genuine organizers of the Eastern War."

    All these BEAUTIFUL WORDS have nothing to do with real politics. In fact, England and France received a REASON to intervene in the war, and one should avoid giving them such an excuse, knowing about their own weakness. The outcome is known; won Sinop, but lost the war. By the way, it’s indicative. In all pre-revolutionary sources we meet - "Sinop battle", in Soviet - battle.
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 1 December 2017 11: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: kalibr
      From a military point of view, victory is absolute. From the political ... it would be better if it weren’t! ............ England and France received a REASON to intervene in the war, and one should avoid giving them such an excuse, knowing about their own weakness. The outcome is known; won Sinop, but lost the war.

      You have a strange logic request It is by no means Sinop who is “to blame” for losing the Crimean War. Explain in my opinion is not necessary. The defeat in the Crimean War greatly accelerated the economic processes in the Russian Empire. The global modernization of the army and navy, the construction of railways, the abolition of serfdom, etc.
      According to your logic, we needed to disgrace ourselves at Sinope, but backward serf Russia would have been so proud until the end of the 19th century (if it had survived) that it would be the gendarme of Europe.
      Were it not for the Crimean War, another more serious war would have happened later, which most likely would have “sentenced” the Russian Empire.
      1. Curious
        Curious 1 December 2017 12: 10 New
        +1
        "You have a strange logic" No weird logic. Open this book on page 49. Sinop article. By the way, this is not a separate article about the battle, but in general - about Sinope.
        1. Curious
          Curious 1 December 2017 12: 13 New
          +4
          And this is a fragment from this article.

          So maybe, knowing that England and France were looking for an excuse, you had to think about how to gain time and prepare?
          1. Luga
            Luga 1 December 2017 12: 59 New
            +3
            I will support the user Proxima.
            If you already decided to say "A", get ready to pronounce the rest of the alphabet. To
            Quote: Curious
            buy time and get ready
            it was necessary to delay the outbreak of war by all means, avoiding provocations, developing activity on the diplomatic front, in short, using all the possibilities and - to prepare, prepare and prepare again. And then the time would still not be enough. If the bill went for months or at least a year or two, it could have worked, but then Russia technically, and most importantly, economically lagged behind so much that it is possible to overcome this lag in the foreseeable future even with the emperor It was only hypothetically.
            But as soon as the war began, then you need to fight in full force. In my opinion, it is naive to think that the “strange war” that you and kalibr are proposing would help resolve the issue of “preparation” for a “real” war.
            Do not forget that in November 1853 the English squadron was already stationed in the Dardanelles, therefore, the question of England entering the war and the introduction of this squadron into the Black Sea was already resolved regardless of the course of the war with the Turks. The war with the Allies would simply begin at a more convenient for them moment, and so I had to hurry.
            I’m interested in something else.
            Did our military leadership consider the landing plan at the mouth of the Bosphorus after the victory in the Sinop battle. This kind of “horseback riding” could really turn the course of the war and, possibly, history as a whole, into a slightly different direction. Having unconditional dominance at sea, the landing of such an assault and its supply could well be carried out, and the blockage of such important communication would make Russia a complete and unconditional mistress in the Black Sea. I personally haven’t heard anything about this plan, I haven’t read it, although it seems quite obvious and was probably considered.
            1. Curious
              Curious 1 December 2017 13: 06 New
              +1
              the "strange war" that you and kalibr offer - Excuse me, who offers?
              1. Luga
                Luga 1 December 2017 14: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Curious
                the "strange war" that you and kalibr are proposing - forgive me, who offers?

                I will try to explain.
                Quote: kalibr
                In fact, England and France received a REASON to intervene in the war, and one should avoid giving them such an excuse, knowing about their own weakness.

                Quote: Curious
                So maybe, knowing that England and France were looking for an excuse, you had to think about how to gain time and prepare?

                I understood your messages as a proposal not to force a war with the Turks, but to wage it slowly and sadly, mindful of the inevitability of the Allies entering the war in the event of the defeat of Turkey, thus gaining time for preparation. Where I got the term "strange war" from, I'm sure, no need to explain. hi
                1. Curious
                  Curious 1 December 2017 14: 40 New
                  +1
                  I looked at the question much more broadly. Like "Tarle E. V. Crimean War: in 2 volumes - M.-L .: 1941-1944."
                  1. Luga
                    Luga 1 December 2017 19: 41 New
                    +1
                    Could you put it more clearly? Many on this site did not read the work you indicated, including me, the sinner. And if I get to him in the foreseeable future, I don’t know. smile
                    1. Curious
                      Curious 1 December 2017 19: 44 New
                      +1
                      http://militera.lib.ru/h/tarle3/index.html
                      Read the "Introduction", and everything will be clear. Mandatory ideological curtsies at that time, let them not confuse you.
            2. Proxima
              Proxima 1 December 2017 13: 31 New
              +2
              Quote: Luga
              Do not forget that in November 1853 the English squadron was already stationed in the Dardanelles, therefore, the question of England entering the war and the introduction of this squadron into the Black Sea was already resolved regardless of the course of the war with the Turks. The war with the Allies would simply begin at a more convenient for them moment, and so I had to hurry.

              Absolutely right! Russia's “guilt” was not in the Sinop triumph, but in its military-economic weakness.
              Everyone probably read the fable "The Wolf and the Lamb."

              It's your fault that I want to eat! Said the lamb fired into the dark forest ...
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 1 December 2017 11: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: kalibr
      All these BEAUTIFUL WORDS have nothing to do with real politics. In fact, England and France received a REASON to intervene in the war, and one should avoid giving them such an excuse, knowing about their own weakness. The outcome is known; won Sinop, but lost the war.


      Quite right - the author’s pure gag that has nothing to do with real history.

      Let me remind you - according to the results of the lost Crimean War, Russia was forbidden to have a navy in the Black Sea.
      Sevastopol and the Crimean peninsula were ravaged and fell into decay for many decades (the population of the peninsula decreased by more than 4 times). For 15 years after the Crimean War, Sevastopol lay in ruins.
      On March 1, 1871, the London Convention was signed, abolishing the shameful articles of the Paris Peace for Russia. Russia got the opportunity to begin the revival of the fleet and Sevastopol.
      The war showed Russia's weakness, lagging behind the more developed economies of France and England.
      Pushed for the reform of serfdom.

      Peasant unrest intensified during the Crimean War.
      The peasants, whom the tsarist authorities turned for help, calling for militia, thereby believed that by their service they would earn themselves freedom from serfdom. But this did not materialize.
      The number of peasant uprisings in 10 years from 1845 to 1854 - 348 peasant uprisings took place.
      Over the next 6 years (1855 to 1860) - 474 peasant riots.
      1. BAI
        BAI 1 December 2017 15: 28 New
        +2
        All development of Russia went after defeats: they lost to the Mongols - the unification of Russia began;
        lost to the Poles - the Time of Troubles ended, lost near Narva - army reform began, lost the Crimean War - abolished serfdom, lost to the Japanese - industry flooded up. After any victory - stagnation in development and rest on their laurels. So in the Crimean War there are pluses.
    3. parusnik
      parusnik 1 December 2017 13: 50 New
      +3
      Vyacheslav Olegovich, I will support, after the battle of Sinop, in London they jumped from happiness .. Hurray! Hooray ! The reason for the war .. The British themselves admit it .. Before the Battle of Sinop, for Russia everything turned out quite successfully, the troops entered the Wallachian principalities, crossed the Danube .. Europe was grinding its teeth with anger, but there was nothing to be done .. And there was such a surprise ... and even at the initial stage ... I do not plead in any way the courage and skill of the Russian sailors in this battle .. The Sinope battle is the swan song of the sailing fleet .. But in the end, it turned out ...
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 1 December 2017 16: 59 New
        +2
        Even in the military aspect, there is a flaw. If you look at the damage to the ships, and all the battleships went back in tow. And they could no longer fight. Because they were flooded. That is, they could not go to sea and fight with a fleet of British and French under the cover of coastal batteries. There would be much more benefit from the battle of Sevastopol. And the courage of those who fought there and nobody begs - the admiral ordered and went into battle!
        1. parusnik
          parusnik 1 December 2017 17: 06 New
          +1
          There would be much more benefit from the battle of Sevastopol.
          ... This is already out of the realm of speculation .. And everything else, that’s right ...
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 1 December 2017 23: 38 New
          +4
          Do you have CLAIMS for officers and sailors of the Black Sea Fleet?
          They were assigned the task - they completed it!
          If "FOOTED" (in modern language) "palace pack" - so demand from it !!!
          Black Sea residents do not deserve claims and censures of the infidelity of their actions!
  5. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 1 December 2017 11: 17 New
    +5
    That is, the author will not please other achievements like 164 years ago?
    Again copywriting of known sources ...
  6. BAI
    BAI 1 December 2017 15: 22 New
    +1
    According to the text, somehow Kornilov is always ahead of Nakhimov, as if he made a greater contribution both to naval battles and to the defense of Sevastopol.
    1. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 1 December 2017 20: 39 New
      +1
      Kornilov was higher in position (chief of staff of the Black Sea Fleet), Nakhimov was his subordinate, but Istomin, before and during Sinop, was only the commander of the battleship PARIS and had a great influence on the development of the Black Sea Fleet (as it was written in the article, he didn’t!).
  7. Seal
    Seal 1 December 2017 15: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    as a proposal not to force a war with the Turks

    And I will support Curious.
    The war could not only not be forced, but not at all started. For the reason for her was stupid: who will receive the honorary right to repair the dome of the Bethlehem temple - Catholics, Orthodox or Armenians. Well, and even the little things - such as confirming the rights of the Orthodox not by simple letters, but by a special firman. But for Catholics, on the contrary, to recall the firman and re-confirm their rights in a simple letter.
    Moreover, by the time the war began, the main reason had disappeared - the dome of the temple was renovated at the direction of the Sultan at the expense of the treasury. But there was a demand to recognize Nicholas I as the patron saint of all the Orthodox of the Ottoman Empire. The sultan was ready to give only the so-called “holy places” under the auspices of Russia, but he categorically did not agree to sign the Convention declaring Nicholas I the patron saint of all Orthodox living in the Ottoman Empire.
    On May 21, Menshikov, not having achieved the conclusion of a convention, notified the Sultan of the severance of Russian-Turkish relations (although the Sultan, I recall, gave the “holy places” under Russian control) and left Constantinople. After that, our army occupied the Danube principalities (Moldova and Wallachia). After a long diplomatic squabble on October 16, 1853, Turkey declared war on Russia.
    In general, the reasons are just fie, spit and grind.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 1 December 2017 17: 10 New
      +1
      There is a statement of the spouse of the sovereign that this was a war. It echoes your words very much ... There is an article about this in the journal HISTORY ILLUSTREYTID - author of Doctor of Historical Sciences Degoev V.V. And by the way, this is what he writes there: in the rumble of artillery at Sinop, the London and Paris offices preferred to hear a “clear slap” in their address: the Russians dared to destroy the Turkish fleet, one might say, in full view of European diplomats who were in Constantinople with “peacekeeping” "Mission, and the Anglo-French military squadron, who arrived in the Straits as a guarantor of Turkish security. The rest did not matter. In Britain and France, newspapers reacted hysterically to what happened. Calling the Sinop affair “violence” and “shame,” they demanded revenge.
      In the British press, the old, but in this situation completely exotic, argument was reanimated, as if Sinop was a step in the path of Russian expansion into India. Nobody took the trouble to think about the absurdity of this version. Single sober voices, trying to curb this rampant fantasy, drowned in the choir of the masses, almost distraught with hatred, fear and prejudice. The question of entering the Anglo-French fleet into the Black Sea was a foregone conclusion. Upon learning of the defeat of the Turks from Sinop, Stratford-Canning happily exclaimed: “Thank God! This is war. ” Western offices and the press with intent have hidden from the general public the motivations of the maritime action of Russia, in order to present it as an “act of vandalism” and outrageous aggression, to cause a “just” public indignation and untie their hands.
      But ... what didn’t they know how “they” breathe against us? Their strength? Capabilities? They wanted the best ... Well, why do we always want the best, without thinking how this can be done ?!
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 1 December 2017 17: 58 New
        +2
        An interesting question: "why do we always want the best, without thinking what it can do." Here it seems to me: a) our innate decency, we win, but we can’t profit; b) the analyst is lame: it’s impossible to calculate everything and it’s not the fault of our diplomacy, but rather the big politics are to blame. So it was during the reign of Nicholas 1 and during Nicholas 2 and especially after WWII: in the name of social solidarity and other idiots, the Soviet Union helps the countries of social integration, and now we see the "gratitude" of the same Poles
      2. Luga
        Luga 1 December 2017 20: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        Upon learning of the defeat of the Turks at Sinop, Stratford-Canning joyfully exclaimed: “Thank God! This is war. ”

        They waited for the occasion and waited. English and French newspapers were absolutely indifferent for what reason to go crazy. Any significant success of Russia in the war with Turkey would lead to such a result and I am not sure that “later” would be better for us than “earlier”.
        Nevertheless, the main mistake of the political leadership of the Russian Empire in preparing for the Crimean War consisted, it seems to me, of a wrong assessment of the geopolitical interests of Austria and, to a lesser extent, of Prussia.
    2. Luga
      Luga 1 December 2017 19: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Seal
      The war could not only not be forced, but not at all started. For the reason for her was stupid: who will receive the honorary right to repair the dome of the Bethlehem temple

      You confuse reasons and reasons. The reasons, by the way, are covered in the article more or less distinctly, if you don’t get a grasp of this billiards about the global conspiracy against Russia - this is a systematic and persistent expansion of Russia in the Balkans and Central Asia, plus the dream of owning straits, which categorically did not suit most of the then players world politics.
      It was possible to brush aside the question of who will patronize the temple. From the geopolitical aspirations that have developed over many years, nothing.
  8. Seal
    Seal 1 December 2017 16: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    Do not forget, in November 1853 the English squadron was already stationed in the Dardanelles, therefore, the question of England entering the war and the introduction of this squadron into the Black Sea was already resolved regardless of the course of the war with the Turks.

    England had dozens of squadrons. And the one in the Dardanelles is the Mediterranean squadron, which essentially has been almost constantly in the Mediterranean since the time of the Battle of Navarino. Well, of course, that with the rotation of the ships. Well, maybe there were some years (periods) when the English squadron was not in the Mediterranean, but these periods were the exception rather than the rule. In general, the English presence in the Mediterranean has always been since Nelson. So, if the squadron was not at the entrance to the Dardanelles (by the way, it wasn’t the fact that it was at the entrance, and didn’t meander around the Aegean Sea), but in Alexandria, then the British would need no more than 72 hours to adjust her to the Dardanelles of Alexandria.
  9. Seal
    Seal 1 December 2017 16: 17 New
    +5
    Quote: kalibr
    In all pre-revolutionary sources we meet - "Sinop battle", in Soviet - battle.

    Squadron of Vice Admiral P. S. Nakhimov, consisting of 120 cannon ships “Paris”, “Grand Duke Constantine” and “Three Saints”, 84-gun ships “Empress Maria”, “Chesma” and “Rostislav”, 54-gun the Kulevchi frigate and the 44-gun frigate Kagul destroyed the Turkish squadron at the Sinop raid.

    An analysis of the correlation of forces shows that the Russian squadron had 728 guns, including 76 68-pound bomb guns. The Turkish squadron under the flag of Admiral Osman Pasha consisted of seven frigates and three corvettes (224 guns). In addition, six coastal batteries with 32 guns covered the Sinop raid. In total, taking into account small-caliber guns, the Turks had about 480 guns. Moreover, during the battle, batteries No. 1 and 2 were inactive, batteries No. No. 4; 5 and 6 were partially closed by their frigates (that is, they shot at the top of their ships. Therefore, they fired not at the hulls of our ships, but at the tops of their masts), and with battery No. 3 they could shoot only at the terminal ships of the Russian squadron, and then at the end.
    But even taking into account all the Turkish coastal batteries, the Russian squadron was two and a half times higher than the Turkish one in the total weight of the airborne volley. Moreover, the Russian ships were armed with 76 heavy 68-pound guns, firing explosive bombs, deadly for wooden ships.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 1 December 2017 17: 13 New
      0
      This question was answered at the State Exam in History in 1977 ... it directly reminded me of how I spied on TSB ... The memory was good.
  10. Monarchist
    Monarchist 1 December 2017 17: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Proxima
    The Battle of Sinop was the last major battle of sailing ships (from the text).

    It is very gratifying that the Russian Imperial Navy put a bullet in this romantic "sport"! drinks

    And a gorgeous point.
  11. DimanC
    DimanC 1 December 2017 17: 56 New
    +4
    Actually, Nikolai Palkin (probably an undeserved nickname) can rightfully be called one of the greatest sovereigns for such a breakdown of cover from Great Britain. The “victory” in the Crimean War was the beginning of its end: they laid a bunch of heirs of eminent families, and most importantly, revealed the nature of supranational governance. By the way, after 170 years, the US is conducting a general attack on the rake along with ISIS in the same scenario
  12. Monarchist
    Monarchist 1 December 2017 18: 06 New
    +1
    Quote: Proxima
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    There is no point in rejoicing over one victory - when the war was lost and the conditions of the world - were very shameful.

    This is GREAT HAPPINESS that took place (albeit "shameful"), but PEACE. The plans of the Coalition included - complete sea isolation of Russia, with its subsequent dismemberment into semi-colonies (as China was torn apart at the end of the 19th century).
    Only the heroic defense of Sevastopol saved Russia from collapse.

    But the defense of Petropavlovsk does not rise?
  13. Monarchist
    Monarchist 1 December 2017 18: 51 New
    0
    Sinop Victory is the merit of the "Ushakov School" and the author speaks about this. And if some sort of fence would command the Russian squadron and it is not yet known how the matter would end.
    Below comrades mention the "Paris Treaty" and talk about humiliation, defeat and so on. Yes, it’s true, but if we think about it, the “Paris Agreement” is to some extent the victory of Russian diplomacy: we could not have a Black Sea Fleet, but the Russians had the right to have a semblance of a border guard at sea, the Russians SAID INTEGRITY all their possessions, which means it’s not so severe defeat. Read Tarle carefully and pay attention to idiological stamps and quotes
  14. Monarchist
    Monarchist 1 December 2017 19: 05 New
    0
    Quote: DimanC
    Actually, Nikolai Palkin (probably an undeserved nickname) can rightfully be called one of the greatest sovereigns for such a breakdown of cover from Great Britain. The “victory” in the Crimean War was the beginning of its end: they laid a bunch of heirs of eminent families, and most importantly, revealed the nature of supranational governance. By the way, after 170 years, the US is conducting a general attack on the rake along with ISIS in the same scenario

    Perhaps I will agree with you: the descendants are not fair and the examples of this are Emperor Paul 1, he terrified the then hegemon and the "human rights activist" England. Nicholas 1 willingly or not, but gave a good click to London. I now drew attention to a strange coincidence: Soviet historiography reacted negatively to those of the Russian Sovereigns who somehow or other irritated England: Ivan the Terrible, Pavel 1, Nikolai 1 and Alexander 3, and Alexander 2 did not "annoy" England and it is almost acceptable for Soviet historiography
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 1 December 2017 21: 29 New
      0
      No wonder. There the ratio of rich and poor, smart and not very 70% and 30%. Whereas in other countries 80 and 20 and even 90 and 10%. It means that the ruling classes are smarter there, and the rich give the poor more and fools less and equality is higher ... People subconsciously strive to learn from the best. And the fees? In England they pay £ 1000 for 35 pages of text. We have 1000 euros for 280 pages. Is there a difference?
  15. kalibr
    kalibr 1 December 2017 21: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Proxima
    Were it not for the Crimean War, another more serious war would have happened later, which most likely would have “sentenced” the Russian Empire.

    And a big meteorite will fall!
  16. Cetron
    Cetron 2 December 2017 00: 21 New
    0
    "London sought to include the Middle East in its sphere of influence, to turn Turkey and Persia into its semi-colonies. The British did not want the Russian Empire to be strengthened by the rapidly degrading Ottoman Empire. Moreover, the masters of England cherished the plans for the dismemberment of Russia, the secession of Crimea from it , Caucasus regions, the Northern Black Sea region, Little Russia, the Kingdom of Poland, the Baltic states, Finland. They wanted to cut off the Russians from the seas, push them to the east. "
    And in 1991 they succeeded. True, it took 150 years of hard work, London itself became a vassal of the United States, but they achieved their goal. God grant that this be their Pyrrhic victory.
  17. rumpeljschtizhen
    rumpeljschtizhen 3 December 2017 22: 24 New
    0
    Remember and in general the last major victory of the Russian fleet