Adrianople is ours! Why the Russian army did not take Constantinople

60
Russian-Turkish war 1828-1829 Constantinople-Tsargrad was at the feet of the Russian army. The Turks had no more troops. Dibich dispersed the Turks in Bulgaria, Paskevich in the Caucasus. The Russian fleet could land troops in the Bosphorus. Sultan begged for peace. Another 2-3 transition, and Constantinople could become Russian. But this was not to be (as later, in the 1878 year). The Russian government did not dare to go against their "Western partners." Free Bulgaria and hang Oleg's shield on the gates of Constantinople.

Adrianople is ours! Why the Russian army did not take Constantinople

Battle episode of the Russian-Turkish war 1828-1829. G. F. Shukayev




The brilliant march of the Russian army in the Balkans and the victories in the Caucasus did not lead to the same political and diplomatic victory. Russia showed extreme moderation in the negotiations. Petersburg did not use the exceptionally advantageous position created by the efforts of the Russian army and fleet.

Battle at Sliveno


After the capture of Yambol, the army of Dibich was located on the southern slope of the Balkans, on the front from Yambol to Bourgas. The left Russian flank was secured by the domination of the fleet at sea. The Russian fleet strengthened the position of the Russian army on the coast. On July 21 and 23, a Russian landing force landed from ships under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Burko captured the cities of Vasilik and Agatopol. Most of the seaside Bulgaria was under the control of the Russian armed forces.

To protect the rear of the army in the center and on the right flank on the side of Shumla and to communicate with the Danube Bulgaria, Russian troops occupied three passes through the Balkan Mountains. At the end of July, 1829, the Russian army received reinforcements. However, before arriving at the front, the new units suffered such large losses from the epidemic that they slightly reinforced the Zabalkan army. In late July, Dibich in Aidos had about 25 thousand fighters. The rest of the forces were tied up by guards of the rear, occupied by fortresses and monitoring of Shumla.

Dibich, despite the small number of the Russian army for such an operation, decided to develop an offensive against Adrianople, the second capital of the Ottoman Empire. It was the last strong fortress of the Ottomans on the way to Constantinople. The movement to Adrianople was a natural continuation of the Zabalkan campaign. However, before the throw to Adrianople, it was necessary to defeat the Turks at Slivno.

The Turkish command still hoped to stop the Russians from Slivno. The city was well fortified, here is located the corps of Khalil Pasha, reinforced by local troops. He awaited the arrival of the great vizier with reinforcements. The Russian army could not attack Adrianople, while on the flank are significant enemy forces. Dibich decided to preempt the enemy and destroy the corps of Khalil Pasha. He joined the troops of the 6 and 7 corps, reinforced their 5 Infantry Division from the 2 corps, and hurried to Sliven. The battle took place 31 July 1829 of the year. According to our intelligence, the main forces of Khalil Pasha were located in a camp in front of the city on the Yambol road. Dibich directed part of the forces to bypass the main enemy forces in order to capture the city itself and cut the enemy’s escape routes. Another part of the army was rapidly advancing along the road, using artillery and cavalry to wipe out the enemy’s forward detachments. In such a situation, Khalil Pasha had to flee or fight in encirclement.

Russian troops on the right flank bypassed the enemy and reached the city. Here they met opposition from enemy artillery. The Russian commander-in-chief threw an 19 artillery brigade into battle. Russian gunners in the accuracy of fire greatly superior to the enemy, so the Turks quickly abandoned their positions and took the guns to the city. In pursuit of the enemy, the battalions of the 18 Infantry Division broke into Sliven. Khalil Pasha, as expected, threw Imbol fortifications. Turkish troops fled on the still free roads. Russian trophies are 6 banners and 9 guns.

Thus, the attempts of the Turkish command to stop the movement of the Russian army to Adrianople failed. At Aidos, Yambol and Drainno, the Turkish corps were successively defeated and scattered. The Grand Vizier, while in Shumla, weakened his army by isolating individual detachments, losing the ability to take action and communication with Constantinople. The Russian commander-in-chief, Dibich, having secured his rear and right flank, could now safely go to Adrianople. Although he still had few troops.

Adrianople is ours!


Dibich could wait and replenish the army with reserves going to Bulgaria. But, taking into account the fact that the Turkish troops were moving towards Adrianople, and the rapid construction of new fortifications, our commander-in-chief preferred speed and onslaught, according to the precepts of Suvorov. After giving the troops one day of rest, 2 August 1829, Dibich continued the offensive.

Despite the lack of resistance of the enemy, the campaign was difficult. It was hot. Our troops, unaccustomed to such conditions, suffered greatly. The retreating Turkish troops spoiled the wells along the way, bombarded them with animal corpses. Encountered streams are dry from the heat. Diseases mowed down soldiers. As a result, each transition was like a battle - the size of the army was constantly declining. For six days, the troops passed 120 versts and 7 August reached Adrianople. Dibich has only 17 thousand fighters left. Dibich with the chief of staff Tolem left for a reconnaissance, planning the next day to go to the assault on the city. It was a great day. Since the time of Prince Svyatoslav, the Russian squads did not stand at the walls of Adrianople.

Meanwhile, the Turks gathered considerable forces in Adrianople: 10, thousand regular infantry, 1, thousand cavalry, 2, thousand militia. In addition, city walls could protect 15 thousand armed townspeople. The terrain of the city was rugged, which worsened the possibilities of attack, there were old fortifications. The city had many large stone buildings suitable for defense. The Russian army did not have the strength for a complete blockade, and a decisive assault with the powerful resistance of the enemy could end in failure. To delay the siege of Adrianople was dangerous. Russian troops mowed down an epidemic. Sultan Mahmud II called for the protection of Constantinople troops from Macedonia and Albania. To be careful in this situation was impossible, it showed the weakness of the army. Only determination and speed could lead to victory. Assessing the situation, Dibich did everything right. Russian troops prepared for the offensive. The 2 body was in the first line, the 6 body was in the second, the 7 body was in reserve. The Cossacks of the advanced detachment of General Zhirov were taken up by heights around the city. Don Cossack regiment Colonel Ilyin took the road to Constantinople.

The Russian breakthrough through the Balkans, the defeat of the Turkish troops at Aidos and Livny, paralyzed the Ottomans' will to resist. They were stunned and confused. Dibich, without a pause, having started a movement of a small army to Adrianople, frightened the Ottomans even more. They were confident in the strength of the Russians. Such a threat the Ottomans did not know in stories the wars they waged in Europe. Turkish commanders and chiefs were confused, gave conflicting orders, and could not prepare for defense. The troops were paralyzed by apathy, panic began among the townspeople. Already in the evening of August 7, Turkish commanders Khalil Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha offered to discuss the terms of surrender.

Dibich, under the threat of a quick and decisive assault, offered to lay down weapon, surrender all banners, guns, all military property. Under these conditions, the Turks were allowed to leave Adrianople, but not to go to Constantinople (where they could strengthen the local garrison), but in the other direction. The Russian commander gave the Ottomans 14 hours of reflection. On the morning of August 8, Russian troops began to move to Adrianople in two assault columns. The first led Dibich, the second Toll, the reserve was headed by Ridiger. But there was no assault. Turkish commanders agreed to surrender the city on the condition of free passage of troops without weapons. They left in a westerly direction.

Thus, 8 August 1829, the Russian army occupied Adrianople. The Russians got rich trophies - 58 guns, 25 banners and 8 bunches, several thousand guns. Our army got a large number of different supplies and property - Adrianople was one of the rear bases of the Turkish army. The fall of Adrianople made a huge impression not only on Constantinople, but also on Western Europe. In the Turkish capital was a shock and panic. There was a straight road from Adrianople to Constantinople, and the Russians could quickly get to the heart of the Ottoman Empire.

Constantinople at the feet of the Russian army


9 August 1829, the Russian troops resumed movement. The advanced forces advanced to Kirkliss and Lule Burgas, threatening Constantinople. The headquarters of the Russian commander in chief is located with Eski-Saray - the country residence of the Turkish sultans.

Russian emperor Nikolay I subordinated Dibich to the Mediterranean squadron operating in the Eastern Mediterranean. Dibich ordered the commander of the Russian squadron (it consisted of ships of the Baltic Fleet) in the Mediterranean Heyden to begin the blockade of the Dardanelles and act against the Turkish coast. Thus, the supply of food to Constantinople from the southern regions of the Ottoman Empire, especially Egypt, was blocked. At the same time, the Black Sea Fleet under the command of Admiral Greig blocked the Bosphorus. Russian ships intercepted Turkish ships off the coast of Anatolia and Bulgaria. On August 8, the Black Sea sailors captured Iniada, and on August 28, the Media on the Bulgarian coast. In Istanbul, they were very afraid that the Russians would drop troops to capture the fortifications of the Bosphorus. In this case, strong detachments of the Black Sea sailors could support the advance of Dibich’s army against Constantinople.

Even before the capture of Adrianople, Count Dibich ordered General Kiselev, the commander of our troops in Wallachia, to go from defense to offensive. Our troops were to force the Danube on the right flank and a quick march (mainly by cavalry forces) to go over the Bulgarian land to the Balkans, to begin hostilities in the western part of Bulgaria. Such a campaign would have met the support of the Bulgarians, as well as the Zabalkan campaign of Dibich. General Kiselev with the 4-th Reserve Cavalry Corps successfully crossed the Danube, occupied the city of Vratsa and went to the Balkan Mountains. The Russian avant-garde was about to descend from the mountains into the Sofia Valley and free Sofia. However, this march was stopped due to the start of negotiations with the Turkish delegation.

Thus, the Russian army was able to liberate Sofia and all of Bulgaria from Turkish domination. General Kiselev wrote: “My Cossacks were on two marches from Sofia, and in three days I would occupy this wonderful and important city for us ... the Bulgarians would meet us friendly ...”. Kiselev's troops cleared a vast area of ​​scattered Turkish troops. The Russians occupied the towns of the central part of Bulgaria, Lovcha, Pleven and Gabrovo, and the Shipka Pass, which is important for the possible continuation of the war. The remains of the Turkish army remained only in the valley. Maritsa. After the peace was concluded, Russian troops under the command of General Geismar defeated Mustafa Pasha’s detachment (he decided to continue the war on his own) at the Orhaniye pass, still occupied Sofia.

Led by Dibich, the Russian army was on the threshold of the Ottoman capital, the ancient Constantinople of Constantinople. At the same time, Russian troops under the leadership of Paskevich-Erivansky defeated the Ottomans in the Caucasus, took Erzerum. The Turks lost two main armies. Istanbul was without protection. The Ottoman government could not quickly restore the army in the Balkans and in Anatolia. There were no large army reserves to protect the capital. This turn of events in Turkey and Europe did not expect. Russian troops were in 60 kilometers from Constantinople - one Suvorov daily march.

Panic swept Istanbul and European courtyards. From Constantinople to Adrianople and back hurried diplomats and ambassadors. On the very first day of Dibich's stay in Eski-sara, messengers from the British ambassador Gordon, from the French Guillemino, and the Prussian - Mufling arrived to him. All European ambassadors were unanimous - to stop the movement of Russians towards Constantinople and the straits at any cost. Obviously, they understood better than the Russian government the main thousand-year national task of Russia-Russia - to occupy Constantinople and the torrential zone, to make the Black Sea a Russian “lake”.

The Ottoman government, encouraged by such strong diplomatic support, is now in no hurry to negotiate peace. Sultan hoped that France and England would introduce their fleets into the Sea of ​​Marmara and protect the Turkish capital. Dibich, alarmed by the behavior of the Turkish "partners", had already planned to move troops to Constantinople and stand up in visibility from the walls of the city. As the military historian and General A. I. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky who was then at the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, it was easy to take Constantinople — the vanguard of the army’s left column was located at Wiese, and was close to the aqueducts supplying the capital. The flow of water could be stopped, and the city was doomed to surrender as soon as possible. In addition, the army knew that there was no one to defend Constantinople; there would be no resistance. The Russian army was waiting for an order to enter Constantinople — it was reasonable, fair, and deflected the national interests of the Russian people. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, the author of the official history of World War 1812, wrote that he had never seen more discouragement than during the days of the depleted troops, when it became clear that there would be no such order.

As a result, Emperor Nicholas I stopped Dibich in Adrianople. In St. Petersburg, feared the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Seriously believing that "the benefits of preserving the Ottoman Empire in Europe exceed its disadvantages." It was a strategic mistake. At the exit, Russia received the shame of the Crimean War, when the Russians were forbidden to have weapons and a fleet on the Black Sea and the coast, the 1877 - 1878 war. and the performance of Turkey against Russia in the First World War. But they could solve all the issues in favor of Russia with one blow in the 1829 year.

The Russian army could simply enter ancient Constantinople, while Russian squadrons could occupy the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The collective West then was not ready to speak out against Russia, following the example of the Crimean campaign. Russia after the victory over Napoleon’s empire was the “European gendarme”, the leading military power of Europe (hence the world). However, the erroneous policy of Alexander I with his Sacred Union, the priority of "stability" and legitimacy in Europe, continued by the government of Nicholas I, the interests of "Western partners" outweighed Russian national interests. The pro-Western vector of St. Petersburg heavy burden spell bound the movement of the Russian hero.




Medal "For the Turkish War." The medal was awarded to all who took part in hostilities against the Ottoman Empire from 1828 to 1829 year. All generals, officers, lower ranks, both combatants and non-combatants, as well as the militia were awarded. Since December, 1830, began to reward and sailors who participated in the battles. Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    5 July 2019 06: 12
    Good info!
    Adequate conclusions: the glory of Russian weapons in the conditions of strange political preferences, and stupid decisions of the "sergeant major" Tsar Nicholas I, who is not ready to rule the country.
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 06: 19
      The Russian government did not dare to go against its "Western partners." To free Bulgaria Ukraine and hang Oleg’s shield on the gate Constantinople
      Kiev.

      History tends to repeat itself ...
    2. +1
      5 July 2019 07: 56
      Edward, and in 1878, did the "sergeant major" Nikolai still rule?
      1. +2
        5 July 2019 11: 02
        Svyatoslav,
        Of course not. And I did not write about it.
        But critical problems were laid precisely in the reign of Nicholas I, which was in no way connected with Russia's national interests, adherence to legitimism, or, as they say, “European values”, etc. etc., and led at the beginning to defeat in the Crimean War, and then to the outcome of the 1877-1878 war.
        1. +1
          5 July 2019 15: 18
          In some ways I agree with you: "adherence to" legalism "hindered Nikolai.
          As a fantasy: Benckendorff reports to the emperor: some assholes are stirring up something against Franz Joseph, and Nikolai says: “Can I throw them a little denig or 10-20 guns? then would history turn?
    3. +1
      5 July 2019 08: 30
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      Good info!
      Adequate conclusions: the glory of Russian weapons in the conditions of strange political preferences, and stupid decisions of the "sergeant major" Tsar Nicholas I, who is not ready to rule the country.

      Excuse me, what was the manifestation of this particular emperor's "unwillingness to rule the country"? Please list the points, I'm very curious.
      1. +3
        5 July 2019 11: 08
        Solely for curiosity, I will not list everything, be interested in the internet.
        I will name three, I think, key ones:
        First, he came to the throne by accident, did not have proper preparation for management, since he was the third son of Pavel Petrovich and was not considered to the throne: only as a "commander" of a guards regiment. Therefore: with textured form - empty content.
        Second, “struggled with the revolution on the threshold of Russia”, eventually missed the “industrial revolution” and as a result, Russia, having a good development background, thanks to the “modernization” of Peter the Great, turned into a country of “peripheral capitalism” with a catch-up type of development.
        The third, as the logical outcome of his "brilliant rule" - the defeat in the Crimean War. The defeat of the country, for 30 years before the defeated brilliant Napoleon.
        Any further evidence of a sergeant-major level governance system?
        1. +1
          5 July 2019 12: 03
          Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
          First, he came to the throne by accident, had no proper preparation for management, since he was the third son of Pavel Petrovich and was not considered the throne

          I agree.
          Second, “struggled with the revolution on the threshold of Russia”, eventually missed the “industrial revolution” and as a result, Russia, having a good development background, thanks to the “modernization” of Peter the Great, turned into a country of “peripheral capitalism” with a catch-up type of development.

          I partially agree. But is it Nikolai 1 who is to blame? Let me remind you that the industrial revolution itself began in Europe much earlier, at least from the 17 century, in the 18 century, manual labor was already replaced by machine labor, and in the 19 century Europe was already at the peak of its development, so the Nik1 era fell on the period when the question was already very acute, and they tried to solve it, incl. the introduction of protective duties (which Alex2 abolished, having completely buried domestic industry), while recalling that the peasant question was already very acute, since it was serfdom that turned out to be a terrible brake on industrial development, but didn’t it arise under Nick1? How to solve it? After all, it simply will not work and canceled - one must understand that it is the peasants who are the main source of income for the nobles, who are the most competent people of the Empire and the source of its administrative and military apparatus. And these same nobles were already head over heels in debt to banks (foreign), which must be repaid ... And everything was pledged ... Nevertheless, this issue was thoroughly discussed and they tried to solve it with minimal losses.
          The third, as the logical outcome of his "brilliant rule" - the defeat in the Crimean War. The defeat of the country, for 30 years before the defeated brilliant Napoleon.

          Well, the genius Napoleon was crushed by the whole country. I think if the invasion of England and France had gone "the beaten track", the result would have been the same. London, of course, would not be taken, but kicked out of the country.
          In general, according to the Crimean one, one should not forget that the war itself was fought against two superpowers of its time + Turkey, do not forget about Austria, against which they held a large army ... And the war itself, in my opinion, was reduced to a draw , here is the state of affairs for 1855 year:
          - Crimea - by the winter of 1855-56, it’s almost completely lost, it’s impossible to supply troops there. But, in turn, the allies found themselves in a logistical impasse - they cannot develop an offensive from the Crimea, and landing in the region of the Don or the Dnieper is already a game according to Russian rules, where the Russians have every chance to win.
          - Caucasus - the Russians took Kars and can develop success right up to Trebizond.
          - Baltic - after the loss of the Alands, the successes of the Allies drastically dried up.
          - North - Arkhangelsk, the main goal of the 1854 and 1855 expeditions, was just as far from capture as it was at the beginning of the war. The Allies managed to ruin the Coke, but I, as some say, in impotent rage, I just miss it. By the way, Onega was not touched in two years of the war at all. And again, I am exclusively in impotent rage, I suppose that they did not touch her because the British had strong economic interests there.
          - The Far East - there is generally an interesting and detective story in which Russia is clearly in the black - exchanged Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky for the Amur Territory and Sakhalin.

          In general, please pay attention, I do not consider Nik1 a brilliant emperor, but it is not worth releasing him to the level of a "sergeant major". He doesn't deserve it.
          1. 0
            5 July 2019 13: 21
            This is just your opinion, built on the modern idea of ​​restoration.
            Most contemporaries and later historians did not share this opinion.
            For reference.
            The first Industrial Revolution occurred at the beginning of the nineteenth century in England, then France, then Germany, etc., you confuse with the development of capitalism in general.
            About the Crimean War, the war is not football, it does not happen in a draw, the Russian Empire lost the war: the fleet was forbidden to have on the Black Sea.
            The board is judged not by this, but by results, which even for Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich personally became a tragedy.
            Here is the conclusion of V.O. Klyuchevskogo:
            “Alexander I treated Russia as a cowardly and cunning diplomat alien to her. Nicholas I is both alien and frightened too, but a more resolute detective from fright. ”
            1. +2
              5 July 2019 14: 17
              Edward, and if you looked at the works of the End, there is a complete delight. And such historians as N. Eidelman: "your 18th century" and many other works, Borisinyuk (editor-in-chief of the magazine: "Rodina") believe that Nikolai 1 is the real successor of Peter 1. And this is a positive assessment.
              We all know that Peter 1 was cool, but still we used to evaluate him positively.
              Soviet historian Tarle should carefully read about the "Crimean War".
              1. +1
                5 July 2019 16: 38
                Svyatoslav,
                Where do I contradict Tarle or Adelman?
                Svyatoslav, sorry, are you a historian by training?
                I am yes, therefore I know the basics. And even with detailed historiography.
                But your opinion on the positive reign of Nicholas I is a story turned inside out.
            2. +1
              5 July 2019 16: 36
              Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
              The Russian Empire lost the war: the fleet was banned from the Black Sea.

              This Russian-Japanese Russia lost, where, in addition to the fleet, lost Manchuria and half of Sakhalin. And what kind of preferences did the Allies get in the Crimea? We trodden in Crimea and set sail ....
          2. +1
            5 July 2019 13: 37
            I agree mm your opinion
            1. 0
              5 July 2019 14: 38
              Quote: vladcub
              I agree mm your opinion

              Thank you!
  2. +4
    5 July 2019 07: 54
    [B]
    In St. Petersburg, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was feared. Seriously believing that "the benefits of preserving the Ottoman Empire in Europe exceed its disadvantages." It was a strategic mistake. [
    /b.BIZ... And not one ... In 1848, when the Austrian Empire, torn at the seams, Nicholas I was also afraid of its collapse, helped to save.
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 13: 44
      Quote: parusnik
      ..In 1848, when the Austrian Empire, torn at the seams, Nicholas I was also afraid of its collapse, helped to save.
      I often wondered about the further development of events and the behavior of Habsburg. On the HISTORY channel, there was a small, modern Austrian series, where this was explained by the Austrian presenter. Namely, it was from this support that the Habsburg experienced humiliation, which it could not forgive, forget.
      Well, no match, at least do something! But it was about the Monarch of the largest country in the world! So what about the current attitude to the Russian Federation and its leadership! - ??? ---- this is a retreat.
  3. +5
    5 July 2019 08: 07
    The author forgot to mention what kind of Turkey "fit in" at that time: England and France.
    If Nicholas did not stop, then Russia would have to fight on two fronts.
    Turkey itself was already nothing, but they tried to wind it up: England, France. It is unlikely that they calmly accepted that all their money will go down the drain
    You cannot pull a single episode out of the general context.
    1. -2
      5 July 2019 08: 56
      The author forgot to mention what kind of Turkey "fit in" at that time: England and France.

      The Zionists said no - and Nikolai obeyed, that's all.
      1. +1
        5 July 2019 14: 47
        Frightened Zionists: rule the whole world.
  4. 0
    5 July 2019 08: 10
    Quote: Separ DNR
    The Russian government did not dare to go against its "Western partners." To free Bulgaria Ukraine and hang Oleg’s shield on the gate Constantinople
    Kiev.

    History tends to repeat itself ...

    In principle, it would be great, but alas, the situation is not right now. There is a good expression: "every vegetable has its time"
    1. +2
      5 July 2019 08: 18
      Vegetable must be sown, watered and harvested. In Ukraine, mattress covers do this.
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 14: 47
        Is there such a de
  5. +1
    5 July 2019 08: 15
    The Russian army could simply enter ancient Constantinople, and the Russian squadrons occupy the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The collective West was not ready to oppose Russia, following the example of the Crimean campaign.
    Maybe they could and could. And the "collective West" might not have been able to oppose Russia at that moment. I would speak in a year or two. The question is, could you have kept it in this case? Too stretched communications, a hostile large population, the need to protect the state's vast borders ... I'm not sure. Although the risk was probably necessary.
    I liked the article, thanks to the author.
    1. +2
      5 July 2019 15: 06
      You have raised an interesting topic: "what would happen if". Most likely, a gloomy prospect: any war is an expensive pleasure, and RI was then, now not much better, economically it was weak. There was no "Kankren ruble" yet. One logistics will exhaust all your nerves. What kind of transport was in Russia then: horse-drawn, but look on the map how long will it take to deliver ammunition and replenishment?
      And I would not rule out the option: "Zubov's snuff boxes."
      There would be a desire and money, and there will always be new Palens and Platons of the Zubovs
    2. +1
      5 July 2019 22: 42
      Illusions. No chance. A huge fortified city. Continuous suitable
      reserves. The Russian army would have run out of ammunition, gunpowder and shells much earlier,
      than the Turks depleted their reserves.
  6. +4
    5 July 2019 08: 24
    The collective West was not ready to oppose Russia, following the example of the Crimean campaign. After the victory over Napoleon’s empire, Russia was the “European gendarme”, the leading military power in Europe (which means peace). However, the erroneous policy of Alexander I with his Holy Alliance, the priority of “stability” and legitimacy in Europe, continued by the government of Nicholas I, the interests of the “Western partners” outweighed Russian national interests. The pro-Western vector of St. Petersburg fettered the movement of the Russian hero with a heavy curse.

    If you remove the pathos of words, then the meaning is absolutely accurate. Unfortunately, the country's leadership was not fully aware that sometimes, for the sake of national interests, one could not give a damn about the opinions of Paris and London. Moreover, at that time, in technical terms, the Russian army was in no way inferior to the armies of other countries, even the alliance of England and France had practically no chance of victory. In general, the historical chance was missed, it is a fact.
    The saddest thing is that for us it has already become evident such a national tradition - not to show the necessary decisiveness where it was really needed.
    Here is another example (this is just a couple of years after the events in the article):
    in the yard was the 1833 year. Vienna due to Zollferajn actually lost dominance in the German world. And in this situation, the Vienna Cabinet counted on the help of the Russian Tsar in the struggle for supremacy in Germany and was ready to meet Russia's position on the eastern issue. “The Austrian government,” wrote D. Tatishchev (the Russian ambassador in Vienna) to St. Petersburg, “adheres to the same line of behavior on the eastern question as we do.”
    The Turks fully understood this. They were slightly less than the appearance of the Egyptian army on the Bosphorus, afraid of the appearance of the Russian or Austrian army there. Therefore, they turned to England. Which ... diplomatically escaped with only vague promises. Therefore, there is no choice left to ask. And they turned to Russia. And the funny thing is that Russia could demand anything for this. For example, do not interfere with the Sultan fell into Adrianople and completely occupy the Straits zone.
    Meanwhile, the situation in Turkey was complicated: “. Egyptian Pasha. decided to search for the lawless rights of his force of arms. " 13 of March was followed by Butenev’s meeting with flight effendi and seraskir, where the Turks “answered what they needed and asked for their sending as soon as possible”. Seraskir admitted to Butenev that he doubted the loyalty of the Turkish troops, and the Russian troops were required by the sultan "to maintain calm in the Capital." The Turkish side calmly reacted to the opinion of the Russian ambassador that in the event of the occupation of Ibrahim Dardanelles, Russia would have to take control of the Bosphorus to ensure the safety of both its squadron and the Black Sea 41. As for the measures taken by the Porta to protect the Sultan, the situation turned out to be bleak: when the Egyptians approached, he “intends to retire to Adrianopol under the guise of the guard, where he will expect the help that he would have liked to be appointed Emperor Emperor, hoping that the corps of Adjutant General Kiselev will enough to oust the Egyptians from Constantinople. "
    The incompetence of the Turkish troops set before Russia the prospect of a full-scale intervention, because in the event of the capture of Constantinople by the Egyptians, Europe could recognize Muhammad Ali as the new sovereign of Turkey. Of course, the latter seems unlikely, France would have done so only with the consent of England, but it is difficult to say that London would have considered it more profitable for itself: the straits controlled by the pro-French-minded Egyptian pasha, or the Turkish sultan, restored to the throne by Russian bayonets. Under these conditions, Russia managed to get by with a minimum of effort, first supporting Mahmoud II with Lazarev’s squadron, and then sending a second detachment of ships with landing troops to the Bosphorus
    The situation around Constantinople remained difficult: the Sultan did not hope for the loyalty of his troops. "Muravyov was entrusted, in case of a coup in Constantinople, to figure out the opportunity to keep the Bosphorus castles lying in a narrow place of this strait." It was supposed to occupy two fortifications with 1000 garrisons each, providing fleet support and the possibility of evacuation if necessary. The remaining troops were to be used together with the Turkish at the discretion of Muravyov. Kiselev’s corps was to perform at the first request of Butenev, occupy fortifications on the European and Asian shores of the strait and “establish firm protection” thereof with the support of the Black Sea Fleet. The recommendations remained valid until the Turkish troops remained faithful to the Sultan and an uprising took place in Constantinople. Otherwise, it was prescribed that the main forces be withdrawn to Sisopol and wait for Kiselev to arrive, and further actions should be taken together with him and under his command. The desire of Nicholas I is clearly traced not only to prevent Ibrahim Pasha from entering the Bosphorus, but also to prevent him from establishing control over the Dardanelles, since after occupying the strait Muhammad Ali could bargain for control over him.

    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5abc934c9e29a229f18dbd4a/na-pochitat-5d1db1bb7cb0a100ae25daef
    Another thing is that today we are discussing from the point of view of the afterthought of what happened in the future. Then the situation looked somewhat different for contemporaries, no one could have imagined that after only 20 years the technology and tactics of the army and navy would completely change, that Russia would not cause respect and reverence, but only fear and hatred ... We already know this today , but then there were completely different views.
    1. +2
      5 July 2019 08: 47
      Dmitry, I agree. There were too many Anglophiles at the court of the Romanovs.
      Yes. The British armored fleet was strong. But in the Straits they would represent a convenient target for Russian artillery.
      Anglo-Saxons were able and able to bluff.
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 10: 42
        Nicholas, please tell me how we are doing with this at court now, in my opinion a similar situation
        1. +3
          5 July 2019 11: 23
          rayruav-
          "Russia can have as many nuclear suitcases and nuclear buttons as it wants, but since $ 500 billion of the Russian elite is in our banks, you still have to figure it out: is this your elite or ours already? I don't see a single situation in which Russia will use its nuclear potential." ...
          Z.Bzezhinsky.
    2. +1
      5 July 2019 17: 05
      In fact, Lenin and Engels thought differently. And I read that in Russia there was a minimum of 80% smooth-bore guns, and they had rifled ones. There was a sailing fleet in Russia, and there was a steam fleet
      1. 0
        8 July 2019 08: 14
        Quote: Astra wild
        In fact, Lenin and Engels thought differently. And I read that in Russia there was a minimum of 80% smooth-bore guns, and they had rifled ones. There was a sailing fleet in Russia, and there was a steam fleet

        I advise the history of the Fatherland to study in other books. More benefit will be. And then - you mixed up. I wrote about the events of the 1833 year, the author is about the Russian-Turkish war of the 1828-1829 years, and now you are talking about the Crimean War, which happened a quarter of a century later. During the events described in the article there were neither a large number of steam ships in the world, nor the mass use of rifled weapons, and the Russian army was armed quite modernly.
        1. +1
          9 July 2019 13: 11
          If we talk about the war of 1833, I admit that I was in a hurry with the steam fleet.
          "" I advise you to study the history of the fatherland from other books, "curious about which, perhaps, according to Fomenko or a collection of fairy tales?
          1. 0
            10 July 2019 08: 50
            It is very pleasant when a person has the courage to admit a mistake. I respect
            And studying the history of Russia according to Lenin and Engels is like studying medicine from the book "model aircraft designer". Lenin is a very intelligent person, but he has never been a historian and saw everything through the prism of the "class struggle", and Engels is generally a terrible Russophobe and a hater of Russia.
            And on the topic: "Grebenshchikova GA Andreevsky flag over the ancient Bosphorus"
            Well or here http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=3666
            1. +1
              10 July 2019 20: 24
              I don’t understand to admit mistakes, but I try
  7. 0
    5 July 2019 08: 54
    thanks for the good article
  8. +2
    5 July 2019 10: 33
    There was a precedent when, summing up the results of the Northern War, Peter the Great bought the Baltic states (!) From the Swedes, and returned Finland to the battered owner altogether, and after 90 years it had to be taken back again.
    "Russia won wars, but lost the world": Tyleran (?) !!
  9. 0
    5 July 2019 10: 39
    I honestly am not a fan of the author but the article plus especially for the clear analogy of the political and military actions of the Russian rulers of that time and the present. well, at least someone can explain to me logically and not with female emotions in FIG those Bulgarians (sorry for all Russians and not only men who died there at all times) we now have canned food no worse than theirs and that’s all they can do
    1. +3
      5 July 2019 11: 47
      Well, if you are measured by canned food - then yes ... they died in vain ...
      But my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother from Bulgaria to the Kuban brought to 1878 - probably not for nothing that he rolled)
      No kidding. At different stages of historical development, the goals changed: from the creation of a new empire with the capital in Constantinople and with Konstantin Pavlovich at the head, to the salvation of the "brothers": Serbs and Bulgarians in 1878.
      Other ideological attitudes, other geopolitical trends, everything changes. The assessment of today's standards of events two hundred years ago is meaningless and harmful: a look at the history should be taking into account the realities of that time, and not our associations.
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 12: 01
        Edward you probably didn’t see the philosophy; instead, you had a history of religions, and so there is a basis — the economy on which everything rests and the add-on the rest of the crap: religion, ideology, etc., all these little brothers are bullshit about these Russian (note not Tatar) intelligences brothers in Christ sold us many times, it was not a pity for the peasants to our authorities, there were a lot of peasants, now the situation is different - there aren’t enough literate peasants anywhere in the army or in production
        1. +2
          5 July 2019 12: 10
          What are you all in a bunch? In which such philosophy about the basis-economy? Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, or Kant?
          You write about political economics, this is by the way.
          By the way, in modern science, even when assessing formations, there is a discussion that ideology or economics is primary, I am now not about my opinion, but about science.
          And about the "men", you are confusing again: there are enough people, but the system of adequate management of society is not enough. Who has not calculated how many qualifications our society should have: how many "men" do we need?
          Therefore, do not confuse history and modern view of it.
          Sincerely, Edward
          1. 0
            5 July 2019 15: 10
            dear edward, sorry for the whole history of mankind, the economic factor has always been the basis, but veiled, but the basis for the actions of people, and at the time of any socio-political formations, and with your permission, this science of which speaks of the primacy of the idea is probably a bourgeois science, I believe that communism is close to the aspirant to infinity, but the advantages of the socialist system, despite the somewhat not very humane implementation (steps into the new unknown will always be flawed), it’s better even the state of EU ETS in Sweden the law of unity and struggle of opposites that is the law of conservation of energy no one can deny or do you believe in perpetual motion?
    2. +1
      7 July 2019 14: 44
      Quote: rayruav
      at least someone can explain to me logically and not with female emotions in FIG those Bulgarians

      It’s a paradox, but we once had to fight with the Turks in an alliance (defend them), like in the time of Ushakov ... And in the days of Ataturk Owls Russia supported the Turks against the Greeks
  10. +1
    5 July 2019 12: 33
    It would be a good article if you remove the mossy propaganda about the thousand-year-old task of Russia and the indefatigable desire for the conquest of everyone
  11. -1
    5 July 2019 13: 42
    Well, I couldn’t! In general, it’s more correct to enter from a completely different direction, because Ararat was depicted on the emblem of the Armenian SSR, and Shustov cognac is now called that.
  12. +1
    5 July 2019 15: 54
    As a result, Emperor Nicholas I stopped Dibich in Adrianople. In St. Petersburg, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was feared. Seriously believing that "the benefits of preserving the Ottoman Empire in Europe exceed its disadvantages." It was a strategic mistake.. At the exit, Russia received the shame of the Crimean War, when the Russians were forbidden to have weapons and a fleet on the Black Sea and the coast, the war of 1877 - 1878. and Turkey’s uprising against Russia in World War I. But they could solve all the issues in favor of Russia with one blow in 1829.
    Not the fact that a strategic mistake.
    Moreover, already in 1833 we landed our expeditionary force on the shores of the Bosphorus to protect Istanbul from the forces of Egyptian Pasha advancing on it.
    Nicholas I made no mistake. Perhaps he did not explain the motives with the wrong arguments. But the motives were more than serious.
    1. The Sultan, I remind you, part-time still moonlighting as Caliph. Or vice versa, the head of the Ottoman Empire was the Caliph and part-time Sultan.
    To offend the Caliph means to restore the Muslims of Russia against themselves. Yes, our Muslims quite normally, without remorse, fought against Turkish soldiers. But when the matter would concern personally Khalifa - there could be nuances.
    2. If we took Istanbul (Constantinople) - what to do with the Ecumenical Patriarch? Let me remind you that in Russia, the Patriarchate was liquidated by Peter the Great, replacing the Patriarch with a collegial body by the Holy Synod. What, we would have to depose the Ecumenical Patriarch? But then all Greeks would be offended. Leave the Ecumenical Patriarch in office? But then, in theory, it is higher than the Holy Synod. To force the Ecumenical Patriarch to acknowledge that the Holy Synod is taller than him is not a fact that he would succeed.
    3. Shame on the Crimean War? She might not have been at all. With Turkey at that time, it’s not that there were no irreconcilable contradictions, just there were no significant contradictions. Why were we drawn to intervene in the Jerusalem squabbles on the topic, who should own the keys to the Bethlehem temple and repair the dome of the Cathedral of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ???
    The Sultan handed over the keys to the Bethlehem Church from the Orthodox Greeks to Catholics, whose interests were protected by the Emperor of France Napoleon III. Our Nicholas I demanded that Turkey recognize him as the patron of all Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire. On June 26, 1853, he announced the entry of our troops into the Danube principalities, declaring that he would withdraw them only after the Turks met our demands.
    On July 14, Turkey addressed a note of protest against Russia's actions to other great powers and received assurances of support from them. On October 16, Turkey declared war on Russia, and on November 9 an imperial manifesto followed by Russia declaring war on Turkey.
    From scratch, the war began !!!

    the war of 1877 - 1878
    We started this war. Purely in defense of the Bulgarians.
    Turkey’s uprising against Russia in the First World War.

    We fought with Turkey over Bulgaria. As a result, in World War I, both countries opposed us.
    1. +2
      5 July 2019 18: 42
      And you are right, somehow I did not think about this aspect. The nuances of the Muslims who served in the Russian army might well have appeared ... And the rear of the Russian troops remained not only Orthodox Bulgarians, but also explicit and hidden Muslims .. They until some point were as if neutral, but if they turned from neutrals into opponents?
      I just thought: we are still a "sleepy kingdom" compared to Europe, but what if they start yelling at us in the streets: "Alochka, I'm going to the bar"? Someone who wants this for a long time and if they fulfill their wishes then ... "Veselukha" is provided
  13. 0
    5 July 2019 20: 27
    Quote: Seal
    What to do with the Ecumenical Patriarch?

    Recognize him as head of the Russian Orthodox Church, why not?
  14. +1
    5 July 2019 23: 05
    This was the only chance. Nothing happened after 1815. The Russian army was the strongest in Europe. The French would not rock the boat, And the British alone would not dare
  15. 0
    7 July 2019 23: 10
    It is not clear to me: "liberate Bulgaria" and "make the Black Sea a Russian" lake "" - how is it?
  16. 0
    19 August 2019 18: 31
    We have the village of Adrianople in the Kvarkensky district. It means that the Cossacks of the Orenburg army went there and gained fame. Brent is nearby, and in the neighboring Chelyabinsk region - the whole set of Cossack glory and military prowess - and Berlin, and Paris, and even Fershampenoise!
    PS The name of the village of Quarkeno is also not just like that, but on the occasion of the war with the Swedes.
  17. 0
    30 August 2019 01: 38
    Quote: parusnik
    [B]
    In St. Petersburg, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was feared. Seriously believing that "the benefits of preserving the Ottoman Empire in Europe exceed its disadvantages." It was a strategic mistake. [
    /b.BIZ... And not one ... In 1848, when the Austrian Empire, torn at the seams, Nicholas I was also afraid of its collapse, helped to save.

    not torn, having finished with the Italians, the Austrians would have finished off the Hungarians.
  18. 0
    30 August 2019 01: 40
    Quote: vladcub
    Frightened Zionists: rule the whole world.

    Yeah, damned Jews everywhere, wherever you spit. What is there in the world - the galaxy is probably being ruled.
  19. 0
    30 August 2019 01: 51
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Illusions. No chance. A huge fortified city. Continuous suitable
    reserves. The Russian army would have run out of ammunition, gunpowder and shells much earlier,
    than the Turks depleted their reserves.

    and not the first time that is called. It’s like British in 1707 or something (or 1807? I don’t remember already) demanded to surrender the fleet, fortifications and the capital. They went on a decisive refusal to attack the straits ... and naturally sucked. More up to the PMV did not try.
  20. 0
    30 August 2019 01: 53
    Quote: knn54
    Dmitry, I agree. There were too many Anglophiles at the court of the Romanovs.
    Yes. The British armored fleet was strong. But in the Straits they would represent a convenient target for Russian artillery.
    Anglo-Saxons were able and able to bluff.

    more precisely, the Normans, arrogant Saxons ended in 1066 still.
  21. 0
    30 August 2019 01: 56
    Quote: andrewkor
    There was a precedent when, summing up the results of the Northern War, Peter the Great bought the Baltic states (!) From the Swedes, and returned Finland to the battered owner altogether, and after 90 years it had to be taken back again.
    "Russia won wars, but lost the world": Tyleran (?) !!

    not this way. According to the results of the world, Peter took everything that he wanted and what he was striving for, Finland didn’t give up to him, poor and empty, what should I do with it? Baltic coast - a different layout. It was Peter's complete victory and the full achievement of his goals, the Swedes were lowered to the very tomatoes, they would quickly lose a little later the remnants of their possessions.
  22. 0
    30 August 2019 01: 57
    Quote: rayruav
    I honestly am not a fan of the author but the article plus especially for the clear analogy of the political and military actions of the Russian rulers of that time and the present. well, at least someone can explain to me logically and not with female emotions in FIG those Bulgarians (sorry for all Russians and not only men who died there at all times) we now have canned food no worse than theirs and that’s all they can do

    political capital, a future ally in the region plus a buffer.
  23. 0
    30 August 2019 02: 00
    Quote: Pilat2009
    Quote: rayruav
    at least someone can explain to me logically and not with female emotions in FIG those Bulgarians

    It’s a paradox, but we once had to fight with the Turks in an alliance (defend them), like in the time of Ushakov ... And in the days of Ataturk Owls Russia supported the Turks against the Greeks

    Yes, together they fought against the Franks a little, it was the case.

    And in the time of Kemal, Russia supported him as a whole, not only against the Greeks, but also against other garbage, too.
  24. 0
    30 August 2019 02: 05
    Quote: Seal
    As a result, Emperor Nicholas I stopped Dibich in Adrianople. In St. Petersburg, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was feared. Seriously believing that "the benefits of preserving the Ottoman Empire in Europe exceed its disadvantages." It was a strategic mistake.. At the exit, Russia received the shame of the Crimean War, when the Russians were forbidden to have weapons and a fleet on the Black Sea and the coast, the war of 1877 - 1878. and Turkey’s uprising against Russia in World War I. But they could solve all the issues in favor of Russia with one blow in 1829.
    Not the fact that a strategic mistake.
    Moreover, already in 1833 we landed our expeditionary force on the shores of the Bosphorus to protect Istanbul from the forces of Egyptian Pasha advancing on it.
    Nicholas I made no mistake. Perhaps he did not explain the motives with the wrong arguments. But the motives were more than serious.
    1. The Sultan, I remind you, part-time still moonlighting as Caliph. Or vice versa, the head of the Ottoman Empire was the Caliph and part-time Sultan.
    To offend the Caliph means to restore the Muslims of Russia against themselves. Yes, our Muslims quite normally, without remorse, fought against Turkish soldiers. But when the matter would concern personally Khalifa - there could be nuances.
    2. If we took Istanbul (Constantinople) - what to do with the Ecumenical Patriarch? Let me remind you that in Russia, the Patriarchate was liquidated by Peter the Great, replacing the Patriarch with a collegial body by the Holy Synod. What, we would have to depose the Ecumenical Patriarch? But then all Greeks would be offended. Leave the Ecumenical Patriarch in office? But then, in theory, it is higher than the Holy Synod. To force the Ecumenical Patriarch to acknowledge that the Holy Synod is taller than him is not a fact that he would succeed.
    3. Shame on the Crimean War? She might not have been at all. With Turkey at that time, it’s not that there were no irreconcilable contradictions, just there were no significant contradictions. Why were we drawn to intervene in the Jerusalem squabbles on the topic, who should own the keys to the Bethlehem temple and repair the dome of the Cathedral of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem ???
    The Sultan handed over the keys to the Bethlehem Church from the Orthodox Greeks to Catholics, whose interests were protected by the Emperor of France Napoleon III. Our Nicholas I demanded that Turkey recognize him as the patron of all Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire. On June 26, 1853, he announced the entry of our troops into the Danube principalities, declaring that he would withdraw them only after the Turks met our demands.
    On July 14, Turkey addressed a note of protest against Russia's actions to other great powers and received assurances of support from them. On October 16, Turkey declared war on Russia, and on November 9 an imperial manifesto followed by Russia declaring war on Turkey.
    From scratch, the war began !!!

    the war of 1877 - 1878
    We started this war. Purely in defense of the Bulgarians.
    Turkey’s uprising against Russia in the First World War.

    We fought with Turkey over Bulgaria. As a result, in World War I, both countries opposed us.

    1 - yes, the case was, although not useful.

    2 - the sultan was the sultan, or rather, the sultan and the khan at the same time (briefly, it looked something like this - the sultan, for example, Ahmed Khan). The Caliph is a spiritual title, the ruler of all Muslims. True, it was an unauthorized seizure, poking, and the Arabs, for example, never recognized this, and not the fact that other Muslims were also interested.

    3 - Constantinople, yes (even the Turks called it Constantinius before the reforms of Kemal, in the Persian manner from the Arabic al-Constantinius).

    4 - Excessive ambitions let Nicholas down. Hrenase, to get into the internal affairs of a neighbor is the arrogance of the highest degree. So it’s not entirely empty, ambition in politics is not the last thing.
  25. 0
    30 August 2019 02: 07
    Quote: Ken71
    This was the only chance. Nothing happened after 1815. The Russian army was the strongest in Europe. The French would not rock the boat, And the British alone would not dare

    given that it would be a one-goal game - it’s easy, we wouldn’t do anything to the British, and they could do anything. Yes, and would have excited, and in the case, and other citizens, and since Napoleon fell in a crowd ...
  26. 0
    30 August 2019 02: 07
    Quote: Jmbg
    It is not clear to me: "liberate Bulgaria" and "make the Black Sea a Russian" lake "" - how is it?

    side effect, poke. Although the Turks would have the coast, for its part, would still remain.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"