Military Review

The Big Game: The Eastern (Crimean) War. "World community" against Russia

27
The Big Game: The Eastern (Crimean) War. "World community" against Russia

Crimean (Eastern) war became the prototype of the First World War. Usually they focus on the battles in the Crimea, the heroic defense of Sevastopol. However, the theater of operations had an almost global (Eurasian) character. The fighting was conducted on the Danube and Caucasus fronts, in the Crimea, on the Black, Baltic, White seas and the Pacific Ocean. In fact, it was the confrontation of the then "world community" in the person of Turkey, France, England, Sardinia (much of modern Italy) with Russia. In addition, Austria was preparing to oppose Russia, and Prussia took the position of cold neutrality.


The enemies of Russia had global objectives. They planned to dismember Russia, deprive it of the fruits of victories 18 and the beginning of 19 centuries. They wanted to cut off Russia from the Black and Baltic Seas. The Western powers sought to prevent Russia from breaking into the Mediterranean, pushing it out of the southern regions, where the road opened up to the Persian Gulf and India. The goals of the Allies were formulated by Lord Henry Palmerston (England’s Prime Minister from 1855). The British wanted to take away the Crimea, the Kuban and the Caucasus from Russia, to transfer them to the Ottoman Empire. In the Caucasus, were going to create a vassal Turks state education - Cherkessia. By this, Russia was deprived of its gains in the Black Sea region, strengthened the position of the Ottoman Empire, as the old and active enemy of Russia. It was planned to restore the Kingdom of Poland at the expense of the Russian state by creating a buffer between Russia and Germany. It is clear that Poland would be a hostile state to Russia, which was supported by London and Paris. Sweden was asked to transfer Finland and the Aland Islands, Prussia - the Baltic States. Thus, Russia was ousted from the Baltic. Moldavia and Wallachia and the entire mouth of the Danube were handed over to Austria. Russia was cut off from the Balkans and the opportunity to actively participate in the fate of the Christian and Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. The Russian state wanted to deprive the territories for which it paid tens of thousands of lives during the wars with the Poles, Swedes, Caucasian mountaineers, Turks and Persians. At the same time, Russia suffered a powerful economic blow - it lost most of its trade in the Black and Baltic Seas.

Russia achieved great success in this period in the southern and south-western directions. Moldavia and Wallachia were under Russian influence and control. The Russian Empire was able to achieve a radical change in the Balkans, where there was a religious factor on its side: the Orthodox faith of the Bulgarians, Moldovans, Vlachs, Serbs, Greeks, that is, a significant part of the population of the Ottoman Empire at that time, gave Russia a strong trump card in the Big Game. On the side of Russia there was also a factor of common Slavic origin with such large peoples as the Bulgarians and Serbs. This gave rise to and strengthened the thought among Christians and Slavs that Russia would help and protect them from Turkish oppression, restore their independence. The prospects were brilliant. No wonder the Slavophil and the great Russian poet Tyutchev exclaimed that the Russian tsar would pray to God in the church of St. Sofia and will rise "like a Pan-Slavic king."

True, Austria was underfoot, which had its plans in the Balkans. But after the events of 1848-1849, when Vienna saved Russia from the Hungarian uprising, St. Petersburg hoped for benevolent neutrality on the part of the Austrians. In addition, the position of Austria was unstable; the Austrian army, after the Hungarian uprising, was disregarded. The position of the Austrian Empire was so unstable, the war with Russia in its position was very dangerous and could lead to the collapse of the state. Austria will eventually collapse, joining the war with Russia, but this will happen later, after the First World War.

However, in St. Petersburg, they made a mistake about Vienna; gratitude to Europeans is not inherent, only a bare calculation. The behavior of Vienna, the “betrayal” during the Eastern War became an extremely unexpected event for St. Petersburg. After all, they still remembered how the Austrian Count Kabog implored Paskevich to save Austria by kneeling. And the young Austrian emperor Franz-Joseph publicly, at a reception in Warsaw, kissed the hand of the Russian tsar, asking for help against the Hungarian revolutionaries. Emotions did not allow us to make a logical chain of conclusions. Vienna was concerned about the activity of the Russians on the Danube since 1812, when Russia took Bessarabia from Turkey. Yes, and in time campaigns 1812-1813. Austria’s behavior was very hypocritical, it was looking for the greatest benefits. With the victory of France, the Austrians were going to profit at the expense of Russia. In 1813, Vienna waited a long time, deciding which side to take, weighed the benefits. Metternich managed to substitute Napoleon. Even more concerned about Vienna after the Peace of Adrianople 1829. The Ottoman Empire weakened before our eyes and could no longer be a reliable barrier on the way of the Russians to the Balkan Peninsula. A grave anxiety settled in the Vienna court - the annexation of Russia in one form or another by Moldova, Wallachia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Thrace and Constantinople threatened Austria with a girth of Russian forces not only from the east and north, but also from the south. Moreover, the Slavic peoples of the Austrian Empire - the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Croats, Slovenes, Rusyns - would hardly have remained loyal subjects of the Austrian monarchy with such fundamental geopolitical changes. Austria threatened the collapse or loss of political independence. Moreover, the penetration of the Russians into the Balkans undermined the economy of the Austrian empire — the eastern market for goods was shrinking, Austria was deprived of a cheap and abundant source of bread, its interests on the Danube were undermined.

The Austrian government felt threatened not only by the eastern neighbor. Austria has traditionally been sensitive to the threat from the Italian direction and from France (they were interrelated). The French emperor Napoleon III encouraged Piedmont (Sardinian kingdom) in anti-Austrian politics. At that time, Piedmont sought to unite all Italy under its rule. Italy was then divided into several state formations, part of the Italian lands were ruled by Austria and France. Paris hinted that if Vienna remained aloof from the war with the Russians, France and Piedmont would jointly drive the Austrians out of Lombardy and Venice. It was necessary to choose the right side. And the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph decided that it would be more profitable to quarrel with Russia. Like, nothing personal, just business.

They made a mistake in Petersburg about the British, considering that it would be possible to divide Turkey into spheres of influence with them. In London, they knew very well that the assertion of Russia in Moldavia, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, the passage of the straits and Constantinople into her hands cannot be compensated for with Crete and Egypt. The British knew that the decomposition of the Ottoman Empire, naturally, would lead to the inclusion in Russia of part or all of Asia Minor, adjacent to the Russian Caucasus. Russia would go to the Persian Gulf, the southern seas. Yes, and it was impossible to give Russia to establish itself in the Eastern Mediterranean. The British saw only themselves in the role of a world empire, and were not going to encourage geopolitical rivals.

Another strategic mistake the government of Nicholas made in relation to France. After the collapse of Napoleon’s empire, France was not considered a serious military-political force that could pursue an aggressive policy towards Russia. France was regularly shaken by coups, revolutions, uprisings, in Petersburg it was believed that the new French emperor, Napoleon III, would be more concerned with internal problems than with the situation around the Danube principalities, the straits and Constantinople. In Russia, they did not take into account the economic interests of France in Turkey, nor the desire of the new emperor to take part in a victorious campaign that would distract the public from internal affairs to foreign policy. And participation in the war of England indicated that success was assured. In addition, Napoleon III wanted to temper the army in a victorious war, dreaming of the glory of Napoleon Bonaparte, personal ambitions mixed with political interests.

It should also be noted the dexterity of French politics. French diplomats in 1853-1855 could not only put pressure on Austria, threatening to help Piedmont, take away Lombardy and Venice, in case of refusal to speak out against Russia, but also put pressure on Piedmont (Sardinia), promising to give the Sardinian king Victor Emmanuel as a reward for participating in the war with the Russians, the same Lombardy and Venice. Naturally, France was not going to reward Sardinia for sending thousands of soldiers to die in the battle for Sevastopol. France will soon quietly take Savoy and Nice.

Petersburg miscalculated about the fact that the two "mortal enemies" - England and France, never enter into a union. Against the "northern barbarians" England and France were ready to speak in a united front. Here the conflict reached the level of civilizations: the West against the East, the western civilization against the Russian. Past resentment retreated to the side. The conflict between the Western elites could be postponed until later, when the question was decided who would be the “king of the mountains” on the planet. Unfortunately, they did not take this into account in Petersburg. There was no understanding that it was impossible in principle to "agree" with the Western powers. There was an illusion of "monarchical unity." And in the West, this was well understood - the “Russian question” could only be solved with the complete destruction of the Russian people (the core of Russian civilization).

In many ways, the mistakes of Nikolai Pavlovich were associated with the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, Karl Nesselrode. Nesselrode led Russia’s foreign policy for several decades - from 1816 to 1856 a year. Nesselrode 40 assured for years at first emperor Alexander I, and then Nicholas I, that Russia needed an alliance with Austria, since only in these powers there is a true monarchist spirit and they can stand up to all sorts of revolutionaries in Europe. It should also be noted that it was Nesselrode who impeded the advancement of Russia in the Far East, fearing the displeasure of Europe, and especially the British.

The tool of the Western powers was Turkey, which once again played the role of a “ram” directed against Russia. At the same time, Britain and France gained political and economic benefits. Supporting the revanchist sentiments of the Ottomans, both Western powers were going to reward themselves with the utmost generosity, to finally take their hands on the economy and finances of the Ottoman Empire (this would be one of the prerequisites for the degradation and future collapse of Porta). The Ottoman Empire was already in unpaid debts to the French, English, and partly, Austrian financiers. Especially hard, and with excellent profits, Turkey was given loans at a time when it was necessary for the Ottomans to start a war with Russia. In financial and economic terms, Turkey was already a semi-colony of the West. There was even an idea after the Eastern (Crimean) War to plant in the Ottoman Empire a European prince, and divide the country into spheres of influence between England and France. So the British and French "defended" Turkey.

The war with Russia was declared a "battle of civilization against barbarism." However, she also had hidden economic implications. The British piously blued the "monetary principle." Russian emperor Nicholas I pursued a protectionist policy. Russia introduced high import duties, supporting the development of domestic production. Britain wanted to force Petersburg to introduce a customs regime favorable for the import of British goods. In general, the British have achieved this goal. In 1857, Emperor Alexander II introduced a liberal customs tariff, which reduced Russian customs duties to a minimum. The free trade regime was extremely beneficial to England, which became the first powerful industrial power and "workshop of the world." The industry of other countries could not compete with an abundance of high-quality English goods. As a result, the economies of other countries grew weaker, and Britain became a monopolist (later the US will pursue a similar policy).
Author:
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 16 September 2013 07: 33 New
    +6
    The Crimean War is probably one of the first that we lost, primarily on the "pages" of newspapers. Well, 150 years have passed and only now, after many "bumps", we begin to take an active, offensive position on this "front" ...
    1. Humen
      Humen 16 September 2013 08: 29 New
      +2
      It remains only to learn to win with the same success as in ordinary fields.
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 16 September 2013 08: 45 New
        +2
        Russia lost the Crimean War due to mediocre diplomacy. It fell on the same rake in 1914.
        1. Yoshkin Kot
          Yoshkin Kot 16 September 2013 09: 30 New
          19
          lost ??? you are aware that the “Eastern” war, (Crimea, is only one of the theaters of war, the war was in the Baltic and the Far East and the opponents got it in the teeth! not proud of its ancestors who survived alone against the “whole” world, this is necessary I don’t remember being Vanka’s relatives, I’ll remind you of the “civilizers” of that time. The British Empire, the French Empire, the Neo-Palestinian Kingdom, the Turkish Empire, and the role of the Austro-Hungarian Empire are especially amazing, Russia several years before crushed the Hungarian uprising, and the Austrian emperor perfectly "returned "Russia's debt. Most of the land army, it fought in the Crimea, and stood on the Austrian border, not allowing Austria-Hungary to enter the war
          1. Valery-SPB
            Valery-SPB 16 September 2013 11: 13 New
            +6
            Absolutely right position!
            One must always speak of that war as an Eastern war, excluding the Marxist-Leninist interpretation as a Crimean and lost war.
            The French themselves, after signing the peace agreement, said that it was not clear who won and who lost.
          2. Prometey
            Prometey 16 September 2013 13: 51 New
            +4
            Yoshkin Kot
            Here, I agree to 100% Russia was simply recorded as a loser, somehow I had to make excuses for almost a year’s sitting near Sevastopol.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 16 September 2013 16: 55 New
              +2
              Gentlemen, in fact, Russia lost this war. The results of her final world confirm this. The ban on having the Black Sea Fleet is a very difficult blow. Largely due to this, in the last successful 1878 war for RI, it was not possible to take Istanbul and forever solve the problem of protecting the southern borders of Russia and consolidating influence in the Balkans.
              Also, one cannot talk about the absence of military defeat. The surrender of Sevastopol in itself has little effect. But the impossibility for Russia to concentrate in the south sufficient forces to confront the allies showed Russia's weakness. And this is despite its complete superiority on land over the Allies. We could not supply an army in Crimea sufficient to throw allies into the sea. And before the construction of the railways and could not do this further. By the way, we probably owe the Trans-Siberian to this defeat. Since in the Far East, then, too, everything was not going smoothly. Yes, the allies got the teeth of Petropavlovsk. But the next year they occupied it freely and without a fight, while our ships were hiding in the Amur estuary. Let's not be ashamed of this. Since the fleet as such was not at that time. Do not consider the fleet several sailing transports of state and the Russian-American campaign. Tsarism made the right conclusions from this war. Selling Alaska, so that the Angles did not pick it up free of charge during the next war, developing a railway connection. But the problem was that the Russian economy could not pull all the projects necessary for reliable defense. Because it was a capitalist economy. Which sent the lion's share of the funds into the pockets of the oligarchs - or rather, then - the Grand Dukes and their court bankers and industrialists. Hence the constant lag. The fleet lagged behind the Japanese fleet. The Trans-Siberian Railway did not have time to the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War (yes, it was still torn by Lake Baikal and because of this had a low throughput), and the PMV disaster, which was largely leaked by the weak industry of Russia, became the apotheosis of the lag.
              Unfortunately, we now see how history repeats itself. We also have a capitalist state. Which, too, may not have time to upgrade. Despite the obvious attempts to catch time. They are doomed, as well as the attempts of the Russian Empire to manage to create the necessary infrastructure for defense.
          3. knn54
            knn54 16 September 2013 16: 32 New
            +1
            Yoshkin Cat:
            -you are aware that the "Eastern" war, (Crimea, in any case only one of the theaters of operations ...
            The British could not capture St. Petersburg only because they could not pass the fortresses Sveaborg and Kronshtadt covering St. Petersburg, which were impregnable for the British. Near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the Anglo-French squadron received its faces.
            Nicholas 1, repelled the full-scale aggression of the British Empire ... and two years later was poisoned. After which England managed to retire from Russia, retaining her face ...
            -Russia several years before suppressed the Hungarian uprising, and the Austrian emperor perfectly "returned" the debt of Russia.
            UNFATURED Austria was frightened by the prospect of the emergence in the Balkans of independent states (clearly loyal to Russia), the very existence of which would cause the growth of national liberation movements in the "patchwork" of the Austrian empire.
            PS NOW this war is presented as a local conflict between Russia and Turkey, in which England "seemed to pass by."
            PPS Napoleon III came to power with the support of the Catholic Church, so he sought to repay an ally, protecting the interests of the Vatican in the international arena. The Yankees stood on the threshold of the Civil War, otherwise they would have climbed too.
            1. Vanya Ivanov
              Vanya Ivanov 16 September 2013 18: 45 New
              +1
              Sveaborg was almost destroyed, Åland fortifications were destroyed, the garrison was captured.
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 17 September 2013 00: 54 New
              +1
              -you are aware that the "Eastern" war, (Crimea, in any case only one of the theaters of operations ...


              I know. And about mines in St. Petersburg in the know. But how does it cancel those harsh conditions of the world? Did the Japanese take Petersburg in the REV? But this did not stop them from acquiring Port Arthur with Southern Manchuria and South Ural Railway and half of Sakhalin.

              Given such insignificant forces (compared, for example, with the Napoleonic Great Army) that the allies threw against Russia, the Eastern War was the first peripheral war against Russia. So to say, "test of the pen." Of course, even if, together with the Austrians, the Naglofrans had broken into the borders of Russia, they would have gotten tough with all their wunderwafes. But, unfortunately, they were not going to do this. Limited to strikes on the outskirts. Somewhere strikes were successful - in the Crimea. Somewhere not quite - the Far East or the Baltic, somewhere a complete failure - the North, Danube, the Caucasus. But the problem is that Russia spent on these campaigns to the same extent as on the big war. Since all the active theater were far from the center of Russia. As a result, a powerful blow to the economy and reputation.
            3. 225chay
              225chay 18 September 2013 09: 07 New
              0
              Quote: knn54
              The British could not capture St. Petersburg only because they could not pass the fortresses Sveaborg and Kronshtadt covering St. Petersburg, which were impregnable for the British. Near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the Anglo-French squadron received its faces.
              Nicholas 1, repelled the full-scale aggression of the British Empire ... and two years later was poisoned. After which England managed to retire from Russia, retaining her face ...
              -Russia several years before suppressed the Hungarian uprising, and the Austrian emperor perfectly "returned" the debt of Russia.

              UBL ... DKI always wanted to break and destroy Russia. Do not leave attempts now.
              You need to keep your ears open!
  2. avt
    avt 16 September 2013 09: 13 New
    +3
    Quote: xetai9977
    Russia lost the Crimean War due to mediocre diplomacy.

    Not only. The main impetus was the surrender, namely the surrender of Sevastopol. This allowed the brazen francs to get out of the stalemate. Neither on Solovki, the defense of which is generally beyond view because of the incomparable imbalance of the opposing forces, nor under Peter, despite their superiority in quality, they could not do anything, but Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka even recognized themselves as a shame.
    1. predator.3
      predator.3 16 September 2013 11: 58 New
      +3
      I agree with you, but all the main attention has always been paid to the defense of Sevastopol, while the bombing of the Solovetsky Monastery, Kronshtadt and attempts to land assaults on Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka are mentioned in the history textbooks, but small garrisons also fought there and won! Once I read that during the shelling of Solovki, the English kernels simply bounced off the walls of the monastery, like soccer balls that were made of boulders.
  3. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 16 September 2013 09: 39 New
    +7
    Nicholas number one, why did you save Austria? Why the hell did you need a big country instead of a couple of crushed and embittered states? Have you read Caesar, where you divide and conquer? Okay, you didn’t trust the Russian nobles after the Decembrists, but there was a clear pro-Austrian Nesselrode’s Jewish policy can be seen at a mile and a half, who cares who the keys to the Jerusalem temple are? If you need a reason to war with the Turks for the sake of Constantinople, then the West will lay bones, but will not allow the Russians to capture Constantinople. Why Russia is forced over and over again at the cost of Russian lives soldier to pay for the stupidity of the king, first for the stupid myth of the "Third Rome", and during the reign of Nicholas with the serial number, two million Russian soldiers died to preserve the markets of Great Britain, the revenge-seeking ideas of France and increase the wealth of the USA? Okay, one nicholas himself died, the other had to help but their death does not atone for their stupidity. In Russia, the past is certainly unpredictable, but after all, everyone can see the results The activities of this or that head of state, as a result of the activity of some, Russia achieved a lot, from the actions of others it flew into the abyss, from which it was the first to get it.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 16 September 2013 14: 51 New
      -2
      You’re right so great, smart and powerful, that he’s already trembling. Probably never wrong. That's just your pearls resemble screeching hysterical young lady and all. You can throw and poop mud as much as you like, but that doesn’t color you at all.
    2. Motors1991
      Motors1991 16 September 2013 18: 34 New
      +3
      You very primitively assess the reasons for that war. The world could not help unite against Russia, for the simple reason that if the Russians captured the Balkans and Constantinople, Russia became the only superpower. The Black Sea turned into the Russian Sea, where under the cover of batteries installed in the Dardanelles, Russia could build warships as much as needed while having free access to the Mediterranean Sea and the oceans. Therefore, other great states could not unite against it. When they talk about the technical backwardness of Russia, the question arises: How could a backward state fight in 2 years against the first-class powers. I would like to add about the First World War. Many write that they had to sit out while the Germans were at war with the English-French. No one doubts that without the support of the Russian army in 1914, the French army would be swept away by the Germans as well quickly, as in 1940. Result: the British would be sitting on their island, having against themselves a German fleet an order of magnitude more powerful than Hitler had and they would have been able to stand the big question. In this case, Russia was left alone on the continent in splendid isolation and against whom did the Teutons turn their armies? Against Russia, and the defeat of the latter was inevitable. Therefore, if you read the documents of those years, for whom and whether it was necessary to fight with the Higher Russian leadership did not arise, in another case there was a single superpower - the German Empire with its satellites, therefore, in this case, the Russians and the British with the French, no matter how they loved each other, were forced to become allies. own shirt closer to the body.
    3. 225chay
      225chay 18 September 2013 09: 13 New
      0
      In the tsarist environment, there were Masons, however, as now in the Russian government, goals for which have not changed
  4. Glory333
    Glory333 16 September 2013 12: 17 New
    +1
    The Crimean War was lost by Russia (but the Allies won the victory at a very high price) why they lost - of course, because of the 5th column of a whole pack of traitors working for London and Paris, including the Foreign Minister Niselrode and the Commander-in-Chief in Crimea Menshikov and in charge US Army citizen G. Schliemann. Of course, the strong but stupid Tsar Nicholas was to blame, surrounding himself as traitors, his son Alexander was also stupid but already weak, and Nicholas 2 could also be called weak-willed ... where did such kings come from and it was unclear the impression that they were specially chosen - who was dumber and weaker than that and set to reign, amid the rest Nicholas 1 was not the worst himself, he was still a strong personality. Another thing is surprising - as in spite of the general theft and betrayal, Russia managed so long and successfully to resist the troops of the three Empires.
  5. Lindon
    Lindon 16 September 2013 13: 06 New
    -2
    When to learn to objectively describe the history of Russia?
    The king is good, and the ministers are bad.
    1. IS-80
      IS-80 16 September 2013 15: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: Lindon
      When to learn to objectively describe the history of Russia?
      The king is good, and the ministers are bad.

      I understand the history of Kazakhstan everywhere and always reflected absolutely objectively? And what do you think the history of Russia should look like?
  6. Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 16 September 2013 14: 01 New
    0
    This war, no matter how bitterly aware of this, showed the backwardness of Russia and not only in armaments. Only thanks to the courage, resilience, heroism of our ancestors, the enemy, except in Crimea, has not moved anywhere. The command must be recognized in Sevastopol did not flash, a Black River alone is worth. And diplomats worked poorly before the war, it was not in vain that Tyutchev wrote about Nesselrode
    "No, my dwarf! A coward unparalleled!
    You, no matter how hard, how hard,
    With your little faith soul
    Do not seduce Holy Russia ... "

    I don’t remember who, but they told the tsar that the Austrians could not save the revolution from the revolution, the autocrat did not listen. As a result, "paid" for salvation, we not only had to keep the army on the Danube, but there were also reputational losses. Well, at least in Vienna, Gorchyakov did not catch a raven.
    These are “Cats”, “Butakovs” and in the Crimea and on Solovki and Kamchatka, they were pulling the war.
  7. Cristall
    Cristall 16 September 2013 15: 55 New
    +6
    Well, actually, Alexander’s diplomacy was great! Unlike Nikolaev. The RI ambassador signed a pretty decent agreement (it seems that Gorchakov was the youngest), having sat out literally and calmly resisted the onslaught of British diplomacy (ready to fight forever with RI, so as not to give the concessions proposed by Gorchakov) - he calmly and splendidly played on the difference of interest between France and England, - I believe that Gorchakov is smart. Using Kars' trump card in exchange for the occupied (I will repeat busy!) Southern completely destroyed PART of the city after 3! repulsed assaults only when it was impossible to repel Mamaev’s mound, although of course Khrulev tried, but the French strengthened and Bosque did not miss his chance to become a hero after Inkerman again.
    The Russians recaptured 3 assaults, paid with blood for huge expenses on shells and the military-industrial complex of England in France, Switzerland and others. Day and night, under the bullets of the French and British snipers who mortally wounded Nakhimov, fighting during the day, restoring at night. The hero of the city of Sevastopol should not bear 1 but two awards for the heroism of 2 sieges. Sailors, of course, are power.
    Yes, the Russians lost to Alma, Inkerman, the Black River. Being a minority. But the Russian soldier was not to take.
    The Eastern War was the first war of a new type. Low-maneuverable and siege.
    She brought the world so many changes.
    Armadillos, new-style bullets, etc. ... telegraph and the Information War, etc.

    The activity of snipers in the Crimean War led to the emergence in the Russian fleet of the tradition of “the third does not light”: when the first lighted, the sniper reacted to the flash, when the second - made a warning on the transfer of fire, and the third smoker received a bullet in the head

    One of the early manifestations of propaganda was documented when, right after the Sinop battle, the British newspapers wrote in the battle reports that the Russians shot the wounded Turks floating in the sea
    Missile weapons ... mines of different models ... the jump was high-quality just huge.
    I add, the news about the capture of Sevastopol has been written more than once in the media of the West. And the company about the demonization of Russians was so wide, Goebels’s deeds fade ...
    We did not lose that war. We lost only the battle. In the final result, we lost technologically and won mentally. After this, England will forever refuse to fight openly with Russia. for she lost her army and commander-in-chief (Lord Raglan) there - on the 4th bastion, in Inkerman (I will not mention where the English cavalry was). Russian nature even came out against the allies - Storm, cold, epidemics ....
    By the way, of all the main participants, only Menshikov (the commander in chief of the RI military in the Crimea) survived, 2 others (Raglan and Canrober) were sent to their homeland in coffins ....
    The Allies overcame economically in that war .... England, by the way, was the main buyer of Russian bread — she bought it from Prussia. The Germans profitably sold gunpowder RI.
    The war was the last gentleman’s war, when the joint search for the wounded and killed after the battle or assaults took place ... Even in OY it was already different.
    No, friends, the surrender of the southern part is not the surrender of the City. Moreover, she was left according to the old Russian custom only after 3 assaults. Repelled in all areas except M. Kurgan. Small successes in the Sea of ​​Azov and tests of armadillos --- all this fades there ... on the bastions of the Russian Troy! Like our successes in all areas from the Far East, to Sveaborg and the White Sea.
    1. xan
      xan 16 September 2013 16: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Cristall
      No, friends, the surrender of the southern part is not the surrender of the City. Moreover, she was left according to the old Russian custom only after 3 assaults. Repelled in all areas except M. Kurgan. Small successes in the Sea of ​​Azov and tests of armadillos --- all this fades there ... on the bastions of the Russian Troy! Like our successes in all areas from the Far East, to Sveaborg and the White Sea.

      plus stops!
      The two most powerful economically superpowers of that time pushed a year under Sevastopol. And they won thanks to superiority in armaments, better logistics and the dominance of mediocrity in the Russian headquarters. There is no shame in the Crimean War, but there is the backwardness of Russia and the impotence of the ruling class. But our soldier and sailor, as always, are beyond praise. And this is the happiness of Russia and the eternal fear of the horror of its enemies.
      1. jasper
        jasper 16 September 2013 18: 04 New
        +1
        it is easy to judge the dead, by the way 41 years old to remind you? but I'm not judging
        1. xan
          xan 16 September 2013 19: 34 New
          -1
          Quote: yasenpen
          By the way 41 years to remind you?

          and what's wrong with the 41st?
          are there any complaints against soldiers and sailors?
      2. Eugeniy_369
        Eugeniy_369 16 September 2013 23: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: xan
        But our soldier and sailor, as always, are beyond praise. And this is the happiness of Russia and the eternal fear of the horror of its enemies.

        And when we stop trusting in Russian “Vanya”? And we will protect our population? Overcame the Great Patriotic War, is still haggled by demography. They died the best, did not sit out in the rear ...
        Or "Women still give birth to peasants, but they cry for horses with gold!"?
    2. Eugeniy_369
      Eugeniy_369 17 September 2013 00: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: Cristall
      (I will not mention where the English cavalry was

      Yes, and no need, she jumped to the batteries and cut down the servants and then, not knowing what to do next, she retreated to her troops. But our agitation industry of that era, as the achievement of that battle, presents the capture of a certain number of guns, since the battle at Inkerman ended there? The interventionists have just transferred the start of the assault.
      Quote: Cristall
      By the way, of all the main participants, only Menshikov (the commander-in-chief of the RI military in the Crimea) survived

      What's the point? "After Inkerman, the authority of Prince Menshikov, referred to by the soldiers as" Cheaters ", came to naught." He and under Inkerman transferred the command to P.A. Dannenberg to not be guilty if something goes wrong (just in case).
      In general, your entire post looks like a collection of information about the Crimean War copied here and there.
      Quote: Cristall
      Unlike Nikolaev. The Ambassador of the Republic of Ingushetia signed a pretty decent agreement (it seems Gorchakov the youngest was)

      This is generally nonsense - there Count A. F. Orlov and F. I. Brunov worked perfectly.
      PSAll Your bloopers listing tired. Although I understand you yes , the more the better, and there you look and the marshal’s strings will fall. But sometimes Vicki will not help ....
      Quote: Cristall
      only then when it was impossible to recapture Mamaev Kurgan, although of course Khrulev tried, but the French strengthened

      Yes, Khrulev didn’t try, in the heat of battle he decided to knock the French out of the “gorge”, did he not know that the mound was ready and there were no worse attacks from the rear and from the front? He came to his senses only when his finger was torn off with a fitting (he didn’t get a scratch for the entire defense - “spellbound”).
      Read more, not copy negative
  8. Sorry
    Sorry 16 September 2013 17: 35 New
    0
    Nothing changes in this world, everything is stable, only the performers change, because they are mortal.
    1. Motorist
      Motorist 21 September 2013 21: 31 New
      0
      They would make a high-quality film about this war.
  9. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 16 September 2013 18: 06 New
    +1
    <<< The war with Russia was declared the “battle of civilization against barbarism”.
    Here the conflict reached the level of civilizations: West versus East, Western civilization versus Russian. Past grievances stepped aside. The conflict between the Western elites could be postponed until later, when the question was decided who would be the “king of the hill” on the planet. There was no understanding (in St. Petersburg) that it was impossible to “agree” with the Western powers in principle ....... in the West it was well understood - the “Russian question”, could only be solved with the complete destruction of the Russian people (the core of Russian civilization) . >>>
    Undoubtedly, this was the next WEST crusade against Russia with global plans to cut Russia off the Black and Baltic Seas, oust it from the southern regions, take Crimea, Kuban, and the Caucasus from it ..... But the heroism of the Russian soldier foiled these plans and this despite the overwhelming superiority of the crusaders. At the cost of heavy losses after a long siege, they managed to enter the South side of Sevastopol and this was their only success! In other theaters of military operations, they did not achieve anything, but in the Caucasus and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky they were defeated, which allowed Russia in the end, recognizing the defeat, to nevertheless leave the war with minimal image and territorial losses! And soon Russia, to the displeasure of the West, restored its rights and influence in the world!
  10. Gecko
    Gecko 16 September 2013 18: 22 New
    +1
    Years passed, nothing has changed.
    As they wanted to tear a piece from Russia, they did not give up attempts.
    And how do they piss with boiling water from the fact that they torn Ukraine and Crimea from Russia.
    As they called us barbarians and the backward, they still call us.
    Propaganda in the west has not changed.
  11. OPTR
    OPTR 16 September 2013 18: 38 New
    +1
    But what they study at school (I took the first textbook I got, it would be interesting to compare with others)
    Danilov A.A.
    History of Russia, XIX century. Grade 8: textbook. for general education. institutions / A.A. Danilov, L.G. Kosulina. - 13th ed. - M.: Education, 2012. - 287 p., [16] p. ill., cards. : ill., cards. -] BVM 978-5-09-028706-7.
    page 94 onwards:
    In an effort to expand his influence in the Balkans, creating independent Slavic states there, Nicholas I was waiting for a convenient occasion for the final defeat of Turkey.
    Those. who exactly was preparing to start the war guys?

    The most striking event of this period of the war was the Sinop battle.
    ........
    Meanwhile, anti-Russian hysteria erupted in the press of Western countries. The materials of secret negotiations on the partition of Turkey, which the representatives of Nicholas I conducted for several years, were disclosed.


    Those. anti-Russian hysteria erupted as a result of the Sinop battle. And the representatives of Nicholas 1 carried on negotiations with whom it was unknown.
    Either with themselves, or with the Turks ... There is no need for schoolchildren to know this.

    The governments of England and France entered into a military alliance with Turkey and presented Russia with a demand to withdraw troops from the Danube principalities. At the same time, the Anglo-French fleet was introduced into the Black Sea.

    Those. all joint actions with Turkey began purely after the actions of Russia, which "was looking for an excuse."

    Well, the result is presented as follows:
    The main outcome of the war was that Russia as a whole resisted the blows of the world's largest powers united against it. Despite a serious military defeat, she emerged from the war with minimal damage.
    1. xan
      xan 17 September 2013 00: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: OPTR
      In an effort to expand his influence in the Balkans, creating independent Slavic states there, Nicholas I was waiting for a convenient occasion for the final defeat of Turkey.
      Those. who exactly was preparing to start the war guys?

      And what is wrong here?
      Slavic states did not want to become independent?
      Turkey is a constant adversary of Russia throughout almost its entire history. But in international relations everything is like in the forest - either you or you.
      1. OPTR
        OPTR 17 September 2013 10: 53 New
        +1
        Not so here that the preparation for the war and its desire were deduced only with respect to Russia. Those. she is obviously an aggressor. So it is shown. And the fact that this is invisible to you is possible and was the task of the textbook. The article we are commenting on shows a completely different thing. The opposing side originally planned the company in one form or another.
        Option 1 - Fighters against tyranny win
        honor and praise to them.
        Option 2 - The fighters with tyranny were beaten. Dare to offend the weak, we must help them.
        Doesn’t it remind of anything of modernity?
  12. Cristall
    Cristall 16 September 2013 22: 53 New
    0
    It is strange that the largest, but not advanced. The point was not at all the size of the countries.
    There was just no military defeat. The status of quo-draw was established, under which to conduct further hostilities was not possible and not economically terribly unprofitable.
    Although the result of the textbooks is not bad. It is a pity the reasons for the war are unclear. After all, everyone knows the skirmishers of that war (at least at the government level)
    But the lesson she became significant. By the way, after unsuccessful wars, Russia has more good things than successful ones (except for territorial changes) up to 1 MV. Then everything came together and changed.
    But courage and heroism remained the same.
    By the way, only Russians are capable of holding fortified cities for years. It is extremely difficult to take them. Remember the loss of General Feet, the loss of the Allies - well, it is impossible to storm the significant Russian city ... only by other methods.
    1. xan
      xan 17 September 2013 00: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: Cristall
      By the way, only Russians are capable of holding fortified cities for years. It is extremely difficult to take them. Remember the loss of General Feet, the loss of the Allies - well, it is impossible to storm the significant Russian city ... only by other methods.

      And before that, one can recall the defense of Pskov against the invincible Batory, Pskov was not taken, the amazing defense of Smolensk in the troubled times, was taken by the Poles when one defender fell on about 50 meters of the wall, the successful defense of Uman in Ruin, when a handful of Great Russians and Little Russians defended the city from the main Polish army led by the king, and the French aristocrat who participated in the assaults was surprised at the stamina of the garrison and the mystical power of the head of the garrison - the stolnik Lopukhin.
      There was dofiga in our military history of everything. One thing is clear, if ours rested on the horn - the enemy could only pray for survival.
      It is pleasant, honorable and at the same time responsible to have such ancestors. Maybe the memory of them will not give in a difficult moment to be merciful. In general, it’s difficult for our opponents; in the end, they have nothing besides Ponte and Lyuli against us.
  13. Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 17 September 2013 06: 10 New
    +3
    Traders rule the world! They unleash wars and decide how to live!
  14. Cristall
    Cristall 17 September 2013 10: 42 New
    0
    A bit incomplete - Money and ambition!
    I was surprised when I saw the joyful faces of volunteers in 1 MV .. people went to kill with joy! With desire. What a contrast with volunteers in the USSR (2MB) - seriously, gloomy faces, everyone understands that there can be killed but the great Russian is NECESSARY! We must fight for the motherland.
  15. zav
    zav 18 September 2013 15: 14 New
    0
    The development of the Black Sea steppes acquired in the XNUMXth century, after half a century has finally paid off, and the South Russian landowners faced the problem of selling an unprecedented wheat crop. It is advisable to sell to Europe, because by that time Europe had already established the industrial production of beads and glass beads.
    In those conditions, the only way to transport large volumes of grain was the use of maritime transport, since the productive lands were adjacent to the seaports. But: straits!
    It seemed to Russia that the possession of the straits was vital and necessary for her, and she was embroiled in conflict, not realizing that she had already lost much of the title of one of the European hegemons that she had continuously owned since 1815.
    The Crimean War is a turning point in the history of Russia. Further, the abolition of serfdom, wild unbridled capitalism, Narodnaya Volya, Petrashevists, two revolutions and everything connected with it.
  16. Stasi
    Stasi 28 September 2013 19: 33 New
    0
    The Crimean War is still called "small-scale" by various experts. Meanwhile, it was a qualitatively different war. The war is not only Western civilization against Russian but also a war of quantity against quality. Tsarist Russia was losing as its army against the Western ones: they had steam ships with higher maneuverability and speed, even the first armadillos, rifled rifles firing farther and more hefty, a telegraph that transmitted messages by electrical signals. And here we have: soldiers are armed with smooth boreholes, the sailing fleet was inferior to steam vessels, and it had to be sunk in the raid to prevent the enemy’s ships from getting too close to the shore, the ox-cart sleds which were transported, the optical telegraph which became useless in the dark and bad weather . And with all this, corruption and theft caused enormous damage, and the bureaucracy affected the quality of command. According to rumors, Nicholas I committed suicide, not having endured the shame of defeat, because in number our army exceeded the enemy. But again, it is worth saying that the Western armies were superior to the Russian in quality. And it was a defeat of tsarism, not a defeat of Russia.
  17. dentitov
    dentitov 30 June 2014 16: 08 New
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Gentlemen, in fact, Russia lost this war. The results of her final world confirm this. The ban on having the Black Sea Fleet is a very difficult blow. Largely due to this, in the last successful 1878 war for RI, it was not possible to take Istanbul and forever solve the problem of protecting the southern borders of Russia and consolidating influence in the Balkans.
    Also, one cannot talk about the absence of military defeat. The surrender of Sevastopol in itself has little effect. But the impossibility for Russia to concentrate in the south sufficient forces to confront the allies showed Russia's weakness. And this is despite its complete superiority on land over the Allies. We could not supply an army in Crimea sufficient to throw allies into the sea. And before the construction of the railways and could not do this further. By the way, we probably owe the Trans-Siberian to this defeat. Since in the Far East, then, too, everything was not going smoothly. Yes, the allies got the teeth of Petropavlovsk. But the next year they occupied it freely and without a fight, while our ships were hiding in the Amur estuary. Let's not be ashamed of this. Since the fleet as such was not at that time. Do not consider the fleet several sailing transports of state and the Russian-American campaign. Tsarism made the right conclusions from this war. Selling Alaska, so that the Angles did not pick it up free of charge during the next war, developing a railway connection. But the problem was that the Russian economy could not pull all the projects necessary for reliable defense. Because it was a capitalist economy. Which sent the lion's share of the funds into the pockets of the oligarchs - or rather, then - the Grand Dukes and their court bankers and industrialists. Hence the constant lag. The fleet lagged behind the Japanese fleet. The Trans-Siberian Railway did not have time to the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War (yes, it was still torn by Lake Baikal and because of this had a low throughput), and the PMV disaster, which was largely leaked by the weak industry of Russia, became the apotheosis of the lag.
    Unfortunately, we now see how history repeats itself. We also have a capitalist state. Which, too, may not have time to upgrade. Despite the obvious attempts to catch time. They are doomed, as well as the attempts of the Russian Empire to manage to create the necessary infrastructure for defense.


    First, study the facts at least at a basic level. We didn’t surrender Sevastopol - only HALF was left, and even then after all our people were killed on the Malakhov Kurgan. But the allies did not climb onto another and began peace negotiations.