Military Review

The heroic resistance of Sevastopol disrupted the interventionists' plans to turn Russia into a second-rate power.

43
The heroic resistance of Sevastopol disrupted the interventionists' plans to turn Russia into a second-rate power.

160 years ago, 18 (30) March 1856, the Peace of Paris was signed, ending the Eastern (Crimean) War. Unsuccessful for Russia the course of the war led to the infringement of its rights and interests. The position of neutralizing the Black Sea, which forbade all Black Sea powers to have military fleets on the Black Sea, was of fundamental importance for Russia. Russia and Turkey could not create naval arsenals and fortresses on the coast. However, the Russian Empire was placed in an unequal position with the Ottoman, which retained its entire naval forces in the Marmara and the Mediterranean, and they could, if necessary, be transferred to the Black Sea.


At the same time, the Ottoman Empire and the then leading Western powers — Britain, France, Austria, and Sardinia — failed to realize broad plans to oust Russia from the Baltic states, Poland, the Black Sea region and the Caucasus, or to reject a number of territories. The heroic resistance of Sevastopol disrupted the interventionists' plans to turn Russia into a second-rate power.

Crimean War

The war was caused by the clash of interests of Russia and Turkey in the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans, as well as the problem of the straits. The Ottoman Empire was a "sick man of Europe" and rapidly degraded. Russian emperor Nicholas I decided that the time had come to solve important issues for the development of Russian civilization and heightened the pressure on Istanbul. Tsar Nicholas correctly appreciated the state of Turkey - it was on the verge of collapse. However, he miscalculated in relation to European countries. The Russian sovereign hoped for the friendly neutrality of Prussia and Austria, the non-intervention of England and the cold neutrality of France, which alone would not risk supporting Turkey.

In turn, the Porta, relying on the support of England and France, counted on the successful conduct of hostilities in the Black Sea basin. After the victory, Istanbul hoped to regain some of its previously lost positions in the Black Sea basin and the Caucasus. England and France wanted to use Turkey as a battering ram in the war with Russia. To this end, the ruling circles of Western European countries provided enhanced military assistance to the Ottoman Empire: long before the war, it was awash with English, French, and Austrian military advisers who trained Turkish troops, built fortifications, and led the development of military plans. Under the guidance of foreign experts, the construction of the Ottoman military was carried out fleet. The Turkish fleet was replenished with ships built in Marseille, Livorno and Venice. Almost all of the artillery of the Turkish fleet was English-made, the English advisers and instructors were at the headquarters and commanders of the Turkish troops and naval formations.

England had far-reaching strategic goals. In fact, it was a rehearsal of world war. They wanted to knock out Russia from Finland, the Baltic states, the Danube principalities, the Crimea and the Caucasus. From the Russian lands they planned to recreate the Kingdom of Poland. To create Cherkessia in the North Caucasus, having given it under the protectorate of Turkey. Thus, Russia was planning to deprive the conquests of several centuries, throwing it away from the Baltic and the Black Sea inland. In addition, Britain wanted to put Russia in a dependent position in the economic sphere: the British wanted to force Russia to abandon the protectionist policies pursued by Nicholas I and introduce a regime favorable for the import of British goods.

France was not against the dismemberment of Russia, but solved mainly the problems of domestic policy. The adventurous policy of Napoleon III worsened the position of France and caused an explosion of discontent. It was necessary to divert society "small victorious war" away from the borders of France. Cover the internal crisis external victories. In addition, French capital had its own interests in the Ottoman Empire and did not want the efforts of Russia's positions in the Middle East.

Austria owed Russia, which saved her from the Hungarian uprising, and Emperor Nicholas counted on the support of the Austrians. However, his shirt was closer to the body. The Austrians were very afraid of Russia's gain in the Balkans, where the Russian-related Slavic and Christian peoples lived. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the fall of its power in the Balkan Peninsula, Russia could take a dominant position in the region. Moreover, if desired, Russia could become the head of the Slavic Union. Pan-Slavic sentiments were then common in the Balkans. This led to the fact that Austria was in a difficult position, from all sides potential adversaries: the Italians sought to restore the unity of Italy, that is, to oust Austria from the peninsula; France was an old enemy and could only be a tactical ally, the French supported the Italians to take them under their wing; Prussia claimed leadership in Germany, challenging Austria; Russia could crush the Balkans; Slavic states of the Balkans could have headed for cutting off Slavic territories from Austria.

As a result, Austria took a tough stance against Russia, effectively predetermining the defeat of the Russian Empire in the war. After it became clear that Austria was in a hostile position, St. Petersburg had to withdraw its troops from the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia) and abandon the idea of ​​conducting military operations in the Danube theater, although a decisive victory on it led to the defeat and surrender of the Ottoman Empire. In addition, the entire war Russia kept on the border with Austria and in general in the western strategic direction its main and best forces, which all the war just stood in case of war with Austria and Prussia. As a result, the Russian Crimean army did not have the strength and ability to throw the enemy into the sea.

After Turkey declared Russia the 4 (16) war on October 1853, active operations were conducted on land and at sea. On the Danube front, Russian troops unsuccessfully fought at Oltenita 23 in October (November 4), but repulsed the Turks in December 25 1853 (January 6 1854) at Chetat. In the Caucasus in the battle of Akhaltsikh 14 (26) November 1853. The 7 thousandth garrison of General I. M. Andronikov threw off the 15 thousandth army of Ali Pasha, November 19 (1 December) under Bashkadyklar 10 thousandth general V.O. Bebutov defeated the 36-thousandth army of Ahmet Pasha.

Successfully were fighting at sea. The Ottoman Empire was especially hard hit in the Battle of Sinop, where 18 (30) November 1853 squadron under the command of Vice Admiral P. S. Nakhimov from 8 ships destroyed the Turkish squadron Osman Pasha from 16 ships (Sinop; H. 2).

Thus, Russia was pulling up over Turkey. This led to the fact that the war intervened in England and France. December 23 1853 (January 4 1854) The Anglo-French fleet entered the Black Sea. 9 (21) February Russia declared war on Britain and France. 10 (22) April, the Anglo-French squadron bombarded Odessa. In June-July, Anglo-French troops landed in Varna, and the superior forces of the Anglo-French-Turkish fleet blocked the Russian fleet in Sevastopol.

In late August, the combined fleet of England and France, consisting of 89 warships and 300 transports, approached Evpatoria. 1 (13) September, the Allies freely began the landing of the expeditionary army (The invasion of the Crimea). The commander-in-chief of the Russian troops in the Crimea, Prince A. S. Menshikov, decided to give battle to the enemy army at a previously chosen position on the Alma River - on the way from Yevpatoria to Sevastopol. The 8 (20) of September was a battle that the Russians lost (Alma; H. 2). Having suffered a defeat on the Alma, Menshikov with the army went first to Sevastopol, but then, fearing that the enemy would cut him off from the central regions of Russia, and also with the aim of freedom of maneuver and the possibility to threaten the enemy’s flank and rear, to the Bakhchisarai.

By the evening of 12 (24) September, the allied army approached the r. Belbek and from here the next day began the flank movement to the south side of the city. On the morning of September 14 (26), the French took up positions on the Fedyukhiny heights, and the British occupied Balaclava. The Allied fleet entered Balaklava harbor. 18 (30) September, the Anglo-French-Turkish forces reached the approaches to Sevastopol from the south.

13 (25) September 1854 in Sevastopol was declared a state of siege (The beginning of the heroic defense of Sevastopol). The defense of the city was led by Vice-Admiral V. A. Kornilov, officially considered the chief of defense staff. His closest assistants were the squadron commander, Vice Admiral Nakhimov, appointed head of the South side, and Rear Admiral V. I. Istomin (head of defense of Malakhov Kurgan). The general management of engineering work was carried out by Colonel E. E. Totleben. They quickly, using all available resources, including the capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet, prepared the city for defense.

5 (17) October 1854. The first bombardment of the fortress began (The first bombing of Sevastopol). The enemy opened fire on all defensive structures made of heavy guns from 126, and by noon they were joined by 1340 ship guns. He hoped to destroy the land fortifications of the fortress and storm it by powerful bombardment from the sea and land. Sevastopol responded with powerful artillery fire from 250 guns. At night, the garrison restored the damaged fortifications, by the morning they were ready to repel the new attacks of the enemy. The first attempt of the enemy to seize Sevastopol failed. The plan of the Anglo-French command was thwarted by the heroic defense of the Russian troops.

The stubborn resistance of the garrison forced the English commander Raglan and the French general Canrobert to postpone the assault and proceed to a slow siege. The enemy was preparing for a new assault on Sevastopol, moving closer to the line of its fortifications. After the battle won on the Black River 4 (16) in August 1855, the Allies began to actively prepare for the general assault on Sevastopol. The Anglo-French command carried out another bombardment of the city from 800 guns, which was conducted from 5 (17) to 8 (20) in August. The next, sixth, most powerful, bombardment of Sevastopol from 807 guns, including 300 mortars, was conducted from 24 to August 27 (5 - September 8). Malakhov Kurgan was subjected to especially heavy bombardment.

August 27 (September 8) the enemy troops launched the final assault on Sevastopol. The enemy sent the main blow to the 2 bastion and the Malakhov barrow. The French, after stubborn fighting, managed to seize Malakhov mound and the second bastion. At other points all attacks were repulsed. But with the loss of the Malakhov Kurgan and the 2 bastion, the line of defense, the defense of Sevastopol, lost its integrity. The commander of the Russian army, M. Gorchakov, decided to abandon his further struggle for the city and ordered the withdrawal of troops to the northern side. On August 27 (September 8), Russian forces, having blown up warehouses and fortifications on the South side, crossed to the North side and then joined the Menshikov army. Simultaneously with the crossing of the troops, the remaining ships of the Black Sea Fleet were flooded in the bay (Fall of Sevastopol).

As a result, 11-monthly defense of Sevastopol took the main place in the course of the Eastern (Crimean) war. Russian soldiers and sailors under the leadership of the legendary admirals in the fight against a numerically superior enemy defended Sevastopol, showing heroism, bravery and courage. They held down the main forces and attention of the enemy.

In other theaters, the enemy's actions were not crowned with success. In August 1854, the Anglo-French squadron appeared at Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka. Admiral Price expected to easily take this small Russian Far Eastern port, began bombing and landed troops. However, the captain of 1 rank Zavoyko and defenders of the city threw the enemy into the sea (Heroic defense of Petropavlovsk; H. 2). After the fruitless attacks of the Russian ports and coastal villages of the Anglo-French fleet had to leave the White Sea and the Baltic. In the Caucasus, Russian troops in November 1855 won a strategic victory, taking the fortress of Kars, which was then exchanged for Sevastopol.

Paris world

Both sides were exhausted and could not continue fighting. However, the threat of Austria joining the war on the side of Britain, France and Turkey made Petersburg go for peace. The decision to go to peace negotiations was made at a meeting in the Winter Palace 3 (15) in January 1856, at which the ultimatum presented to Russia by the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph was discussed for the second time.

13 (25) February 1856 began the Paris Congress. The French Foreign Minister, Count A. Valevsky, presided at the meetings, the second representative was the French Ambassador to Turkey de Burquin. Russia was represented by the first authorized Earl A.F. Orlov and the second by F.I. Brunnov, England by Lord Clarendon and Cowley, Austria by Foreign Minister Buol and Gübner, the Sardinian kingdom by Cavour and Villamarin. Turkey was represented by the Grand Vizier Aali-Pasha and the Turkish Ambassador to Paris, Cemil Bey, and Prussia by O. Manteifel, M. Harzfeldt.

England and Austria put a number of difficult conditions: the British sought to weaken Russia in the Black Sea basin, to undermine its position in the Caucasus, and in the Baltic States, insisted on demilitarizing the Aland Islands; The Austrians demanded that all of Bessarabia be alienated from Russia and counted on joining the Danube principalities to their possessions. However, the separate position of France, which went into independent negotiations with Russia, undermined the possibilities of Britain and Austria. As a result, the Austrians left the congress without receiving their thirty pieces of silver for betraying Russia. But nobody asked Turkey, the Ottomans were forced to agree with the allies in everything.

18 (30) March peace agreement was signed. According to its terms:

- Russia returned to Turkey Kars and other territories occupied by Russian troops. France, England, Sardinia and Turkey returned to Russia: Sevastopol, Balaclava, Kamysh, Evpatoria, Kerch-Enikale, Kinburn and other places occupied by the Allied forces.

“Both sides returned prisoners of war and forgave“ the citizens who were found guilty of any complicity with the enemy during the continuation of hostilities. The general forgiveness extended "to those subjects of each of the warring powers, which during the war remained in the service of another of the warring powers."

- Russia, Austria, France, England. Prussia and Sardinia pledged to "respect the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire, provide for the aggregate guarantee their exact observance of this obligation and, as a result, will honor any violation of this action with a question concerning common rights and benefits." Turkey promised to improve the position of the Christian population of the empire.

- The Black Sea was declared neutral (that is, open to commercial and closed to military courts in peacetime), with the prohibition of Russia and Turkey to have military fleets and arsenals there.

- Navigation on the Danube was declared free, for which the Russian borders were moved away from the river. Part of the Russian Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube was attached to Moldova.

- Russia was deprived of Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhsky world 1774, the protectorate over Moldova and Wallachia and Russia's exclusive patronage over the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

- Serbia remained “under the supreme power of the Brilliant Porte”, but retained its independent and national administration and complete freedom of religion, law and trade. Turkey retained the right to have its own garrisons in Serbia.

- Russia pledged not to build fortifications on the Aland Islands.

The treaty on the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits was attached to the treatise, confirming their closure to foreign warships in peacetime. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 seriously changed the political situation in Europe, destroying the European Vienna system created after the defeat of Napoleon’s empire. The Treaty of Paris became the basis of European diplomacy until the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 — 1871.

The Russian Empire achieved the abolition of the ban to keep the navy in the Black Sea at the London Convention 1871, taking advantage of the Franco-Prussian war 1870-1871. Russia was able to return part of the lost territories in the 1878 year according to the Berlin Treaty, signed within the framework of the Berlin Congress of the 1877 — 1878 Russian-Turkish War.

Thus, the West managed to prevent the strengthening of Russia in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Asia Minor and for some time to deprive it of the Black Sea Fleet. However, the heroic resistance of Russian soldiers and sailors in Sevastopol disrupted large-scale geopolitical and strategic plans to weaken the Russian empire. The West had to prepare new “rams” - Japan and Germany, in order to crush the Russian Empire. Therefore, the Eastern War can be considered as one of the rehearsals of the future world war.
Author:
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Good cat
    Good cat 21 March 2016 06: 37
    +3
    History repeats itself, Russia will take its!
  2. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 21 March 2016 06: 55
    +4
    Thank you for the article. At that time, apparently, a project appeared in Austrian politics to divide Russian people? The consequences are now in Ukraine.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 21 March 2016 19: 43
      +1
      In the situation with Austria, you need to know that parallel to the suppression of the Hungarian uprising of 1948-1949. the revolution was suppressed in the Italian lands belonging to Austria with the help of French bayonets. As a result, the Austrians very skillfully provoked Napoleon III, that if you do not support France, then it will support the anti-Austrian movement of Venice and Lombardy against Austria. As a result, Autria decided to come up with hostile neutrality towards Russia.
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 22 March 2016 16: 23
        0
        "... the suppression of the Hungarian uprising 1948-1949 years."
        Apparently, 1848-1849.
    2. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 22 March 2016 16: 22
      0
      "... at that time, apparently, there was a project to separate the Russian people?"
      Quite right! It was at the suggestion of the Austrians that the "Ukrainian dictionary" began to be created from a mixture of rural dialects of Little Russia and Poland, with subsequent far-reaching plans. Austria-Hungary was gone, and our democrats continued to strengthen the time bomb already in the Civil War and after it. The result is obvious.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 21 March 2016 07: 32
    +7
    Part of Russian Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube was annexed to Moldova...After the defeat of the Russian Empire in the Crimean War, the countries of Western Europe wanted to completely deprive it of influence in the Danube principalities. Great Britain and France wanted to subjugate the Principality of Moldova and Wallachia in Southeastern Europe. From these principalities grain was exported to Great Britain; therefore, it depended on the Danube principalities and wanted to fully control the situation in them. To this end, the Russian Empire was denied access to the important European navigable river - the Danube, transferring the cities of Reni, Bolgrad and Izmail to the Principality of Moldova
  4. V.ic
    V.ic 21 March 2016 07: 57
    +6
    Russian diplomacy has nevertheless brought its "fly in the ointment" into a barrel of honey. Snake Island on the Danube remained Russian and blocked the exit from the Danube to the Black Sea. Now in "nezalezhnaya" practically ceded Zmeiny Island and the adjacent territories of Romania.
  5. Nicola Bari
    Nicola Bari 21 March 2016 08: 03
    +8
    The Russian Empire had opportunities to take revenge on Austria-Hungary, but she did not take advantage of them, which is sad. Take help in suppressing the Hungarian uprising of 1848-49. - Russia helped its enemy only because it kept general order in Europe, and what did it receive as a reward? Only the betrayal and glory of the "gendarme of Europe".
    1. ICT
      ICT 21 March 2016 08: 10
      0
      In other theaters, the enemy’s actions were unsuccessful


      http://topwar.ru/47192-ukroschenie-britanskogo-tigra.html
    2. tundra
      tundra 21 March 2016 08: 28
      +7
      The next emperor correctly said that Russia has no allies except its army and navy.
      Nefig geyropeytsev with the help of Russia nishtyaki receive.
      Let them cook in their de..e.
      1. bandabas
        bandabas 21 March 2016 10: 29
        +3
        Left-handed man at Leskov’s death says, “... the British don’t clean their guns with bricks.” Even if they don’t clean it with us, or, God bless the war, they’re not good for shooting. ” The next emperor took note of this.
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 21 March 2016 13: 01
      +6
      Quote: Nicola Bari
      The Russian Empire had the opportunity to take revenge on Austria-Hungary, but it did not take advantage of them, which is sad. Take at least help in suppressing the Hungarian uprising of 1848-49.


      Still, Russia in 1849 could not avenge Austria for the Crimean War 1855. But soon Austria was defeated by Prussia and Russia did not prevent this.
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 21 March 2016 17: 31
        +1
        Quote: Aleksander


        Still, Russia in 1849 could not avenge Austria for the Crimean War 1855. But soon Austria was defeated by Prussia and Russia did not prevent this.

        So Russia did not really interfere when Prussia occupied France in 1870. Turkey later "got" it directly from Russia, in the Russian-Turkish war of 1977-1978. Some Britons, as always, came out "dry". Moreover, in the aforementioned war, they managed to "squeeze" Cyprus from the Ottomans. In exchange for this, Great Britain undertook to "protect" Turkey from "further Russian advance in the Caucasus."
    4. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 22 March 2016 16: 25
      +1
      Only the betrayal and glory of the "gendarme of Europe".
      The gendarme of Europe is already our then white-bellies christened. Mmmm their mother! ...
  6. Kenneth
    Kenneth 21 March 2016 08: 49
    +4
    In principle, in Crimea, adversaries were actually trapped. The supply of the sea is quite stressful; sabotage actions can be deployed in the rear. Another winter and everyone would have rested. And beyond Perekos, it was possible to calmly prepare a new army.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 21 March 2016 10: 32
      +5
      The supply of the sea is much better than the supply of carts along the steppes, another thing is that the Allies could not start the offensive deep into the country because of the shortcomings of horses, the war could continue and wait for the collapse of the coalition, only Britain had the desire and ability to fight
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 21 March 2016 12: 46
        0
        Supply by the sea - depends on the weather !!! and good only within the port of discharge.
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 21 March 2016 17: 45
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        The supply of the sea is much better than the supply of carts on the steppes

        Exactly, they had steamboats, and we have one railway Moscow - Peter.
  7. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 21 March 2016 10: 03
    +8
    Dear author, you can argue with the title of the article. First, the interventionists set very limited goals; they did not want to conquer Russia like Napoleon, so they landed in the "strategic bear's corner". Moreover, how did the surrender of the fortress allow you to win? In general, they allowed us to win the RUSSIAN VICTORIES ON THE DANUBE AND IN THE CAUCASUS including the capture of the most powerful fortress Kars, just which was exchanged for Sevastopol.

    19 November (1 December) under Bashkadiklar 10 thousandth detachment of General V.O. Bebutova defeated the 36-thousandth army of Akhmet Pasha.

    I remember that when for the first time as a boy he learned about the participation of his ancestor both in this battle and in the battle of Kuryuk-Dara, for a long time I thought that it was some kind of stupidity, a fable, and could not remember and pronounce these strange names, and then nothing was known about these battles ... Now I’m just unbelievably grieving that almost all the awards and weapons of my ancestors died in the Civil War.

    But these were the heroic VICTORIES of Russian weapons, while for the most part our country knows for some reason the defense of Sevastopol, which ended with the DELIVERY of the city, and of course Sinop. And almost nothing is known about these battles ...

    As soon as possible, using all available resources, including the capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet, they prepared the city for defense.
    So they used the capabilities of the fleet that simply flooded it and that’s it. And this is after the victorious Sinope? True, it was the latter (or rather, the destruction of a peaceful city by Russian artillery) that the Western Alliance used as an excuse for declaring war and speaking on the side of Turkey.

    Quote: Kenneth
    In principle, in Crimea, adversaries were actually trapped.
    As I said, the Allies set themselves very limited goals. And on land in Crimea, unfortunately, our army outright lost two decisive battles - the Inkerman battle and the battle on the Black River, while on the Danube and in the Transcaucasus we had victories (but there our opponents were the Turks, at best with European "instructors" ).
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 21 March 2016 10: 28
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      So they used the capabilities of the fleet that simply flooded it and that’s it. And this is after the victorious Sinope? True, it was the latter (or rather, the destruction of a peaceful city by Russian artillery) that the Western Alliance used as an excuse for declaring war and speaking on the side of Turkey.

      So open your eyes. To prevent the "Sinop" scenario of the shooting of Sevastopol by an enemy squadron, which was superior to the Black Sea Fleet, the guns were removed from it, and the ships were sunk in the fairway. Probably Pavel Stepanovich was a greater specialist in the use of the opportunities available to him than the vast majority of users of this resource.
      Quote: Warrior2015
      As I said, the Allies set themselves very limited goals.

      ... "limited" by the waters of the Baltic, White and Barents seas!
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 21 March 2016 10: 45
        0
        Flooding was a mistake, Kornilov was categorically against it, flooding did not prevent execution from the sea, and it was unlikely that the Allies would have made a breakthrough into the bay
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth 21 March 2016 12: 40
          +3
          Why not. The experience of entering the enemy’s bay with the destruction of the fleet was. Navarin for example.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 21 March 2016 23: 26
          +5
          Quote: Cartalon
          Flooding was a mistake, Kornilov was categorically against it, flooding did not prevent execution from the sea, and it was unlikely that the Allies would have made a breakthrough into the bay

          Our fleet was sailing and had no chance against the allies.
          The guns removed from the ships proved to be excellent in trench defense.
      2. tundra
        tundra 21 March 2016 10: 59
        +3
        They forgot about Kamchatka. There, after all, the Aglitsky commander shot himself with grief.
      3. Kenneth
        Kenneth 21 March 2016 12: 39
        -2
        The authority of the British was too great. Yes, and superiority in power, and most importantly in the quality and speed of ships was for the Allies. Sinop of course was the purest execution of the weakest enemy.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 21 March 2016 17: 56
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Dear author, the title of the article can be argued. First, the interventionists set very limited goals; they did not want to conquer Russia as Napoleon say

      But they wanted to arrange a semi-colony from Russia, as in China. The Crimean War is a phantom of the first opium war. The same scenarios. Only, in the Opium War, the British had a sailing fleet, and in the Crimean War a steam fleet.
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 22 March 2016 03: 58
      +1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      First, the interventionists set very limited goals;

      SECTION Russia is a limited goal? belay

      During the Crimean War, British politics actually concentrated in the hands of the Lord Palmerston. His point of view was stated by him to Lord John Russell:

      Åland and Finland return to Sweden; Baltic region departs to Prussia; the Kingdom of Poland should be restored as a barrier between Russia and Germany (not Prussia, but Germany); Moldova and Wallachia and the entire mouth of the Danube depart to Austria, and Lombardy and Venice from Austria to the Sardinian kingdom; Crimea and the Caucasus are taken from Russia and withdrawn to Turkey, and in the Caucasus, Cherkessia forms a separate state, in vassal relations with Turkey
    4. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon 22 March 2016 07: 24
      +1
      I hope 2015 is not the year of graduation from the Russian reformed school ... otherwise, the content of the comment shows exactly that! Where did you get it into your head about "limited goals"? Had a dream ... Anna Pavlovna told? Not a single coalition war against Russia in all centuries has NEVER set limited goals! Like today: NATO declares and is waging a new Cold War against us because we just have the wrong "values"! If you believe in this then further explanations are not for you!
      The target was formed by our main geopolitical adversary in the GREAT GAME - the British Empire! The goal is, first of all, with the hands of the collected "allies" to completely destroy his only strong enemy Russia, send him to the 16th century, to the borders of "wild Muscovy" and preferably turn him into his colony, at worst into a semi-colony! And these are not my fantasies, but the British elite and those in power! Everything on paper, no conspiracy!
      It was not England, France, Turkey who fought against us ... THESE countries did NOT EXIST THEN! The British, French, Ottoman Empire and almost all but northern Italy fought! These are completely different things by definition ... in the first case it turns out that the Mighty Great Russia is fighting with small defenseless camps, in the second we fought with 2/3 of the world's population, which have 15-20 times more industry and finance, 10 times the population!
      On the basis of the foregoing, I dare to assert that RUSSIA WINS the Crimean War! War, as you know, is a policy pursued by other, forceful means to achieve the goals of this policy! The coalition almost did not achieve its stated goals, which means that if it didn’t lose the war, it didn’t win for sure! Additional proof is that the Austro-Hungarian Empire (not Austria!), The Prussian Kingdom with other German allies, the Kingdom of Sweden, China, Persia and Japan never entered the war that supposedly weakened Russia lost! In tsarist times, except for Russophobic liberals, no one considered this war lost! In Soviet times, it was necessary to historically spit on the "backward expanding reactionary tsarism" ... hence the presentation of events as a whole!
  8. Aleksander
    Aleksander 21 March 2016 12: 01
    +7
    The reasons why Turkey and England fought are clear. But there was practically no reason, besides ambition, to fight against France, which made the main contribution to the land war. Nevertheless, Napoleon III condemned to death more than one hundred thousand of his soldiers near Sevastopol, practically having received nothing in return. No less adventurous was his failed Mexican expedition. But when it came to the real interests of France in the war with Prussia, he was left without allies and he turned out to be insolvent and led France to disaster.
    France turned for help to Russia against Prussia. The Russian government issued a declaration:

    “The imperial government is always ready to render the most sincere assistance to any aspiration aimed at limiting the scope of hostilities, shortening their duration and returning Europe the blessings of peace»

    And the Crimean "winner" had to experience the shame of captivity and foreign land ...
  9. Senior manager
    Senior manager 21 March 2016 12: 38
    +5
    Russia has allies - only we are the people. And so, pessimistically - regardless of power.
  10. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 21 March 2016 15: 57
    -3
    In general, I think too much attention is paid to the defense of Sevastopol, forgetting about our victories in that war. Yes, it was heroic, yes, a long one, but the Crimean theater is 4: 0 in favor of the Allies, whatever one may say. But on the Danube and in Transcaucasia, the situation was different, in Transcaucasia we had mostly victories, on the Danube there were victories and defeats, but not like in Crimea.

    Quote: Aleksander
    Nevertheless, Napoleon III condemned to death more than one hundred thousand of his soldiers near Sevastopol

    Isn't it a bit much? even 80 thousand (of which 10 thousand deaths and 20 thousand minds from injuries, the remaining 50 thousand from cold and illnesses) are considered peak, clearly overstated estimates, the French data seem to be different.

    Quote: V.ic
    So open your eyes.

    Why be rude?

    Quote: Cartalon
    Flooding was a mistake, Kornilov was categorically against, flooding prevented not being shot from the sea
    That's it ! one way or another, but a combat-ready fleet in the bay is already a force that creates a threat + magnificent (not comparable in strength to Sinop!) batteries covering from the sea.

    Quote: V.ic
    . "limited" by the waters of the Baltic, White and Barents seas!
    And what great did they plan to do in these waters, not to mention what they did in real life, the allys? a couple of times shooting from the sea ?! But Napoleon's army "simply and quickly" went straight to Moscow.
  11. Koshak
    Koshak 21 March 2016 18: 10
    +1
    Quote: Proxima
    in the Russian-Turkish war of 1977-1978.

    mean 1877-1878?
  12. Rastas
    Rastas 21 March 2016 20: 11
    0
    In fact, for some reason, speaking of the defense of Sevastopol, they do not raise the question, but how could the allies have landed unhindered in Crimea. Indeed, at that time there were only two zones suitable for such an allied landing, and no one strengthened them, although Menshikov had information that an airborne landing was being prepared in Crimea.
    1. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon 22 March 2016 07: 33
      0
      That is why you probably would not have entered the General Staff Academy, if you think that Menshikov had and the coalition lacked the ability to transfer huge masses of troops!
  13. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 21 March 2016 20: 45
    +1
    Sevastopol overshadowed Russia.
    If not for this great feat, the consequences for Russian statehood would be disastrous.
  14. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 21 March 2016 22: 44
    -1
    Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
    Sevastopol overshadowed Russia.
    If not for this great feat, the consequences for Russian statehood would be disastrous.

    This is a traditional view, very controversial IMHO. If there were no Russian victories in the Danube and Transcaucasian theaters, what could we have done with constant "leaks" in the field battles in the Crimea and with Sevastopol taken anyway? the conditions of the world were much harsher.

    And also another moment - the allies did not plan the occupation and dismemberment of Russia; The Crimean War was very limited in its goals, and the Anglo-French alliance in many ways simply wanted to save Turkey from imminent defeat, simultaneously weakening Russia's military and economic power.

    It is unfortunate that this all happened only 25 years after England, France and Russia TOGETHER STOPED the GENOCIDE of the Greeks and Serbs from the Turks, Egyptians and Tunisianswhile showing how to exemplarily destroy the enemy’s fleet in the Navarino battle (destroying 60 enemy ships without losing one of their own in the coalition squadron).

    And until now, in Sevastopol and in Nikolaev, in London and Paris, there should still be Navarinskaya streets, if they have not yet been renamed, and among ordinary English sailors, for a long time, even despite the Crimean War, probably up to the First World War it was known "Song of the Battle of Navarino".
  15. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 22 March 2016 10: 52
    -1
    Oh, and minus, that's what for? for nothing to say?

    And one more thought regarding Navarin (moving away from the topic of the Russian diplomatic loss of the Crimean War long before it began) - namely, relying on how the Turkish fleet was burned in Navarino and Sinop, our admirals could really decide that it is better to flood the Black Sea Fleet by blocking the entrance to the bay, and thereby prevent neither shelling of Sevastopol from close range, nor landing in the rear of the defensive line, than likely to destroy it in a vain slaughter (given the huge quantitative and qualitative superiority of the coalition air squadron).
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 22 March 2016 11: 41
      -1
      So was this allied advantage great with the option of an anchored battle under cover of its batteries
  16. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 22 March 2016 11: 51
    +1
    Quote: Warrior2015
    It is unfortunate that this all happened only 25 years after England, France and Russia TOGETHER STOPED the GENOCIDE of the Greeks and Serbs from the Turks, Egyptians and Tunisians

    Ah, I realized what a minus! It appears on the VO website that there are supporters of radical Islamism or especially loving Egyptians, Turks and Tunisians! well, so to these comrades I can recall the pictures of how they cut their heads in Greece, not only for men, but even for women and children! and how their ideological heirs behave in Syria!

    Quote: Cartalon
    So was this allied advantage great with the option of an anchored battle under cover of its batteries
    Well, under Navarin and Sinope, the situation was almost the same, and the coastal batteries were unable to turn the tide of the battle ...

    Numerically and especially qualitatively, the advantage of the Anglo-French (it is clear that not Turks or Sardinians) was great. But therefore, for example, I believe, in the wake of the ideas of some officers of that period, that we could try not to put the fleet in a strategic trap in the Sevastopol Bay - where it would be blocked. And bring him to the operational space, and either collectively or in separate units, try to intercept transport ships or launch attacks on individual units.

    But anyway, I really appreciate Admiral Nakhimov, and if he decided to flood the fleet, he’s great victorious battle ships! - that means really the decision was not just made ...

    Kutuzov also made a decision not to give Borodino 2, realizing that the Russian army that had stood in the 1 battle would be apparently defeated in it, but decided to surrender Moscow ...
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 22 March 2016 14: 00
      0
      The flooding violated the principle that the Fleet exists, that is, if the enemy has a fleet, it must be taken into account, blocked, tortured, just be prepared, if there is no fleet, do what you want, what the Allies did with impunity attacking Russian ports, Comparison with Sinop and Navarin far-fetched, the Russian fleet was not inferior in revenue and fighting spirit to the allies, Sevastopol from the sea was protected by long-term fortifications and not improvised, well, the Russians had bombing guns so that in armament there was equality, superiority in numbers they would disappear, only to be left at the expense of maneuverability screw LK
  17. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 22 March 2016 15: 44
    0
    Quote: Cartalon
    Flooding violated the principle that the Fleet exists, that is, if the enemy has a fleet, it must be taken into account, blocked, tortured, just be prepared, if there is no fleet, do what you want

    In general, yes. A fleet at sea is always a threat. To block the entrance to Sevastopol, it was possible to flood some old skeletons or non-main battle ships.

    Quote: Cartalon
    Comparison with Sinop and Navarin is far-fetched, the Russian fleet was not inferior to the allies in revenue and morale,

    In training, the best crews - maybe not, but technologically the British and French already had other ships. With other artillery, at least partially.

    But one way or another, we still could not defeat the Anglo-French fleet on the Black Sea, except to create a threat to him and to tear logistics. But on land - even one lost battle would put the Allies on the brink of disaster, and 2 would simply mean their discharge into the sea. Unfortunately, the Russian army in Crimea lost all the decisive battles - including even with a numerical superiority of 3: 1 (the same Inkerman).

    And I will say one thought - the Allies still made a gross mistake by landing in the Crimea (even despite the declaration of the limited goals of the war). The fact is that if they landed in the Caucasus (somewhere in the Lazorevsky region) - with an even milder climate and an even more loyal population, with a mass of tribes disobeying Russia, where the war with Shamil is raging - then Russia would have much big problems.

    Why
    Firstly, our Transcaucasian army is cut off and put on the brink of destruction (from the front of the Turks, from the flanks of the highlanders, from the rear allies).

    Secondly - as we know, they know how to provoke wars against Russia in Europe - and the entire Caucasus rises to jihad and our Caucasian corps becomes very ill (and there is also a direct channel for supplying weapons to the mountaineers - instead of blocking the smuggling supplies by Russian cruising forces, as it was in reality).

    Thirdly, the hostilities are not limited to one small peninsula, but they become large-scale, and with the interaction of three forces - the Turks, allies and rebellious highlanders, Russia most likely loses the Caucasus, being thrown back somewhere to Rostov, and we have to start the Caucasian war from the beginning.

    Thus, thank God that the Anglo-French-Turkish-Italian forces landed in the Crimea, and not on the western coast of the Caucasus, actually locking themselves in a strategic impasse.

    These are my thoughts, it will be interesting to know the opinion of respected members of the forum.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 22 March 2016 16: 17
      0
      Quoting is not convenient, I will try to answer point by point
      The ships were the same, they simply inserted a steam engine into the good old battleship, the artillery was the same, the Russians could not win the maneuver battle, but they could bring troubles
      The 3k1 numerical superiority is you bent now. I don’t remember the numbers, but only at the time of Inkerman it was generally on TVD, it seems that it wasn’t at all in battle, during the rest of the battles the allies had superiority
      Regarding the landing in the Caucasus, all the mountaineers who wanted to fight had already fought for Shamil, so it would hardly have been added, secondly, the allies could not act away from the sea, there were not enough horses, and if they had difficulty wintering in Crimea, then the mountains would definitely die out.
  18. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 22 March 2016 20: 35
    0
    Quote: Cartalon
    The ships were the same, just inserted a steam engine into the good old battleship,

    Are you talking about rowing / wheeled frigates and battleships. But the fact is that the Allies already had steam-screw and frigates, and battleships, and even the first prototypes of armadillos.

    Quote: Cartalon
    the Russians could not win the maneuvering battle, but they could deliver troubles
    And so I am for having to act on communications then, because the main forces of the Anglo-French fleet are in Balaklava Bay.

    Quote: Cartalon
    The numerical superiority of 3K1 is that you have turned down the numbers now, I don’t remember, but only at the time of Inkerman it was generally on a TVD, in battle it seems it was not at all,
    No, just the whole horror is the situation that was recognized not only by the military, but also by senior officers, including the king, in the fact that, even having a multiple numerical superiority, we could not break the British and French in the field battle.
    Moreover, it turned out that they can successfully storm our fortifications, and we don’t. Even the Turkish army (thanks to European weapons and, most importantly, European instructors) rose strongly and we were unable to take many of the Turkish fortresses (I recall that the European trained regiments of the Turks were mainly concentrated on the Danube).

    Quote: Cartalon
    Regarding the landing in the Caucasus, all the highlanders who wanted to fight had already fought for Shamil, so it would hardly have been added, secondly, the Allies could not act away from the sea, there were not enough horses,

    Only the most untied heads followed Shamil. And if a gigantic army of Turkey’s allies and Europeans who declared themselves to be the defenders of the rights of Muslims of Muslims landed in the Caucasus, then most likely everyone would rise against us (except for Georgians and Armenians naturally).

    Further, the allies, in the event of a landing in the Caucasus, would not go anywhere from the coast, why would they? they have an open operational line from Abkhazia to Anapa with constant recharge from the sea.

    In general, once again, our country was saved not only by the heroism of ordinary soldiers and officers, but also by Divine Providence, which instilled in the brains of the high command of the Western alliance the idea of ​​a landing in the Crimea, instead of a much more dangerous plan for the landing of the main forces in the Caucasus or directly near St. Petersburg.