Great Britain, Russia and the Crimean War

[bytor]

Imagine a closer relationship between Russia and Great Britain following Napoleon's defeat, starting with Alexander I not getting sucked into Klemens von Metternich's (and therefore Austria's) orbit but instead remaining friends with Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlreagh, the Foreign Minister and eventually (in this ATL) Prime Minister of Great Britain. OTL. This goes on, with Russia normally supporting Britain at the various congresses in Europe and an unofficial "military hands off" policy with Bukhara, Khiva, Kokand and Afghanistan in the 1830s and 1840s (only jockeying for trade agreements with them) so as to reduce antagonism with the other until 1853 when Alexander II Nicholas I tells British Ambassador that he is no longer interested in expanding Imperial Russia but he must protect the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and in return for past support in Europe he requires British support against the Ottomans.

Is this closer relationship an unofficial agreement in Central Asia enough to make the British believe Alexander's statement where the did not in OTL and do one or more of:

• stay out of the Crimean War
• try to convince the French to stay out of the Crimean War
• join the Crimean War on Russia's side?

[MinnesotaNationalist]

I imagine that Alexander II (Nicholas I, do you mean?) might be able, with British Backing, to convince a council between Russia, Britain, France, and Austria to divide influence of the Ottomans a la Qing China, with Russia getting greater Armenia, Austria getting Bosnia, France getting Tunisia and Tripolitania, and Britain getting Lower Mesopotamia and Haasa, and Greece is expanded.

Austria and Russia, while competitive in the Balkans, I don't think would be quite as hostile as they were by World War I, as Austria still has a chance to be influential in Italy and Germany (and might even be part of an agreement between Russia and Austria, in return for Austria staying out of the Balkans, Russia would help Austria limit Prussian and Sardinian expansion)

[bytor]

Dec 18, 2016 2:24:58 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

I imagine that Alexander II (Nicholas I, do you mean?) …

That I did. Thanks for catching that. 

[bytor]

One thing I realized earlier today while reading on the Crimean War is that a closer relationship between the Great Britain and Russia is going to affect The Great Game in Central Asia.

In the 1830s Russia apparently suggested that Afghanistan be neutral territory as a buffer between British and Russian interests, but that didn't really catch on and as a result we have the disastrous (for the British) First Anglo-Afghan War from 1838 to 1842, and the disastrous Russian attempt at invading the Khanate of Khiva over Russians being sold there as slaves.

A closer relationship might make that idea of a buffer work, especially if the Russians were to accept a counter-proposal to add Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand to the buffer zone, countries which Britain tried to gain influence in just like how the Russians tried to gain influence in Afghanistan.

Another OTL incident were the Abbott and Shakespear expeditions to Khiva in 1840, also over the slavery of Russians. Shakespear managed to convince the Khan to make slavery of Russians illegal and arrived in mid-August 1840 at Fort Alexandrovsk on the Caspian shore (now Fort Shevchenko, Kazakhstan) with all the freed Russians.

That incident was looked on very favourably by the Tsar in OTL, and that, combined with the closer relationship, would be very likely to make the buffer zone idea very attractive to Great Britain after they crash and burn in Afghanistan against Dost Mohammed. Especially if the British throw in the idea of Russian trade access down the Amu Darya and Indus rivers. (You know the British East India company would love access to Russian markets!)

[bytor]

Another thing I realized about my alternate Crimean War specifically, rather than the lead-up for Anglo-Russian relations, is what the military involvement of Austria would mean. In my ATL, Austria never needed Russian help in putting down the Hungarian revolution as they were able to call General Radetzky from northern Italy has he had an easier time defeating a Piedmont-Sardinia that did not have French support.

We all know that Russia's army was crap in the 1850s, still run the old way with nobles who imagined themselves to be great tacticians buying their position and rank, compared to Great Britain, Prussia and France who were well along their way to a modern, professional army run by career soldiers who earned their ranks through merit. Now the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade showed how far they still had to go in that regard, but the Russians still hadn't even looked at that reorganisational road, much less ventured down it. Their only real advantage was size and the Crimean War showed just how effectively that could be neutralized.

Now Austria was not as far along as the other three, but they were still better at it than the Russians. Radetzky's experience in Lombardy-Venetia against Sardinian forces who did admirably well while often being only 20% the size of the Austrian armies would have only served to underline this necessity.

Five years later with Austria taking the place of the British in the Crimean War, Russia now faces a war on two fronts - Crimea against French, Sardinian and Ottoman forces, and Bessarabia against Austrian and Ottoman forces. The graft, corruption and disorganization in the Russian army could make this an even worse disaster for Russia than it was in OTL.