Crimean War of 1853 1856 reasons for the move. The significance of the Crimean War. The beginning of hostilities

On April 22, 1854, an Anglo-French squadron shelled Odessa. This day can be considered the moment when the Russian-Turkish confrontation de facto turned into a different quality, turning into a war of four empires. It went down in history under the name Crimean. Although many years have passed since then, to this day in Russia this war remains extremely mythologized, and the myth is classified as black PR.

“The Crimean War showed the rottenness and powerlessness of serf Russia” - these are the words found for our country by a friend of the Russian people Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Lenin. It was with this vulgar stigma that the war entered Soviet historiography. For a long time there is neither Lenin nor the state created by him, but in the public consciousness the events of 1853-56 are still assessed exactly as the leader of the world proletariat said.

In general, the perception of the Crimean War can be likened to an iceberg. Everyone remembers from school times the "top": the defense of Sevastopol, the death of Nakhimov, the flooding of the Russian fleet. As a rule, those events are judged at the level of clichés embedded in the heads of many years of anti-Russian propaganda. Here is the "technical backwardness" of tsarist Russia, and the "shameful defeat of tsarism", and the "humiliating peace treaty." But the true scale and significance of the war remains little known. It seems to many that it was some kind of peripheral, almost colonial confrontation, far from the main centers of Russia.

The simplified scheme looks straightforward: the enemy landed troops in the Crimea, defeated the Russian army there, and, having achieved their goals, solemnly evacuated. But is it? Let's figure it out.

First, who and how proved that Russia's defeat was precisely shameful? The very fact of losing does not say anything about shame. In the end, Germany lost its capital in World War II, was completely occupied and signed an unconditional surrender. But have you ever heard anyone call it a shameful defeat?

Let's look at the events of the Crimean War from this point of view. Three empires (British, French and Ottoman) and one kingdom (Piedmont-Sardinia) then opposed Russia. What was Britain at the time? It is a gigantic country, an industrial leader, and the best navy in the world. What is France? This is the third economy in the world, the second fleet, a large and well-trained land army. It is easy to see that the alliance of these two states already gave such a resonant effect that the combined forces of the coalition had absolutely incredible power. But there was also the Ottoman Empire.

Yes, by the middle of the 19th century, her golden period was in the past, and she was even called the sick man of Europe. But do not forget that this was said in comparison with the most developed countries in the world. The Turkish fleet had steamers, the army was large and partially armed with rifled weapons, officers were sent to study in Western countries, and in addition, foreign instructors worked on the territory of the Ottoman Empire itself.

By the way, during the First World War, "sick Europe", having already lost almost all of its European possessions, defeated Britain and France in the Gallipoli campaign. And if this was the Ottoman Empire at the end of its existence, then, one must assume, that in the Crimean War it was even more dangerous opponents.

The role of the Sardinian kingdom is usually not taken into account at all, but this small country has put up against us a twenty thousand strong, well-armed army. Thus, Russia was opposed by a powerful coalition. Let's remember this moment.

Now let's see what goals the enemy pursued. According to his plans, the Aland Islands, Finland, the Baltic region, the Crimea and the Caucasus were to be seized from Russia. In addition, the Kingdom of Poland was restored, and an independent state "Circassia" was created in the Caucasus, a vassal to Turkey. That's not all. The Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia) were under the protectorate of Russia, but now it was supposed to transfer them to Austria. In other words, the Austrian troops would reach the southwestern borders of our country.

They wanted to share the trophies as follows: the Baltic states - Prussia, the Aland Islands and Finland - Sweden, the Crimea and the Caucasus - Turkey. Shamil, the leader of the highlanders, receives Circassia, and, by the way, during the Crimean War, his troops also fought against Russia.

It is generally believed that the plan was lobbied by influential British cabinet member Palmerston, while the French emperor held a different view. However, let's give the floor to Napoleon III himself. Here's what he said to one of the Russian diplomats:

“I intend to… do my best to prevent your influence from spreading and to force you to return to Asia where you came from. Russia is not a European country, it should not be and will not be such, if France does not forget about the role that it should play in European history ... It is worth weakening your ties with Europe, and you yourself will start moving to the East, so that again become an Asian country. It will not be difficult to deprive you of Finland, the Baltic lands, Poland and the Crimea. "

This is the fate that England and France were preparing for Russia. Aren't you familiar motives? Our generation was "lucky" to live up to the realization of this plan, and now imagine that the ideas of Palmerston and Napoleon III would have come true not in 1991, but in the middle of the 19th century. Imagine that Russia enters the First World War in a situation when the Baltic States are already in the hands of Germany, when Austria-Hungary has a foothold in Moldova and Wallachia, and Turkish garrisons are in Crimea. And the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45 in such a geopolitical situation turns into a deliberate catastrophe.

But "backward, powerless and rotten" Russia did not leave a stone unturned from these projects. None of this has been implemented. The line under the Crimean War was drawn by the Paris Congress of 1856. According to the concluded agreement, Russia lost a tiny part of Bessarabia, agreed to free navigation on the Danube and neutralize the Black Sea. Yes, neutralization meant a ban for Russia and the Ottoman Empire to have naval arsenals on the Black Sea coast and keep a Black Sea navy. But compare the terms of the agreement with what the anti-Russian coalition initially pursued. Is this a shame in your opinion? Is this a humiliating defeat?

Now let's move on to the second important issue, the "technical backwardness of serf Russia." When it comes to this, they always remember rifled weapons and the steam fleet. Like, in Britain and France, the army was armed with rifled guns, and the Russian soldiers were armed with outdated smooth-bore guns. While the advanced England, together with the advanced France, had long ago switched to steamships, the Russian ships were sailing. It would seem that everything is obvious and the backwardness is obvious. You will laugh, but in the Russian navy there were steam ships, and in the army there were rifled guns. Yes, the fleets of Britain and France were significantly ahead of the Russian in terms of the number of ships. But excuse me, these are the two leading maritime powers. These are countries that have surpassed the whole world at sea for hundreds of years, and the Russian fleet has always been weaker.

It must be admitted that the enemy had much more rifled guns. It is true, but it is also true that the Russian army had rocket weapons. Moreover, the combat missiles of the Konstantinov system were significantly superior to their western counterparts. In addition, the Baltic Sea was reliably covered by Boris Yakobi's domestic mines. This weapon was also one of the best examples in the world.

However, let us analyze the degree of military "backwardness" of Russia as a whole. For this, it makes no sense to sort out all types of weapons, comparing each technical characteristic of certain samples. It is enough just to look at the ratio of losses in manpower. If in terms of armaments Russia really seriously lagged behind the enemy, then it is obvious that our losses in the war should have been fundamentally higher.

The numbers of total losses vary greatly in different sources, but the number of those killed is approximately the same, so let's turn to this parameter. So, during the entire war, 10,240 people were killed in the army of France, 2,755 in England, 10,000 in Turkey, and 24,577 in Russia. About 5,000 people are added to Russia's losses. This figure shows the death toll among the missing. Thus, the total number of those killed is considered equal to
30,000. As you can see, there is no catastrophic loss ratio, especially if you consider that Russia fought for six months longer than England and France.

Of course, in response, we can say that the main losses in the war fell on the defense of Sevastopol, here the enemy stormed the fortifications, and this led him to relatively increased losses. That is, the "technical backwardness" of Russia was partially compensated for by an advantageous position of defense.

Well, then let us consider the very first battle outside Sevastopol - the battle of Alma. The coalition army of about 62 thousand people (the absolute majority - the French and the British) landed in the Crimea and moved on the city. To delay the enemy and gain time for the preparation of the defensive structures of Sevastopol, Russian commander Alexander Menshikov decided to fight at the Alma River. At that time, he managed to collect only 37 thousand people. He also had fewer cannons than the coalition, which is not surprising, because three countries at once opposed Russia. In addition, the enemy was also supported by ship fire from the sea.

“According to some indications, the Allies lost 4300 people on Alma's day, according to others - 4500 people. According to later estimates, our troops lost 145 officers and 5,600 lower ranks in the battle on the Alma, "- such data is given by Academician Tarle in his fundamental work" The Crimean War ". It is constantly emphasized that during the battle we had a shortage of rifled weapons, but note that the losses of the parties are quite comparable. Yes, our losses turned out to be greater, but after all, the coalition had a significant advantage in manpower, what does the technical backwardness of the Russian army have to do with it?

An interesting matter: the size of our army turned out to be almost two times less, and there are fewer guns, and the enemy's fleet is shelling our positions from the sea, in addition, Russia's weapons are backward. It would seem that under such circumstances, the defeat of the Russians should have been inevitable. What is the real result of the battle? After the battle, the Russian army retreated, maintaining order, the exhausted enemy did not dare to organize a pursuit, that is, his movement to Sevastopol slowed down, which gave the city's garrison time to prepare for defense. The words of the commander of the British First Division, the Duke of Cambridge, characterize the state of the "winners" in the best possible way: "Another such victory, and England will not have an army." Such is the "defeat", such is the "backwardness of serf Russia."

I think that one non-trivial fact has not escaped the attentive reader, namely the number of Russians in the battle on the Alma. Why does the enemy have a significant advantage in manpower? Why does Menshikov have only 37 thousand people? Where was the rest of the Russian army at this time? The answer to the last question is very simple:

“At the end of 1854, the entire border zone of Russia was divided into sections, each subordinate to a special commander with the rights of the commander-in-chief of an army or a separate corps. These sites were as follows:

a) the coast of the Baltic Sea (Finland, St. Petersburg and Ostsee provinces), the military forces of which consisted of 179 battalions, 144 squadrons and hundreds, with 384 guns;

b) Kingdom of Poland and Western provinces - 146 battalions, 100 squadrons and hundreds, with 308 guns;

c) Space along the Danube and the Black Sea to the Bug River - 182 battalions, 285 squadrons and hundreds, with 612 guns;

d) Crimea and the Black Sea coast from Bug to Perekop - 27 battalions, 19 squadrons and hundreds, 48 ​​guns;

e) the shores of the Sea of ​​Azov and the Black Sea - 31½ battalion, 140 hundred and squadrons, 54 guns;

f) Caucasian and Transcaucasian territories - 152 battalions, 281 hundred and a squadron, 289 guns (⅓ of these troops were on the Turkish border, the rest - inside the region, against the mountaineers hostile to us).

It is easy to see that the most powerful grouping of our troops was located in the southwestern direction, and not at all in the Crimea. In second place is the army covering the Baltic, the third in strength - in the Caucasus, and fourth in the western borders.

What explains this, at first glance, strange disposition of the Russians? To answer this question, we will temporarily leave the battlefields and move to diplomatic offices, where no less important battles unfolded, and where, in the end, the fate of the entire Crimean War was decided.

British diplomacy set out to win over Prussia, Sweden and the Austrian Empire. In this case, Russia would have to fight with almost the entire world. The British acted successfully, Prussia and Austria began to lean towards an anti-Russian position. Tsar Nicholas I is a man of unbending will, he was not going to give up under any circumstances, and began to prepare for the most catastrophic scenario. That is why the main forces of the Russian army had to be kept far from the Crimea along the border "arc": north, west, southwest.

Time passed, the war dragged on. The siege of Sevastopol lasted for almost a year. In the end, at the cost of heavy losses, the enemy occupied part of the city. Yes, yes, no "fall of Sevastopol" did not happen, the Russian troops simply moved from the southern to the northern part of the city and prepared for further defense. Despite their best efforts, the coalition has achieved almost nothing. During the entire period of hostilities, the enemy captured a small part of the Crimea and the tiny fortress of Kinburn, but was defeated in the Caucasus. Meanwhile, at the beginning of 1856, Russia concentrated over 600 thousand people on the western and southern borders. This is not counting the Caucasian and Black Sea lines. In addition, it was possible to create numerous reserves and assemble a militia.

And what were the representatives of the so-called progressive public doing at this time? As usual, they launched anti-Russian propaganda and distributed leaflets - proclamations.

“Written in brisk language, with full diligence to make them accessible to the understanding of the common people and mainly the soldier, these proclamations were divided into two parts: some were signed by Herzen, Golovin, Sazonov and other persons who had left their homeland; others - by the Poles Zenkovich, Zabitsky and Wortsel. "

Nevertheless, iron discipline reigned in the army, and few people succumbed to the propaganda of the enemies of our state. Russia rose to the Second Patriotic War with all the ensuing consequences for the enemy. And here, from the front of the diplomatic war, alarming news came: Austria openly joined Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia. A few days later, Prussia also came out with threats to St. Petersburg. By that time, Nicholas I had died, and his son Alexander II was on the throne. After weighing all the pros and cons, the king decided to start negotiations with the coalition.

As mentioned above, the treaty that ended the war turned out to be by no means humiliating. The whole world knows about it. In Western historiography, the outcome of the Crimean War for our country is assessed much more objectively than in Russia itself:

“The results of the campaign had little effect on the balance of international forces. It was decided to make the Danube an international waterway, and declare the Black Sea neutral. But Sevastopol had to be returned to the Russians. Russia, which previously occupied a dominant position in Central Europe, lost its former influence over the next few years. But not for long. The Turkish Empire was saved, and also only for a while. The alliance between England and France did not achieve its goals. The problem of the Holy Lands, which he had to solve, was not even mentioned in the peace treaty. And the Russian tsar annulled the treaty itself after fourteen years, ”- this is how Christopher Hibbert described the results of the Crimean War. This is a British historian. For Russia, he found much more correct words than Lenin.

1 Lenin V.I. Complete works, 5th edition, volume 20, p. 173.
2 History of diplomacy, M., OGIZ State socio-economic publishing house, 1945, p. 447
3 Ibid, p. 455.
4 Trubetskoy A., "Crimean War", M., Lomonosov, 2010, p. 163.
5 Urlanis B.TS. "Wars and the population of Europe", Publishing house of socio-economic literature, Moscow, 1960, p. 99-100
6 Dubrovin N.F., "History of the Crimean War and the Defense of Sevastopol", St. Petersburg. Printing House of the Public Benefit Partnership, 1900, p. 255
7 Eastern War 1853-1856 Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A.Efron
8 Eastern War 1853-1856 Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A.Efron
9 Dubrovin N.F., "History of the Crimean War and the Defense of Sevastopol", St. Petersburg. Printing House of the Public Benefit Partnership, 1900, p. 203.
10 Hibbert K., “Crimean Campaign 1854-1855. The tragedy of Lord Raglan ", M., Centerpolygraph, 2004

The Crimean War answered the old dream of Nicholas I to take possession of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. The military potential of Russia was quite realizable in the conditions of the war with the Ottoman Empire, however, Russia could not wage wars against the leading world powers. Let's talk briefly about the results of the Crimean War of 1853-1856.

The course of the war

The main part of the battles took place on the Crimean peninsula, where the allies were successful. However, there were other theaters of military operations, where success accompanied the Russian army. So, in the Caucasus, Russian troops captured the large fortress of Kars and occupied part of Anatolia. In Kamchatka and the White Sea, the British troops were repulsed by the forces of the garrisons and local residents.

During the defense of the Solovetsky Monastery, the monks fired at the Allied fleet from guns made during the reign of Ivan the Terrible.

The conclusion of this historic event was the conclusion of the Paris Peace, the results of which will be reflected in the table. The date of signing was March 18, 1856.

The Allies failed to achieve all their goals in the war, but they stopped the strengthening of Russian influence in the Balkans. There were other results of the Crimean War of 1853-1856.

The war destroyed the financial system of the Russian Empire. So, if England spent 78 million pounds on the war, then Russia's costs amounted to 800 million rubles. This forced Nicholas I to sign a decree on the printing of unsecured credit notes.

TOP-5 articleswho read along with this

Rice. 1. Portrait of Nicholas I.

Also, Alexander II revised the policy regarding railway construction.

Rice. 2. Portrait of Alexander II.

The aftermath of the war

The authorities began to encourage the creation of a railway network on the territory of the country, which did not exist before the Crimean War. The experience of military operations did not go unnoticed. It was used during the military reforms of the 1860s-1870s, where the 25-year conscription was replaced. But the main reason for Russia was the impetus for the Great Reforms, including the abolition of serfdom.

For Britain, a failed military campaign led to the resignation of the Aberdeen government. The war became a litmus test that showed the venality of the British officers.

In the Ottoman Empire, the main result was the bankruptcy of the state treasury in 1858, as well as the publication of a treatise on freedom of religion and equality of subjects of all nationalities.

For the world, the war gave impetus to the development of the armed forces. The result of the war was an attempt to use the telegraph for military purposes, the beginning of military medicine was laid by Pirogov and the involvement of sisters of mercy in caring for the wounded, mines were invented.

After the Battle of Sinop, the manifestation of the "information war" was documented.

Rice. 3. Battle of Sinop.

The British wrote in the newspapers that the Russians finished off the wounded Turks who were swimming in the sea, which was not the case. After the Allied fleet got into an avoidable storm, the Emperor of France Napoleon III issued a decree to monitor the weather and make reports on a daily basis, which served as the beginning of the compilation of weather forecasts.

What have we learned?

The Crimean War, like any major military clash of world powers, introduced many changes both in the military and in the socio-political life of all countries participating in the conflict.

Test by topic

Assessment of the report

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 122.

CRIMEAN WAR

1853-1856

Plan

1 prerequisites for war

2.The course of hostilities

3.Actions in Crimea and the defense of Sevastopol

4.Military action on other fronts

5.Diplomatic Efforts

6.Results of the war

Crimean (Eastern) War of 1853-56 was fought between the Russian Empire and the coalition of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), France, Great Britain and Sardinia for domination in the Middle East, in the Black Sea basin, in the Caucasus. The Allied Powers no longer wanted to see Russia on the world political stage. The new war served as an excellent opportunity to achieve this goal. Initially, England and France planned to wear out Russia in the fight against Turkey, and then, under the pretext of defending the latter, they counted on attacking Russia. In accordance with this plan, it was planned to deploy hostilities on several fronts, separated from one another (on the Black and Baltic Seas, in the Caucasus, where they placed special hope on the mountain population and on the spiritual leader of the Muslims of Chechnya and Dagestan-Shamil).

BACKGROUND OF WAR

The reason for the conflict was a dispute between the Catholic and Orthodox clergy over the possession of Christian shrines in Palestine (in particular, in the issue of control over the Church of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem). The prelude was the conflict between Nicholas I and the Emperor of France Napoleon III. The Russian emperor considered his French "colleague" illegal, since the Bonaparte dynasty was excluded from the French succession to the throne by the Congress of Vienna (a pan-European conference during which the borders of the states of Europe were determined after the Napoleonic wars). Napoleon III, realizing the fragility of his power, wanted to divert the attention of the people by the then popular war against Russia (revenge for the war of 1812) and at the same time satisfy his irritation against Nicholas I. Having come to power with the support of the Catholic Church, Napoleon also sought to repay an ally, defending the interests of the Vatican in the international arena, which led to a conflict with the Orthodox Church and directly with Russia. (The French referred to the treaty with the Ottoman Empire on the right to control the Christian holy places in Palestine (in the 19th century, the territory of the Ottoman Empire), and Russia - to the decree of the Sultan, which restored the rights of the Orthodox Church in Palestine and gave Russia the right to protect the interests of Christians in the Ottoman Empire France demanded that the keys to the Church of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem be given to the Catholic clergy, while Russia demanded that they remain with the Orthodox community. Turkey, which in the middle of the 19th century was in a state of decline, had no opportunity to refuse either side, and promised to fulfill the demands of both Russia and France. When a typical Turkish diplomatic ruse was uncovered, France brought a 90-gun steam battleship under the walls of Istanbul. As a result, the keys to the Church of the Nativity of Christ were transferred to France (i.e. the Catholic Church). In response, Russia began mobilizing its army on the border with Moldova and Wallachia.

In February 1853 Nicholas I sent Prince Menshikov A.S. as ambassador to the Turkish Sultan. with an ultimatum to recognize the rights of the Orthodox Church to holy places in Palestine and to grant Russia patronage over Christians in the Ottoman Empire (who made up about a third of the total population). The Russian government counted on the support of Austria and Prussia and considered an alliance between Great Britain and France impossible. However, Great Britain, fearing the strengthening of Russia, agreed to an agreement with France. British Ambassador Lord Stradford-Redcliffe convinced the Turkish Sultan to partially meet Russia's demands, promising support in case of war. As a result, the Sultan issued a decree on the inviolability of the rights of the Orthodox Church to holy places, but refused to conclude an agreement on protection. Prince Menshikov defiantly behaved at meetings with the Sultan, demanding full satisfaction of the ultimatum. Feeling the support of its Western allies, Turkey was in no hurry to respond to Russia's demands. Without waiting for a positive answer, Menshikov and the embassy staff left Constantinople. Trying to put pressure on the Turkish government, Nicholas I ordered the troops to occupy the principality of Moldova and Wallachia subordinate to the sultan. (Initially, the plans of the Russian command were notable for their courage and decisiveness. It was supposed to conduct a "Bosphorus expedition", providing for the equipping of landing ships for their exit to the Bosphorus and joining with the rest of the troops. In order to prevent France from supporting the Ottoman sultan, the plan envisaged the occupation of the Dardanelles.Nicholas I accepted the plan, but after listening to the next anti-arguments of Prince Menshikov, he rejected it. Subsequently, other active-offensive plans were also rejected and the choice of the emperor settled on another faceless plan, refusal of any active actions. The troops, under the command of Adjutant General Gorchakov, were ordered to reach the Danube, but to avoid hostilities. observation enia behind enemy fleets. With such a demonstration of power, the Russian emperor hoped to put pressure on Turkey and accept its terms.)

This provoked a protest from the Ports, which led to the convening of a conference of plenipotentiaries of England, France, Prussia and Austria. Its result was the Vienna Note, a compromise on all sides, demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Danube principalities, but giving Russia the nominal right to protect the Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire and nominal control over the holy places in Palestine.

The Vienna note was accepted by Nicholas I, but rejected by the Turkish sultan, who succumbed to the promised military support of the British ambassador. The Porta proposed various changes to the note, which caused the refusal of the Russian side. Consequently, France and Britain formed an alliance with the obligation to defend Turkish territory.

Trying to use the opportunity to "teach a lesson" to Russia with someone else's hands, the Ottoman sultan demanded that the territory of the Danube principalities be cleared within two weeks, and after these conditions were not met on October 4 (16), 1853, he declared war on Russia. On October 20 (November 1), 1853, Russia replied with a similar statement.

PROGRESS OF MILITARY ACTIONS

The Crimean War can be divided into two stages. The first is the Russian-Turkish company proper (November 1853 - April 1854) and the second (April 1854 - February 1856), when the allies entered the war.

THE STATE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF RUSSIA

As subsequent events showed, Russia was not organizationally and technically ready for war. The combat strength of the army was far from those listed on the lists; the reserve system was unsatisfactory; due to the intervention of Austria, Prussia and Sweden, Russia was forced to keep a significant part of the army on the western border. The technical backwardness of the Russian army and navy has become alarming.

ARMY

In the 1840s and 50s, the process of replacing obsolete smoothbore guns with rifled ones was actively underway in the European armies. At the beginning of the war, the share of rifled guns in the Russian army was approximately 4-5% of the total; in French-1/3; in English, more than half.

FLEET

From the beginning of the 19th century, outdated sailing ships were replaced in European fleets with modern steam ones. On the eve of the Crimean War, the Russian fleet occupied the third place in the world in terms of the number of warships (after England and France), but in terms of the number of steam ships it was significantly inferior to the Allied fleets.

START OF MILITARY ACTIONS

In November 1853 on the Danube against 82 thousand. Army General Gorchakov M.D. Turkey has nominated nearly 150,000 army of Omar Pasha. But the attacks of the Turks were repulsed, and the Russian artillery destroyed the Danube flotilla of Turkey. The main forces of Omar Pasha (about 40 thousand people) moved to Alexandropol, and their Ardagan detachment (18 thousand people) tried to break through the Borjomi Gorge to Tiflis, but was stopped, and on November 14 (26) was defeated near Akhaltsikh 7 -thousand. detachment of General Andronnikov I.M. On November 19 (December 1), the troops of Prince V.O. Bebutov (10 thousand people) near Bashkadyklar defeated the main 36-thousand. army of Turkey.

At sea, the initial success was also accompanied by Russia. In mid-November, the Turkish squadron moved to the area of ​​Sukhumi (Sukhum-Kale) and Poti for the landing, but due to a strong storm it was forced to take refuge in the Sinop Bay. This became known to the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Vice Admiral P.S. Nakhimov, and he led his ships to Sinop. On November 18 (30), the Battle of Sinop took place, during which the Russian squadron defeated the Turkish fleet. The Battle of Sinop went down in history as the last major battle of the era of the sailing fleet.

The defeat of Turkey hastened the entry into the war of France and England. After Nakhimov's victory at Sinop, the British and French squadrons entered the Black Sea under the pretext of protecting Turkish ships and ports from attacks from the Russian side. On January 17 (29), 1854, the French emperor presented an ultimatum to Russia: withdraw troops from the Danube principalities and begin negotiations with Turkey. On February 9 (21), Russia rejected the ultimatum and announced the severance of diplomatic relations with France and England.

15 (27) March 1854 Great Britain and France declared war on Russia. On March 30 (April 11), Russia responded with a similar statement.

To forestall the enemy in the Balkans, Nicholas I ordered to go over to the offensive in this area. In March 1854, the Russian army under the command of Field Marshal I.F. invaded Bulgaria. Initially, the company developed successfully - the Russian army crossed the Danube at Galati, Izmail and Brailaa and occupied the fortresses of Machin, Tulcea and Isakcha. But in the future, the Russian command showed indecision, and they crossed the siege of Silistria only on May 5 (18). However, the fear of entering the war on the side of the coalition of Austria, which, in alliance with Prussia, concentrated 50 thousand. army in Galicia and Transylvania, and then, with the permission of Turkey, took possession of the latter on the banks of the Danube, forced the Russian command to lift the siege, and then at the end of August completely withdraw troops from this area.

Briefly about the Crimean War

Krymskaya voina (1853-1856)

The Crimean War, in short, is a confrontation between the Russian Empire and Turkey, backed by a coalition that included Great Britain, France and the Kingdom of Sardinia. The war took place from 1853 to 1856.

The main reason for the Crimean War, in short, was the clash of interests of all participating countries in the Middle East and the Balkan Peninsula. To better understand the background of the conflict, you need to consider this situation more closely.

Preconditions for a military conflict
By the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was in severe decline and found itself in political and economic dependence on Great Britain. Turkey had long had tense relations with the Russian Empire, and the plans of Nicholas I to secede from her the Balkan possessions inhabited by Christians only worsened them.

Great Britain, which had its own far-reaching plans for the Middle East, tried with all its might to squeeze Russia out of this region. This primarily concerned the Black Sea coast - the Caucasus. In addition, she feared the strengthening of the influence of the Russian Empire in Central Asia. At that time, for Great Britain it was Russia that was the largest and most dangerous geopolitical adversary, which had to be neutralized as soon as possible. To achieve these goals, England was ready to act by any means, including the military. The plans were to take the Caucasus and Crimea from Russia and give them to Turkey.
The Emperor of France Napoleon III in Russia did not see a rival for himself, and did not seek to weaken her. The reasons for his entry into the war are an attempt to strengthen his political influence and revenge for the war of 1812.

Russia's goals remained the same, starting from the time of the first conflicts with the Ottoman Empire: to secure its southern borders, to take control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles in the Black Sea, and to strengthen its influence in the Balkans. All these goals were of great economic and military importance for the Russian Empire.
An interesting fact is that the population of England did not support the government's desire to participate in the war. After the first setbacks of the British army, a serious anti-war campaign began in the country. The population of France, on the contrary, supported the idea of ​​Napoleon III of revenge for the lost war of 1812.

The main reason for the military conflict

The Crimean War, in short, owes its beginning to the hostile relationship between Nicholas I and Napoleon III. The Russian emperor considered the power of the French ruler illegitimate and in his congratulatory message called him not his brother, as was customary, but just a "dear friend." This was regarded by Napoleon III as an insult. These hostile attitudes led to a serious conflict over the right to control the holy places, which were in the possession of Turkey. It was about the Church of the Nativity of Christ, located in Bethlehem. Nicholas I supported the Orthodox Church in this matter, and the Emperor of France took the side of the Catholic Church. It was not possible to resolve the disputed situation peacefully, and in October 1853 the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia.

The stages of the war
Conventionally, the course of the war can be divided into several stages. In 1853, a war was fought between the Ottoman and Russian empires. The most important battle of this company was Sinop, during which the Russian fleet under the command of Admiral Nakhimov managed to completely destroy the Turkish naval forces. On land, the Russian army was also victorious.

The victories of the Russian army forced the allies of Turkey, England and France, in March 1854 to hastily begin military operations against Russia. Sevastopol was chosen as the main place for the Allied forces to strike. The blockade of the city began in September 1854. They hoped to capture it within a month, but the city heroically held out in the blockade for almost a year. The defense was led by three famous Russian admirals: Kornilov, Istomin and Nakhimov. All three died in the battle for Sevastopol.

The Crimean War, called the Eastern War in the West (1853-1856), is a military clash between Russia and a coalition of European states that defended Turkey. It had little effect on the external position of the Russian Empire, but significantly on its internal policy. The defeat forced the autocracy to begin reforms of the entire state administration, which eventually led to the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of Russia into a powerful capitalist power

Causes of the Crimean War

Objective

*** The rivalry between European states and Russia in the issue of control over the numerous possessions of the ailing, crumbling Ottoman Empire (Turkey)

On January 9, 14, February 20, 21, 1853, at meetings with the British Ambassador, G. Seymour, Emperor Nicholas I proposed that Britain split the Turkish Empire together with Russia (History of Diplomacy, Volume One pp. 433 - 437. Edited by V.P. Potemkin)

*** Russia's striving for primacy in the management of the strait system (Bosphorus and Dardanelles) from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean

“If England thinks to settle in Constantinople in the near future, then I will not allow it…. For my part, I am equally disposed to accept the obligation not to settle there, of course, as the owner; as a temporary guardian - it's another matter "(from the statement of Nicholas the First to the British Ambassador to Seymour on January 9, 1853)

*** Russia's desire to include in the sphere of its national interests affairs in the Balkans and among the South Slavs

“Let Moldova, Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria come under the protectorate of Russia. As far as Egypt is concerned, I fully understand the importance of this territory for England. Here I can only say that if during the distribution of the Ottoman inheritance after the fall of the empire, you take possession of Egypt, then I will have no objection to this. I will say the same about Candia (the island of Crete). This island may suit you, and I don’t see why it doesn’t become an English possession ”(conversation of Nicholas I with the British Ambassador Seymour on January 9, 1853 at an evening with Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna)

Subjective

*** Weakness of Turkey

“Turkey is a“ sick person ”. Nicholas did not change his terminology all his life when he spoke about the Turkish Empire "((History of Diplomacy, Volume One, pp. 433 - 437)

*** Confidence of Nicholas I in his impunity

"I want to talk to you as a gentleman, if we manage to come to an agreement - me and England - the rest is not important to me, I do not care what others do or do" (from the conversation of Nicholas I with the British Ambassador Hamilton Seymour on January 9, 1853 at the evening at the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna)

*** Nikolai's assumption that Europe is not able to act as a united front

“The tsar was sure that Austria and France would not join England (in a possible confrontation with Russia), and England would not dare to fight with him without allies” (History of Diplomacy, Volume One pp. 433 - 437. OGIZ, Moscow, 1941)

*** Autocracy, the result of which was the wrong relationship between the emperor and his advisers

“... Russian ambassadors in Paris, London, Vienna, Berlin, ... Chancellor Nesselrode ... in their reports distorted the state of affairs before the tsar. They wrote almost always not about what they saw, but about what the king would like to know from them. When Andrei Rosen once persuaded Prince Lieven to finally open the king's eyes, Lieven answered literally: “So that I say this to the emperor ?! But I'm not a fool! If I wanted to tell him the truth, he would have thrown me out the door, and nothing else would have come of it "(History of Diplomacy, Volume One)

*** The problem of "Palestinian shrines":

It was designated as early as 1850, continued and intensified in 1851, weakened at the beginning and middle of 1852, and again became unusually aggravated just at the very end of 1852 - beginning of 1853. Louis Napoleon, while still president, declared to the Turkish government that he wanted to preserve and renew all the rights and advantages of the Catholic Church confirmed by Turkey back in 1740 in the so-called holy places, that is, in the temples of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Sultan agreed; but on the part of Russian diplomacy in Constantinople, a sharp protest followed, indicating the advantages of the Orthodox Church over the Catholic on the basis of the conditions of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy peace. After all, Nicholas I considered himself the patron saint of the Orthodox

*** The desire of France to split the continental union of Austria, England, Prussia and Russia, which arose during the Napoleonic wars n

“Subsequently, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Napoleon III, Drouey-de-Lewis, very frankly stated:“ The question of the holy places and everything that relates to it has no real meaning for France. This whole Eastern question, stirring up so much noise, served the imperial government only as a means of upsetting the continental alliance, which for almost half a century paralyzed France. Finally, the opportunity presented itself to sow discord in a powerful coalition, and the Emperor Napoleon seized on it with both hands "(History of Diplomacy)

Events leading up to the Crimean War of 1853-1856

1740 - France won from the Turkish Sultan priority rights for Catholics in the Holy Places of Jerusalem

1774, July 21 - the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace treaty between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, in which the priority rights to the Holy Places were decided in favor of the Orthodox

1837 June 20 - Queen Victoria takes the throne

1841 Lord Aberdeen takes over as British Foreign Secretary

1844, May - a friendly meeting of Queen Victoria, Lord Aberdeen with Nicholas the First, who made a visit to England incognito

During his short stay in London, the Emperor decisively enchanted everyone with his chivalrous courtesy and royal grandeur, charmed with his cordial courtesy Queen Victoria, her husband and the most prominent statesmen of the then Great Britain, with whom he tried to get closer and enter into an exchange of thoughts.
The aggressive policy of Nicholas in 1853 was due, among other things, to Victoria's friendly attitude to him and the fact that at that moment the same Lord Aberdeen, who so affectionately listened to him in Windsor in 1844, was at the head of the cabinet in England.

1850 - Patriarch Kirill of Jerusalem asked the Turkish government for permission to repair the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. After lengthy negotiations, the repair plan was drawn up in favor of the Catholics, and the main key to the Church of Bethlehem was handed over to the Catholics.

1852, December 29 - Nicholas I ordered to recruit reserves for the 4th and 5th infantry corps, which were driven into the Russian-Turkish border in Europe, and to supply these troops with supplies.

1853, January 9 - at an evening with Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, which was attended by the diplomatic corps, the tsar approached G. Seymur and had a conversation with him: “induce your government to write again about this subject (partition of Turkey), write more fully, and may it do it without hesitation. I trust the English government. I ask him not for obligations, not for agreements: this is a free exchange of opinions, and, if necessary, the word of a gentleman. This is enough for us "

1853, January - The Sultan's representative in Jerusalem announced the ownership of the shrines, giving preference to the Catholics.

1853, January 14 - Nikolai's second meeting with British Ambassador Seymour

1853, February 9 - A reply came from London, given on behalf of the Cabinet by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord John Rossel. The answer was sharply negative. Rossel stated that he does not understand why one can think that Turkey is close to falling, does not find it possible to conclude any agreements regarding Turkey, even the temporary transfer of Constantinople into the hands of the tsar is unacceptable, finally, Rossel emphasized that both France and Austria will be suspicious of such an Anglo-Russian agreement.

1853, February 20 - the third meeting of the king with the British ambassador on the same issue

1853, February 21 - the fourth

1853, March - Ambassador Extraordinary of Russia Menshikov arrived in Constantinople

Menshikov was greeted with extraordinary honor. The Turkish police did not even dare to disperse the crowd of Greeks, who gave the prince an enthusiastic welcome. Menshikov behaved with defiant arrogance. In Europe, they paid much attention even to Menshikov's purely outward provocative antics: they wrote about how he made a visit to the Grand Vizier without taking off his coat, how he sharply spoke with Sultan Abdul-Majid. From the very first steps Menshikov took, it became clear that he would never concede in two central points: first, he wanted to achieve recognition of Russia’s right to patronize not only the Orthodox Church, but also the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan; secondly, he demands that the consent of Turkey be approved by the sultan sened, and not by the firman, that is, that it should have the character of a foreign policy treaty with the king, and not be a simple decree

1853, March 22 - Menshikov presented a note to Rifaat Pasha: "The demands of the imperial government are categorical." And two days later, 1853, on March 24, a new Menshikov note, which demanded an end to the "systematic and malicious opposition" and contained a draft "convention" that made Nicholas, as diplomats of other powers immediately declared, "the second Turkish sultan."

1853, end of March - Napoleon III ordered his navy, stationed in Toulon, to immediately sail for the Aegean Sea, to Salamis, and be ready. Napoleon irrevocably decided to fight with Russia.

1853, end of March - British squadron set off for the Eastern Mediterranean

1853, April 5 - the British ambassador Stratford-Canning arrived in Istanbul, who advised the sultan to give in on the merits of the demands for holy places, since he understood that Menshikov would not be satisfied with this, because he had not come for this. Menshikov will begin to insist on such demands, which will already be clearly aggressive, and then Britain and France will support Turkey. At the same time, Stratford managed to instill in Prince Menshikov the conviction that England, in case of war, would never side with the Sultan.

1853, May 4 - Turkey yielded in everything related to the "holy places"; Immediately after this Menshikov, seeing that the desired pretext for the occupation of the Danube principalities was disappearing, presented the previous demand for an agreement between the Sultan and the Russian emperor.

1853, May 13 - Lord Redcliffe visited the Sultan and informed him that an English squadron located in the Mediterranean could help Turkey, as well as that Turkey should confront Russia. 1853, May 13 - Menshikov was invited to the Sultan. He asked the Sultan to satisfy his demands and mentioned the possibility of reducing Turkey to secondary states.

1853, May 18 - Menshikov was informed about the decision taken by the Turkish government to promulgate the decree on the holy places; to hand over to the Patriarch of Constantinople a firman protecting Orthodoxy; propose to conclude a sened, giving the right to build a Russian church in Jerusalem. Menshikov refused

1853, May 6 - Menshikov presented a break note to Turkey.

1853, May 21 - Menshikov left Constantinople

1853, June 4 - the Sultan issued a decree guaranteeing the rights and privileges of the Christian churches, but especially the rights and advantages of the Orthodox Church.

However, Nicholas issued a manifesto stating that he, like his ancestors, must defend the Orthodox Church in Turkey, and that in order to ensure the execution by the Turks of the previous treaties with Russia, violated by the Sultan, the tsar was forced to occupy the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia)

1853, June 14 - Nicholas I issued a manifesto on the occupation of the Danube principalities

For the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia, 4 and 5 infantry corps of 81,541 people were prepared. On May 24, the 4th corps moved from the Podolsk and Volyn provinces to Leovo. At the beginning of June, the 15th division of the 5th infantry corps approached the same place and united with the 4th corps. The command was entrusted to Prince Mikhail Dmitrievich Gorchakov

1853, June 21 - Russian troops crossed the Prut River and invaded Moldova

1853, July 4 - Russian troops occupied Bucharest

1853, July 31 - "Vienna note". This note stated that Turkey undertakes to comply with all the conditions of the Adrianople and Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace treaties; the clause on the special rights and advantages of the Orthodox Church was again emphasized.

But Stratford-Redcliffe forced Sultan Abdul-Majid to reject the Vienna note, and even before that he hastened to draw up, allegedly on behalf of Turkey, another note, with some reservations against the Vienna note. The king, in turn, rejected her. At this time, Nikolai received news from the ambassador to France about the impossibility of a joint military action by England and France.

1853, October 16 - Turkey declared war on Russia

1853, October 20 - Russia declared war on Turkey

The course of the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Briefly

1853, November 30 - Nakhimov defeated the Turkish fleet in the Sinop Bay

1853, December 2 - the victory of the Russian Caucasian army over the Turkish in the battle of Kars near Bashkadyklyar

1854, January 4 - the combined Anglo-French fleet entered the Black Sea

1854, February 27 - Franco-English ultimatum to Russia demanding the withdrawal of troops from the Danube principalities

1854, March 7 - Allied Treaty of Turkey, England and France

1854, March 27 - England declared war on Russia

1854, March 28 - France declared war on Russia

1854, March-July - the siege by the Russian army of Silistria - a port city in northeastern Bulgaria

1854, April 9 - Prussia and Austria joined diplomatic sanctions against Russia. Russia remained isolated

1854, April - shelling of the Solovetsky monastery by the English fleet

1854, June - the beginning of the retreat of Russian troops from the Danube principalities

1854, August 10 - a conference in Vienna, during which Austria, France and England put forward a number of demands to Russia, which Russia rejected

1854, August 22 - Turks entered Bucharest

1854 August - Allies seize the Russian-owned Aland Islands in the Baltic Sea

1854, September 14 - Anglo-French troops landed in the Crimea, in the region of Evpatoria

1854, September 20 - an unsuccessful battle of the Russian army with the allies at the Alma River

1854, September 27 - the beginning of the siege of Sevastopol, the heroic 349-day defense of Sevastopol, which
headed by admirals Kornilov, Nakhimov, Istomin, who died during the siege

1854, October 17 - the first bombing of Sevastopol

1854, October - two unsuccessful attempts of the Russian army to break the blockade

1854, October 26 - an unsuccessful battle for the Russian army at Balaklava

1854, November 5 - an unsuccessful battle for the Russian army near Inkerman

1854, November 20 - Austria announced its readiness to enter the war

1855, January 14 - Sardinia declared war on Russia

1855, April 9 - the second bombing of Sevastopol

1855, May 24 - the allies occupied Kerch

1855, June 3 - the third bombing of Sevastopol

1855, August 16 - unsuccessful attempt of the Russian army to lift the siege of Sevastopol

1855, September 8 - the French captured the Malakhov Kurgan - a key position in the defense of Sevastopol

1855, September 11 - the allies entered the city

1855, November - a number of successful operations of the Russian army against the Turks in the Caucasus

1855, October - December - secret negotiations between France, Austria, concerned about the possible strengthening of England as a result of the defeat of Russia and the Russian Empire for peace

1856, February 25 - Paris Peace Congress begins

1856, March 30 - Paris Peace

Peace conditions

The return of Kars to Turkey in exchange for Sevastopol, the transformation of the Black Sea into a neutral one: Russia and Turkey are deprived of the opportunity to have a navy and coastal fortifications here, the concession of Bessarabia (abolition of the exclusive Russian protectorate over Wallachia, Moldova and Serbia)

Reasons for Russia's defeat in the Crimean War

- Russia's military-technical lag behind the leading European powers
- Underdevelopment of communication lines
- Embezzlement, corruption in the rear of the army

“By the nature of his activity, Golitsyn had to learn about the war as it were. Then he will see heroism, sacred self-sacrifice, selfless courage and patience of the defenders of Sevastopol, but hanging around in the rear on militia affairs, at every step he encountered God knows what: collapse, indifference, cold-blooded mediocrity and monstrous theft. They plundered everything that other - higher - thieves did not manage to steal on the way to the Crimea: bread, hay, oats, horses, ammunition. The mechanics of the robbery were simple: the suppliers gave rotten stuff, it was taken (for a bribe, of course) by the main commissariat in St. Petersburg. Then - also for a bribe - the army commissariat, then - the regimental and so on to the last spoke in the chariot. And the soldiers ate rot, wore rot, slept on the rot, shot with rot. The military units themselves had to buy fodder from the local population with money provided by a special financial department. Golitsyn once went there and witnessed such a scene. An officer arrived from the front line in a burnt-out, shabby uniform. They ran out of food, hungry horses are eating sawdust, shavings. An elderly quartermaster with a Major's shoulder straps adjusted his glasses on his nose and said in an everyday voice:
- We will give money, I get on eight percent.
- Why on earth? - the officer was indignant. - We shed blood! ..
“They sent a newcomer again,” the quartermaster sighed. - Straight small children! I remember that Captain Onishchenko came from your brigade. Why wasn't he sent?
- Onishchenko died ...
- Heavenly kingdom to him! - the quartermaster crossed himself. - It's a pity. He was a man with understanding. We respected him, and he respected us. We won't ask for too much.
The quartermaster was not even shy about the presence of an outsider. Prince Golitsyn approached him, took him by the soul, pulled him from the table and lifted him into the air.
- I will kill you, you bastard! ..
- Kill, - the quartermaster wheezed, - I will not give without interest anyway.
- Do you think I'm joking? .. - The prince squeezed him with his paw.
“I can’t… the chain will break…” the quartermaster wheezed out of his last strength. - Then I will not live anyway ... Petersburg will strangle ...
“People are dying there, you son of a bitch! The prince cried out in tears and threw the half-strangled military official away with disgust.
He touched his wrinkled throat like a condor and croaked with unexpected dignity:
“If we were there… no worse, we would have perished… And you, if you please,” he turned to the officer, “comply with the rules: for artillerymen - six percent, for all other types of troops - eight percent.
The officer pitifully twitched his cold nose, as if he sobbed:
"Sawdust is eating ... shavings ... to hell with you! .. I can't go back without hay."

- Poor command and control

“Golitsyn was struck by the commander-in-chief himself, to whom he introduced himself. Gorchakov was not that old, a little over sixty, but gave the impression of some kind of rottenness, it seemed, poke your finger, and he would crumble like a mushroom that had completely expelled. The wandering gaze could not concentrate on anything, and when the old man released Golitsyn with a weak gesture of the hand, he heard him hum in French:
I am poor, poor poilou
And I'm not in a hurry anywhere ...
- What's that! - said the colonel of the commissary service to Golitsyn when they left the commander-in-chief. - At least he leaves for the position, but Prince Menshikov did not remember at all that the war was going on. He just made fun of everything, and admit it was caustic. About the Minister of War he spoke as follows: "Prince Dolgorukov has a threefold relationship to gunpowder - he did not invent it, did not smell it and does not send it to Sevastopol." About the commander Dmitry Erofeevich Osten-Saken: “Erofeich became not strong. I’m exhausted. ” Sarcasm anywhere! The colonel added thoughtfully. - But he gave me the opportunity to put a psalmist over the great Nakhimov. For some reason, Prince Golitsyn was not funny. He was generally unpleasantly surprised by the tone of cynical irony that prevailed at headquarters. It seemed that these people had lost all self-respect, and with it respect for anything. They did not talk about the tragic situation of Sevastopol, but with relish they ridiculed the commander of the Sevastopol garrison, Count Osten-Saken, who only knows what to mess with the priests, read akathists and argue about the divine scripture. “He has one good thing,” the colonel added. - He does not interfere in anything "(Yu. Nagibin" Stronger than all other decrees ")

Results of the Crimean War

Crimean war showed

The greatness and heroism of the Russian people

The flaw in the socio-political structure of the Russian Empire

The need for deep reforms of the Russian state