Seven interesting facts from the history of the Crimean War. Eight myths about the Crimean War Interesting information about the Crimean War

History is always an ambiguous thing. The same episode can be presented in different ways and used for different purposes. For example, 160 years ago, in February 1856, it ended Crimean War. Even after more than a century and a half, one of the bloodiest international conflicts is described with mythological constructions from the times of Engels and Palmerston. The myths of the century before last turned out to be extremely tenacious.

Let's read the refutation of the myths about the Crimean War and speak out - are these really myths or can refutations also be refuted? Also, check to see if you have fallen into the trap of these myths.

The war began due to Nicholas's desire to divide the Ottoman Empire

Since 1853, Nicholas I was trying to aggravate relations with Turkey, wanting to seize the Black Sea straits, or even annex European part Turkey. A number of historians directly point out that the starting point of the conflict was the proposal of Nicholas I to the English ambassador Seymour on January 9, 1853 about the division of Turkey. By the way, here we already discussed

Sources refute this version: the king, on the contrary, stated that he intends to defend the formal territorial integrity of Turkey in the Balkans, as well as its ownership of the Bosporus and Dardanelles. From the British side, he only wanted guarantees that England would not take the straits from Turkey. In exchange, Nicholas I offered London Egypt and Crete: the emperor accurately guessed the wishes of the British, although he was a little stingy. Within 30 years of this, Britain captured Egypt and Cyprus, an island larger than Crete.

The British retelling speaks of Nicholas's intention to establish a protectorate over the Christian areas of European Turkey. But the tsar repeatedly emphasized that since the 1830s he did not plan to annex “not an inch of land” to Russia, explaining this simply: “I could already take control of Constantinople and Turkey twice... What benefits would come from the conquest of Turkey for our mother Russia ?

Later Western historians describe the reasons for the war more realistically: Britain and France hoped to weaken Russia’s influence on Europe.

Russia was ready for war with Turkey, but not with England and France

The view that the Turks were a second-rate enemy still prevails. This stamp was formed because since the 19th century everything major wars the Turks were fought only by Russia, which won them. However, a closer look at these conflicts does not reveal Turkey's weakness. In all the Russian-Turkish wars of the 19th century, the ratio of losses for the Russian army was worse than in the war of 1812, but no one calls Napoleon's army second-rate.

The Russian-Turkish battles of the Crimean War produce the same impression. In the European theater, the Russians failed to win a single victory over the Turks. And in Transcaucasia, the Turks showed themselves to be an extremely combat-ready enemy: the two largest victories over them cost the Russian troops 15 and 17 percent of their personnel. Menshikov’s army suffered the same percentage of losses from the Europeans in the defeat at Alma.

Superiority in weapons as the reason for the Allied victory

European armies were armed with progressive rifled artillery and fittings, but the backward Russian industry could not produce them, which is why everything in our country was smooth-bore. In addition, the Allied rifles fired at 1.2 kilometers and several times per minute, while the Russians only fired at 300 steps and once per minute.

The few Allied rifled guns were not used after a series of barrel explosions. Rifled weapon was technologically available back in the 15th century, and there was nothing progressive about it: one shot took a minute, since the bullets were hammered into the barrel. The smoothbore shot four times per minute, which made it the choice of the majority.

A quarter of the British and two-thirds of the French in the Crimea were armed with smoothbore guns. Industrially backward Russia gave its army significantly more rifles during the war than advanced England and France. The reasons are simple: the Tula plant was the most powerful in Eurasia, and even under Alexander I, it was the first in the world to switch to interchangeability. In addition, his machines were powered by steam engines, and the English Royal Factory in Lee launched the first steam engines only after the end of hostilities, eliminating the technological gap from the Tula plant.

The Allies at Sevastopol spent more than 28 million bullets, killing and wounding 85 thousand Russians.

Even without taking into account that 1,350,000 shells of Anglo-French artillery were responsible for part of the losses, it is easy to notice: the “precise” guns of the British and French required tens of thousands of rounds per hit. Russian infantry in Crimea fired 16.5 million bullets, inflicting comparable losses in manpower on the enemy. The thesis about the choke as the main reason for the Allied victory is very difficult to support with specific figures.

Alas, all this did not help Russia win the war, and could not help.

Western fleets were dominated by steamships, which forced the Black Sea Fleet to self-sink

Only a minority of the allied fleet in the Black Sea was steam powered, and the steamship of that time was not at all a superweapon: primitive engines required tens of tons of coal and water per day, leaving less room for guns. A single pipe was no less vulnerable than the sails, which could only be completely knocked down after dozens of salvos. The Russian frigate Flora, which fought off three Turkish steamships during that war, like the sailing ships of the Mexican fleet a decade earlier, fully proved its ability to effectively resist steamships.

In the 1830s, Russia invented sea mines, both impact and remote-activated. During the Crimean War, their charge reached 0.16 tons - quite enough for the then wooden ships without bulkheads. Even encounters with light mines forced the Allies to abandon their attempted landing in the Baltic. In addition, ordinary carts were enough to transport mines and watercraft for their installation. It was possible to mine allied supply ports even with very limited forces

However, the fleet in Crimea was headed by Admiral Alexander Menshikov, who did not consider such actions reasonable. It seemed to the minister that 160 kilograms of gunpowder might not damage the ship, and he considered the amount of 27 thousand rubles required for the supply of mines (3 percent of daily military expenditures at that time) to be excessive.

Even before 1830, Menshikov distinguished himself by his efficiency in spending budget funds, stopping the testing of the world's first all-metal submarine with missile and demolition weapons. As a result, it was possible to avoid wasteful expenses on the implementation of marine electric motors and batteries already tested on the Neva. However, Menshikov was also reserved about the steam engine, publicly declaring that traveling by rail was as dangerous as a duel with pistols. Saving budget funds, since the 1840s he also rejected the demands of the Black Sea Fleet to adopt propeller-driven battleships.

"Soldiers with the head of a lion, officers with the head of a donkey and generals without a head"

This scathing description of the Russian army during the Crimea was given by the French who stormed Sevastopol, and at first glance it is much closer to the truth than the stilted idea that feudal Russia lost the military-technological race to Western countries.

In fact, many decisions of the Russian generals are puzzling. Menshikov, having as many soldiers in the Crimea as the enemy, gathered only part of them for the Battle of Alma, and even of those, half stood in place throughout the battle, not participating in the battle. It is also not entirely clear why he ruled out the possibility of an Allied landing in September 1854, which is why he prevented the strengthening of Sevastopol and even the organization of basic naval reconnaissance.

However, the theory of “headless generals” has its weaknesses. Generals Schilder, Leaders, Roediger, Dibich, Muravyov, Bebutov and Zavoiko were extremely competent, and they did not serve with the Allies. All successful battles of the Russian army are distributed quite uniformly on the map of that war: outside the European part of the country. All this forced pre-revolutionary historians, starting with Zayonchkovsky, to put forward the opinion that, on average, the military abilities of a commander of that time were directly proportional to the distance from his place of service to the top leadership.

If the landing in Yevpatoria came as a complete surprise to the Black Sea Fleet, which was not allowed to organize reconnaissance by the Minister’s policy, then Major General Zavoiko, who commanded the Petropavlovsk garrison in Kamchatka, thanks to personal contacts with the King of Hawaii, received information about the attack in advance.

Measures were taken: the allied squadron with 2,600 people on board during an attempt to land lost 270 killed, Zavoiko - 37. The rifled weapons of the English infantry helped it even less than in battles with the Zulus - just like the French in the war with Austria in 1859 year, the Russians successfully compensated for their inferior weapons with a quick bayonet charge, sweeping away the outnumbered landing force.

No wonder they said in St. Petersburg: Naval Minister Menshikov “ruined Baltic Fleet, and that if anything good is being done in the Black Sea, it is not owed to him. Zavoiko had a significant advantage over the Black Sea people: Kamchatka was much further from the Minister of Navy.

The victory that never happened

Zavoiko’s actions gave rise to one of the few patriotic myths in that war. Allegedly, the next year he “inflicted a complete defeat on the four times strongest British squadron in the Gulf of Castries.” In fact, his two warships encountered only three British ones there. The commander ordered the flags to be nailed to the masts and was clearly determined. However, the British wisely avoided the battle, deciding to wait for reinforcements in the form of 11 more ships. Zavoiko, on the contrary, did not wait for them and left through the Tatar Strait.

According to another myth, the Anglo-French did not pursue him because they considered Sakhalin a peninsula and the strait a gulf. This is very doubtful: back in the 1830s, Belinsky mocked Bulgarin, calling him an ignoramus for not suspecting the island nature of Sakhalin. It is unlikely that the English admirals knew geography worse than Russian critics and publicists.

"Enslaved" Parisian world

This the last myth wars: peace terms were difficult and supposedly included secret clauses. Even quite serious historians I. Wallerstein and P. Bairoch support this theory. They argue that the liberal trade tariff of 1857 was introduced under pressure from victorious Britain, which sought to undermine its opponent’s economy, as it did with China after the Opium Wars. Immediately after the abolition of the protective tariff, Russian industry collapsed (a third of jobs disappeared), and industrial production per capita, which had grown rapidly under Nicholas, froze at the same level for decades.

The theory seems logical, but the Paris Peace Treaty did not have secret articles, and all the circumstances of his imprisonment were described in detail by Tarle. And England ended the war with Russia not with an easy ride, as in China, but with an expensive campaign to capture half of the town with the population of modern Morshansk.

The reasons for the abrupt break in economic policy were more trivial. The parents of Nicholas I were not involved in his upbringing, and General Lamzdorf, who was responsible for this, beat the child with ramrods and also against the wall “so that…. Nikolai... almost fainted.” With such teachers, he had no interest in studying at all. Therefore, as the emperor later admitted, “in the lessons... [on political economy] we either dozed off or drew some nonsense.” As a result, the theories about free trade that were fashionable at that time passed him by, and in economic policy Nikolai was guided by intuition, which is why he was a protectionist.

But he took care of the education of his children. Alexander II subsequently not only reduced duties, but also gave away state-owned factories, railways and banks into private management.

Strange War

Russia's combat losses in the war were 41 thousand killed and died from wounds, the Anglo-French coalition - 35 thousand, the losses of the Turks and Italians have not been reliably calculated. The shameful defeat of a backward country, at first glance, looks somewhat strange: especially when you consider that until the end of the war, not even 10 percent of the total number of the Russian army was concentrated in Crimea. In its history, Russia has never again been able to resist the main forces of the two leading powers with the help of a few percent of its armed forces.

Even leaving aside the mythical guns that “shoot 1.2 kilometers”, one must admit: with Menshikov and Gorchakov as commanders, one could expect a complete defeat and a loss ratio at the level of the Opium Wars. The reason for such a strange outcome could be, on the one hand, the significant moral stability of the troops, which partially compensated for the “breakdown to which the troops were subjected European Russia" V Peaceful time.

However, the glaring mistakes of the Allied leadership also played an equally important role. Contemporaries also noted that, by storming Sevastopol, they suffered the bulk of the losses in the campaign, while with a simple blockade they could have forced it to surrender without firing a single shot.

And more about this war. Read what they did. Let's remember what it is and The original article is on the website InfoGlaz.rf Link to the article from which this copy was made -

Crimean War or Eastern War(1853-1856) - this is war Russian Empire with a coalition of Great Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire and Sardinia for dominance in the Black Sea basin, the Caucasus and the Balkans.

Briton Roger Fenton became one of the world's first war photographers, documenting the events of 1855. The photographs do not show any combat, but consist mainly of portraits of coalition troops.

26 photos

Leaders of NATO countries and their aides-de-camp, 1855. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Ships in Cossack Bay, 1855. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

Balaklava, Ukraine. A harbor crowded with sailing ships. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

English and French soldiers drink near Sevastopol. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

This is Roger Fenton's mobile darkroom, whose photographs we are looking at. In it he showed the negatives. His assistant is visible in the frame. (Photo by Hulton Archive | Getty Images):

Captain of the Royal Artillery. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Colonel Brownrigg and two captured Russian boys. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Construction site near Balaklava harbor. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Coalition Colonel Halliwell drinking drinks. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

British officer in Balaklava during the Crimean War, 1855. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

Soldiers and officers of the 8th Hussar Regiment of the Russian Imperial Army. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Coalition military meeting, 1855. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

A group of Tatars in Balaklava. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Ships in Balaklava harbor, a tent city and the Genoese fortress. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

This is the English war photographer Roger Fenton. Portrait of a soldier in uniform. (Photo by Marcus Sparling | Getty Images):

Another representative of the press is Sir William Howard Russell (1820 - 1907), war correspondent " The Times" (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

Lieutenant General Sir John Campbell (seated) and Captain Hume. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

British artillery. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Hulton Archive | Getty Images):

Dragoons in Crimea, 1855. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Hulton Archive | Getty Images):

Coalition fleet in Balaklava. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

British infantry camp at Balaklava during the Crimean War, 1855. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Hulton Archive | Getty Images):

The hussars are preparing food. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

Mortar men during the siege of Sevastopol. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

Portrait of coalition captains with a cannon. (Photo by Roger Fenton Crimean War photograph collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division):

Spent cannonballs on the battlefield in Balaklava. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

British soldiers during the Crimean War. (Photo by Roger Fenton | Getty Images):

Interesting video“From the Scythians to the present day. How the map of Crimea has changed over 3 thousand years.”

Also see “Cave cities of Crimea” and “Ancient Heraklion - lost city under the water".

Crimean War 1853-1856

A short excursion into history or why Europe is so coveted by our Crimea

Causes of the Crimean War
The Eastern question has always been relevant for Russia. After the Turks captured Byzantium and established Ottoman rule, Russia remained the most powerful Orthodox state in the world. Nicholas 1, the Russian emperor, sought to strengthen Russian influence in the Middle East and the Balkans by supporting the national liberation struggle of the Balkan peoples for liberation from Muslim rule. But these plans threatened Great Britain and France, who also sought to increase their influence in the Middle East region. Among other things, Napoleon 3, the then Emperor of France, simply needed to switch the attention of his people from his own unpopular person to the more popular war with Russia at that time.
The reason was found quite easily. In 1853, another dispute arose between Catholics and Orthodox Christians over the right to repair the dome of the Bethlehem Church on the site of the Nativity of Christ. The decision had to be made by the Sultan, who, at the instigation of France, decided the issue in favor of the Catholics. The demands of Prince A.S. Menshikov, the Ambassador Extraordinary of Russia about the right of the Russian Emperor to patronize the Orthodox subjects of the Turkish Sultan were rejected, after which Russian troops occupied Wallachia and Moldavia, and the Turks responded to the protest by refusing to leave these principalities, citing their actions as a protectorate over them according to the Treaty of Adrianople.
After some political manipulations on the part of European states in alliance with Turkey, the latter declared war on Russia on October 4 (16), 1853.
At the first stage, while Russia was dealing with only the Ottoman Empire, it was victorious: in the Caucasus (battle of Bashkadiklyar), Turkish troops suffered a crushing defeat, and the destruction of 14 ships of the Turkish fleet near Sinop became one of the brightest victories of the Russian fleet.

Entry of England and France into the Crimean War
And then “Christian” France and England intervened, declaring war on Russia on March 15 (27), 1854 and capturing Evpatoria in early September. The Parisian Cardinal Cibourg described their seemingly impossible alliance as follows: “The war into which France entered into with Russia is not a political war, but a sacred, ... religious war. ... the need to drive away the heresy of Photius... This is the recognized goal of this new crusade...” Russia could not resist the united forces of such powers. Both internal contradictions and insufficient technical equipment of the army played a role. In addition, the Crimean War moved to other directions. Turkey's allies in the North Caucasus - Shamil's troops - were stabbed in the back, Kokand opposed the Russians in Central Asia(However, they were unlucky here - the battle for Fort Perovsky, where there were 10 enemies or more for every Russian, led to the defeat of the Kokand troops).
There were also battles in the Baltic Sea - on the Alan Islands and the Finnish coast, and in the White Sea - for Kola, the Solovetsky Monastery and Arkhangelsk, there was an attempt to take Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. However, all these battles were won by the Russians, which forced England and France to see Russia as a more serious opponent and take the most decisive actions.
On January 14 (26), 1855, the kingdom of Sardinia joined the alliance against Russia.


Defense of Sevastopol in 1854-1855
The outcome of the war was decided by the defeat of Russian troops in the defense of Sevastopol, the siege of which by coalition forces lasted almost a year (349 days). During this time, too many unfavorable events happened for Russia: the talented military leaders Kornilov, Istomin, Totleben, Nakhimov died, and on February 18 (March 2), 1855, the All-Russian Emperor, the Tsar of Poland and Grand Duke Finnish Nicholas 1. On August 27 (September 8), 1855, Malakhov Kurgan was taken, the defense of Sevastopol became meaningless, and the next day the Russians left the city.

Defeat of Russia in the Crimean War of 1853-1856
After the capture of Kinburn by the French in October and the note from Austria, which had hitherto observed armed neutrality together with Prussia, the further conduct of the war by a weakened Russia made no sense.
On March 18 (30), 1856, a peace treaty was signed in Paris, which imposed on Russia the will of the European states and Turkey, which prohibited the Russian state from having a military fleet, took away the Black Sea bases, prohibited the strengthening of the Åland Islands, abolished the protectorate over Serbia, Wallachia and Moldova, forcing an exchange Kars to Sevastopol and Balaklava, and stipulated the transfer of Southern Bessarabia to the Moldavian Principality (pushing back Russian borders along the Danube). Russia was exhausted by the Crimean War, its economy was in great disarray.








In conclusion, I would like to add a few words from myself.
Europe NEVER wanted to see a prosperous and strong Russia. But modern politicians Apparently they don't remember history well. Russia is no stranger to fighting off a crowd of enemies alone. And as a result, always win.

The path of humanity depends largely on little things. If on October 19, 1847, the Orthodox bishop had thought a little... If the Catholics had walked a little slower that day... Then, perhaps, the world would not have known Leo Tolstoy. And serfdom would be abolished later. And thousands of soldiers who had never heard of an accidental skirmish in Bethlehem would not have died in the Crimean War

ILLUSTRATION: IGOR KUPRIN

Bethlehem is still a troubled place today. One of the most revered cities by Christians, it has been Crusades shaken by conflicts between followers of Jesus who are unable to divide his temples. First of all, this concerns the Basilica of the Nativity of Christ. Now it belongs to Orthodox Greeks and Armenians. Catholics, who own a tiny chapel of the Manger in a cave in the church, are allowed into the central church only at Christmas. Western Christians naturally don’t like this, but Lately they moderated their ambitions, but the Greeks and Armenians cannot divide the sacred space.

The latest conflict occurred on December 28, 2011 during preparations for the celebration of the birth of Christ. Clerics of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Armenian Apostolic Church staged a brawl in the cathedral. The fight started over a dispute over who should clean which part of the temple. About 100 clergymen first shouted mutual curses, and then began to hammer each other with mops and heavy objects. The fighting was separated only by the arriving police. Christmas 1997 was also marred. Then parishioners - Catholics and Orthodox - entered into a squabble. After some time, a miracle appeared in the basilica - Christ, depicted on one of the walls of the temple, began to cry. Many believers explained the Savior’s grief by the lack of reverence among parishioners in the holy place. As history shows, it was lost almost two centuries ago.

FIGHT AT THE ALTAR

The story, which entailed a series of diplomatic demarches and ended with the war of England, France and Turkey against Russia, began in Bethlehem on the evening of October 19, 1847. The Greek Bishop Seraphim, accompanied by the monastery doctor, hurried to the bedside of a sick parishioner. But on one of the narrow, crooked streets in the city center, he encountered a group of Franciscan monks. The distance between the houses was so small that someone would have to give way. However, neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics wanted to do this. A verbal altercation began. In the end, the angry Franciscans took up sticks and stones. Seraphim tried to take refuge in the Basilica of the Nativity, where at that time the Armenian clergy was holding an evening service, which was attended by many Catholics. Together with the Franciscans who burst into the temple, the Latins attacked the Greek bishop and the praying Armenians. The Turkish police arrived in time and had difficulty restoring order. The case became public, and Sultan Abdulmecid assembled a commission to investigate the incident. The guilt of the Catholics who started the brawl was established.

This seemed to be the end of the plot, but the President of the French Republic, Louis Napoleon, intervened in the matter. At this time, he was hatching plans for a coup d'état, wanting to become dictator of France, and was very interested in supporting the Catholic clergy. Therefore, Louis declared himself a “knight of the faith” and declared that he would defend by all means the interests of the unjustly abused Western Christians in the Holy Land. Thus, he demanded the return to Catholics of the churches that belonged to them during the era of the Crusades. First of all, it was about the keys to the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where there was a fight between Catholics and Orthodox Christians. At first, the incident seemed to Russian diplomats to have no significance. of great importance. At first, the subject of the dispute was not even clear: were we talking about real keys that unlocked the doors, or just a symbol? In London, too, the incident was considered a “completely insignificant matter.” Therefore, at first, Russian diplomats decided not to interfere, but to wait to see how events would develop.

BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP SEA

Louis Napoleon's demands were finally formulated in July 1850 in a note from the French envoy, General Jacques Opique, addressed to the Grand Vizier of the Porte, Mehmed Ali Pasha. Opik demanded the return to his co-religionists of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the tomb of the Virgin Mary in Gethsemane and part of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. In response, the Russian envoy in Constantinople, Vladimir Titov, in a special memorandum addressed to the Grand Vizier, objected that the rights of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church to the holy places is undeniably ancient, since they go back to the times of the Eastern Roman Empire. In addition, the Russian diplomat presented the Porte with a dozen and a half Turkish firmans (decrees) confirming the preferential rights of the Orthodox to Middle Eastern shrines. The Turkish Sultan found himself in a difficult position. In search of a way out of this situation, he assembled a commission, including Christian and Muslim theologians, as well as viziers, which was supposed to make a judgment on this issue. It soon became apparent that, despite the Greeks' arguments, the majority of the secular members of the commission (who were usually educated in France) were inclined to favor meeting the demands of the Catholics.

INTRIGUE Looking for Conflict Louis Napoleon Bonaparte with his demarches he deliberately aimed to aggravate relations with St. Petersburg. The fact is that after the coup on December 2, 1851, which made the head of the French Republic actually its dictator, to strengthen political situation Louis needed a war with the Russian Tsar. “[Louis Napoleon] seized on the possibility of war with Russia,” wrote historian Evgeniy Tarle, primarily because... it seemed to many in Louis Napoleon’s entourage that the “revolutionary party,” as it was then customary to call all the indignant, had been driven underground coup d'etat, will certainly give battle to the new regime in the near future. War and only war could not only cool revolutionary sentiments for a long time, but also finally bind the command (both senior and lower, down to non-commissioned officers) composition of the army, cover the new empire with splendor and strengthen the new dynasty for a long time.” In 1852, Louis Napoleon proclaimed himself emperor, which further strained relations between France and Russia. Illustration: GETTY IMAGES/FOTOBANK.COM

The longer the commission worked, the larger the clouds gathered over the Orthodox. Russia had to react somehow. And then Emperor Nicholas I intervened in the matter. In September 1851, he wrote a letter to Sultan Abdul-Mecid in which he expressed bewilderment, why on earth would Turkey undertake to change the centuries-old order of ownership of Palestinian shrines behind the back of Russia and at the request of a third power? The intervention of the king seriously frightened the Sultan. It was in vain that the French envoy, Monsignor de Lavalette, threatened that the Republican fleet would block the Dardanelles - Abdul-Mejid remembered the Russian landing in Constantinople in 1833 and decided not to tempt fate by damaging relations with his powerful northern neighbor.

But the Turks would not be Turks if they abandoned the double game. So, on the one hand, a new commission was assembled, which by February 1852 prepared a firman that consolidated the status quo of the holy places and the preferential rights of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church to them. It called the Catholics' demands baseless and unfair. But, on the other hand, the Turkish Foreign Ministry at the same time sent a secret letter to France, in which it was reported that the Ottomans would hand over the three main keys to the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem to the Catholics. However, de Lavalette considered such a concession too small. In March 1852, he arrived from vacation in the Turkish capital on the ninety-gun frigate Charlemagne to confirm the seriousness of his intentions: de Lavalette demanded either amendments to the firman issued to the Orthodox, or the provision of new benefits to Catholics. From that moment on, the purely religious, “holy” dispute turned into a political question: it was about who would retain predominant influence in the Christian Middle East - Russia or France.

TURKISH Tricks

Panic began in the Sultan's palace. It would seem that the situation was a dead end, but the Turks continued to seek salvation in new tricks. According to Turkish laws, a firman relating to religious issues was not considered to have entered into force unless the appropriate procedure for its announcement was carried out: it was necessary to send an authorized person to Jerusalem to publicly read the firman in the presence of the city governor, representatives of three Christian churches(Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Catholic), a mufti, a Muslim judge and members of the city council. After this, the document had to be registered in court. So, Abdul-Mejid once again hid his head in the sand and decided not to publicize the firman, which he secretly informed the French about, wanting to gain their favor. But in St. Petersburg they soon figured out the Sultan’s games of delaying the procedure for adopting the document. Russian diplomats put pressure on the Grand Vizier. He eventually sent the Sultan's emissary Afif Bey to Jerusalem in September 1852, who supposedly was supposed to carry out the necessary procedure within two weeks. But by hook or by crook he delayed the scheduled deadlines. The Russian side in this performance was represented by the Consul General, State Councilor Konstantin Basili, a Greek in the imperial service. Basili was a skilled diplomat, but he was also tired of Afif Bey’s subterfuges, and in violation of Eastern diplomatic etiquette, he directly asked:

When will the firman be read?

Afif Bey replied that he did not see the need for this.

I don't understand you, is something wrong? - Basili asked.

“My role,” Afif Bey began to prevaricate, “is limited to the execution of the written orders contained in the instructions given to me.” It says nothing about firman.

“Sir,” objected the Russian consul, “if your ministry does not keep its word given to our imperial mission, this will be a regrettable fact.” You may not have written instructions, but you certainly have oral instructions, because the firman exists and everyone knows about it.

In response, Afif Bey tried to shift the responsibility onto the shoulders of the governor of Jerusalem, Hafiz Pasha, saying that it was within his competence how to dispose of the firman. But the governor also washed his hands of it, declaring that he had “nothing to do with it at all,” although the firman really exists and requires publication. In general, the Turks behaved quite in the spirit of Eastern diplomacy. Realizing that the Ottoman officials were deliberately going in circles and that it was useless to wait for the announcement of the firman, Basili left Jerusalem in upset feelings in October 1852. Soon, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent an angry dispatch to Istanbul, threatening a break in relations. She made the Sultan think: breaking diplomatic ties with Russia was not to his advantage yet.

And he came up with a new trick! Firman was announced at the end of November 1852 in Jerusalem and registered in court, but with severe violations of the ceremony. So it was not completely clear whether it became an official document or not.

However, when France learned about the announcement of the firman, its diplomats announced preparations to send a military squadron to the Middle East. In this situation, the Turkish viziers continued to recommend that the Sultan enter into an alliance with Paris and open the doors of churches to Catholics. In this situation, the French fleet could become the defender of the Porte if relations with St. Petersburg worsen. The Sultan listened to this opinion, and in early December 1852 Turkey announced that the keys to the great doors of the Temple of Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem were to be taken from the Greek clergy and handed over to the Catholic ones. In St. Petersburg they took this as a slap in the face and began to prepare for war.

FATAL CONFIDENCE

Nicholas I had no doubt about the victorious outcome of a possible war with Turkey, and this was his main political miscalculation. The Tsar was quite confident in his power, guaranteed by the coalition with England, Austria and Prussia, which took shape during the anti-Napoleonic wars. He could not even imagine that the allies would act in personal interests and easily betray, siding with France and Turkey. Russian Emperor did not take into account that it was not about European affairs, but about Middle Eastern affairs, in which each of the great powers was for itself, concluding short-term alliances with other countries as necessary. The main principle here was to grab yourself a piece, and a bigger one. The Europeans feared that the northern colossus would defeat Turkey and seize the Balkans for itself, and then, lo and behold, Constantinople and the straits. This scenario did not suit anyone, especially England and Austria, who considered the Balkans as a sphere of their interests. In addition, Russia's assertion on lands belonging to Turkey jeopardized the peace of the British in India.

PEACE TREATY Results of the Crimean War The Eastern War ended with the Treaty of Paris, signed on March 18, 1856. Despite the defeat, Russian losses were minimal. Thus, St. Petersburg was ordered to renounce patronage of Orthodox Christians in Palestine and the Balkans, as well as to return to Turkey the fortresses of Kars and Bayazet, captured by Russia during previous wars. In exchange, England and France gave Russia all the cities that were occupied by their troops: Sevastopol, Balaklava and Kerch. The Black Sea was declared neutral: both the Russians and the Turks were prohibited from having a navy and fortresses there. Neither England nor France received any territorial gains: their victory was mainly psychological. The main thing that the allies managed to achieve was a guarantee that none of the powers participating in the negotiations would attempt to seize Turkish territories. Thus, St. Petersburg was deprived of the opportunity to influence Middle Eastern affairs, which Paris and London always wanted. Nicholas I died in 1855 from influenza. Many historians believe that the king sought death, unable to bear the shame of defeat in the war. Illustration: DIOMEDIA

But the Russian autocrat decided to rattle weapons and in December 1852 gave the order to put the 4th and 5th on alert. army corps in Bessarabia, which threatened Turkish possessions in Moldavia and Wallachia (Danubian principalities). In this way, he decided to give more weight to the emergency embassy led by Prince Alexander Menshikov, which arrived in Istanbul in February 1853 to understand the intricacies of Turkish diplomacy. And again the Sultan did not know which side to lean on. At first, he verbally accepted the demands of the Russian side to maintain the status quo of Palestinian shrines, but after some time he refused to formalize his concessions on paper. The fact is that by this time he had received guarantees of support from France and England in the event of a war with St. Petersburg (English and French diplomats came to a secret agreement that in the event of an alliance between England and France, “both of these countries will be omnipotent”). Menshikov returned home in May 1853 with nothing. On June 1, Russia broke off diplomatic relations with the Porte. In response, a week later, at the invitation of the Sultan, the Anglo-French fleet entered the Dardanelles Strait. At the end of June, Russian troops invaded Moldavia and Wallachia. The last attempts to resolve the matter peacefully led nowhere, and on October 16, 1853, Turkey declared war on Russia. And in March 1854, England and France joined it. Thus began the Crimean War (1853–1856). Neither Austria nor Prussia came to the aid of Russia. On the contrary, Vienna demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Danube principalities, threatening to join the anti-Russian coalition. Military luck was on the side of the king's opponents. In 1855, the Allies took Sevastopol. In the spring of 1856, the Treaty of Paris was signed. According to its annexes, the rights to Palestinian shrines passed to Catholics. Only 20 years later, after the new, already victorious, Russian-Turkish War, the former order was restored, and the churches of the Holy Land were returned under the control of the Orthodox Church.

Initially, Russia began to fight with Turkey for control of the Black Sea straits and influence in the Balkans. The Russian army started the war very successfully. In November, through the efforts of Nakhimov, the Russian fleet defeated the Turkish in the Battle of Sinop. This event gave rise to the intervention of France and England in the war, under the pretext of protecting Turkish interests. This defense eventually developed into open European aggression against Russia. For, France and England did not want to strengthen the Russian state.

In 1854, these strangers officially declared war on the Russian Empire. Basic fighting The Crimean War unfolded in Crimea. The Allies landed in Yevpatoria and began an attack on the naval base - Sevastopol. The heroic defense of the city was led by outstanding Russian naval commanders Kornilov and Nakhimov. Under their command, the city, weakly defended from land, was turned into a real fortress. After the fall of Malakhov Kurgan, the defenders of the city left Sevastopol. Russian troops managed to take the Turkish fortress of Kars, which slightly balanced the scales of the allies and the Russian empire. After this event, peace negotiations began. Peace was signed in Paris in 1856. The Treaty of Paris deprived Russia of the opportunity to have a fleet on the Black Sea, and the country also lost part of Bessarabia, the mouth of the Danube, and lost the right of patronage over Serbia.

The defeat in the Crimean War raised many questions about its causes for Russian society. The government found itself at a historic fork in the road, and it had to make a choice in which direction Russia would go. The Crimean War became a catalyst for further reforms in the Russian empire and innovative transformations.

When was the Crimean War?

Chronology of the Crimean War of 1853-1856 The Crimean (Eastern) War between Russia and a coalition of countries consisting of Great Britain, France, Turkey and the Kingdom of Sardinia lasted from 1853 to 1856 and was caused by a clash of their interests in the Black Sea basin, the Caucasus and the Balkans.

Where and how did the Crimean War begin?

The Crimean War of 1853–1856 began. On October 4 (16), 1853, the Crimean War began, a war between Russia and the coalition of Great Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia for dominance in the Middle East. TO mid-19th V. Great Britain and France ousted Russia from the Middle Eastern markets and brought Turkey under their influence.

Crimean War stages. Crimean War 1853-56 Its causes, stages, results.

REASONS The causes of the war lay in the contradictions between European powers in the Middle East, in the struggle of European states for influence on the weakening Ottoman Empire, which was engulfed in the national liberation movement. Nicholas I said that Turkey’s inheritance can and should be divided. In the upcoming conflict, the Russian emperor counted on the neutrality of Great Britain, to which he promised, after the defeat of Turkey, new territorial acquisitions of Crete and Egypt, as well as the support of Austria, as gratitude for Russia’s participation in the suppression of the Hungarian revolution. However, Nicholas’s calculations turned out to be wrong: England itself was pushing Turkey towards war, thus trying to weaken Russia’s position. Austria also did not want Russia to strengthen in the Balkans. The reason for the war was a dispute between the Catholic and Orthodox clergy in Palestine about who would be the guardian of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the temple in Bethlehem. At the same time, there was no talk about access to holy places, since all pilgrims enjoyed them on equal rights. The dispute over the Holy Places cannot be called a far-fetched reason for starting a war. STAGES During the Crimean War, two stages are distinguished: Stage I of the war: November 1853 - April 1854. Turkey was Russia's enemy, and military operations took place on the Danube and Caucasus fronts. 1853 Russian troops entered the territory of Moldova and Wallachia and military operations on land were sluggish. In the Caucasus, the Turks were defeated at Kars. Stage II of the war: April 1854 – February 1856. Concerned that Russia would completely defeat Turkey, England and France, in the person of Austria, delivered an ultimatum to Russia. They demanded that Russia refuse to patronize the Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire. Nicholas I could not accept such conditions. Türkiye, France, England and Sardinia united against Russia. RESULTS Results of the war: - On February 13 (25), 1856, the Paris Congress began, and on March 18 (30) a peace treaty was signed. - Russia returned the city of Kars with a fortress to the Ottomans, receiving in exchange Sevastopol, Balaklava and other Crimean cities captured from it. - The Black Sea was declared neutral (that is, open to commercial vessels and closed to military vessels in peacetime), with Russia and the Ottoman Empire prohibited from having military fleets and arsenals there. - Navigation along the Danube was declared free, for which the Russian borders were moved away from the river and part of Russian Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube was annexed to Moldova. - Russia was deprived of the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia granted to it by the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Peace of 1774 and the exclusive protection of Russia over the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. - Russia has pledged not to build fortifications on the Åland Islands. During the war, the participants in the anti-Russian coalition failed to achieve all their goals, but managed to prevent Russia from strengthening in the Balkans and deprive it of the Black Sea Fleet.

At first, success was mixed. The main milestone was the Battle of Sinop in November 1853, when the Russian admiral, hero of the Crimean War P. S. Nakhimov completely defeated the Turkish fleet in Sinop Bay within a few hours. In addition, all coastal batteries were suppressed. The Turkish naval base lost more than one and a half dozen ships and over three thousand people killed alone, all coastal fortifications were destroyed. The commander of the Turkish fleet was captured. Only one fast ship with an English adviser on board was able to escape from the bay.

Nakhimov's losses were much smaller: not a single ship was sunk, several of them were damaged and went into repairs. Thirty-seven people died. These were the first heroes of the Crimean War (1853-1856). The list is open. However, it was this brilliantly planned and no less brilliantly executed sea ​​battle in Sinop Bay is literally written in gold on the pages of the history of the Russian fleet. And immediately after this, France and England became more active; they could not allow Russia to win. War was declared, and immediately foreign squadrons appeared in the Baltic near Kronstadt and Sveaborg, which were attacked. In the White Sea, English ships bombarded the Solovetsky Monastery. The war began in Kamchatka.

The Crimean War, or, as it is called in the West, the Eastern War, was one of the most important and decisive events of the mid-19th century. At this time, the lands of the western Ottoman Empire found themselves at the center of a conflict between the European powers and Russia, with each of the warring parties wanting to expand their territories by annexing foreign lands.

The war of 1853-1856 was called the Crimean War, since the most important and intense fighting took place in the Crimea, although military clashes went far beyond the peninsula and covered large areas of the Balkans, the Caucasus, as well as the Far East and Kamchatka. Wherein Tsarist Russia I had to fight not just with the Ottoman Empire, but with a coalition where Turkey was supported by Great Britain, France and the Kingdom of Sardinia.

Causes of the Crimean War

Each of the parties that took part in the military campaign had its own reasons and grievances that prompted them to enter into this conflict. But in general, they were united by one single goal - to take advantage of Turkey’s weakness and establish themselves in the Balkans and the Middle East. It was these colonial interests that led to the outbreak of the Crimean War. But all countries took different paths to achieve this goal.

Russia wanted to destroy the Ottoman Empire, and its territories to be mutually beneficially divided between the claiming countries. Russia would like to see Bulgaria, Moldova, Serbia and Wallachia under its protectorate. And at the same time, she was not against the fact that the territories of Egypt and the island of Crete would go to Great Britain. It was also important for Russia to establish control over the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits, connecting two seas: the Black and Mediterranean.

With the help of this war, Turkey hoped to suppress the national liberation movement that had swept the Balkans, as well as to take away very important Russian territories Crimea and the Caucasus.

England and France did not want to strengthen the position of Russian tsarism in the international arena, and sought to preserve the Ottoman Empire, since they saw it as a constant threat to Russia. Having weakened the enemy, European powers wanted to separate the territories of Finland, Poland, the Caucasus and Crimea from Russia.

The French emperor pursued his ambitious goals and dreamed of revenge in a new war with Russia. Thus, he wanted to take revenge on his enemy for his defeat in the military campaign of 1812.

If you carefully consider the mutual claims of the parties, then, in essence, the Crimean War was absolutely predatory and aggressive. It’s not for nothing that the poet Fyodor Tyutchev described it as a war of cretins with scoundrels.

Progress of hostilities

The start of the Crimean War was preceded by several important events. In particular, it was the issue of control over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Bethlehem, which was resolved in favor of the Catholics. This finally convinced Nicholas I of the need to begin military action against Turkey. Therefore, in June 1853, Russian troops invaded the territory of Moldova.

The response from the Turkish side was not long in coming: on October 12, 1853, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia.

First period of the Crimean War: October 1853 – April 1854

By the beginning of hostilities, there were about a million people in the Russian army. But as it turned out, its weapons were very outdated and significantly inferior to the equipment of Western European armies: smooth-bore guns versus rifled weapons, sailing fleet against ships with steam engines. But Russia hoped that it would have to fight with a Turkish army approximately equal in strength, as happened at the very beginning of the war, and could not imagine that it would be opposed by the forces of a united coalition of European countries.

During this period, military operations were carried out with varying degrees of success. And the most important battle of the first Russian-Turkish period of the war was the Battle of Sinop, which took place on November 18, 1853. The Russian flotilla under the command of Vice Admiral Nakhimov, heading to the Turkish coast, discovered large enemy naval forces in Sinop Bay. The commander decided to attack the Turkish fleet. The Russian squadron had an undeniable advantage - 76 cannons firing explosive shells. This is what decided the outcome of the 4-hour battle - the Turkish squadron was completely destroyed, and the commander Osman Pasha was captured.

Second period of the Crimean War: April 1854 – February 1856

The victory of the Russian army in the Battle of Sinop greatly worried England and France. And in March 1854, these powers, together with Turkey, formed a coalition to fight a common enemy - the Russian Empire. Now a powerful military force, several times larger than its army.

With the beginning of the second stage of the Crimean campaign, the territory of military operations expanded significantly and covered the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Baltic, Far East and Kamchatka. But the main task of the coalition was intervention in Crimea and the capture of Sevastopol.

In the fall of 1854, a combined 60,000-strong corps of coalition forces landed in the Crimea near Evpatoria. And the Russian army lost the first battle on the Alma River, so it was forced to retreat to Bakhchisarai. The garrison of Sevastopol began to prepare for the defense and defense of the city. The valiant defenders were led by the famous admirals Nakhimov, Kornilov and Istomin. Sevastopol was turned into an impregnable fortress, which was defended by 8 bastions on land, and the entrance to the bay was blocked with the help of sunken ships.

lasted 349 days heroic defense Sevastopol, and only in September 1855 the enemy captured the Malakhov Kurgan and occupied the entire southern part of the city. The Russian garrison moved to the northern part, but Sevastopol never capitulated.

Results of the Crimean War

The military actions of 1855 weakened both the allied coalition and Russia. Therefore, there could no longer be any talk of continuing the war. And in March 1856, the opponents agreed to sign a peace treaty.

According to the Treaty of Paris, Russia, like the Ottoman Empire, was prohibited from having a navy, fortresses and arsenals on the Black Sea, which meant that the country's southern borders were in danger.

As a result of the war, Russia lost a small part of its territories in Bessarabia and the mouth of the Danube, but lost its influence in the Balkans.

Video Crimean War 1853 - 1856

The Crimean War is the course of the war. Crimean War: causes, participants, table of main events, outcome

The Crimean War is one of the most important events in history Russia XIX century. The largest world powers opposed Russia: Great Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. The causes, episodes and results of the Crimean War of 1853-1856 will be briefly discussed in this article.

Original relationship of events

So, the Crimean War was predetermined some time before its actual start. Thus, in the 40s, the Ottoman Empire deprived the Russian Empire of access to the Black Sea straits. As a result, the Russian fleet was locked in the Black Sea. Nicholas I took this news extremely painfully. It is curious that the significance of this territory has been preserved to this day, already for the Russian Federation. In Europe, meanwhile, they expressed dissatisfaction with Russia's aggressive policies and growing influence in the Balkans.

Causes of the war

The preconditions for such a large-scale conflict took a long time to accumulate. We list the main ones:

1. The Eastern Question is escalating. Russian Emperor Nicholas I sought to finally resolve the “Turkish” issue. Russia wanted to strengthen its influence in the Balkans; it wanted the creation of independent Balkan states: Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania. Nicholas I also planned to capture Constantinople (Istanbul) and establish control over the Black Sea straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles).
2. The Ottoman Empire suffered many defeats in the wars with Russia; it lost the entire Northern Black Sea region, Crimea, and part of Transcaucasia. Greece separated from the Turks shortly before the war. Turkey's influence was falling, it was losing control over its dependent territories. That is, the Turks sought to recoup their previous defeats and regain their lost lands.
3. The French and British were concerned about the steadily growing foreign policy influence of the Russian Empire. Shortly before the Crimean War, Russia defeated the Turks in the war of 1828-1829. and according to the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, it received new lands from Turkey in the Danube Delta. All this led to anti-Russian sentiment growing and strengthening in Europe.

End of the Crimean War

The Crimean War was launched between the Russian Empire, on the one hand, and a coalition of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France, on the other, in October 1853 and ended on February 1, 1856 with the signing of the agreement in Paris and the complete defeat of the Russian Empire. The Egyptian army also took part in the hostilities, opposing the Russian Empire. As for the prerequisites for the start of the war, on July 3, 1853, Russian troops occupied Moldavia and Wallachia (which were protectorates of Russia under the terms of the Treaty of Adrianople) in order to protect the sacred lands of Palestine and the Greek Church. Then the Ottoman Sultan Abdul-Mejdid decided to bring his army into a state of full combat readiness in order, if necessary, to resist the aggressor who encroached on the great Ottoman Empire. Few people know that Emir Amr At-Tusun has a book about this war called “Egyptian army in the Russian war", which was published in 1932. The Turks entered Crimea in 1475, and the peninsula became part of the Ottoman Empire. Since then, Russia has been waiting for the right moment to invade the territory of the Ottoman Empire. When Sultan Abdul-Mejdid realized that the danger of war loomed over his empire, he asked Khedive Abbas, Vice-Sultan of Egypt, to provide military support. Khedive Abbas Hilmi requested Ottoman Sultan sends a fleet of 12 ships equipped with 642 cannons and 6,850 naval sailors under the leadership of the Emir of the Egyptian Navy, Hassan Bashu Al-Iskandarani. Vice-Sultan Abbas also equips his ground army under the leadership of Salim Fathi Bashi, which has more than 20 thousand cannons in its arsenal. So in October 1854, the Ottoman Empire officially declared war on Russia.

The opinion that the war began because of a religious conflict and “protection of the Orthodox” is fundamentally incorrect. Since wars have never started because of different religions or infringement of some interests of fellow believers. These arguments are only a reason for conflict. The reason is always the economic interests of the parties.

Türkiye by that time was the “sick link of Europe.” It became clear that it would not last long and would soon collapse, so the question of who would inherit its territories became increasingly relevant. Russia wanted to annex Moldavia and Wallachia with its Orthodox population, and also in the future to capture the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

The beginning and end of the Crimean War

The following stages can be distinguished in the Crimean War of 1853-1855:

1. Danube campaign. On June 14, 1853, the emperor issued a decree on the beginning military operation. On June 21, the troops crossed the border with Turkey and on July 3 entered Bucharest without firing a single shot. At the same time, minor military skirmishes began at sea and on land.

1. Battle of Sinop. On November 18, 1953, a huge Turkish squadron was completely destroyed. This was Russia's largest victory in the Crimean War.

1. Entry of the Allies into the war. In March 1854, France and England declared war on Russia. Realizing that he could not cope with the leading powers alone, the emperor withdrew his troops from Moldavia and Wallachia.

1. Sea blockade. In June-July 1854, a Russian squadron of 14 battleships and 12 frigates was completely blocked in the Sevastopol Bay by the Allied fleet, numbering 34 battleships and 55 frigates.

1. Allied landing in Crimea. On September 2, 1854, the allies began to land in Yevpatoria, and already on the 8th of the same month they inflicted a rather large defeat Russian army(a division of 33,000 people), which tried to stop the movement of troops towards Sevastopol. The losses were small, but they had to retreat.

1. Destruction of part of the fleet. On September 9, 5 battleships and 2 frigates (30% of the total number) were sunk at the entrance to Sevastopol Bay to prevent the Allied squadron from breaking into it.

1. Attempts to release the blockade. On October 13 and November 5, 1854, Russian troops made 2 attempts to lift the blockade of Sevastopol. Both were unsuccessful, but without major losses.

1. Battle for Sevastopol. From March to September 1855 there were 5 bombings of the city. There was another attempt by Russian troops to break the blockade, but it failed. On September 8, Malakhov Kurgan, a strategic height, was taken. Because of this, Russian troops abandoned the southern part of the city, blew up rocks with ammunition and weapons, and sank the entire fleet.

1. The surrender of half the city and the sinking of the Black Sea squadron produced a strong shock in all circles of society. For this reason, Emperor Nicholas I agreed to a truce.

War participants

One of the reasons for Russia's defeat is the numerical superiority of the allies. But actually it is not. The ratio of the ground part of the army is shown in the table.

As you can see, although the allies had an overall numerical superiority, this did not affect every battle. Moreover, even when the ratio was approximately parity or in our favor, Russian troops still could not achieve success. However, the main question remains not why Russia did not win without having numerical superiority, but why the state was not able to supply more soldiers.

Important! In addition, the British and French contracted dysentery during the march, which greatly affected the combat effectiveness of the units.

The balance of fleet forces in the Black Sea is shown in the table:

The main naval force was battleships- heavy ships with a huge number of guns. Frigates were used as fast and well-armed hunters that hunted transport ships. Russia's large number of small boats and gunboats did not provide superiority at sea, since their combat potential was extremely small.

Heroes of the Crimean War

Another reason is called command errors. However, most of these opinions are expressed after the fact, that is, when the critic already knows what decision should have been taken.

1. Nakhimov, Pavel Stepanovich. He showed himself most at sea during the Battle of Sinop, when he sank a Turkish squadron. He did not participate in land battles, since he did not have the relevant experience (he was still a naval admiral). During the defense, he served as governor, that is, he was involved in equipping the troops.

1. Kornilov, Vladimir Alekseevich. He proved himself to be a brave and active commander. In fact, he invented active defense tactics with tactical sorties, laying minefields, and mutual assistance between land and naval artillery.

1. Menshikov, Alexander Sergeevich. It is he who receives all the blame for the lost war. However, firstly, Menshikov personally led only 2 operations. In one he retreated for completely objective reasons (numerical superiority of the enemy). In another he lost because of his miscalculation, but at that moment his front was no longer decisive, but auxiliary. Secondly, Menshikov also gave quite rational orders (sinking ships in the bay), which helped the city survive longer.

Causes of defeat

Many sources indicate that Russian troops lost because of the fittings, which large quantities the Allied armies had. This is an erroneous point of view, which is duplicated even on Wikipedia, so it needs to be analyzed in detail:

1. The Russian army also had fittings, and there were enough of them too.
2. The rifle was fired at 1200 meters - it’s just a myth. Really long-range rifles were adopted much later. On average, the rifles were fired at 400-450 meters.
3. The rifles were shot very accurately - also a myth. Yes, their accuracy was more accurate, but only by 30-50% and only at 100 meters. As the distance increased, the superiority dropped to 20-30% or lower. In addition, the rate of fire was 3-4 times lower.
4. During major battles in the first half of the 19th century, the smoke from gunpowder was so thick that visibility was reduced to 20-30 meters.
5. The accuracy of a weapon does not mean the accuracy of a fighter. It is extremely difficult to teach a person to hit a target from 100 meters even with a modern rifle. And from a rifle that did not have today’s aiming devices, it was even more difficult to shoot at a target.
6. During combat stress, only 5% of soldiers think about targeted shooting.
7. The main losses were always caused by artillery. Namely, 80-90% of all killed and wounded soldiers were from cannon fire with grapeshot.