Crimean War summary. Crimean War: briefly about the causes, main events and consequences

Briefly about the Crimean War

Krymskaya voina (1853—1856)

The Crimean War, in short, is a confrontation between the Russian Empire and Turkey, supported by a coalition that included Great Britain, France and the Kingdom of Sardinia. The war took place between 1853 and 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 prerequisites for the conflict, you need to consider this situation more carefully.

Background of the military conflict
By the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was in a severe decline and became politically and economically dependent on Great Britain. Turkey had tense relations with the Russian Empire for a long time, and the plans of Nicholas I to separate the Balkan possessions from her, inhabited by Christians, only worsened them.

Great Britain, which had its far-reaching plans for the Middle East, tried with all its might to squeeze Russia out of this region. First of all, this 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 the UK, 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 military ones. The plans were to take the Caucasus and Crimea from Russia and give them to Turkey.
Emperor of France Napoleon III did not see a rival for himself in Russia, 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, dating back to the first conflicts with the Ottoman Empire: to secure its southern borders, take control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles in the Black Sea, and strengthen 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 desire of the government to participate in the war. After the first failures 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 about revenge for the lost war of 1812.

The main reason for the military conflict

The Crimean War, in short, owes its beginning to hostile relations between Nicholas I and Napoleon III. The Russian emperor considered the power of the French ruler illegitimate and in a 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 relations led to a serious conflict over the right to control the holy places that 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. Peace failed to resolve the disputed situation, and in October 1853 the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia.

Stages of war
Conventionally, the course of the war can be divided into several stages. In 1853, the war was 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 also won.

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 of attack by the Allied forces. 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.

Crimean War 1853−1856 (or the Eastern War) is a conflict between the Russian Empire and coalitions of countries, the cause of which was the desire of a number of countries to gain a foothold in the Balkan Peninsula and the Black Sea, as well as to reduce the influence of the Russian Empire in this region.

Basic information

Participants in the conflict

Almost all the leading countries of Europe became participants in the conflict. Against the Russian Empire, on the side of which was only Greece (until 1854) and the vassal Principality of Megrel, a coalition consisting of:

• Ottoman Empire;
• French Empire;
• British Empire;
• Sardinian kingdom.

Support for the coalition troops was also provided by: the North Caucasian Imamat (until 1955), the Abkhazian principality (part of the Abkhazians sided with the Russian Empire and waged a guerrilla war against the coalition troops), and the Circassians.

It should also be noted that friendly neutrality to the countries of the coalition was shown by the Austrian Empire, Prussia and Sweden.

Thus, the Russian Empire could not find allies in Europe.

Numerical aspect ratio

The numerical ratio (ground forces and navy) at the time of the outbreak of hostilities was approximately as follows:

• Russian Empire and allies (Bulgarian Legion, Greek Legion and foreign voluntary formations) - 755 thousand people;
• coalition forces - about 700 thousand people.

From a logistical point of view, the army of the Russian Empire was significantly inferior to the armed forces of the coalition, although none of the officials and generals wanted to accept this fact . Moreover, the team, in terms of its preparedness, was also inferior to the command staff of the combined forces of the enemy.

Geography of hostilities

For four years, hostilities were conducted:

• in the Caucasus;
• on the territory of the Danube principalities (Balkans);
• in Crimea;
• on the Black, Azov, Baltic, White and Barents Seas;
• in Kamchatka and the Kuriles.

This geography is explained, first of all, by the fact that the opponents actively used the navy against each other (the map of hostilities is presented below).

Brief History of the Crimean War of 1853−1856

Political situation on the eve of the war

The political situation on the eve of the war was extremely acute. The main reason for this exacerbation was, first of all, the obvious weakening of the Ottoman Empire and the strengthening of the positions of the Russian Empire in the Balkans and the Black Sea. It was at this time that Greece gained independence (1830), Turkey lost its Janissary corps (1826) and fleet (1827, the Battle of Navarino), Algeria retreated to France (1830), Egypt also renounced historical vassalage (1831).

At the same time, the Russian Empire received the right to freely use the Black Sea straits, sought autonomy for Serbia and a protectorate over the Danubian principalities. By supporting the Ottoman Empire in the war with Egypt, the Russian Empire is seeking a promise from Turkey to close the straits for any ships other than Russian ones in the event of any military threat (the secret protocol was in effect until 1941).

Naturally, such a strengthening of the Russian Empire instilled a certain fear in the European powers. In particular, UK has done it all so that the London Convention on the Straits would come into force, which prevented their closure and opened up the possibility for France and England to intervene in the event of a Russian-Turkish conflict. Also, the government of the British Empire achieved from Turkey "most favored nation treatment" in trade. In fact, this meant the complete subordination of the Turkish economy.

At this time, Britain did not want to further weaken the Ottomans, as this eastern empire became a huge market in which to sell English goods. Britain was also worried about the strengthening of Russia in the Caucasus and the Balkans, its advance into Central Asia, and that is why it interfered in every possible way with Russian foreign policy.

France was not particularly interested in affairs in the Balkans, but many in the Empire, especially the new emperor Napoleon III, longed for revenge (after the events of 1812-1814).

Austria, despite the agreements and common work in the Holy Alliance, did not want the strengthening of Russia in the Balkans and did not want the formation of new states there, independent of the Ottomans.

Thus, each of the strong European states had its own reasons for unleashing (or heating up) the conflict, and also pursued its own goals, strictly determined by geopolitics, the solution of which was possible only if Russia was weakened, involved in a military conflict with several opponents at once.

Causes of the Crimean War and the reason for the outbreak of hostilities

So, the reasons for the war are quite clear:

• the desire of Great Britain to preserve the weak and controlled Ottoman Empire and through it to control the mode of operation of the Black Sea straits;
• the desire of Austria-Hungary to prevent a split in the Balkans (which would lead to unrest within the multinational Austria-Hungary) and the strengthening of Russia's positions there;
• the desire of France (or, more precisely, Napoleon III) to distract the French from internal problems and strengthen their rather shaky power.

It is clear that the main desire of all European states was to weaken the Russian Empire. The so-called Palmerston Plan (the leader of British diplomacy) provided for the actual separation of part of the lands from Russia: Finland, the Aland Islands, the Baltic states, the Crimea and the Caucasus. According to this plan, the Danubian principalities were to go to Austria. The Kingdom of Poland was to be restored, which would serve as a barrier between Prussia and Russia.

Naturally, the Russian Empire also had certain goals. Under Nicholas I, all officials and all the generals wanted to strengthen Russia's positions in the Black Sea and the Balkans. The establishment of a favorable regime for the Black Sea straits was also a priority.

The reason for the war was the conflict around the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the keys to which were the introduction of Orthodox monks. Formally, this gave them the right to "speak" on behalf of Christians around the world and dispose of the greatest Christian shrines at their own discretion.

Emperor of France Napoleon III demanded that the Turkish Sultan hand over the keys to the representatives of the Vatican. This offended Nicholas I, who protested and sent His Serene Highness Prince A. S. Menshikov to the Ottoman Empire. Menshikov was unable to achieve a positive solution to the issue. Most likely, this was due to the fact that the leading European powers had already entered into a conspiracy against Russia and in every possible way pushed the Sultan to war, promising him support.

In response to the provocative actions of the Ottomans and European ambassadors, the Russian Empire breaks off diplomatic relations with Turkey and sends troops to the Danubian principalities. Nicholas I, understanding the complexity of the situation, was ready to make concessions and sign the so-called Vienna Note, which ordered the withdrawal of troops from the southern borders and the release of Wallachia and Moldova, but when Turkey tried to dictate the terms, the conflict became inevitable. After the refusal of the emperor of Russia to sign the note with the Turkish sultan's amendments made to it, the ruler of the Ottomans announced the beginning of the war with the Russian Empire. In October 1853 (when Russia was not yet fully ready for hostilities), the war began.

The course of the Crimean War: military operations

The whole war can be divided into two large stages:

• October 1953 - April 1954 - this is directly a Russian-Turkish company; theater of military operations - the Caucasus and the Danube principalities;
• April 1854 - February 1956 - military operations against the coalition (Crimean, Azov, Baltic, White Sea and Kinburn companies).

The main events of the first stage can be considered the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Sinop Bay by PS Nakhimov (November 18 (30), 1853).

The second stage of the war was much more eventful.

It can be said that failures in the Crimean direction led to the fact that the new Russian emperor, Alexander I. I. (Nicholas I died in 1855) decided to start peace negotiations.

It cannot be said that the Russian troops were defeated because of the commanders-in-chief. On the Danube direction, the talented prince M. D. Gorchakov commanded the troops, in the Caucasus - N. N. Muravyov, the Black Sea Fleet was led by Vice Admiral P. S. Nakhimov (who also led the defense of Sevastopol later and died in 1855), the defense of Petropavlovsk was led by V S. Zavoyko, but even the enthusiasm and tactical genius of these officers did not help in the war, which was waged according to the new rules.

Treaty of Paris

The diplomatic mission was headed by Prince A. F. Orlov. After long negotiations in Paris 18 (30).03. In 1856, a peace treaty was signed between the Russian Empire, on the one hand, and the Ottoman Empire, coalition forces, Austria and Prussia, on the other. The terms of the peace treaty were as follows:

Results of the Crimean War 1853−1856

Causes of defeat in the war

Even before the conclusion of the Paris Peace the reasons for the defeat in the war were obvious to the emperor and the leading politicians of the empire:

• foreign policy isolation of the empire;
• superior enemy forces;
• the backwardness of the Russian Empire in socio-economic and military-technical terms.

Foreign and domestic consequences of the defeat

The foreign and domestic political results of the war were also deplorable, although somewhat mitigated by the efforts of Russian diplomats. It was obvious that

• the international prestige of the Russian Empire fell (for the first time since 1812);
• the geopolitical situation and the alignment of forces in Europe have changed;
• weakened Russian influence in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East;
• the safe state of the southern borders of the country has been violated;
• weakened positions in the Black Sea and the Baltic;
• disrupted the financial system of the country.

Significance of the Crimean War

But, despite the severity of the political situation inside and outside the country after the defeat in the Crimean War, it was she who became the catalyst that led to the reforms of the 60s of the XIX century, including the abolition of serfdom in Russia.

Russia, the Ottoman Empire, England, France and Sardinia participated in the Crimean War. Each of them had their own calculations in this military conflict.

For Russia, the regime of the Black Sea straits was of paramount importance. In the 30-40s of the XIX century. Russian diplomacy waged a tense struggle for the most favorable conditions in resolving this issue. In 1833, the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty was concluded with Turkey. According to it, the straits were closed for foreign warships, and Russia received the right to free passage of its warships through them. In the 40s of the XIX century. the situation has changed. On the basis of a number of agreements with European states, the straits for the first time came under international control and were closed to all military fleets. As a result, the Russian fleet was locked in the Black Sea. Russia, relying on its military might, sought to re-solve the problem of the straits, to strengthen its positions in the Middle East and the Balkans.

The Ottoman Empire wanted to return the territories lost as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars of the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries.

England and France hoped to crush Russia as a great power, to deprive her of influence in the Middle East and the Balkan Peninsula.

The pan-European conflict in the Middle East began in 1850, when disputes broke out between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy of Palestine over who would own the Saints.
places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Orthodox Church was supported by Russia, and the Catholic Church by France. The dispute between the clergy grew into a confrontation between two European states. The Ottoman Empire, which included Palestine, sided with France. This caused sharp discontent in Russia and personally Emperor Nicholas I. A special representative of the tsar, Prince A. S. Mesnshikov, was sent to Constantinople. He was instructed to obtain privileges for the Russian Orthodox Church in Palestine and the right to patronize the Orthodox subjects of Turkey. The failure of the mission of A. S. Menshikov was a foregone conclusion. The Sultan was not going to give in to Russian pressure, and the defiant, disrespectful behavior of her envoy only aggravated the conflict situation. Thus, it would seem private, but for that time important, given the religious feelings of people, the dispute over the Holy Places became the reason for the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish, and later the all-European war.

Nicholas I took an uncompromising position, hoping for the power of the army and the support of some European states (England, Austria, etc.). But he miscalculated. The Russian army numbered over 1 million people. However, as it turned out during the war, it was imperfect, primarily in technical terms. Its armament (smooth-bore guns) was inferior to the rifled weapons of the Western European armies. The artillery is outdated. The Russian fleet was predominantly sailing, while the European navies were dominated by ships with steam engines. There were no good communications. This did not allow to provide the theater of military operations with a sufficient amount of ammunition and food. human replenishment. The Russian army could successfully fight against the Turkish army, which was similar in state, but it was not able to resist the united forces of Europe.

The course of hostilities

To put pressure on Turkey in 1853, Russian troops were brought into Moldova and Wallachia. In response, the Turkish Sultan in October 1853 declared war on Russia. He was supported by England and France. Austria took a position of "armed neutrality". Russia found itself in complete political isolation.

The history of the Crimean War is divided into two stages

The first: the Russian-Turkish campaign itself - was conducted with varying success from November 1853 to April 1854. The second (April 1854 - February 1856): Russia was forced to fight against a coalition of European states.

The main event of the first stage is the Battle of Sinop (November 1853). Admiral P.S. Nakhimov defeated the Turkish fleet in Sinop Bay and suppressed coastal batteries. This activated England and France. They declared war on Russia. The Anglo-French squadron appeared in the Baltic Sea, attacked Kronstadt and Sveaborg. English ships entered the White Sea and bombarded the Solovetsky Monastery. A military demonstration was also held in Kamchatka.

The main goal of the joint Anglo-French command was the capture of the Crimea and Sevastopol, the Russian naval base. On September 2, 1854, the Allies began the landing of an expeditionary force in the Evpatoria region. Battle of the Alma River in September

1854 Russian troops lost. By order of the commander A. S. Menshikov, they passed through Sevastopol and retreated to Bakhchisaray. At the same time, the garrison of Sevastopol, reinforced by the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet, was actively preparing for defense. It was headed by V. A. Kornilov and P. S. Nakhimov.

In October 1854, the Allies laid siege to Sevastopol. The garrison of the fortress showed unprecedented heroism. Admirals V. L. Kornilov, P. S. Nakhimov and V. I. Istomin, military engineer E. I. Totleben, artillery lieutenant general S. A. Khrulev, many sailors and soldiers: I. Shevchenko, F. Samolatov, P. Koshka and others.

The main part of the Russian army undertook distracting operations: the battle of Inksrman (November 1854), the attack on Evpatoria (February 1855), the battle on the Black River (August 1855). These military actions did not help the Sevastopol residents. In August 1855, the last assault on Sevastopol began. After the fall of the Malakhov Kurgan, the continuation of the defense was difficult. Most of Sevastopol was occupied by the allied troops, however, having found only ruins there, they returned to their positions.

In the Caucasian theater, hostilities developed more successfully for Russia. Turkey invaded Transcaucasia, but suffered a major defeat, after which Russian troops began to operate on its territory. In November 1855, the Turkish fortress of Kars fell.

The extreme exhaustion of the allied forces in the Crimea and the Russian successes in the Caucasus led to the cessation of hostilities. Negotiations between the parties began.

Parisian world

At the end of March 1856, the Treaty of Paris was signed. Russia did not suffer significant territorial losses. Only the southern part of Bessarabia was torn away from her. However, she lost the right to protect the Danubian Principalities and Serbia. The most difficult and humiliating was the condition of the so-called "neutralization" of the Black Sea. Russia was forbidden to have naval forces, military arsenals and fortresses on the Black Sea. This dealt a significant blow to the security of the southern borders. The role of Russia in the Balkans and the Middle East was reduced to nothing.

The defeat in the Crimean War had a significant impact on the alignment of international forces and on the internal situation of Russia. The war, on the one hand, exposed its weakness, but on the other, it demonstrated the heroism and unshakable spirit of the Russian people. The defeat summed up the sad end of Nikolaev's rule, stirred up the entire Russian public and forced the government to come to grips with reforming the state.

On April 22, 1854, the Anglo-French squadron fired on 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, this war still remains extremely mythologized in Russia, and the myth is classified as black PR.

“The Crimean War showed the rottenness and impotence of serf Russia,” these are the words that a friend of the Russian people, Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, found for our country. With this vulgar stigma, the war entered Soviet historiography. Neither Lenin nor the state created by him has long been gone, 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 the “top” from school times: 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 planted 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 scope and significance of the war remain 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 in the Crimea, defeated the Russian army there, and, having achieved his goals, solemnly evacuated. But is it? Let's figure it out.

Firstly, who and how proved that the defeat of Russia was precisely shameful? The very fact of losing does not say anything about shame. In the end, Germany lost the 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 is Britain of those times? This is a gigantic country, an industrial leader, the world's best navy. 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 union of these two states has already had 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 steamships, the army was numerous 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, having already lost almost all of its European possessions, “sick Europe” defeated Britain and France in the Gallipoli campaign. And if such was the Ottoman Empire at the end of its existence, then it must be assumed 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, and yet this small country has put up against us twenty thousand, 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 torn away from Russia. In addition, the Kingdom of Poland was restored, and an independent state of "Circassia" was created in the Caucasus, a vassal in relation to Turkey. That's not all. The Danubian 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 go to 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 this plan was lobbied by the influential member of the British cabinet, Palmerston, while the French emperor had a different point of view. However, let us give the floor to Napoleon III himself. Here is what he said to one of the Russian diplomats:

“I intend to… make every effort to prevent the spread of your influence and force you to return to Asia, from whence you came. Russia is not a European country, it should not be and will not be so 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 begin to move to the East, in order to again become an Asian country. It will not be difficult to deprive you of Finland, the Baltic lands, Poland and Crimea.”

This is the fate prepared for Russia by England and France. Isn't it familiar motives? Our generation was “fortunate” to live to see this plan come true, 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 where the Baltics are already in the hands of Germany, when Austria-Hungary has a foothold in Moldova and Wallachia, and Turkish garrisons are stationed in the Crimea. And the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, in such a geopolitical situation, turns into a notorious catastrophe.

But "backward, powerless and rotten" Russia left no stone unturned from these projects. None of this has been implemented. The Paris Congress of 1856 drew a line under the Crimean War. According to the concluded agreement, Russia lost a tiny part of Bessarabia, agreed to free navigation along the Danube and the neutralization of 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 the Black Sea military fleet. But compare the terms of the agreement with what goals the anti-Russian coalition initially pursued. Do you think this is a disgrace? Is this a humiliating defeat?

Now let's move on to the second important issue, to the "technical backwardness of serf Russia." When it comes to this, they always think of rifled weapons and the steam fleet. Like, in Britain and France, the army was armed with rifled guns, and Russian soldiers were armed with obsolete smoothbore guns. While advanced England, together with advanced France, had long ago switched to steamships, Russian ships sailed. It would seem that everything is obvious and backwardness is evident. You will laugh, but in the Russian fleet there were steam ships, and in the army - rifled guns. Yes, the fleets of Britain and France were significantly ahead of the Russian one 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. This 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 Jacobi's domestic mines. This weapon was also among the best examples in the world.

However, let's analyze the degree of military "backwardness" of Russia as a whole. To do this, it makes no sense to go through 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 Russia really seriously lagged behind the enemy in terms of armaments, 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 number of dead among the missing. Thus, the total number of those killed is considered equal to
30,000. As you can see, there is no catastrophic ratio of losses, especially considering that Russia fought for half a year 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 to relatively increased losses. That is, the "technical backwardness" of Russia was partially compensated by the advantageous position of the defense.

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

“According to one testimony, the allies lost 4300 on the day of Alma, according to others - 4500 people. According to later estimates, our troops lost 145 officers and 5,600 lower ranks in the battle on Alma,” Academician Tarle cites such data 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 the coalition had a significant superiority in manpower, what does the technical backwardness of the Russian army have to do with it?

An interesting thing: the size of our army turned out to be almost two times smaller, and there were fewer guns, and the enemy fleet was shelling our positions from the sea, in addition, Russia’s weapons were backward. It would seem that under such circumstances, the defeat of the Russians should have been inevitable. And 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, perfectly characterize the state of the "winners": "Another such victory, and England will have no army." Such is the “defeat”, such is the “backwardness of serf Russia”.

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

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

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

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

c) The 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 the 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 hundreds and squadrons, 54 guns;

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

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

What explains this, at first glance, the strange disposition of the Russians? To answer this question, let's temporarily leave the battlefields and move on to the 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 almost with the whole 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 continued 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” ever happened, 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 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 at the same time 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 collect militias.

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

“Written in glib 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 fatherland; others - Poles Zenkovich, Zabitsky and Worzel.

Nevertheless, iron discipline reigned in the army, and few 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, alarming news came from the front of the diplomatic war: Austria openly joined Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia. A few days later, Prussia also made threats to 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 was 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 alignment of international forces. It was decided to make the Danube an international water artery, 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 for the next few years. But not for long. The Turkish empire was saved, and also only temporarily. The union of England and France did not achieve its goals. The problem of the Holy Lands, which he was supposed to solve, was not even mentioned in the peace treaty. And the Russian tsar annulled the agreement itself fourteen years later, ”Christopher Hibbert described the results of the Crimean War in this way. 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, M, 1960, p. 99-100
6 Dubrovin N.F., "History of the Crimean War and the Defense of Sevastopol", St. Petersburg. Printing house of the Association "Public benefit", 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 Association "Public benefit", 1900, p. 203.
10 K. Hibbert, Crimean Campaign 1854-1855. Tragedy of Lord Raglan”, M., Tsentrpoligraf, 2004

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 middle of the 19th century. At this time, the lands of the non-falling Ottoman Empire found themselves in the center of the conflict between the European powers and Russia, and each of the warring parties wanted to expand their territories by annexing foreign lands.

The war of 1853-1856 was called the Crimean War, since the most important and intense hostilities 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. At the same time, tsarist Russia 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 their own reasons and claims 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 to achieve this goal, all countries followed different paths.

Russia longed to destroy the Ottoman Empire, and its territories to be mutually beneficially divided among the claiming countries. Under its protectorate, Russia would like to see Bulgaria, Moldavia, Serbia and Wallachia. And at the same time, she was not opposed to 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 the Bosphorus, connecting the two seas: the Black and the Mediterranean.

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

England and France did not want to strengthen the positions of Russian tsarism in the international arena, and sought to preserve the Ottoman Empire, since they saw in her face a constant threat to Russia. Having weakened the enemy, the 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 the defeat in the military campaign of 1812.

If we carefully consider the mutual claims of the parties, then, in fact, the Crimean War was absolutely predatory and predatory. After all, it was not in vain that the poet Fyodor Tyutchev described it as a war of cretins with scoundrels.

The course of hostilities

The beginning 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 decided in favor of the Catholics. This finally convinced Nicholas I of the need to start military operations against Turkey. Therefore, in June 1853, Russian troops invaded the territory of Moldova.

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

The 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 armament was very outdated and significantly inferior to the equipment of Western European armies: smooth-bore guns against rifled weapons, a sailing fleet against ships with steam engines. But Russia hoped that it would have to fight with an approximately equal in strength Turkish army, as happened at the very beginning of the war, and could not imagine that it would be opposed by the forces of the united coalition of European countries.

During this period, the fighting was carried out with varying 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 for the Turkish coast, discovered large enemy naval forces in the 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 taken prisoner.

The second period of the Crimean War: April 1854 - February 1856

The victory of the Russian army in the battle of Sinop greatly disturbed 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 fought against her, several times superior to her army.

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

In the autumn of 1854, a united corps of 60,000 coalition forces landed in the Crimea near Yevpatoriya. And the Russian army lost the first battle on the Alma River, so it was forced to retreat to Bakhchisaray. The garrison of Sevastopol began to prepare for the defense and defense of the city. The illustrious admirals Nakhimov, Kornilov and Istomin stood at the head of the valiant defenders. Sevastopol was turned into an impregnable fortress, which was protected by 8 bastions on land, and the entrance to the bay was blocked with the help of sunken ships.

The heroic defense of Sevastopol continued for 349 days, and only in September 1855 did the enemy capture 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, the continuation of the war could no longer be discussed. And in March 1856, the opponents agreed to sign a peace treaty.

According to the Treaty of Paris, Russia, like the Ottoman Empire, was forbidden to have a navy, fortresses and arsenals on the Black Sea, which meant that the southern borders of the country 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.