Could Russians have captured Istanbul in 1848.?

[VetLegion]

Well?

It's a year of revolutions and Russians are wasting time and effort helping monarchies in Europe - something they will not be grateful for later in the Crimean War.

So, what if Russians, instead sieze the opportunity and march (and sail) south to grab Istanbul while Europeans are too busy.

It's winter 1848. and Russians are at the gate of the City. What happens?

[Bereta_Eder]

At that time it was still called Constantinople. It changed to Istanbul at... 1920 something. I think they would have done it anyway. It was some ****** (big power) that told them not to.

[KrazyHorse]

they never get there. disease and a lack of supplies due to corruption kill off half the men, the other half mutiny and go home.

[VetLegion]

But Black Sea is easy enough to navigate, the Russians could supply their forces rather well.

[Colonâ„¢]

Russians and logistics never got along well.

[Sandman]

I expect they were worried about more Napoleons emerging from a rebellion-racked Europe.

[GePap]

After 1815 the Russians could always have gotten Istanbul, the question was how much pain were they willing to suffer to do it.

As for 1848 the Brits saw no real internal problems, and it was always the Brits who were going to make the biggest problems for the Russians anyways, so I don;t see that huge of a difference.

[VetLegion]

Istanbul is relatively near Russia! Plus, logistics were only invented in the time of Napoleon (canned food). So, nobody had much practice with the idea. But Istanbul is near enough ro Russia.

Can Ottomans, who have had to give independance to Greeks only a decade earlier keep their City?

[Bereta_Eder]

GePap told it like it is. They could have gotten it if they wanted to. But it was a matter of how much pain they were willing to suffer and what exactly they would gain for capturing it. The english were against it so they would have to fight them as well and there was not so much of a strategic benefit in keeping Constantinople for their own against a whole lot of problems if they did.

[Colonâ„¢]

logistics:

1 : the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel
2 : the handling of the details of an operation

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
I expect they were worried about more Napoleons emerging from a rebellion-racked Europe.

A united and hostile Germany with Marx as president would not have been in Russia's best interests. It was not wasting it's time restoring the old order.

Anyway, order in France was restored in June '48, and Britain didn't have any disturbances and neither power was eager to see Russians in the Mediterranian.

[chequita guevara]

nm.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

A united and hostile Germany with Marx as president would not have been in Russia's best interests. It was not wasting it's time restoring the old order.

Marx as president??? WTF.

The one central european monarchy that was in real danger of collapsing was the Habsburg one- the Hohenzollerns were not in that much danger. And if the Habsburg Empire fell apart, the external enemies to the Russian empire would have been less. Of course, the internal enemies would have been much greater, and it is for this reason that the Russians decided that crushing damned national rebellions was overall the best policy for them.

[our_man]

As for 1848 the Brits saw no real internal problems

The Young Ireland Uprising of 1848? Could it not have been more successful if Britain were occupied elsewhere? The country wouldn't exactly have jumped up in support of them with famine conditions still existing in many places.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Colon
logistics:

1 : the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel

Armies lived off the land before that time. So Russians aren't different than the rest in that regard.