Could Russians have captured Istanbul in 1848.?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by our_man


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.

But if the Russian were going to attack by sea the British would only have needed their navy.

[Dinner]

Not to mention the Turks would have been so happy to provide the British ports and supplies in the Eastern Med.

[VetLegion]

Of course, I agree, the British wouldn't have been passive. Historically, they have spent a lot of energy containing Russia. But if somehow we can manage that British don't intervene, things would become quite interesting.

I wonder if Ottomans would fight desperately to keep the City, or was the empire at that time too rotten to inspire enough loyalty from soldiers.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Spot on.

If you are a firefighter, you want to put out the fires before they reach you.

[Patroklos]

I think Russia would have endured quite a bit of pain to gain a warm water port.

I also think the British would have had a hell of a time breaking into the Black Sea with there Navy.

Logistics have been around since people started breaking flint to make weapons.

[Dinner]

Not if the Turk was on their side. The Russians tried for Constantiniple in the Crimea war and the British had no trouble getting into the Black Sea.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by paiktis22
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.

Turks had been calling it Istanbul for centuries by then. What happened in 1930 is merely that the world (meaning, the West, practically) was requested to accept that practical reality, as opposed to, for example, the word "Istanbul" being invented suddenly a la Leningrad. Of course, one would be right about the fact that the West used to refer to Istanbul as Constantinople until then out of historical romanticism.

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

Getting Istanbul was a long dream of Russia, before and after the advent of Pan-Slavism, so if at any time after 1815 Russians perceived that they could get Istanbul, that all the conditions were right, they would have attempted it.

@Vet: As for 1848, if you mean the turbulence in Europe had seemed unimportant to Russia, if Russia perceived Ottomans to be as weak enough and if other European powers, most notably Britain were somehow uninterested in seeing Russia dominate one of the most strategically important pieces of land in the world, then yes you can say they could have had a decent chance to capture Istanbul. But that's a lot of ifs to talk about in the context of 1848.

Also, bear in mind that Ottomans were not as weak as, say, 20-30 years later, as they could, for example, make a sizeable contribution to the allied effort in the Crimean war, the success of which changed the perceptions of many Turcophobes in Europe. In light of this, therefore, and also of the many ifs involved in the assumption about 1848, it might be too much of a stretch to imagine a what-if Europe accordingly.

On the other hand, what you're asking hypotetically actually happened in 1878, when Russia came as close as the Çatalca line (less than 50 kms to Istanbul), and had to stop there for fear of British intervention. At that time, Russia felt strong enough and perceived the Ottomans to be weakenough that they did not hesitate to march on Istanbul.

However waning-from-power the Ottomans were perceived to be previously, the defeat in 1878 manifested the true scale of weakness the Ottoman Empire as an independent power and as a result it became a major foreign policy goal of Britain to sustain the Ottomans against Russian expansionism.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A united and hostile Germany with Marx as president would not have been in Russia's best interests.

That wouldn't have happened, Che. While there was also in Germany a "revolutionary" climate in the 1840ies, it was in no way due to a communist movement, rather, as in the other countries, a liberal (so "bourgouis" if you will) thing. It was pro-democratic, and anti-monarchic, but not more.

[molly bloom]

Re: Could Russians have captured Istanbul in 1848.?

Originally posted by VetLegion


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

Great Britain says, 'Oi! Ivan! Stop right there !'


They would have been better off aiming at Istanbul back when the Czar and Napoleon Boneyparts had an agreement- instead, the Russians fluffed their chance at a warm water port on the Mediterranean, although I seem to recall they seized the Ionian Islands at one point, and established a temporary protectorate.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


Turks had been calling it Istanbul for centuries by then. What happened in 1930 is merely that the world (meaning, the West, practically) was requested to accept that practical reality, as opposed to, for example, the word "Istanbul" being invented suddenly a la Leningrad. Of course, one would be right about the fact that the West used to refer to Istanbul as Constantinople until then out of historical romanticism.

Not romanticism! It was called Constantinople for many more years than what it was called Istanbul. Besides Constantinople is more chic And there were millions of giaour who called it by its original name before they mysteriously dissapeared!

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
it became a major foreign policy goal of Britain to sustain the Ottomans against Russian expansionism.

That is very true. But also with the vehement opposition of england as well as france russia did enter the war and did defeat the ottomans IIRC.

BTW did you witness the new nice little comedy/crisis in the aegean again?

[Az]

They would have been better off aiming at Istanbul back when the Czar and Napoleon Boneyparts had an agreement- instead, the Russians fluffed their chance at a warm water port on the Mediterranean, although I seem to recall they seized the Ionian Islands at one point, and established a temporary protectorate.

The Russian monarchy always led an idiotic and outdated approach to european politics. Heck, you can even see nice fat spots of it in WWI.

Truth be told, though, the Russian had ample reasons to fear Napoleon, in the long term, and the people of Russia would've been much better under Napoleon than under the Russian empire, so there was so logic in that war.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

They would have been better off aiming at Istanbul back when the Czar and Napoleon Boneyparts had an agreement- instead, the Russians fluffed their chance at a warm water port on the Mediterranean, although I seem to recall they seized the Ionian Islands at one point, and established a temporary protectorate.

The Russian monarchy always led an idiotic and outdated approach to european politics. Heck, you can even see nice fat spots of it in WWI.

Truth be told, though, the Russian had ample reasons to fear Napoleon, in the long term, and the people of Russia would've been much better under Napoleon than under the Russian empire, so there was so logic in that war.

I've been reading about how typhus destroyed much of Bonaparte's Grand Army before he even managed to reach Moscow- despite having excellent battlefield physicians and field hospitals, and understanding contagion, because they didn't know the source of the typhus infection and because of the weather, lack of clean water, hostile natives (thanks to their plundering to feed the army) tens of thousands of French soldiers died- and of course the Peninsular War dragged on, Napoleon's version of Viet Nam.

[Az]

I don't know the reasons to napoleonic defeat. I am rather ignorant of the events of that part of the napoleonic wars, to be honest.

I am just saying that the world would've been better off have the Russian had won.

[lord of the mark]

Does the Brits even have to make their main effort in the Black Sea? IIUC there response in other later crises was to threaten to send warships to bombard St. Petersburg? OTOH, why didnt they do that during the Crimea thing? Are we at a point in history where land based forts are too strong relative to (wooden, sail powered) ships? Does that strategy require ironclads?

Re: the Austrian situation. The Hungarian forces under Kossuth were being led, IIUC, in large part by emigre Polish generals. If Hungary is independent under Kossuth, it will be very hostile, on both ideological and nationalist grounds, to tsarist Russia. Its hard to imagine Kossuth not supporting a Polish rebellion. The Hapsburgs may not have helped Russia during the Crimean war, but at least they didnt promote Polish rebellion, at least not in this era.

Of course if Germany unites, and if some parts of Austria end up in Germany, thats even worse for Russia.