Russia's defeat in the Crimean War was inevitable. Why?
“This is a war of cretins with scoundrels,” said F.I. Tyutchev.
Too harsh? Maybe. But if we take into account the fact that others died for the sake of the ambitions of some, then Tyutchev's statement will be accurate.

Crimean War (1853-1856) also sometimes called Eastern war- This is a war between the Russian Empire and a coalition of the British, French, Ottoman empires and the Kingdom of Sardinia. The fighting took place in the Caucasus, in the Danube principalities, in the Baltic, Black, White and Barents Seas, as well as in Kamchatka. But the battles reached the greatest tension in the Crimea, which is why the war got its name. Crimean.

I. Aivazovsky "Review of the Black Sea Fleet in 1849"

Causes of the war

Each side that took part in the war had its own claims and reasons for the military conflict.

Russian empire: sought to revise the regime of the Black Sea straits; increasing influence in the Balkan Peninsula.

The painting by I. Aivazovsky depicts participants in the upcoming war:

Nicholas I peers tensely into the formation of ships. He is being watched by the commander of the fleet, stocky Admiral M.P. Lazarev and his pupils Kornilov (Chief of Staff of the Fleet, behind Lazarev's right shoulder), Nakhimov (behind the left shoulder) and Istomin (far right).

Ottoman Empire : wanted to suppress the national liberation movement in the Balkans; the return of the Crimea and the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus.

England, France: hoped undermine Russia's international prestige, weaken its position in the Middle East; tear away from Russia the territories of Poland, the Crimea, the Caucasus, Finland; strengthen its position in the Middle East, using it as a sales market.

By the middle of the XIX century, the Ottoman Empire was in a state of decline, in addition, the struggle of the Orthodox peoples for liberation from the Ottoman yoke continued.

These factors led the Russian Emperor Nicholas I in the early 1850s to think about separating the Balkan possessions of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by Orthodox peoples, which was opposed by Great Britain and Austria. Great Britain, in addition, sought to oust Russia from the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus and from Transcaucasia. The Emperor of France, Napoleon III, although he did not share the plans of the British to weaken Russia, considering them excessive, supported the war with Russia as a revenge for 1812 and as a means of strengthening personal power.

Russia and France had a diplomatic conflict over the control of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Russia, in order to put pressure on Turkey, occupied Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the protectorate of Russia under the terms of the Adrianople peace treaty. The refusal of the Russian Emperor Nicholas I to withdraw troops led to the declaration of war on Russia on October 4 (16), 1853 by Turkey, followed by Great Britain and France.

The course of hostilities

First stage of the war (November 1853 - April 1854) - these are Russian-Turkish military operations.

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 place of hostilities with a sufficient amount of ammunition and food, as well as human replacements. 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 Russian-Turkish war was fought with varying success from November 1853 to April 1854. The main event of the first stage was the Battle of Sinop (November 1853). Admiral P.S. Nakhimov defeated the Turkish fleet in Sinop Bay and suppressed coastal batteries.

As a result of the Battle of Sinop, the Russian Black Sea Fleet under the command of Admiral Nakhimov defeated the Turkish squadron. The Turkish fleet was defeated within a few hours.

During a four-hour battle in Sinop bay(Turkish naval base) the enemy lost a dozen and a half ships and over 3 thousand people killed, all coastal fortifications were destroyed. Only 20-gun fast steamer "Taif" with an English adviser on board he was able to escape from the bay. The commander of the Turkish fleet was taken prisoner. Nakhimov's squadron lost 37 men killed and 216 wounded. Some ships left the battle with heavy damage, but one was not sunk. . The Sinop battle is inscribed in golden letters in the history of the Russian fleet.

I. Aivazovsky "Sinop battle"

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.

Second phase of the war (April 1854 - February 1856) - Anglo-French intervention in the Crimea, the appearance of warships of the Western powers in the Baltic and White Seas and in Kamchatka.

The main goal of the combined 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 on the river Alma in September 1854, the 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.

After the battle on the river Alma the enemy laid siege to Sevastopol. Sevastopol was a first-class naval base, impregnable from the sea. In front of the entrance to the raid - on the peninsulas and capes - there were powerful forts. The Russian fleet could not resist the enemy, so some of the ships were sunk in front of the entrance to the Sevastopol Bay, which further strengthened the city from the sea. More than 20,000 sailors went ashore and lined up along with the soldiers. 2 thousand ship guns were also transported here. Eight bastions and many other fortifications were built around the city. Earth, boards, household utensils were used - everything that could delay bullets.

But for the work there were not enough ordinary shovels and picks. Theft flourished in the army. During the war years, this turned into a disaster. In this regard, a well-known episode comes to mind. Nicholas I, outraged by all sorts of abuses and theft found almost everywhere, in a conversation with the heir to the throne (the future Emperor Alexander II) shared his discovery, which shocked him: “It seems that in all of Russia only two people do not steal - you and me.”

Defense of Sevastopol

Defense led by admirals Kornilova V.A., Nakhimova P.S. and Istomin V.I. lasted 349 days with a 30,000-strong garrison and naval crews. During this period, the city was subjected to five massive bombardments, as a result of which part of the city, the Ship Side, was practically destroyed.

On October 5, 1854, the first bombardment of the city began. It was attended by the army and navy. From the land, 120 guns fired at the city, from the sea - 1340 guns of ships. During the shelling, over 50 thousand shells were fired at the city. This fiery whirlwind was supposed to destroy the fortifications and crush the will of their defenders to resist. However, the Russians responded with accurate fire from 268 guns. The artillery duel lasted five hours. Despite the huge superiority in artillery, the allied fleet was badly damaged (8 ships were sent for repairs) and was forced to retreat. After that, the Allies abandoned the use of the fleet in the bombing of the city. The fortifications of the city were not seriously damaged. The decisive and skillful rebuff of the Russians came as a complete surprise to the allied command, which expected to take the city with little bloodshed. The defenders of the city could celebrate a very important not only military, but also a moral victory. Their joy was overshadowed by the death during the shelling of Vice Admiral Kornilov. The defense of the city was headed by Nakhimov, who, for his distinction in the defense of Sevastopol, was promoted to admiral on March 27, 1855. F. Roubaud. Panorama of the defense of Sevastopol (detail)

A. Roubaud. Panorama of the defense of Sevastopol (detail)

In July 1855, Admiral Nakhimov was mortally wounded. The attempts of the Russian army under the command of Prince Menshikov A.S. to pull back the forces of the besiegers ended in failure (the battle under Inkerman, Evpatoria and Black River). The actions of the field army in the Crimea did little to help the heroic defenders of Sevastopol. Around the city, the enemy's ring was gradually shrinking. Russian troops were forced to leave the city. The offensive of the enemy ended there. Subsequent military operations in the Crimea, as well as in other parts of the country, were not of decisive importance for the Allies. Things were somewhat better in the Caucasus, where Russian troops not only stopped the Turkish offensive, but also occupied the fortress Kars. During the Crimean War, the forces of both sides were undermined. But the selfless courage of the Sevastopol people could not compensate for the shortcomings in armament and provision.

On August 27, 1855, French troops stormed the southern part of the city and captured the height that dominated the city - Malakhov Kurgan.

The loss of Malakhov Kurgan decided the fate of Sevastopol. On this day, the defenders of the city lost about 13 thousand people, or more than a quarter of the entire garrison. On the evening of August 27, 1855, by order of General M.D. Gorchakov, the Sevastopol residents left the southern part of the city and crossed the bridge to the northern part. The battles for Sevastopol ended. The Allies did not achieve his surrender. The Russian armed forces in Crimea survived and were ready for further fighting. They numbered 115 thousand people. against 150 thousand people. Anglo-French-Sardinians. The defense of Sevastopol was the culmination of the Crimean War.

F. Roubaud. Panorama of the defense of Sevastopol (fragment "The battle for the Gervais battery")

Military operations in the Caucasus

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 Kare 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: Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia passed under the supreme authority of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.

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.

Heroes of the Crimean War

Kornilov Vladimir Alekseevich

K. Bryullov "Portrait of Kornilov on board the brig "Themistocles"

Kornilov Vladimir Alekseevich (1806 - October 17, 1854, Sevastopol), Russian Vice Admiral. Since 1849 the chief of staff, since 1851 the actual commander of the Black Sea Fleet. In the Crimean War, one of the leaders heroic defense Sevastopol. Mortally wounded on Malakhov Hill.

He was born on February 1, 1806 in the family estate of Ivanovsky, Tver province. His father was a naval officer. Following in his father's footsteps, Kornilov Jr. entered the Naval Cadet Corps in 1821 and graduated two years later, becoming a midshipman. Richly gifted by nature, ardent and addicted young man was burdened by coastal combat service in the Marine Guards crew. He could not stand the routine of parade grounds and drills at the end of the reign of Alexander I and was expelled from the fleet "for lack of vigor for the front." In 1827, at the request of his father, he was allowed to return to the Navy. Kornilov was assigned to M. Lazarev's ship Azov, which had just been built and arrived from Arkhangelsk, and from that time his real naval service began.

Kornilov became a participant in the famous Navarino battle against the Turkish-Egyptian fleet. In this battle (October 8, 1827), the crew of the Azov, carrying the flagship flag, showed the highest valor and was the first of the ships of the Russian fleet to earn the stern St. George flag. Lieutenant Nakhimov and midshipman Istomin fought next to Kornilov.

October 20, 1853 Russia declared a state of war with Turkey. On the same day, Admiral Menshikov, appointed commander-in-chief of naval and land forces in the Crimea, sent Kornilov with a detachment of ships to reconnoiter the enemy with permission to "take and destroy Turkish warships wherever they meet." Having reached the Bosphorus Strait and not finding the enemy, Kornilov sent two ships to reinforce Nakhimov's squadron cruising along the Anatolian coast, sent the rest to Sevastopol, and he himself switched to the steam frigate "Vladimir" and lingered at the Bosphorus. The next day, November 5, "Vladimir" discovered the armed Turkish ship "Pervaz-Bakhri" and entered into battle with it. It was the first battle of steam ships in the history of naval art, and the crew of the Vladimir, led by Lieutenant Commander G. Butakov, won a convincing victory in it. The Turkish ship was captured and taken to Sevastopol in tow, where, after repairs, it became part of the Black Sea Fleet under the name Kornilov.

At the council of flagships and commanders, which decided the fate of the Black Sea Fleet, Kornilov called for the ships to go to sea in order to fight the enemy for the last time. However, by a majority vote of the council members, it was decided to flood the fleet, excluding steam frigates, in the Sevastopol Bay and thereby block the enemy’s breakthrough to the city from the sea. On September 2, 1854, the flooding of the sailing fleet began. All the guns and personnel of the lost ships were directed by the head of the city's defense to the bastions.
On the eve of the siege of Sevastopol, Kornilov said: "Let them first tell the troops the word of God, and then I will give them the word of the king." And around the city a religious procession was made with banners, icons, hymns and prayers. Only after this did the famous Kornilov call sound: “Behind us is the sea, ahead of the enemy, remember: do not believe in retreat!”
On September 13, the city was declared under a state of siege, and Kornilov involved the population of Sevastopol in the construction of fortifications. The garrisons of the southern and northern sides were increased, from where the main attacks of the enemy were expected. On October 5, the enemy undertook the first massive bombardment of the city from land and sea. On this day, when bypassing the defensive orders, V.A. Kornilov was mortally wounded in the head on Malakhov Hill. "Defend Sevastopol," were his last words. Nicholas I, in his letter addressed to Kornilov's widow, pointed out: "Russia will not forget these words, and a name honored in the history of the Russian fleet will pass to your children."
After the death of Kornilov, a will was found in his box, addressed to his wife and children. “I bequeath to the children,” wrote the father, “to the boys, once choosing the service of the sovereign, do not change it, but make every effort to make it useful to society ... Daughters follow their mother in everything.” Vladimir Alekseevich was buried in the crypt of the Naval Cathedral of St. Vladimir next to his teacher, Admiral Lazarev. Soon Nakhimov and Istomin would take their place beside them.

Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov

Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov was born on June 23, 1802 in the Gorodok estate of the Smolensk province in the family of a nobleman, retired major Stepan Mikhailovich Nakhimov. Of the eleven children, five were boys, and all of them became navy sailors; at the same time, Pavel's younger brother, Sergei, finished his service as vice admiral, director of the Marine cadet corps, in which all five brothers studied in their youth. But Pavel surpassed everyone with his naval glory.

He graduated from the Naval Corps, among the best midshipmen on the Phoenix brig he participated in a sea voyage to the shores of Sweden and Denmark. At the end of the corps with the rank of midshipman, he was assigned to the 2nd naval crew of the St. Petersburg port.

Tirelessly engaged in training the Navarin crew and polishing his combat skills, Nakhimov skillfully led the ship during the actions of the Lazarev squadron to blockade the Dardanelles in Russian-Turkish war 1828 - 1829 For excellent service, he was awarded the Order of St. Anne, 2nd class. When the squadron returned to Kronstadt in May 1830, Rear Admiral Lazarev wrote in the certification of the Navarin commander: "An excellent and completely knowledgeable sea captain."

In 1832, Pavel Stepanovich was appointed commander of the Pallada frigate built at the Okhta shipyard, on which, as part of the squadron, Vice Admiral F. Bellingshausen he sailed in the Baltic. In 1834, at the request of Lazarev, then already the chief commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Nakhimov was transferred to Sevastopol. He was appointed commander battleship"Silistria", and eleven years of his further service were on this battleship. Giving all his strength to work with the crew, instilling in his subordinates a love for maritime affairs, Pavel Stepanovich made the Silistria an exemplary ship, and made his name popular in the Black Sea Fleet. In the first place, he put the naval training of the crew, was strict and demanding of his subordinates, but had a kind heart, open to sympathy and manifestations of maritime brotherhood. Lazarev often kept his flag on the Silistria, setting the battleship as an example to the entire fleet.

The military talents and naval art of Nakhimov were most clearly manifested during the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Even on the eve of Russia's clash with the Anglo-French-Turkish coalition, the first squadron of the Black Sea Fleet under his command was vigilantly cruising between Sevastopol and the Bosphorus. In October 1853, Russia declared war on Turkey, and the squadron commander emphasized in his order: “In the event of a meeting with an enemy that is superior to us, I will attack him, being absolutely sure that each of us will do his job. In early November, Nakhimov learned that the Turkish squadron under the command of Osman Pasha, heading for the shores of the Caucasus, left the Bosporus and, on the occasion of a storm, entered the Sinop Bay. The commander of the Russian squadron had 8 ships and 720 guns at his disposal, Osman Pasha had 16 ships with 510 guns under the protection of coastal batteries. Without waiting for the steam frigates, which Vice Admiral Kornilov led the Russian squadron to reinforce, Nakhimov decided to attack the enemy, relying primarily on the combat and moral qualities of Russian sailors.

For the victory at Sinop Nicholas I honored Vice Admiral Nakhimov with the Order of St. George, 2nd class, writing in a personalized rescript: “By destroying the Turkish squadron, you have adorned the annals of the Russian fleet with a new victory, which will forever remain memorable in maritime history". Assessing the battle of Sinop, Vice Admiral Kornilov wrote: “A glorious battle, higher than Chesma and Navarin ... Hurray, Nakhimov! Lazarev rejoices at his student!”

Convinced that Turkey was not in a position to wage a successful struggle against Russia, England and France brought their fleet into Black Sea. Commander-in-Chief A.S. Menshikov did not dare to prevent this, and the further course of events led to the epic of the Sevastopol defense of 1854-1855. In September 1854, Nakhimov had to agree with the decision of the council of flagships and commanders to sink the Black Sea squadron in the Sevastopol Bay in order to make it difficult for the Anglo-French-Turkish fleet to enter it. Having moved from sea to land, Nakhimov voluntarily entered into submission to Kornilov, who led the defense of Sevastopol. Seniority in age and superiority in military merit did not prevent Nakhimov, who recognized the mind and character of Kornilov, from maintaining good relations with him, based on a mutual ardent desire to defend the southern stronghold of Russia.

In the spring of 1855, the second and third assaults on Sevastopol were heroically repulsed. In March, Nicholas I granted Nakhimov for military distinctions with the rank of admiral. In May, the valiant naval commander was awarded a life lease, but Pavel Stepanovich was annoyed: “What do I need it for? It would be better if they sent me bombs.”

Since June 6, the enemy began active assault operations for the fourth time through massive bombardments and attacks. On June 28, on the eve of the day of Saints Peter and Paul, Nakhimov once again went to the advanced bastions to support and inspire the defenders of the city. On Malakhov Kurgan, he visited the bastion where Kornilov died, despite warnings about strong rifle fire, he decided to climb the parapet banquet, and then an aimed enemy bullet hit him in the temple. Without regaining consciousness, Pavel Stepanovich died two days later.

Admiral Nakhimov was buried in Sevastopol in the Cathedral of St. Vladimir, next to the graves of Lazarev, Kornilov and Istomin. With a large gathering of people, admirals and generals carried his coffin, seventeen in a row stood a guard of honor from army battalions and all the crews of the Black Sea Fleet, drums sounded and a solemn prayer service sounded, a cannon salute thundered. In Pavel Stepanovich's coffin, two admiral's flags and a third, priceless, stern flag of the battleship "Empress Maria", the flagship of the Sinop victory, were torn by cannonballs.

Nikolay Ivanovich Pirogov

The famous doctor, surgeon, participant in the defense of Sevastopol in 1855. The contribution of N. I. Pirogov to medicine and science is invaluable. He created anatomical atlases of exemplary accuracy. N.I. Pirogov was the first to come up with the idea of ​​plastic surgery, put forward the idea of ​​bone grafting, used anesthesia in military field surgery, for the first time applied a plaster cast in the field, suggested the existence of pathogens that cause suppuration of wounds. Already at that time, N.I. Pirogov called for abandoning early amputations in case of gunshot wounds of the limbs with bone injuries. The mask designed by him for ether anesthesia is still used in medicine. Pirogov was one of the founders of the Sisters of Mercy service. All his discoveries and achievements saved the lives of thousands of people. He did not refuse to help anyone and devoted his whole life to the boundless service of people.

Dasha Alexandrova (Sevastopol)

She was sixteen and a half when the Crimean War began. She lost her mother early, and her father, a sailor, defended Sevastopol. Dasha ran to the port every day, trying to find out something about her father. In the chaos that reigned around, it turned out to be impossible. Desperate, Dasha decided that she should try to help the fighters at least somehow - and, along with everyone else, to her father. She exchanged her cow - the only thing she had of value - for a decrepit horse and wagon, got vinegar and old rags, and, among other women, joined the wagon train. Other women cooked and washed for the soldiers. And Dasha turned her wagon into a dressing station.

When the position of the troops worsened, many women left the convoy and Sevastopol, went north, to safe areas. Dasha stayed. She found an old abandoned house, cleaned it out and turned it into a hospital. Then she unharnessed her horse from the wagon, and spent the whole day walking with her to the front line and back, taking out two wounded for each "walk".

In November 1953, in the battle of Sinop, sailor Lavrenty Mikhailov, her father, died. Dasha found out about this much later ...

A rumor about a girl who takes the wounded from the battlefield and gives them medical care, spread throughout the warring Crimea. And soon Dasha had associates. True, these girls did not risk going to the front line, like Dasha, but they completely took over the dressing and care of the wounded.

And then Pirogov found Dasha, embarrassing the girl with expressions of his sincere admiration and admiration for her feat.

Dasha Mikhailova and her assistants joined the Crusades. Studied professional treatment of wounds.

The youngest sons of the emperor, Nikolai and Mikhail, came to Crimea “to raise the spirit of the Russian army”. They also wrote to their father that in the fighting Sevastopol "she takes care of the wounded and sick, a girl named Daria is exemplary diligence." Nicholas I ordered her to come gold medal on the Vladimir ribbon with the inscription "For diligence" and 500 rubles in silver. By status, the gold medal "For Diligence" was awarded to those who already had three silver medals. So we can assume that the Emperor highly appreciated the feat of Dasha.

The exact date of death and the resting place of the ashes of Darya Lavrentievna Mikhailova have not yet been discovered by researchers.

Reasons for the defeat of Russia

• Economic backwardness of Russia;
• Political isolation of Russia;
• The absence of a steam fleet in Russia;
• Poor supply of the army;
• Absence railways.

In three years, Russia lost 500 thousand people in killed, wounded and captured. The allies also suffered great damage: about 250 thousand killed, wounded and died of disease. As a result of the war, Russia lost its positions in the Middle East to France and England. Its prestige in the international arena was badly undermined. On March 13, 1856, a peace treaty was signed in Paris, under the terms of which the Black Sea was declared neutral, the Russian fleet was reduced to minima and fortifications were destroyed. Similar demands were made to Turkey. In addition, Russia lost the mouth of the Danube and the southern part of Bessarabia, was supposed to return the fortress of Kars, and also lost the right to patronize Serbia, Moldova and Wallachia.

Will the US and the EU decide to officially declare Russia their enemy?

Another "leak": German Chancellor Angela Merkel, during her visit to Moscow on May 10, threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with the creation of a powerful anti-Russian alliance. This is reported by "Apostrophe" with reference to a source in diplomatic circles.

According to the source, the United States instructed Germany to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, but Merkel was unable to achieve the desired result. Therefore, Washington gave Berlin an ultimatum: measures against Moscow will have to be tightened if the situation does not improve in full.

At the same time, Merkel allegedly stated that tough measures could be avoided if Putin “agrees to give” the LPR and DPR to Ukraine.

In general, and without any ultimatums, it is clear that the NATO bloc has recently become more and more anti-Russian. However, it is one thing to build up a military presence in Europe, and another to create a transatlantic alliance that will openly position itself as anti-Russian. Will the West go for it, and how can a new global confrontation turn out for Russia?

In any case, whether we give up the DPR and LPR or not, the West will seek a change in the political regime in Russia, - says Alexander Shatilov, Dean of the Faculty of Sociology and Political Science of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. - Moreover, the West will not calm down on this, but will try to do everything in order to weaken as much as possible Russian Federation, tear away Crimea from it. And then split into several states, in order to forever or for a very long time deprive us of the opportunity to interfere with the world hegemony of the United States.

Even refusing to protect national interests, Russia in the current situation will not buy forgiveness in the West.

Such illusions are fed by some liberal circles of the Russian elite. But in the event of Russia's defeat, the liberals in power will not be in trouble either. At a minimum, they will lose their business assets.

Therefore, the ultimatum has long been delivered. Immediately after Russia decided to reunite with Crimea, the way back was closed. I think that the leadership of Russia in this sense clearly understands that the restoration of the former relations is impossible.

It is hard to imagine how the West can further harm Russia in this situation. What sanctions he could impose. Tried to hurt Russia from all sides. And yet we keep hitting.

Therefore, even from a purely pragmatic point of view, it makes no sense for Russia to surrender its allies.

- Will the West decide to officially declare Russia its main enemy, to create an anti-Russian coalition?

The West, of course, is no longer the same as during the Crimean or even cold war. They don't even dare to attack now. North Korea, which has "one and a half" nuclear missiles. In addition, if we are openly pressed, we can strengthen the alliance with China in response. And such an alliance will definitely be too tough for the West. I have a feeling that they are just trying to blackmail us now. We, in turn, show that we are not going to retreat. The one who flinches first will lose.

In ideological and mental terms, the West is now very loose. It is unlikely that the population of European countries will want to change their usual calm and comfort for a fundamental confrontation with Russia, because of which they will have to deny themselves something. It seems to me that there is more political will and readiness to go “back to back” in Russia than in Europe and the USA.

Purely theoretically, it is not difficult for the West to once again declare Russia (formerly called the USSR) an “evil empire,” says political scientist and popular blogger Anatoly El-Murid. - The whole question is what goals he will declare, and what he will actually implement from the declared.

direct armed conflict the West does not want to deal with Russia. And all the talk about the Russian threat in the West is talk for the poor. Anyone who understands the situation in any way understands that no Third World War between Russia and the West is expected. Threats in Washington and Brussels are unlikely to go further. Merkel could well threaten Putin with some kind of anti-Russian alliance, but what will he really do?

- Can the EU completely abandon economic cooperation with Russia?

I think that they can just go for it. They won't get so much poorer if they buy more expensive American gas instead of Russian. And this is where politics can become more important than economics for them.

I think we need to get rid of the illusion that they will buy our gas just because it is cheaper than American gas. This is a deep delusion. In this sense, they can cause us very serious damage. But not right now, but in a few years. If they go for it, Russia could get into serious trouble. First economic, and then socio-political.

- What do you mean by "serious problems"?

A landslide fall in GDP will begin. It already takes place. The head of the Ministry of Economic Development, Alexey Ulyukaev, has already stated that the fall in GDP in 2015 will be at least three percent. The trade turnover between Russia and Europe is about 400 billion dollars. And if we lose it, it will be a very serious blow to our economy.

- What must happen for Europe to take such an unprecedented step?

The United States and its allies have already made it clear that they are opposed to Russian President. Usually in such matters they are consistent. In Syria, the Americans have set themselves the goal of eliminating Bashar al-Assad and are consistently moving towards it, despite the threat of the spread of radical Islamism. The same will apply to the political regime in Russia. The question is what can we do to counter it.

- And what?

Unfortunately, for 15 years we have only been talking about the need to diversify the economy. But little is being done, and therefore Russia remains economically vulnerable. We need to carry out economic, social and managerial reforms.

- Reforms in Russia are always fraught with chaos. How expedient is it in the current tense international situation to start reforms as well?

I think that right now they are needed. In fact, any crisis, in addition to difficulties, also provides additional opportunities. Right now it is worth mobilizing resources to solve problems that have not been solved for years.

- How much can we believe Merkel's words that the West will stop putting pressure on Russia if we refuse to support the republics of Donbass?

Russia has yielded so much to the West on this issue. We are just openly trying to shove Donetsk and Luhansk back into Ukraine.

In addition, the Americans have well-tested technologies that they used in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, for example. Milosevic was offered to hand over the Serbs outside of Serbia - he handed them over, and received 3-4 years of a quiet life. And then the bombing of Serbia itself began. In Russia, they can act in exactly the same way - to achieve the fulfillment of some requirements, and then put forward others after a while.

We are offered to hand over the Russians in the Donbass. Then they will remember the Crimea and so on.

- However, unlike Serbia, Russia cannot be bombed with impunity. How then will the West act, only by economic methods?

Not only. In 2-3 years, radical Islamists can take power in Afghanistan and establish themselves in the Middle East. Then the States will be able to accurately direct their expansion towards Russia. Corridors will be created through which Islamic extremists will move to North Caucasus, in the Volga region, in Central Asia.

The West may not fight us with its own hands. Of course, radical Islamists today are not so strong militarily. But their main advantage is the presence of an ideology that is attractive to a significant part of Muslims. Russia, in which the state ideology is officially banned, has nothing to oppose to this.

The spirit in the troops is beyond description. At times ancient greece there was not so much heroism. I have not been able to be in business a single time, but I thank God that I have seen these people and live in this glorious time.

Lev Tolstoy

Wars between the Russian and Ottoman empires were commonplace international politics XVIII-XIX centuries. In 1853, the Russian Empire of Nicholas 1 entered another war, which went down in history as the Crimean War of 1853-1856, and ended with the defeat of Russia. In addition, this war showed the strong resistance of the leading countries Western Europe(France and Great Britain) strengthening the role of Russia in Eastern Europe, in particular in the Balkans. The lost war also showed Russia itself the problems in domestic politics which led to many problems. Despite victories at the initial stage of 1853-1854, as well as the capture of the key Turkish fortress of Kars in 1855, Russia lost the most important battles on the territory of the Crimean peninsula. This article describes the causes, course, main results and historical meaning V short story about the Crimean War of 1853-1856.

Causes of the aggravation of the Eastern question

Under the eastern question, historians understand a number of controversial issues in Russian-Turkish relations, which at any moment could lead to conflict. The main problems of the Eastern question, which became the main one for the future war, are as follows:

• The loss of the Crimea and the northern Black Sea region by the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 18th century constantly stimulated Turkey to start a war in the hope of regaining the territories. Thus began the wars of 1806-1812 and 1828-1829. However, as a result of them, Turkey lost Bessarabia and part of the territory in the Caucasus, which further strengthened the desire for revenge.
• Belonging to the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Russia demanded that these straits be opened for the Black Sea Fleet, while the Ottoman Empire (under pressure from the countries of Western Europe) ignored these demands of Russia.
• The presence in the Balkans, as part of the Ottoman Empire, Slavic Christian peoples who fought for their independence. Russia supported them, thereby causing a wave of indignation among the Turks about Russia's interference in the internal affairs of another state.

An additional factor that intensified the conflict was the desire of the countries of Western Europe (Britain, France, and Austria) not to let Russia into the Balkans, as well as close its access to the straits. For the sake of this, the countries were ready to support Turkey in a potential war with Russia.

The reason for the war and its beginning

These troubled moments brewed throughout the late 1840s and early 1850s. In 1853, the Turkish Sultan transferred the Bethlehem Temple of Jerusalem (then the territory of the Ottoman Empire) to the control of the Catholic Church. This caused a wave of indignation of the highest Orthodox hierarchy. Nicholas 1 decided to take advantage of this, using the religious conflict as a pretext for attacking Turkey. Russia demanded that the temple be handed over to the Orthodox Church, and at the same time also open the straits for the Black Sea Fleet. Türkiye refused. In June 1853, Russian troops crossed the border of the Ottoman Empire and entered the territory of the Danubian principalities dependent on it.

Nicholas 1 hoped that France was too weak after the revolution of 1848, and that Britain could be appeased by transferring Cyprus and Egypt to it in the future. However, the plan did not work, European countries called the Ottoman Empire to action, promising her financial and military assistance. In October 1853, Türkiye declared war on Russia. Thus began, to put it briefly, the Crimean War of 1853-1856. In the history of Western Europe, this war is called Eastern.

The course of the war and the main stages

The Crimean War can be divided into 2 stages according to the number of participants in the events of those years. Here are the steps:

1. October 1853 - April 1854. During these six months the war was between the Ottoman Empire and Russia (without the direct intervention of other states). There were three fronts: Crimean (Black Sea), Danube and Caucasian.
2. April 1854 - February 1856. British and French troops enter the war, which expands the theater of operations, as well as a turning point in the course of the war. The allied troops were superior to the Russian ones from the technical side, which was the reason for the changes in the course of the war.

As for specific battles, the following key battles can be distinguished: for Sinop, for Odessa, for the Danube, for the Caucasus, for Sevastopol. There were other battles, but those listed above are the main ones. Let's consider them in more detail.

Battle of Sinop (November 1853)

The battle took place in the harbor of the city of Sinop in the Crimea. Russian fleet under the command of Nakhimov completely defeated the Turkish fleet of Osman Pasha. This battle was perhaps the last major world battle on sailing ships. This victory significantly raised morale Russian army and gave hope for an early victory in the war.

Map of the Sinopo naval battle November 18, 1853

Bombing of Odessa (April 1854)

In early April 1854, the Ottoman Empire launched a squadron of the Franco-British fleet through its straits, which swiftly headed for Russian port and shipbuilding cities: Odessa, Ochakov and Nikolaev.

On April 10, 1854, the bombardment of Odessa, the main southern port of the Russian Empire, began. After a rapid and intense bombardment, it was planned to land troops in the northern Black Sea region, which would force the withdrawal of troops from the Danubian principalities, as well as weaken the defense of the Crimea. However, the city withstood several days of shelling. Moreover, the defenders of Odessa were able to deliver accurate strikes against the Allied fleet. The plan of the Anglo-French troops failed. The allies were forced to retreat towards the Crimea and begin battles for the peninsula.

Fights on the Danube (1853-1856)

It was with the entry of Russian troops into this region that the Crimean War of 1853-1856 began. After the success in the Battle of Sinop, another success awaited Russia: the troops completely crossed to the right bank of the Danube, an attack was opened on Silistria and further on Bucharest. However, the entry into the war of England and France complicated the offensive of Russia. On June 9, 1854, the siege of Silistria was lifted and the Russian troops returned to the left bank of the Danube. By the way, on this front, Austria also entered the war against Russia, which was worried about the rapid advance of the Romanov Empire into Wallachia and Moldavia.

In July 1854, near the city of Varna (modern Bulgaria), a huge landing of the British and French armies landed (according to various sources, from 30 to 50 thousand). The troops were supposed to enter the territory of Bessarabia, ousting Russia from this region. However, a cholera epidemic broke out in the French army, and the British public demanded that the leadership of the army first strike at the Black Sea fleet in the Crimea.

Fights in the Caucasus (1853-1856)

An important battle took place in July 1854 near the village of Kyuruk-Dara (Western Armenia). The combined Turkish-British forces were defeated. At this stage, the Crimean War was still successful for Russia.

Another important battle in this region took place in June-November 1855. Russian troops decided to attack the eastern part of the Ottoman Empire, the fortress of Karsu, so that the allies would send part of the troops to this region, thereby slightly weakening the siege of Sevastopol. Russia won the battle of Kars, but this happened after the news of the fall of Sevastopol, so this battle had little effect on the outcome of the war. Moreover, according to the results of the "peace" signed later, the fortress of Kars returned to the Ottoman Empire. However, as the peace talks showed, the capture of Kars still played a role. But more on that later.

Defense of Sevastopol (1854-1855)

The most heroic and tragic event of the Crimean War is, of course, the battle for Sevastopol. In September 1855, Franco-British troops captured the last point of the city's defense - Malakhov Kurgan. The city survived 11 months of siege, however, as a result, it was surrendered to the allied forces (among which the Sardinian kingdom appeared). This defeat became a key one and served as an impetus for the end of the war. From the end of 1855, intensified negotiations began, in which Russia had practically no strong arguments. It was clear that the war was lost.

Other battles in the Crimea (1854-1856)

In addition to the siege of Sevastopol on the territory of Crimea in 1854-1855, several more battles took place, which were aimed at "unblocking" Sevastopol:

1. Battle of the Alma (September 1854).
2. Battle of Balaklava (October 1854).
3. Battle of Inkerman (November 1854).
4. An attempt to liberate Evpatoria (February 1855).
5. Battle on the Chernaya River (August 1855).

All these battles ended in unsuccessful attempts to lift the siege of Sevastopol.

"Distant" battles

Main fighting wars took place near the Crimean peninsula, which gave the name to the war. There were also battles in the Caucasus, on the territory of modern Moldova, as well as in the Balkans. However, not many people know that battles between rivals also took place in remote regions of the Russian Empire. Here are some examples:

1. Peter and Paul Defense. The battle that took place on the territory of the Kamchatka Peninsula between the combined Franco-British troops on the one hand and Russian on the other. The battle took place in August 1854. This battle was the result of the victory of Britain over China during the Opium Wars. As a result, Britain wanted to increase its influence in the east of Asia, ousting Russia from here. In total, the Allied troops made two assaults, both ended in failure for them. Russia withstood the Peter and Paul defense.
2. Arctic Company. The operation of the British fleet to attempt to blockade or capture Arkhangelsk, carried out in 1854-1855. The main battles took place in the Barents Sea. The British also undertook the bombardment of the Solovetsky fortress, as well as the robbery of Russian merchant ships in the White and Barents Seas.

Results and historical significance of the war

In February 1855, Nicholas 1 died. The task of the new emperor, Alexander 2, was to end the war, and with minimal damage to Russia. In February 1856, the Paris Congress began its work. Russia was represented by Alexei Orlov and Philip Brunnov. Since neither side saw the point in continuing the war, already on March 6, 1856, the Treaty of Paris was signed, as a result of which the Crimean War was completed.

The main terms of the Treaty of Paris 6 were as follows:

1. Russia returned the Karsu fortress to Turkey in exchange for Sevastopol and other captured cities of the Crimean peninsula.
2. Russia was forbidden to have Black Sea Fleet. The Black Sea was declared neutral.
3. The Bosporus and Dardanelles were declared closed to the Russian Empire.
4. Part of Russian Bessarabia was transferred to the Moldavian Principality, the Danube ceased to be a border river, so navigation was declared free.
5. On the Allada Islands (an archipelago in the Baltic Sea), Russia was forbidden to build military and (or) defensive fortifications.

As for losses, the number Russian subjects, who died in the war, is 47.5 thousand people. Britain lost 2.8 thousand, France - 10.2, the Ottoman Empire - more than 10 thousand. The Sardinian kingdom lost 12 thousand soldiers. Austrian casualties are unknown, possibly because Austria was not officially at war with Russia.

In general, the war showed the backwardness of Russia, compared with the states of Europe, especially in terms of the economy (the completion of the industrial revolution, the construction of railways, the use of steamships). After this defeat, the reforms of Alexander 2 began. In addition, a desire for revenge was brewing in Russia for a long time, which resulted in another war with Turkey in 1877-1878. But this is a completely different story, and the Crimean War of 1853-1856 was completed and Russia was defeated in it.

The reasons for the war were in the contradictions between the European powers in the Middle East, in the struggle of European states for influence on the weakening and gripped by the national liberation movement of the Ottoman Empire. Nicholas I said that the inheritance of Turkey can and should be divided. In the upcoming conflict, the Russian emperor counted on the neutrality of Great Britain, which he promised after the defeat of Turkey new territorial acquisitions of Crete and Egypt, as well as on the support of Austria, as a gratitude for Russia's participation in the suppression of the Hungarian revolution. However, Nicholas's calculations turned out to be wrong: England herself pushed Turkey to war, thus seeking to weaken Russia's position. Austria also did not want to strengthen Russia 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, it was not about access to holy places, since all pilgrims used them on an equal footing. The dispute over the Holy Places cannot be called a far-fetched pretext for unleashing a war.

STAGES

During the Crimean War, two stages are distinguished:

I stage of the war: November 1853 - April 1854 Turkey was Russia's enemy, and hostilities took place on the Danube and Caucasian fronts. In 1853, Russian troops entered the territory of Moldavia and Wallachia, and hostilities on land were sluggish. In the Caucasus, the Turks were defeated near Kars.

II stage 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

The 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 and closed to military ships in peacetime), with the prohibition of Russia and the Ottoman Empire to have navies 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 Moldavia.

Russia was deprived of the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia granted to it by the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhysky peace of 1774 and the exclusive protection of Russia over the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Russia pledged not to build fortifications on the Aland Islands.

During the war, the members of the anti-Russian coalition failed to achieve all their goals, but managed to prevent the strengthening of Russia in the Balkans and deprive it of the Black Sea Fleet.

Malakhov Kurgan became the key to Sevastopol. Grigory Shugaev. Battle on the Malakhov Kurgan in Sevastopol. 1856

One of the characteristic military coalitions with the participation of the Anglo-Saxon states, which the author mentioned earlier (“NVO” No. 44 of 01.12.17), was the Crimean War of 1853-1856. And although this was still not the first coalition war of the Anglo-Saxons (see table), we will focus on it for the reason that it was unleashed specifically against our country and, thus, is of some interest for assessing the nature of the West's actions against Russia. This material will examine in detail the actions of the participants in the anti-Russian coalition in the course of preparing for the outbreak of war, as well as the plans of the parties at the initial stage of the development of this crisis.

THE MAIN INCIDENT

The Crimean (or Eastern) War, unleashed against Russia by a coalition of its eternal rivals Great Britain, France and Turkey, as well as the Sardinian Kingdom that joined them a little later, eliminated the system of regional security that had developed in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars and effectively operated until then - the so-called Vienna system. In fact, Western Europe took revenge on Russia for its triumph in 1812-1815.

Petersburg, which played a leading role in European politics and more than once rescued its allied powers (the same, for example, Austria, suppressing to the detriment of its own, but for the sake of "allied" interests, the uprising in the seceded was the Hungarian part of the empire), overnight turned out to be isolated and accused of all sins by literally all close and distant "neighbors" in Europe.

Thus, Russia received a visual lesson of Western “gratitude”, which was then repeated again and again, but, apparently, so far it has not been fully assimilated.

At the same time, the role of the main instigator in the brewing largest crisis in 40 years was played by Great Britain, which sought to isolate Russia and oust it from, as London believed, the regions of real and potential British influence - Southeast Europe and the Middle East. Paris was less interested in Eastern issues, but since Napoleon III, who usurped power in France and the self-proclaimed emperor, failed to draw St. Petersburg into a bilateral alliance, his goal was primarily to weaken the influence of the Russian Empire. Yes, and it was important to achieve revenge for the shame of the Napoleonic catastrophe. The Ottoman Empire (“the sick man of Europe,” as Nicholas I called it), with all this, was assigned the role of a catalyst for the conflict rather than (at first) its military power was taken into account, because in almost all the previous numerous wars with Russia, the Turks invariably suffered a major military defeat. Even despite the fact that under the leadership of Prussian officers and personally von Moltke, from the end of the 30s of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman army carried out military reform, Turkish troops by the beginning of the impending war were never reorganized and brought to the level of European ones. Sardinian participation in the upcoming campaign was rather nominal and was explained by the desire of the rulers of the puppet Kingdom to enlist the support of France in a regional conflict of interest in the Apennines.

Over time, the different policy directions of the two leading powers of the anti-Russian coalition, Great Britain and France, repeatedly caused disagreement between the allies, leading to serious costs in almost all areas of the so-called military cooperation. So, for example, it happened when resolving the central issue of the entire war about the priority of actions in South-Eastern Europe, when the French insisted on the initial "restoring order" in the Balkans, and then, if necessary, on striking the Crimea by attacking along the Black Sea coast . London was also interested in the speedy landing of the combined forces in the Crimea and the capture of Sevastopol as a symbol of Russian military power in the south. The opinion of Constantinople, if it was taken into account, but only from the point of view of the selfish interests of both main Western European allies.

CAUSE TO WAR

Strictly speaking, the church conflict over the holy places in Palestine served as a formal reason for the war, which until now, at the suggestion of the most powerful information and propaganda lobby of the West, is interpreted, let's say, somewhat wrongly.

Western analysts at one time put forward the thesis, replicated from decade to decade, including in some domestic publications, that the alleged desire of the Russian Empire in the middle of the 19th century to strengthen its role as a protector of common Christian shrines in the Middle East and under Ottoman rule oppression of millions of Orthodox was only a cover for traditional Russian expansionism.

But the facts actually show that the predominantly Catholic West, in search of “weak spots” in Russian politics, has chosen the most successful, from its point of view, method of causing damage to Russia that is sensitive to its authority, namely, to deprive Russian empire any first religious, then political, and, if necessary, military influence (presence) at the strategically important junction of Europe, Asia and Africa.

By exerting powerful pressure on the Turkish Sultan Abdul Mejid in the early 1950s, the united Catholic Europe tried to disavow all formal and informal agreements, promises and oaths of the previous and current rulers of the Ottoman Empire regarding the priority Orthodox Church as the guardians of Christian shrines in the Middle East. No matter how the Turkish rulers dodged in an attempt to prevent themselves from being drawn into a dangerous confrontation with the formidable northern neighbor, they still had to give in to unprecedented pressure and make anti-Russian concessions that were fundamental from the point of view of St. Petersburg. The dispute about holy places thus moved from a religious plane to a purely political one.

The Russian emperor Nicholas I regarded the actions of the Turkish sultan and the behavior of Western countries "as offensive to the Orthodox Church, Russia and the Russian emperor personally." At the same time, a similar opinion was shared by the primates of the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as the multimillion-strong flock they nourish. It is quite obvious that it was precisely the provocative role of Western Europe that contributed to the transition of the outbreak of the conflict into a military phase.

Despite the proposals of the head of the Extraordinary Embassy of Russia, His Serene Highness Prince Admiral Alexander Menshikov, to reconsider, in fact, an illegal decision, encouraged by the real support of London and Paris in the form of the appearance of a British-French squadron near the Dardanelles, the Turkish Sultan in an insult to Great Russia form rejected the conciliatory initiative of the Russians. On May 21, 1853, Menshikov left Constantinople with all the members of his embassy, ​​and Russian troops occupied the Turkish protectorates - the Danube principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia as a response.

After Russia refused to withdraw its troops from the Danubian principalities on September 28, 1853, the Ottoman Empire, having secured the support of Great Britain and France, declared war on it. London and Paris joined the Turks on 27 and 28 March 1854 respectively. The Kingdom of Sardinia soon came out on their side.

Strictly speaking, it was the Ottoman Empire that started the war first. However, which is by no means surprising, in Europe they chose not to notice this detail, and public opinion continued to believe that Russia was the aggressor. They forgot about Turkish atrocities. The “terrible Russian bear” was again brought into the arena.

MUTUAL HATE

It should be emphasized that the European allies, at first overestimating the strength of the Turks, believed that the Ottoman Empire for some time itself was able to successfully resist the Russian troops in the Caucasus and the Balkans if the latter began to advance deep into the peninsula. However, the complete defeat on November 30, 1853 of a large Turkish squadron in the Battle of Sinop, brilliantly carried out by the Russian fleet under the leadership of Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, shocked London and Paris and forced them to seriously prepare for military operations against the Russian Empire.

After a brief debate, the British and French leadership developed an initial war plan, according to which it was supposed to conduct military operations in the north and south of Russia. In addition, British Prime Minister Henry Palmerston did everything in order to "by all means try to anger Poland and Lithuania", thereby diverting the most trained Russian formations from the main theaters of war.

In general, the British initially planned to act traditionally, namely, they tried to “rake in the heat with the wrong hands”, for which they tried to incite as many European powers as possible into the confrontation with Russia, of course, including the former allies of St. Petersburg : Austria, Prussia, but also Sweden. And if the latter two nevertheless managed to get out and not fall under the harsh diplomatic pressure of London, then the first was constantly on the verge of entering the war, forcing the Russian Empire not only to keep a significant number of troops on the border with it, but also to leave the Danube principalities in the end, which were immediately occupied by the once "friendly" Austrian troops.

Meanwhile, in mid-April 1853, the military council of the two European allied powers met again in Paris, modifying the plan of military operations in the south. In accordance with the new plan, a combined British-French expeditionary force of 100 thousand people was supposed to be landed in the area of ​​​​Constantinople and from there to attack the Balkans by dry route. The Turks, among other things, were assigned the main role of containing the Russian troops in the Caucasus for the time being.

General Lord Fitzroy James Raglan and Marshal Armand Jacques Saint-Arnaud were appointed commanders of the British and French parts of the coalition forces in the southern theater of the war, respectively, who did not have friendly feelings towards each other. For one reason or another, during the protracted war, the commanders of both parts of the coalition changed several times, the mutual, almost open mutual hostility of the British and French, which had already become traditional by that time, remained unchanged. This also became, in addition to the constantly existing disagreements of an operational-strategic nature, one of the reasons why a single commander-in-chief of the military coalition was never appointed, and all issues had to be resolved by the two commanders at the councils. But, nevertheless, by the spring of 1854, the anti-Russian military coalition was finally formed.

In terms of numbers, the French made the largest contribution to the coalition grouping. Units and formations of their troops, consisting of the imperial guard, line infantry, including foreign Legion, cavalry, artillery, military sappers, totaled from 45 to 100 thousand people in different periods of hostilities in the south. The British in the coalition were initially represented more modestly - 27 thousand officers and privates, reduced to five infantry (1-4th and light) divisions and one cavalry, as well as artillery and engineer-sapper units.

The Turkish armed forces, numbering 162 thousand people in peacetime, were increased to 570 thousand people with the outbreak of war. But not only was this huge mass of people at that time ill-prepared for war, a significant part of it was made up of people from the North African (Arab) and Balkan (mostly inhabited by Slavs) provinces controlled by Constantinople, who by no means had a special love for the actual enslavers. In addition, squadrons of traditionally anti-Russian Polish volunteer cavalrymen and the semi-partisan formations of the Bashi-Bazouk Turks, who had a bad reputation, were included in the Ottoman army, with their indiscipline, propensity for excessive violence, massacre and robbery, causing a lot of problems for their own command.

The Sardinian army, formally included in the anti-Russian coalition, numbered in peacetime about 45 thousand people of all branches of the military, characteristic of the European armed forces of the mid-nineteenth century. Only 15 thousand Sardinians were included in the expeditionary group of the Allied armed forces.

In addition to official allies, unofficial ones also took part in the anti-Russian military coalition: the so-called German, Swiss and Italian legions. Moreover, the German and Swiss brigades, which numbered 4,250 and 2,200 military personnel, respectively, took a direct, but little noticeable part in the battles, including in the Crimea.

This multinational army was opposed by Russian troops, who had gone through battles and battles during the war years, with a total number of 470 thousand people: about 80 thousand on the Danube; on the shores of the Baltic Sea - 112 thousand; in the Kingdom of Poland and the western provinces - 146 thousand; in the Caucasus - 78 thousand; on the Aland Islands - more than 1.5 thousand; several hundred military personnel on the Solovetsky Islands, in the area of ​​​​Arkhangelsk and Petropavlovsk (Kamchatka), the Sevastopol garrison, initially numbering 18 thousand soldiers and sailors, plus a 35 thousandth group of troops on the Crimean Peninsula.

THE MAIN BET IS FOR THE FLEET

It should be emphasized that at the beginning of the war, the Allies placed their main stake precisely on the power of the British and French fleets. Military historians in this respect emphasize the "enormous strength" of the British navy. After the battle of Sinop, which ended in the complete defeat of a large Turkish squadron, London showed vigorous activity in order to have time to mobilize all the ships suitable for the expedition by the spring of 1854. The British Mediterranean squadron consisted of 24 steam and 13 sailing ships with 1,329 guns. In turn, the formations of the British squadron of the Baltic Sea included 33 steam and 11 sailing ships.

As for the French fleet, by May 1854 it consisted of two active squadrons - the Baltic and the Mediterranean. The first included 12 steam and 17 sailing ships with 1196 guns on board. In the second - 38 large and small steam and 12 sailing ships with more than 1600 guns on board. The main drawback of both fleets, which is typical, was a significant shortage of crews, to eliminate which they even had to transfer artillery officers from the ground forces to the ships, with artillery servants.

The Turkish fleet, although to some extent weakened during the battle of Sinop and was in a demoralized state, nevertheless supplemented the already gigantic naval forces of the Western European allies.

The Russian fleet as a whole, in terms of the number of ships and the presence of modern ships, which was originally created to fight the Turks, was significantly inferior to the combined fleet of the coalition. So, in Sevastopol, 26 Russian ships were blocked, among which only six met the latest requirements of technical progress at that time. The Baltic fleet consisted of 54 ships, of which only 11 were steam. In the north (Kola Bay and the White Sea), as well as Far East Russia's naval presence was no match for the British and French squadrons sent there.

SURPRISES ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE

And yet, the preparation of the allies for the war with Russia, according to domestic and Western experts of that time, left much to be desired.

It is noteworthy that not only the Russian leadership believed that the war would take on a fleeting character and would not reach the scale that it nevertheless resulted in. Similar delusions accompanied the Western allies in the anti-Russian coalition, who, having not prepared stocks and warehouses in advance and having no experience of a large-scale expeditionary war, had absolutely no idea either about the transfers or about the methods of supplying significant masses of troops with food and fodder under these conditions. This, in turn, quite unambiguously refutes the thesis put forward by many historians about the almost exemplary, "unlike the domestic", comprehensive support of the British-French troops in theaters of war remote from the metropolises, which took place already in the middle of the 19th century.

As a result of all this, the Crimean War brought many unpleasant surprises to all its participants, including the Western allies.