Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3zuoCIa Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free: -500 doubloons -1.5 million credits -7 Days Premium Account time -Free of choice USS Phoenix, Japanese cruiser Kuma, French battleship Courbet, Italian battleship Dante Alighieri, or the HMS Wakeful after you complete 15 battles Applicable to new users only 🚩 We apologise for errors in the video. Namely, Catalonia being part of France and not swapping the banner of Nicholas I with Alexander II. In hindsight both of these seem like no-brainers, but we somehow failed to notice them.
Also the Ottoman Province of Wallachia and Moldavia weren't part of the Austrian Empire. They were just occupied by the latter for a short time before being returned
🚩 We apologise for errors in the video. Namely, Catalonia being part of France and not swapping the banner of Nicholas I with Alexander II. In hindsight both of these seem like no-brainers, but we somehow failed to notice them.
Ironically Austria would lose the most out of its ambition. Russia would not aid Austria against France, losing its main Italian possessions and would not aid Austria against Prussia losing Germany. Russia basically left Austria absolutely isolated and taking a big L
Russian leaders are never to be trusted under any circumstances, unless they gain exactly what they want. History taught us as much. They’ve always been back stabbers.
I've heard that despite everything Russia was one of the winners in the long run in this war as by the time the later Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) had ended they had regained most of what they had lost while gaining the influence in the Balkans that they wanted. Furthermore, I have also heard that the Ottoman Empire was arguably one of the losers of this war despite being on the winning side as their treasury was nearly bankrupted due to war expenses for no significant material gain. To add insult to injury, they had even lost the right to a navy in the Black Sea due to the demilitarization. Finally, the one country that had lost the most in the long run as a consequence of this war was strangely enough Austria as it had been left isolated on the world stage. Russia perceived them as shockingly ungrateful, while Britain and France did not consider their actions in the war sufficient to earn their support. So in 1866 when Austria found itself at war with Prussia, Russia resented them while Britain and France were disinterested in them.
In fact, the war of 1877-1878 was won thanks to Romanian forces that came to support at the last moment. While the Ottomans defeated the Russian armies, the Romanian forces, who came to help at the last moment, defeated the Ottoman armies and captured their castles. But of course, the real winners from this war were the Russians.
I'd argue that it was Austria that was the *short term* winner of the Crimean War. It got what it wanted (a limited rollback of Russian influence w/o redrawing the map of Europe) and at virtually no cost to its blood and treasure. But of course, as you said, in the *medium term* this so-called "ungrateful" Austrian position directly led to its downfall in the 1860s. I wouldn't argue that the Ottomans were losers (even in the medium term) for the Crimean War - the Allies had firmly committed themselves to Turkish survival and their support/loans would be important for Ottoman reform/survival in the late 19C (tho of coz UK/FRA became disillusioned with the Ottomans by the 1870s). Russia did a great job of recovering from the Crimean War, I would agree with that.
How could Russia be one of the winners if it did not achieve any of it's goals and nearly collapsed under a crushing debt, at the mercy of the Allies? What would you call a lose then? And Ottoman Empire, whose very existence was at stake in this war, survived at least for another half a century? Don't mud the waters, Russia was defeated and Turkey won. It was a much needed dose of reality for the czar. And during a next Russo-Turkish war of 1877 main Russian goal was to take Constantinople/Istanbul, which it did not achieve under the very real threat from the Allies.
The French and British were equipped with rifled muskets using minié balls and percussion caps whereas the Russians were using smoothbore muskets many of which still used flintlock ignition. The video describes this as a *minor* technological advantage but in reality the French and British weapons had an effective range of 500 metres as opposed to the 80 metres of the Russian smoothbores. This was an _enormous_ advantage and the Russians took huge casualties in which their troop formations were severely mauled long before they could get close to Allied lines.
The Russians did not approach the allies, but defended Sevastopol behind the walls. Thus, it was the allies who tried to get closer to the Russians, but they could only do it at a distance of no more than 80 meters (as you say). In addition, the Russians also had artillery. Despite the fact that the Russians were cut off from supplies, they held the line for 9 months, until the resources were completely depleted. Despite the fact that the Russian generals demanded that the tsar send the Russian army to help in the Crimea, the tsar immediately refused resistance and victory. Only thanks to the courage of the ordinary Russian people, Sevastopol held back the siege for so long.
1) Ottomans( Turkish) goverment went bankrupt at 1858 (heavy cost of military action during Crimean war), 2) British goverment resigned after war because of heavy military losses. 3) In 1871 (just 15 years after Crimean war) after defeat of France in France-Prussian war all 4 points of Crimean war treaty were denounced by Russia.
For the Franco-Prussian war, it's not just the defeat of France, but the fact that the form of governement changed, it was now a democracy, no Napoleon III in sight. So all that was done by the previous French empire, wasn't their problem. It kind of weakened the arrangement that was made in that war since there was no one left to enforce it really.
European politics and war was pretty crazy. Just several decades before this, the British, Prussians, Austrians, Russians were all big pals fighting the French. Not too long after the Crimean War, Prussia will go to war with the French, shocking the world with victory. Then a newly unified Germany would make longtime rivals the British and French have closer ties. Add an ever growing population, industrialization, improved technology, and the tradition of ever shifting European politics, alliances, power plays, constant war, it's no wonder World War I took place. Almost a certainty.
They were allies of convenience. The peace talks during the Treaty of Vienna demonstrated simmering hostility between the Great Powers already prepared to descent into war once again.
The British w*hord at it again. Same stretagy used now against Russia they did in the Crimean war, not learning from history while Russia did learn, and prepared for it. The sanctions imposed on Russia by the British, US and EU have blown up in their faces. Russia is no more the uneducated impoverished agricultural nation it was under the Tsars. Times have changed and the wests ruling classes becoming more deranged with each inbred generation, dreams of Empires they once had. Using Ukraine to fight their proxi war while impoverishing their own people by imposing sanctions on Russian resources. So now what a nuclear war if Ukraine loses? Russia is one of the three world powers with nukes! Never understood the Crimean war even though it was part of the history in my class was never explained fully what it was about, as it was from the allies point of view. Florance Nightingale, Charge of the Light Brigade etc etc. How brave the Brits were! How entitled. Never understood why they were even in the Black sea and fighting the Russians. They were an Empire and were entitled to Colonise countries by destroying other economies and taking their resources. The Empire which was once coloured red covered half of the world globe!
I've been to Sveaborg multiple times (Nowadays knows as Finnish castle aka Somen Linna). They told me there that when the British ships came, the cannons in the fotress had a limited range of fire, so couldn't respond in any way as the British ships were too far. And it was remarkable that the heavy British bombardment for 2 days, only killed like 1% of the sheltering soldiers on the Island.
I think it's because if you think in terms of force, is if one's fortress has an absolute range of 200m and a ship has a range of of 250, he can only hit from 200 meters away, wich reduces greatly the power of the canonball hitting the walls. You'd have to find yourself against the wall or directly hit/ricoched to be killed.
1% in 2 days is a LOT though? I mean I get 1% doesn't seem like a lot, but TWO DAYS is a negligible time frame in a relatively large scale war.. and as you say this was achieved without retaliation. I mean you think of wars like WWI, when ludicrous tonnage in explosive munitions is used for months/years on the same units.. 14% of soldiers were killed supposedly, and 60% of those from the shelling, over 4 years of that scale of shelling which was incomparably higher than this. Doing some quick maths that's 0.01% per 2 days or 1% per 200 days to bombardment. In THE war famous for its absurd bombardments.
@@Tridentus Units in a war are not static things though, your numbers in your second paragraph are insanely suspect without any context on where you pulled them from. Unless you're claiming there was a unit in one spot for the whole war, without getting reinforced and lost 14% during the entire war xD Also to add, the two days Sveaborg was bombarded was continuous bombardment for 47 hours straight, by 77 ships.
Another amazing video by HM. The legacy of the Crimean War is still being overlooked by many people & I am glad it is getting the recognition it deserves by HM. The Austrian Empire in the 19th century really had to play their cards right against how other European Powers would attempt to redraw the map of Europe. This sort of work after Napoleon I was first defeated in 1814, but with Prussia's further rise after Waterloo (and other military campaigns) & the Holy Roman Empire now gone, the Austrian Empire began to see its sovereignty being threatened by all sides. Moreover, Metternich (who parley with Napoleon I in 1813) was ousted in 1848. It was the beginning when the stability of Austria's domestic & foreign policies started to unravel. The resurgence of nationalist revolts gripped the empire, and to which the Habsburgs had to play a balancing game (or limited mobilization by this video) of when to wage war or crush revolts. Austria had to play the long game to survive when their former British ally & their French rival were beginning to aid the Ottoman Empire against Russia (who were still partially close with Austria given the right circumstances, however, the religious/nationalist revolts created a rift between the two powers). The Holy Alliance was being ripped to shreds during this war, and Austria's troop development in the wake of the Russian retreat in Wallachian and Moldavian lands was the final straw. Austria became isolated by the end of the Crimean War & their isolation would lead to the Franco-Austrian War. Russia never came to their aid again (like how they always did during pre-1805 & during Napoleon's reign), and thus the decline of Austria led to the demise of the first phase of the Concert of Europe established after the Napoleonic Wars. This led to German Unification under Prussia, Russia being neutral in the Franco-Prussian War, and Italy's later unification. Almost 3 Alliances of European factions would divide the continent and in which create the very environment leading up to WW1. Austria had to look towards the German Empire to ensure they would be relevant in terms of influence in Europe (partially their former German provinces) & in control of the Balkans via crushing further nationalist moments. The rest is history...
There was an independent Greek nation-state already for over 20 years prior to 1853. The map supposedly presenting the Ottoman empire is totally wrong.
@@arolemaprarath6615 Weren't the Austrians beaten only later in Italy ? They had some north Italian territory during the Crimean war. edit: I checked the video again and maybe indeed they gave too much territory to Austria. Austria had territories in Italy, but maybe not to this point. Or at least, it was more just influence.
Russia was back on it's feet by 1863, when it defended both coasts of the United States against British interference in our Civil War. 'The Russian Fleets of 1863", as it is referred by, stayed the whole summer, and even helped put out a massive fire in San Francisco, losing at least one sailor in the process.
IMHO, the myth of bearded hungry Russians began with the arrival of the Russian fleet in the US. Because the Russian fleet had to make a twice as long voyage as the British, the Russian fleet left Petersburg without replenishing supplies, so that the British would not suspect that the Russians were setting off on a long voyage. Therefore, Russian sailors were on a meager ration before arriving in the US. When the English fleet arrived at US ports, they found Russian ships there.
They weren’t back on their feet they had to sell Alaska because they were in debt they were barley standing leading all the way to the disaster in ww1 and Russia’s collapse
@@colmcmillan173😂That you are crazy about any hungry you are talking now millions of British people suffer famine and died during the war 7 million British people from starvation😂 lol
@@colmcmillan173😂Russia was the newest and richest from 1680 to 1900 that you are a bot the hungry Britain was dying the British from starvationRussia was the newest and richest from 1680 to 1900 that you are a bot the hungry Britain was dying the British from starvation
Another myth. Russia fought on 6 fronts, from Arkhangelsk to Kamchatka. And the only thing that the coalition of the strongest European countries could do was to occupy half of Sevastopol after almost 2 years of siege. Loss ratio 140k vs 220k. Great "victory".
Instantly clicked when I saw it was a collab with Strategy stuff, one of the most intellectual and interesting channels out there. I also love how Strategy Stuff doesn't pander for views, asking for likes and subs, just puts excellent videos out there and let's them speak for themselves.
One little detail: the man depicted as Russia's leader on the map is Alexander II of Russia. While he indeed was ruler of Russia during the Crimean War, he only became tsar during the later part of it, while during most of the war the man in charge was Nicholas I, Alexander's father, who died in the middle of the war.
I found the explanation helpful that the Crimean War is a good analog for today -- "Limited War". I feel like most people get wrapped up that modern conflicts will result in a Total War situation like WW1 and WW2. Thanks for vid.
Great video, It's great to see that you have already corrected yourself on the map, just wanted to say I was very surprised to see the errors which were many and I would expect to see this kind of map in some badly done 6th grade history book, map was subpar to say the least, I wouldnt necessarily blame the person that made the map but whoever was doing quality control should have certainly seen these errors. Be that as it may, we all make mistakes, just glad to see that you are aware of them. I am mostly leaving this comment for alghoritsm sake as I enjoy your channel a lot. The rest of the content, as usual, is very informative and brings great insight to the Crimean War. Looking forward to more 19th century themed videos as I do enjoy these the most. :)
Western powers (Christians) were like We must stop Russia for helping Christians in Balkans to get rid of Turks after 300 years so we will support Turks! It doesn’t metter that Turks almost took Vienna few decads ago and it doesnt metter that Serbs were fighting for West for 300 years againts Turks we will give full support to Turks!!! Hypocrisy nothing less than today!
Christianity had zero influence on the politics and values of the west in this conflict. If they don't pretend to be defenders of the faith, it's not hypocrisy if said faith is not defended by them.
During the 1768 - 1774 Russian Ottoman war , Russia was close to conquer the Ottoman Empire Russia conquered Crimea and kicked the Ottomans out , defeated them in Caucasus , and totally destroyed the Ottoman navy in 1770 during the battle of Chesme (Battle of Chesme) a revolt occurred in Greece and Russia formed an alliance with the Mamluk of Egypt Ali Bey al Kabir who kicked the Ottomans out of Egypt and marched towards Syria with Russian support (Ali Bey al Kabir) Russia bombed and occupied Beirut , at that time the Ottoman Empire lost all of it's Arab provinces as Iraq was ruled by Kulmnd Mamluks and Syria was falling as well , Russia had the Ottomans on their knees , but Britain , Austria and Prussia saved the Ottomans and prevented Russia from conquering Constantinople Russia tried again in 1791 and 1878 and was too close but the Western powers feared a very powerful Russia .
It seems that Russia has studied this war, likely more than the US has. Russia has refused to mobilize, it prepared economic systems to mitigate the effects of a sanctions regime, it prepared ammunition stockpiles, it used diplomacy to gain allies, it is using equipment of equal quality to the opposing force and it has from the outset publicly rejected broader hegemonic goals for its military actions. The West/US has also not made the errors of the Crimean allies in finding a proxy army to do their fighting, rather than sending expeditionary forces. It would seem, if anything, that NATO has underestimated the Russians and their ability to inflict economic costs on them. I wonder if the wheat of Ukraine was stopped during the Crimean War. My impression is that it was a critical feature of the European food supply of the time.
Still now Russians failed to achieve their primary goal - to defeat Ukraine in few days and transform it in a puppet state . They failed to stop NATO advancing - see Sweden and Finland joining . They failed to break the West's unity , at least for now . They failed to find real allies , only declarations and some frustrated underdeveloped nations . They failed to prepare the economy because they don't have a viable one without the West's technology . They are burning their own gas on air , because they don't have clients anymore . Their crude will freeze in the pipes . 6 months of war show how incapable is Russia to fight a conventional war, more less to occupy territories .
@@seaman5705 I think Russia has found significant support from China. That was the alliance I was thinking of primarily. India I would not consider an ally but they are a friendly neutral and major purchaser of Russian commodities now that Europeans have shut the door.
I’ve heard that the Victoria Cross - that medal given to the bravest of British soldiers is made from the metal of a canon that was used during the Crimean War. Curious if anyone has heard this as well
The VC is definitely made from the metal taken from captured cannons, however the current thinking (based on the metallurgy) is that it's from captured Chinese cannons and not Russian cannons - although the could be Chinese cannons, captured by the Russians and then captured by the Brits?
*The Crimean War in a Nutshell* Russia: *It’s time to end the Turks once and for all* The Ottoman Empire: *Insert Screaming* Britain and France: *NO! Only we’re allowed to destroy the Ottomans! Not You!* Russia: *You Fools; Don’t you see that Prussia and Austria will help me!?* Prussia and Austria: *…* Russia: *Blyat*
Before British and French joined the war, the Ottomans defeated the Russians in Wallachia and Moldavia and they regained their lost vassals in 1828.They only lost the Battle of the Sea, but it did not affect the war much. The biggest reason why the Ottomans were able to cope well with the Russians was the modern reforms of Sultan Mahmut II in the army.
@@scourgeofgodattila579 "wrote them all" man do you really want for me to ask for your Discord to send you the commentator who wrote the exact same thing an hour ago
The economic warfare and blockade is what forced Russia to the table. Read professor Andrew Lambert's study on he war and the naval side of things, very good read.
Thank you for this concise & informative video. As a history lover I was aware of the Crimean War, of course; I had no clear grasp on it's origins, events, nor even all the participants. Florence Nightengale & Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade are well known in our culture, the Crimean War itself, oddly enough, is hardly known at all.
Discussing the conclusions in a different scene was a very nice touch. It allowed me to focus more on the concepts at hand, rather than still staring at the map :D
I never looked into the Crimean War before, it's interesting how much of a clusterfuck it was. Kind of feels like the Allies won in spite of themselves.
I still don’t know what exactly the Allies won. Since they fought simply disgustingly, they did not acquire new territories. After this victory, neither France nor Great Britain attacked Russian territory. For the victors, this is at least strange, as is the fact that they lost more soldiers than the Russians.
The whole team on this channel is doing an amazing job, I love every video you post and I always look forward to a new video. Keep up the work you're doing because you're doing amazingly well.😁😁
Russians lost crimean war and... ??? British light cavalry destroyed. Otomans lost trade privilege in low danube and soon colapse in 1877. We see disaster in french army when started next prussian-french war. And russians still own crimea. Good.
Cope. Conveniently left out that the Russians got whooped by Japan, stomped by the German Empire, lost to communists, almost lost again to Germany, then fell off from being the second biggest economy to not even being in the top ten biggest economies which Germany, the UK, and France are still in.
@@Sceptonic Russian economy is grossly underestimated, so much so in fact that all of the above that you mentioned are suffering from the sanctions that they imposed on russia, not the other way around.
We keep forgetting that allied squadrons were also sent to other Russian ports in the North and East, which is logical if you want to set up a blockade. However, there they ended up completely ingloriously and fled, although there was a limited Russian garrison there and they were defended mainly by the local population. However, the local population were mostly hunters and were excellent with guns. The British also made pirate raids on Russian villages on the coast of the White Seas. But local hunters, having heard about it, got together and started hunting for pirates. Having landed to plunder the Russian village, the British were attacked by Russian hunters. They began to shoot the English sailors like partridges, and they fled to the ships in a panic. Then they fired at the village from the ships. But they did not get the effect, because the village was on a hill behind the hill and the shooting was ineffective. English pirates also attacked the famous Russian monastery on the island. The fortress of the monastery is one of the wonders of the world. It is built from huge boulders. The English ships could not harm it, and the Russian monks also had artillery and the British could not come close. The French and English squadron also attacked Vladivostok. But the Russians were warned by American merchants and the Russians prepared in advance. They gathered scant artillery and arranged a few batteries. And also gathered local hunters. When the British ships decided to enter the bay of Vladivostok under a false flag to measure the depths, they were attacked. With great difficulty, the allies destroyed one of the 7 Russian batteries and began landing on a hill on the shore. But there they were also met by Russian hunters and the allies began to panic. Subsequently, the allies said that they were shot in the jungle. Although it was just a bush on a hill and there is no jungle in the north. After that, the allies fled in disgrace... Btw, on the eve of the attack, for some unknown reason, a French admiral shot himself. I want to say that the Russian people put up a heroic resistance, gathering all available resources and accepting the militia, while the tsar surrendered limply. Just like Nicholas II during WWI. Maybe because the kings had German blood?
I know HistoryMarche acknowledges its error but keeping Alexander II's face up there the whole time hides the fact that it was the complete failure of a tsar Nicholas I who started and led most of the debacle. The Russian army's bloody farce of a performance was a key reason for Alexander's lI's liberation of the serfs in 1861, as the Russian government realized its slave soldiers were no match for the free soldiers of its enemies. The Crimean War in general demonstrated the weakness and backwardness of the Russian state at the time and how badly reforms were needed. Nicholas, one of the worst tsars, was fortunately followed by the reformist Alexander II, one of the best.
I have many questions for you. For example, what exactly did France and Great Britain get in the end? How exactly did they win? Politically, did they make any profits at all? Russia helped the US with the civil war. Helped Germany unify. Romania gained independence, as did Bulgaria. And Russia increased its territories in Central Asia. It is clear that Russia lost, but I don’t understand what the Allies gained from this? Don't worry, I don't mind at all if Russia loses 2 out of 10 wars on Wikipedia, and I'm ready for the British to get their share of national pride. But I just don't really understand what it was. From the outside, this war looks as if people ran up with bare penises and slobbered all over the Russians, and then ran away, declared themselves winners, and it never happened again.
What irony. Not only England and France did not help to stop the Turkey's expansion to Europe, they sided with a non-Christian power to stop Russia. Russia was winning the war against Turkey and its ultimate goal was to regain Constantinople. This helped the Turks to maintain its possession, in spite of future losses in Balkans with its Christian states gaining independence. The consequences are seen today. Week Ottoman empire, which would have likely lost more land to Greece, is now again a major force.
That being said, Turkey is a significant force now mainly because their previously high birthrate completely changed the demographics (and also because of some good past leaders, like atatturk and his reforms). By the end of WW1, there was 12-13 million people in Turkey (65 million in Germany and 40 million in France in comparison). Today, Germany has 81 million people and Turkey 83 million. Territory has less to do with power compared with demography.
@Judah Dada I have seen. Just because of the conflict in Ukraine, everyone seems to have gone crazy. And many bloggers, racists, those exposed to propaganda release videos where they are trying to dehumanize Russians or somehow humiliate Russia. Not paying attention to the fact that people live there too. And not paying attention to the aggression of the British Empire against Africa, the Indians, China and the US invasion of various countries
Take this as an advantage. Ultimately, Russia is the country that defeated Napoleon, and therefore its physical existence does not fit into the Concert of Europe. Take it out of context that Russia gave independence to Greece, Bulgaria and Romania and think about the fact that Russia should not win all the wars in the world on paper. If the British get their national pride, but the map of Russia is larger, then let it be written in their history textbook that we, the Russians, lost.
This war is a primary example showing that the current hostile Western European stance against Russia isn't actually anything new. The Brits and French unexpectionally supported Greeks in every single conflict they had with the Ottomans such a favor wasn't the case for the likewise Orthodox Russians, at least not always. This policy is mostly attributed to the fact that Greeks were seen as some sort of ancient major contributors to the Western civilization whereas Russians were just viewed as a bunch of rootless Slavic barbarians. Observing historical events like these and connecting them with present day world events will never disappoint
Before British and French joined the war, the Ottomans defeated the Russians in Wallachia and Moldavia and they regained their lost vassals in 1828.They only lost the Battle of the Sea, but it did not affect the war much. The biggest reason why the Ottomans were able to cope well with the Russians was the modern reforms of Sultan Mahmut II in the army.
Great video explaining the greater context of the war. Most histories of the war make the exact same mistake the allies did and emphasis the campaign in Crimea.
My own study of the Russian loss in the Crimean War suggested to me that it was Russian technological backwardness (no good roads from Kiev south, let alone railroads; guns that shot one-third as far as Allied rifles; inability to alter orders under fire) that produced the Russian defeat.
@@annoyingbstard9407 what bothers you about the railways? They were being built for a while at the time.! So why not one like Moskva - Kiev- Sevastapol? Helicopters? Very funny.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Railroads were developed in the late 1810s. The Crimean War was in the middle 1850s. As a matter of fact, there were quite a few railroads by that time throughout Europe; Russia had one running between Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Did anyone read the book Crimea The Last Crusade by Orlando Figes? It's an outstanding piece of popular history, explaining meticulously this fascinating but forgotten period.
After studying the issue somewhat, some major points need to be addressed. One, Palmerston's stated goal of ripping Russia up into smaller more controllable countries that could be dominated economically. America's support for Russia which factored later in Russia supporting Lincoln in the Civil War. Napoleon III as Palmerston's stooge using the pretext of Orthodox/Catholic protection as a Casus Belli. Palmerston's agent Urquhart and the use of the Ottomans as a buffer between Russia and British influenced areas like Persia or their colonies such as India that later became the Great Game.
For now. Um, answer this > Has Ukraine really tried to go on imperial designs on the European continent? .... Answer > No. Query: Why have any ruling faction in Russia ALWAYS seek to Imperialism adventure? … I really don't know. Do you? USA's presence globally is the result of CORPORATE desire to seek profits for the elites (per say, the captains of industry.) use $$$ to make U.S. politicians their bitch, because WAR = corporate profits. No joke, elites subtly seek to enslave everyone else ethnically notwithstanding. Wake up people. POLITICS played by the wealthy elites is what brought down the Roman Empire. Is the USA within our lifetime next?
Keep having strategy stuff write the scripts. The guys talent for synthesis and analysis is incredible. The Crimean war is so often portrayed as a battle for Sevastopol that the true reasons for Russias defeat are completely obscured..
@@Jakubescu bruh NATO is physically incapable of "repeating the same mistake" because they're just orders of magnitude more powerful than Russia aka fat north Korea 🤣
The Crimean War is essentially a Russian-Ottoman war and Crimean War is not just about the Crimean Front. Major conflicts took place in the Caucasus and the Balkans. As a result of this war, 175,300 Ottoman soldiers died at this battle. In the video, however, the Ottomans and their losses are not mentioned in any way. First of all, it's disrespectful to the soldiers who died. History is not just about the English and the French losses.
Wikipedia has a sourced number of 45,000 casualties for the Ottomans, compared with 135,000 casualties for the French (who had the most soldiers in this war). Note that "casualty", doesn't mean death. The role of France easily overshadowed the Ottoman's role. Britain too strategically since they had the largest navy and since navies were very important in this war. That being said, I totally agree that the Ottomans and their casualties should have been mentioned, as a form of respect. This and that, are two different things.
@@Polo-rn8ly Wtf lol what is "fishy" about it, it's the historical consensus there's no debate about it. Those are not some numbers from antiquity, figures about 19th century wars are very serious. And it's relatively normal casualties considering the troups involved.
''Russia dominating the Balkans'' was actually a sign of hope for the local Christian population to finally gain their freedom from the Ottoman Muslim Empire. It seems like Western Europe fought for the Muslims not for Europe, what a disgrace, its all about interests and money.
Britain stopped caring about christians a long time ago..they even supported ottomans during greek independence war..no wonder now they suffer from the muslims the the most
“Western Europe fought for Muslims not Europe,” 1. This is such a weird thing to say about 19th century warfare. France, Britain and Russia weren’t shaping their geo-political decisions around the “Islam vs Christendom” divide anymore. It was all about imperialism and balance of powers. 2. The Balkans had a significant European Muslim plurality by the 19th century. So the Europe VS Muslims dichotomy doesn’t make any sense. 3. The Ottoman bureaucracy was arguably by this point, just as European dominated as Russia was.
When russia annex several regions in Ukraine and Moldova from ottomans and tatars, several locasl orthodox faith were forced to follow russian version of orthodoxy and local language were curb off under name of national unity. Not the pagan Mongols and nor their muslims successors dare to interfere with local religion and language during thier overlord. Yeah so much help from Russia Christian.
Indeed. Should have been painted in the Ottoman Empire colors and hash over the Russian control after the 1829 Adrianople treaty. The most posh avenue in Bucharest is named, for good reason, after Pavel Kisseleff, Russian governor of the two Romanian principalities and later, after 1856, as ambassador to France, advocate for the unification of the two, which happened in 1859.
@@autnocens W & M could have also been hashed as Austrian, since an Austrian army occupied them as the Russian evacuated, and stayed there - I forget exactly how long - a year or so.
Russia in a war with 3 Superpowers- How did Russia lose the war?..... I would ask - was it even a possibility to win the war vs 3 Great Powers of the day???
@@Sceptonic I would call an empire that has huge amount of land on 3 continents to be a Superpower - The Ottoman Empire. The French and British empires are in control of most of the world at that time. Piedmont-Sardinia was trying to get a higher position through support of this war.... and soon that will pay out when they stand at the center of the Unification of Italy-thus soon they also become a great power in Europe....
If Russia had lost the crimean war wouldn't crimea be back in hands of brits or French as a fort? But still it remained in hands of Russians after war why?
Also Ottoman fought in navaris with 3 great powers.British,France and Russia. In fact, the Ottoman Empire always fought alone against the European coalition for most of its history.
@@kaloyanradkov8962 Huge difference between great power and superpower. At the time one could make the case that neither were great powers let alone superpowers.
I guess it is a good thing that the Allies were somewhat strategically inept, had a large-scale conflict between the Allies and Russia developed, a Europe-wide great-power conflict could have developed, which would have lead to countless deaths.
Well done! Very even-handed, and full of info BBC sponsored docs don't reveal. Makes all the Allied losses due to disease in the Crimea seem more tragic.
Hahaha 15:50 allies dared not attack anything more defended than Russian fishing villages at the coast. Ukraine does the same now by bombarding Donetsk while not attacking Russian army regiments. So it's the typical behavior of the west :) Didn't know Russia ever lost a physical war to anyone but Mongols. 21:30 "Much to the disappointment to the remaining british orcs"?
"No Papa, don't do it!" "Sorry, son, but I love HistoryMarche more than I love you. I have to do it." *Stabs it in the chest, then opens it up and takes out his heart, raising it towards the heavens: "For the ALGORITHM!"
If I did not know the history of the Crimean War of 1856, I would not understand anything. We hear a certain set of some assumptions and regrets. Britain was simply afraid that Russia would take India from her. I mean the constant rivalry between Russia and Great Britain over Afghanistan, which served as the road to India. All events took place around this. There is no doubt that the British were hawks, but they were very afraid that Russia would deprive them of the main southern wealth - India. The war was the result of misguided Russian diplomacy and British fear, which was the result of the English's ignorance of geography. However, the Central Asian regions of Afghanistan, Bukhara, Khiva were really poorly studied at that time. The British feared that Russia, having defeated the Turks in Istanbul, would enter the trade route between India and Great Britain in the Mediterranean Sea and pose a threat to these supply routes. This was central to this conflict. The military victory in Sevastopol brought absolutely nothing to England, France and Turkey. The Russians exchanged Sevastopol for several fortresses in Transcaucasia taken from the Turks. There were some problems with the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, but they were eventually resolved. What a shameful story, I think. 🙂
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3zuoCIa
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free:
-500 doubloons
-1.5 million credits
-7 Days Premium Account time
-Free of choice USS Phoenix, Japanese cruiser Kuma, French battleship Courbet, Italian battleship Dante Alighieri, or the HMS Wakeful after you complete 15 battles
Applicable to new users only
🚩 We apologise for errors in the video. Namely, Catalonia being part of France and not swapping the banner of Nicholas I with Alexander II. In hindsight both of these seem like no-brainers, but we somehow failed to notice them.
Are you guys going to make a video or series of the Frankco/Prussian war?
Awesome video guys!!! Keep up the great work!!
Also the Ottoman Province of Wallachia and Moldavia weren't part of the Austrian Empire. They were just occupied by the latter for a short time before being returned
Greece was already a free and independent state at 1850s. Not a part of the Ottoman empire as shown here.
Please take down the video, the map is so inaccurate
Greece wasn’t even there
🚩 We apologise for errors in the video. Namely, Catalonia being part of France and not swapping the banner of Nicholas I with Alexander II. In hindsight both of these seem like no-brainers, but we somehow failed to notice them.
No worries
Ah yes an alternative universe.
As a French I say based and Catalonia is France pilled
Only human
And this is why You never had the makings of a varsity athlete
Ironically Austria would lose the most out of its ambition. Russia would not aid Austria against France, losing its main Italian possessions and would not aid Austria against Prussia losing Germany. Russia basically left Austria absolutely isolated and taking a big L
Russian leaders are never to be trusted under any circumstances, unless they gain exactly what they want. History taught us as much. They’ve always been back stabbers.
If Russia won, the same would have happened but they would be slaves to Russia.
Absolutely, Andrea.
The Austrians played themselves!
Bqd decision though. Germany got unified as result which posed later even bigger threat to russia as qe know.
@@Filip-dg6uk Not at the time and honestly the russians had better relations with the germans for the majority of the time
I've heard that despite everything Russia was one of the winners in the long run in this war as by the time the later Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) had ended they had regained most of what they had lost while gaining the influence in the Balkans that they wanted.
Furthermore, I have also heard that the Ottoman Empire was arguably one of the losers of this war despite being on the winning side as their treasury was nearly bankrupted due to war expenses for no significant material gain. To add insult to injury, they had even lost the right to a navy in the Black Sea due to the demilitarization.
Finally, the one country that had lost the most in the long run as a consequence of this war was strangely enough Austria as it had been left isolated on the world stage. Russia perceived them as shockingly ungrateful, while Britain and France did not consider their actions in the war sufficient to earn their support. So in 1866 when Austria found itself at war with Prussia, Russia resented them while Britain and France were disinterested in them.
you say well. we(Ottoman Empire) also lost like Russia, but in the table we are "winner". what humiliation.
In fact, the war of 1877-1878 was won thanks to Romanian forces that came to support at the last moment. While the Ottomans defeated the Russian armies, the Romanian forces, who came to help at the last moment, defeated the Ottoman armies and captured their castles. But of course, the real winners from this war were the Russians.
I'd argue that it was Austria that was the *short term* winner of the Crimean War. It got what it wanted (a limited rollback of Russian influence w/o redrawing the map of Europe) and at virtually no cost to its blood and treasure. But of course, as you said, in the *medium term* this so-called "ungrateful" Austrian position directly led to its downfall in the 1860s.
I wouldn't argue that the Ottomans were losers (even in the medium term) for the Crimean War - the Allies had firmly committed themselves to Turkish survival and their support/loans would be important for Ottoman reform/survival in the late 19C (tho of coz UK/FRA became disillusioned with the Ottomans by the 1870s).
Russia did a great job of recovering from the Crimean War, I would agree with that.
But russia bad m'kay
How could Russia be one of the winners if it did not achieve any of it's goals and nearly collapsed under a crushing debt, at the mercy of the Allies? What would you call a lose then? And Ottoman Empire, whose very existence was at stake in this war, survived at least for another half a century? Don't mud the waters, Russia was defeated and Turkey won. It was a much needed dose of reality for the czar. And during a next Russo-Turkish war of 1877 main Russian goal was to take Constantinople/Istanbul, which it did not achieve under the very real threat from the Allies.
The French and British were equipped with rifled muskets using minié balls and percussion caps whereas the Russians were using smoothbore muskets many of which still used flintlock ignition.
The video describes this as a *minor* technological advantage but in reality the French and British weapons had an effective range of 500 metres as opposed to the 80 metres of the Russian smoothbores.
This was an _enormous_ advantage and the Russians took huge casualties in which their troop formations were severely mauled long before they could get close to Allied lines.
The Russians did not approach the allies, but defended Sevastopol behind the walls. Thus, it was the allies who tried to get closer to the Russians, but they could only do it at a distance of no more than 80 meters (as you say). In addition, the Russians also had artillery. Despite the fact that the Russians were cut off from supplies, they held the line for 9 months, until the resources were completely depleted. Despite the fact that the Russian generals demanded that the tsar send the Russian army to help in the Crimea, the tsar immediately refused resistance and victory. Only thanks to the courage of the ordinary Russian people, Sevastopol held back the siege for so long.
1) Ottomans( Turkish) goverment went bankrupt at 1858 (heavy cost of military action during Crimean war),
2) British goverment resigned after war because of heavy military losses.
3) In 1871 (just 15 years after Crimean war) after defeat of France in France-Prussian war all 4 points of Crimean war treaty were denounced by Russia.
It was a terrible mistake. Russia was a counter weight to the Germans.
And Canada lost Alaska because Russia didn’t like Britain
Ironically a new palace (Dolmabahçe Sarayı) was built during that time from British loans.
@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle canadumb never owned alaska
For the Franco-Prussian war, it's not just the defeat of France, but the fact that the form of governement changed, it was now a democracy, no Napoleon III in sight. So all that was done by the previous French empire, wasn't their problem. It kind of weakened the arrangement that was made in that war since there was no one left to enforce it really.
European politics and war was pretty crazy. Just several decades before this, the British, Prussians, Austrians, Russians were all big pals fighting the French. Not too long after the Crimean War, Prussia will go to war with the French, shocking the world with victory. Then a newly unified Germany would make longtime rivals the British and French have closer ties.
Add an ever growing population, industrialization, improved technology, and the tradition of ever shifting European politics, alliances, power plays, constant war, it's no wonder World War I took place. Almost a certainty.
The British were the true puppet master of European politics.
no permanent friends only ,current interests
They were allies of convenience. The peace talks during the Treaty of Vienna demonstrated simmering hostility between the Great Powers already prepared to descent into war once again.
The British w*hord at it again. Same stretagy used now against Russia they did in the Crimean war, not learning from history while Russia did learn, and prepared for it. The sanctions imposed on Russia by the British, US and EU have blown up in their faces. Russia is no more the uneducated impoverished agricultural nation it was under the Tsars. Times have changed and the wests ruling classes becoming more deranged with each inbred generation, dreams of Empires they once had. Using Ukraine to fight their proxi war while impoverishing their own people by imposing sanctions on Russian resources. So now what a nuclear war if Ukraine loses? Russia is one of the three world powers with nukes! Never understood the Crimean war even though it was part of the history in my class was never explained fully what it was about, as it was from the allies point of view. Florance Nightingale, Charge of the Light Brigade etc etc. How brave the Brits were! How entitled. Never understood why they were even in the Black sea and fighting the Russians. They were an Empire and were entitled to Colonise countries by destroying other economies and taking their resources. The Empire which was once coloured red covered half of the world globe!
@@helenegan1079 Lol, the west's sanctions have blown up in their faces. What universe are you in?
I've been to Sveaborg multiple times (Nowadays knows as Finnish castle aka Somen Linna). They told me there that when the British ships came, the cannons in the fotress had a limited range of fire, so couldn't respond in any way as the British ships were too far. And it was remarkable that the heavy British bombardment for 2 days, only killed like 1% of the sheltering soldiers on the Island.
I think it's because if you think in terms of force, is if one's fortress has an absolute range of 200m and a ship has a range of of 250, he can only hit from 200 meters away, wich reduces greatly the power of the canonball hitting the walls. You'd have to find yourself against the wall or directly hit/ricoched to be killed.
1% in 2 days is a LOT though? I mean I get 1% doesn't seem like a lot, but TWO DAYS is a negligible time frame in a relatively large scale war.. and as you say this was achieved without retaliation.
I mean you think of wars like WWI, when ludicrous tonnage in explosive munitions is used for months/years on the same units.. 14% of soldiers were killed supposedly, and 60% of those from the shelling, over 4 years of that scale of shelling which was incomparably higher than this. Doing some quick maths that's 0.01% per 2 days or 1% per 200 days to bombardment. In THE war famous for its absurd bombardments.
@@Tridentus Units in a war are not static things though, your numbers in your second paragraph are insanely suspect without any context on where you pulled them from. Unless you're claiming there was a unit in one spot for the whole war, without getting reinforced and lost 14% during the entire war xD
Also to add, the two days Sveaborg was bombarded was continuous bombardment for 47 hours straight, by 77 ships.
Another amazing video by HM. The legacy of the Crimean War is still being overlooked by many people & I am glad it is getting the recognition it deserves by HM.
The Austrian Empire in the 19th century really had to play their cards right against how other European Powers would attempt to redraw the map of Europe. This sort of work after Napoleon I was first defeated in 1814, but with Prussia's further rise after Waterloo (and other military campaigns) & the Holy Roman Empire now gone, the Austrian Empire began to see its sovereignty being threatened by all sides.
Moreover, Metternich (who parley with Napoleon I in 1813) was ousted in 1848. It was the beginning when the stability of Austria's domestic & foreign policies started to unravel. The resurgence of nationalist revolts gripped the empire, and to which the Habsburgs had to play a balancing game (or limited mobilization by this video) of when to wage war or crush revolts.
Austria had to play the long game to survive when their former British ally & their French rival were beginning to aid the Ottoman Empire against Russia (who were still partially close with Austria given the right circumstances, however, the religious/nationalist revolts created a rift between the two powers). The Holy Alliance was being ripped to shreds during this war, and Austria's troop development in the wake of the Russian retreat in Wallachian and Moldavian lands was the final straw.
Austria became isolated by the end of the Crimean War & their isolation would lead to the Franco-Austrian War. Russia never came to their aid again (like how they always did during pre-1805 & during Napoleon's reign), and thus the decline of Austria led to the demise of the first phase of the Concert of Europe established after the Napoleonic Wars.
This led to German Unification under Prussia, Russia being neutral in the Franco-Prussian War, and Italy's later unification. Almost 3 Alliances of European factions would divide the continent and in which create the very environment leading up to WW1. Austria had to look towards the German Empire to ensure they would be relevant in terms of influence in Europe (partially their former German provinces) & in control of the Balkans via crushing further nationalist moments.
The rest is history...
it is incredible to realize that every great power had such a huge weight, capable of turning the course of history.
There was an independent Greek nation-state already for over 20 years prior to 1853. The map supposedly presenting the Ottoman empire is totally wrong.
Not only the Ottoman Empire, France possessing Barcelona, Sardinia and chunks of Italy in the Piedmont Region ?? The map is definitely off
I think that was to do with the fact that they were part of the allied coalition because at the beginning they weren’t shown as a part of it.
Many in Greece are Slavs deluded for believing themselves to be true Greeks.
Or Austria having chunks of northern italy
@@arolemaprarath6615 Weren't the Austrians beaten only later in Italy ? They had some north Italian territory during the Crimean war.
edit: I checked the video again and maybe indeed they gave too much territory to Austria. Austria had territories in Italy, but maybe not to this point. Or at least, it was more just influence.
Russia was back on it's feet by 1863, when it defended both coasts of the United States against British interference in our Civil War.
'The Russian Fleets of 1863", as it is referred by, stayed the whole summer, and even helped put out a massive fire in San Francisco, losing at least one sailor in the process.
Yes they were in New York too
IMHO, the myth of bearded hungry Russians began with the arrival of the Russian fleet in the US. Because the Russian fleet had to make a twice as long voyage as the British, the Russian fleet left Petersburg without replenishing supplies, so that the British would not suspect that the Russians were setting off on a long voyage. Therefore, Russian sailors were on a meager ration before arriving in the US. When the English fleet arrived at US ports, they found Russian ships there.
They weren’t back on their feet they had to sell Alaska because they were in debt they were barley standing leading all the way to the disaster in ww1 and Russia’s collapse
@@colmcmillan173😂That you are crazy about any hungry you are talking now millions of British people suffer famine and died during the war 7 million British people from starvation😂 lol
@@colmcmillan173😂Russia was the newest and richest from 1680 to 1900 that you are a bot the hungry Britain was dying the British from starvationRussia was the newest and richest from 1680 to 1900 that you are a bot the hungry Britain was dying the British from starvation
Another myth. Russia fought on 6 fronts, from Arkhangelsk to Kamchatka. And the only thing that the coalition of the strongest European countries could do was to occupy half of Sevastopol after almost 2 years of siege. Loss ratio 140k vs 220k. Great "victory".
Это верно.
Instantly clicked when I saw it was a collab with Strategy stuff, one of the most intellectual and interesting channels out there. I also love how Strategy Stuff doesn't pander for views, asking for likes and subs, just puts excellent videos out there and let's them speak for themselves.
One little detail: the man depicted as Russia's leader on the map is Alexander II of Russia. While he indeed was ruler of Russia during the Crimean War, he only became tsar during the later part of it, while during most of the war the man in charge was Nicholas I, Alexander's father, who died in the middle of the war.
I don't understand. Greece gained independence from the Ottoman empire in 1820's, but this map doesn't show any separate Greek state.
This map has a ton of errors. Look at northern Spain, Tuscany rtc
This is an economic map. Obviously Greece doesn't show up. 😉
Their map maker needs fired
I found the explanation helpful that the Crimean War is a good analog for today -- "Limited War". I feel like most people get wrapped up that modern conflicts will result in a Total War situation like WW1 and WW2. Thanks for vid.
Great video as always!! Love it! Keep up the great work HistoryMarche!!
I love the tone and intensity of your videos. Your narrator does a great job.
Great video, It's great to see that you have already corrected yourself on the map, just wanted to say I was very surprised to see the errors which were many and I would expect to see this kind of map in some badly done 6th grade history book, map was subpar to say the least, I wouldnt necessarily blame the person that made the map but whoever was doing quality control should have certainly seen these errors. Be that as it may, we all make mistakes, just glad to see that you are aware of them. I am mostly leaving this comment for alghoritsm sake as I enjoy your channel a lot. The rest of the content, as usual, is very informative and brings great insight to the Crimean War. Looking forward to more 19th century themed videos as I do enjoy these the most. :)
Indeed. Apologies for the map errors. Hopefully it didn't take too much away from the analysis.
Western powers (Christians) were like We must stop Russia for helping Christians in Balkans to get rid of Turks after 300 years so we will support Turks! It doesn’t metter that Turks almost took Vienna few decads ago and it doesnt metter that Serbs were fighting for West for 300 years againts Turks we will give full support to Turks!!! Hypocrisy nothing less than today!
Christianity had zero influence on the politics and values of the west in this conflict.
If they don't pretend to be defenders of the faith, it's not hypocrisy if said faith is not defended by them.
So true
0:30 that map at the start has an error. Part of Greece had already achieved independence from the Ottomans.
This is amazing, thank you for creating and sharing.
I always liked this war, a little underatted, but lots of new tech and old tactics. Beards also came into fashion too.
God has a beard. Case closed.
Good point on the beards. All US presidents that have had a beard were basically in that 20 year time frame around 1860.
@@Dayvit78 Beards are dirty because I can't grow one.
@JAZEX7 'Cause?
During the 1768 - 1774 Russian Ottoman war , Russia was close to conquer the Ottoman Empire
Russia conquered Crimea and kicked the Ottomans out , defeated them in Caucasus , and totally destroyed the Ottoman navy in 1770 during the battle of Chesme
(Battle of Chesme)
a revolt occurred in Greece and Russia formed an alliance with the Mamluk of Egypt Ali Bey al Kabir who kicked the Ottomans out of Egypt and marched towards Syria with Russian support
(Ali Bey al Kabir)
Russia bombed and occupied Beirut , at that time the Ottoman Empire lost all of it's Arab provinces as Iraq was ruled by Kulmnd Mamluks and Syria was falling as well , Russia had the Ottomans on their knees , but Britain , Austria and Prussia saved the Ottomans and prevented Russia from conquering Constantinople
Russia tried again in 1791 and 1878 and was too close but the Western powers feared a very powerful Russia .
The one that gained the most were Prussia and Bismarck they use this opportunity to enter in the world stage and they did just that
Also Cavour
Loving the background music. Truly the music of a brilliant history lesson 👏🏽 🙌🏽
It seems that Russia has studied this war, likely more than the US has. Russia has refused to mobilize, it prepared economic systems to mitigate the effects of a sanctions regime, it prepared ammunition stockpiles, it used diplomacy to gain allies, it is using equipment of equal quality to the opposing force and it has from the outset publicly rejected broader hegemonic goals for its military actions. The West/US has also not made the errors of the Crimean allies in finding a proxy army to do their fighting, rather than sending expeditionary forces.
It would seem, if anything, that NATO has underestimated the Russians and their ability to inflict economic costs on them. I wonder if the wheat of Ukraine was stopped during the Crimean War. My impression is that it was a critical feature of the European food supply of the time.
Still now Russians failed to achieve their primary goal - to defeat Ukraine in few days and transform it in a puppet state . They failed to stop NATO advancing - see Sweden and Finland joining . They failed to break the West's unity , at least for now . They failed to find real allies , only declarations and some frustrated underdeveloped nations . They failed to prepare the economy because they don't have a viable one without the West's technology . They are burning their own gas on air , because they don't have clients anymore . Their crude will freeze in the pipes . 6 months of war show how incapable is Russia to fight a conventional war, more less to occupy territories .
@@seaman5705 I think Russia has found significant support from China. That was the alliance I was thinking of primarily. India I would not consider an ally but they are a friendly neutral and major purchaser of Russian commodities now that Europeans have shut the door.
I’ve heard that the Victoria Cross - that medal given to the bravest of British soldiers is made from the metal of a canon that was used during the Crimean War. Curious if anyone has heard this as well
Explains how it is made and from what, where about midway through
The VC is definitely made from the metal taken from captured cannons, however the current thinking (based on the metallurgy) is that it's from captured Chinese cannons and not Russian cannons - although the could be Chinese cannons, captured by the Russians and then captured by the Brits?
@@ronhall9394 Agreed - Yes that was my understanding as well. Bottom line is anyone who has won one of those, has earnt it.
I've watched a documentary on it. It specifies that the metal comes from "guns captured at Sevastopol in the Crimean war". The material is bronze.
*The Crimean War in a Nutshell*
Russia: *It’s time to end the Turks once and for all*
The Ottoman Empire: *Insert Screaming*
Britain and France: *NO! Only we’re allowed to destroy the Ottomans! Not You!*
Russia: *You Fools; Don’t you see that Prussia and Austria will help me!?*
Prussia and Austria: *…*
Russia: *Blyat*
Before British and French joined the war, the Ottomans defeated the Russians in Wallachia and Moldavia and they regained their lost vassals in 1828.They only lost the Battle of the Sea, but it did not affect the war much. The biggest reason why the Ottomans were able to cope well with the Russians was the modern reforms of Sultan Mahmut II in the army.
@@scourgeofgodattila579 nice copypaste bro
@@Yanramich I wrote all of them, but the Ottomans are upsetting you children. Drink your milk kid.
@@scourgeofgodattila579 "wrote them all" man do you really want for me to ask for your Discord to send you the commentator who wrote the exact same thing an hour ago
@@Yanramich because they took the letter from me. I am a researcher in Ottoman and Turkic history.
Very well made. I had the feeling you focus more on the military aspects of war, but this video proved me wrong.
The fact you have been able to navigate this as well as you have is impressive.
Dead dogs and shit in Istanbul, and one British sailor said, "And we're fighting for this?"
You guys are amazing! Respect!
The economic warfare and blockade is what forced Russia to the table. Read professor Andrew Lambert's study on he war and the naval side of things, very good read.
Great to see Strategy Stuff again, welcome back!
Thank you for this concise & informative video. As a history lover I was aware of the Crimean War, of course; I had no clear grasp on it's origins, events, nor even all the participants. Florence Nightengale & Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade are well known in our culture, the Crimean War itself, oddly enough, is hardly known at all.
Discussing the conclusions in a different scene was a very nice touch. It allowed me to focus more on the concepts at hand, rather than still staring at the map :D
Another great video as always!
Thanks KHK, and cheers for joining the live stream!
This was a video I didn’t know I needed! Such a fantastic job!!
I never looked into the Crimean War before, it's interesting how much of a clusterfuck it was. Kind of feels like the Allies won in spite of themselves.
I still don’t know what exactly the Allies won. Since they fought simply disgustingly, they did not acquire new territories.
After this victory, neither France nor Great Britain attacked Russian territory. For the victors, this is at least strange, as is the fact that they lost more soldiers than the Russians.
The whole team on this channel is doing an amazing job, I love every video you post and I always look forward to a new video. Keep up the work you're doing because you're doing amazingly well.😁😁
Thank you so much!
That far closer to excellence this video. The best produced by HM yet. Kudos!
Yet another fabulously entertaining and educational video on historic subjects.
Russians lost crimean war and... ???
British light cavalry destroyed.
Otomans lost trade privilege in low danube and soon colapse in 1877.
We see disaster in french army when started next prussian-french war.
And russians still own crimea.
Good.
Cope.
Conveniently left out that the Russians got whooped by Japan, stomped by the German Empire, lost to communists, almost lost again to Germany, then fell off from being the second biggest economy to not even being in the top ten biggest economies which Germany, the UK, and France are still in.
@@Sceptonic Russian economy is grossly underestimated, so much so in fact that all of the above that you mentioned are suffering from the sanctions that they imposed on russia, not the other way around.
@@zmajooov Sounds like cope to me
@@Sceptonic i only stated the blatantly obvious, so stop projecting
@@Sceptonic now Russian 7 2.4T bot
It's amazing, it feels like some of the things going on then are still happening in the present.
I leave this comment as a sacrifice to your great content.
A very relevant case study indeed.
I hope you will do a video about the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish war!
We keep forgetting that allied squadrons were also sent to other Russian ports in the North and East, which is logical if you want to set up a blockade. However, there they ended up completely ingloriously and fled, although there was a limited Russian garrison there and they were defended mainly by the local population. However, the local population were mostly hunters and were excellent with guns.
The British also made pirate raids on Russian villages on the coast of the White Seas. But local hunters, having heard about it, got together and started hunting for pirates. Having landed to plunder the Russian village, the British were attacked by Russian hunters. They began to shoot the English sailors like partridges, and they fled to the ships in a panic. Then they fired at the village from the ships. But they did not get the effect, because the village was on a hill behind the hill and the shooting was ineffective.
English pirates also attacked the famous Russian monastery on the island. The fortress of the monastery is one of the wonders of the world. It is built from huge boulders. The English ships could not harm it, and the Russian monks also had artillery and the British could not come close.
The French and English squadron also attacked Vladivostok. But the Russians were warned by American merchants and the Russians prepared in advance. They gathered scant artillery and arranged a few batteries. And also gathered local hunters. When the British ships decided to enter the bay of Vladivostok under a false flag to measure the depths, they were attacked. With great difficulty, the allies destroyed one of the 7 Russian batteries and began landing on a hill on the shore. But there they were also met by Russian hunters and the allies began to panic. Subsequently, the allies said that they were shot in the jungle. Although it was just a bush on a hill and there is no jungle in the north. After that, the allies fled in disgrace...
Btw, on the eve of the attack, for some unknown reason, a French admiral shot himself.
I want to say that the Russian people put up a heroic resistance, gathering all available resources and accepting the militia, while the tsar surrendered limply. Just like Nicholas II during WWI. Maybe because the kings had German blood?
I know HistoryMarche acknowledges its error but keeping Alexander II's face up there the whole time hides the fact that it was the complete failure of a tsar Nicholas I who started and led most of the debacle.
The Russian army's bloody farce of a performance was a key reason for Alexander's lI's liberation of the serfs in 1861, as the Russian government realized its slave soldiers were no match for the free soldiers of its enemies.
The Crimean War in general demonstrated the weakness and backwardness of the Russian state at the time and how badly reforms were needed. Nicholas, one of the worst tsars, was fortunately followed by the reformist Alexander II, one of the best.
I have many questions for you. For example, what exactly did France and Great Britain get in the end?
How exactly did they win?
Politically, did they make any profits at all?
Russia helped the US with the civil war. Helped Germany unify. Romania gained independence, as did Bulgaria. And Russia increased its territories in Central Asia.
It is clear that Russia lost, but I don’t understand what the Allies gained from this?
Don't worry, I don't mind at all if Russia loses 2 out of 10 wars on Wikipedia, and I'm ready for the British to get their share of national pride. But I just don't really understand what it was. From the outside, this war looks as if people ran up with bare penises and slobbered all over the Russians, and then ran away, declared themselves winners, and it never happened again.
thanks for the history lesson,i wish school had been more like this
What irony. Not only England and France did not help to stop the Turkey's expansion to Europe, they sided with a non-Christian power to stop Russia. Russia was winning the war against Turkey and its ultimate goal was to regain Constantinople. This helped the Turks to maintain its possession, in spite of future losses in Balkans with its Christian states gaining independence. The consequences are seen today. Week Ottoman empire, which would have likely lost more land to Greece, is now again a major force.
That being said, Turkey is a significant force now mainly because their previously high birthrate completely changed the demographics (and also because of some good past leaders, like atatturk and his reforms). By the end of WW1, there was 12-13 million people in Turkey (65 million in Germany and 40 million in France in comparison). Today, Germany has 81 million people and Turkey 83 million. Territory has less to do with power compared with demography.
well Georgia sided with Russia on the basis of same faith yet Russia betrayed them :P fuck them Russians historically and modern times wise
English and French Care more about their Empires more Than What is Good for the well-being of Europe.
Not birth rate but because western countries financially and militarily support them
@@xenotyposMight as well recreate the Ottoman empire again....?
Very interesting. I was not aware of the fighting in the Baltic.
Is there a reason why Catalonia is part of the French Empire?
Catalonia being a part of France is TRIGGERING ME AHHHHHH
Why do only negative and demonizing videos about Russia come out?
Better tell about the Russian-Turkish war of 1878 or about Russia's victories over Sweden.
@Judah Dada I have seen.
Just because of the conflict in Ukraine, everyone seems to have gone crazy. And many bloggers, racists, those exposed to propaganda release videos where they are trying to dehumanize Russians or somehow humiliate Russia. Not paying attention to the fact that people live there too. And not paying attention to the aggression of the British Empire against Africa, the Indians, China and the US invasion of various countries
Take this as an advantage. Ultimately, Russia is the country that defeated Napoleon, and therefore its physical existence does not fit into the Concert of Europe.
Take it out of context that Russia gave independence to Greece, Bulgaria and Romania and think about the fact that Russia should not win all the wars in the world on paper.
If the British get their national pride, but the map of Russia is larger, then let it be written in their history textbook that we, the Russians, lost.
Love the New upgrade edits
This war is a primary example showing that the current hostile Western European stance against Russia isn't actually anything new. The Brits and French unexpectionally supported Greeks in every single conflict they had with the Ottomans such a favor wasn't the case for the likewise Orthodox Russians, at least not always. This policy is mostly attributed to the fact that Greeks were seen as some sort of ancient major contributors to the Western civilization whereas Russians were just viewed as a bunch of rootless Slavic barbarians. Observing historical events like these and connecting them with present day world events will never disappoint
You know Slav is actually a slur not saying don't use it but it's rooted in a deeper meaning and history
Based
Before British and French joined the war, the Ottomans defeated the Russians in Wallachia and Moldavia and they regained their lost vassals in 1828.They only lost the Battle of the Sea, but it did not affect the war much. The biggest reason why the Ottomans were able to cope well with the Russians was the modern reforms of Sultan Mahmut II in the army.
@@michaelcarney6280 *was. It no longer is. Slavs proudly call themselves slavs.
Omer Lutfi Pasha,Osman Nuri Pasha,Ahmet Muhtar Pasha and Ali İhsan Pasha the last elite generals of the Ottoman Empire.
Another stellar H&G analysis of a complex geo/political and military event that still influences European policy to this day. Great job!!
Really amazing story, i hope my channel can create like this
Great video explaining the greater context of the war. Most histories of the war make the exact same mistake the allies did and emphasis the campaign in Crimea.
"screw this one country in particular" European states every couple of years against another random European state
Ein wundervolles Video. Herzlichen Dank. In Deutschland wird leider sehr wenig über den Krimkrieg veröffentlicht.
My own study of the Russian loss in the Crimean War suggested to me that it was Russian technological backwardness (no good roads from Kiev south, let alone railroads; guns that shot one-third as far as Allied rifles; inability to alter orders under fire) that produced the Russian defeat.
Railways? Why not mention helicopters?
@@annoyingbstard9407 My first language Is not English but I think he means the road where trains go
@@annoyingbstard9407 what bothers you about the railways?
They were being built for a while at the time.!
So why not one like Moskva - Kiev- Sevastapol?
Helicopters? Very funny.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Railroads were developed in the late 1810s. The Crimean War was in the middle 1850s. As a matter of fact, there were quite a few railroads by that time throughout Europe; Russia had one running between Moscow and St. Petersburg.
@@meofamily4 Ok. It’s RUclips, so idiots are allowed to say whatever they like.
Very good conclusion, very pertinent !
Did anyone read the book Crimea The Last Crusade by Orlando Figes? It's an outstanding piece of popular history, explaining meticulously this fascinating but forgotten period.
After studying the issue somewhat, some major points need to be addressed. One, Palmerston's stated goal of ripping Russia up into smaller more controllable countries that could be dominated economically. America's support for Russia which factored later in Russia supporting Lincoln in the Civil War. Napoleon III as Palmerston's stooge using the pretext of Orthodox/Catholic protection as a Casus Belli. Palmerston's agent Urquhart and the use of the Ottomans as a buffer between Russia and British influenced areas like Persia or their colonies such as India that later became the Great Game.
Glad to see that Crimea is now back firmly in Russian hands.
No water for them since they stole it lmao thank God Ukraine controls the water for crimea
For now.
Um, answer this > Has Ukraine really tried to go on imperial designs on the European continent? .... Answer > No.
Query: Why have any ruling faction in Russia ALWAYS seek to Imperialism adventure? … I really don't know. Do you?
USA's presence globally is the result of CORPORATE desire to seek profits for the elites (per say, the captains of industry.) use $$$ to make U.S. politicians their bitch, because WAR = corporate profits. No joke, elites subtly seek to enslave everyone else ethnically notwithstanding.
Wake up people.
POLITICS played by the wealthy elites is what brought down the Roman Empire. Is the USA within our lifetime next?
Keep having strategy stuff write the scripts. The guys talent for synthesis and analysis is incredible. The Crimean war is so often portrayed as a battle for Sevastopol that the true reasons for Russias defeat are completely obscured..
This channel has honestly one of the best history videos on the platform
Excellent video
Technological advantage
The Allied bombard ships made all costal fortifications in the Empire useless
Somewhat relevant today, surprisingly. Nato surely will need to mobilise industries to replenish their stocks.
Hi Napolepn did you forget how ended up your invincible Great Army in Russia in 1812? Do you want NATO to repeat the same mistake? :-)
@@Jakubescu bruh NATO is physically incapable of "repeating the same mistake" because they're just orders of magnitude more powerful than Russia aka fat north Korea 🤣
@@Jakubescu except it's other way around and it's Russia who is invading hostile country with limited logistics lol
Different scenarios now they didn’t bombs that can destroy counties back then if nato gets involved ww3 will be at the doorstep
You sure are everywhere, Napoleon.
During the Crimean War, the Russian Empire was ruled by Nicholas 1 until 1855, but the video shows a photo of Emperor Alexander 2
The Crimean War is essentially a Russian-Ottoman war and Crimean War is not just about the Crimean Front. Major conflicts took place in the Caucasus and the Balkans. As a result of this war, 175,300 Ottoman soldiers died at this battle. In the video, however, the Ottomans and their losses are not mentioned in any way. First of all, it's disrespectful to the soldiers who died. History is not just about the English and the French losses.
Wikipedia has a sourced number of 45,000 casualties for the Ottomans, compared with 135,000 casualties for the French (who had the most soldiers in this war). Note that "casualty", doesn't mean death. The role of France easily overshadowed the Ottoman's role. Britain too strategically since they had the largest navy and since navies were very important in this war. That being said, I totally agree that the Ottomans and their casualties should have been mentioned, as a form of respect. This and that, are two different things.
@@xenotypos it looks so Fishy. İt İs either french casualities exaggerated or turkish casualities lowered.. İt doesn't make sense..
@@Polo-rn8ly Wtf lol what is "fishy" about it, it's the historical consensus there's no debate about it. Those are not some numbers from antiquity, figures about 19th century wars are very serious. And it's relatively normal casualties considering the troups involved.
Well done!!!
Crimea was Russian when the war ended.
My gross ignorance of this era and the conflict with Russia was diminished in important ways with this case. Thanks.
Alexander II was tzar only in 2nd part of the war.
in 1854 it was Nikolay I
Niko would fight to the last Russian. He was insane hawk
Ah very nice video, congratulations !!!!!!!!
Thank you so much 😀
I approve Catalan France
Great video! Thank you
''Russia dominating the Balkans'' was actually a sign of hope for the local Christian population to finally gain their freedom from the Ottoman Muslim Empire. It seems like Western Europe fought for the Muslims not for Europe, what a disgrace, its all about interests and money.
Britain in particular was terrified of growing Russian power especially if Russia would take Constantinople and control the Dardanelles.
Britain stopped caring about christians a long time ago..they even supported ottomans during greek independence war..no wonder now they suffer from the muslims the the most
“Western Europe fought for Muslims not Europe,”
1. This is such a weird thing to say about 19th century warfare. France, Britain and Russia weren’t shaping their geo-political decisions around the “Islam vs Christendom” divide anymore. It was all about imperialism and balance of powers.
2. The Balkans had a significant European Muslim plurality by the 19th century. So the Europe VS Muslims dichotomy doesn’t make any sense.
3. The Ottoman bureaucracy was arguably by this point, just as European dominated as Russia was.
@Timur Sayfullah antolia hosted a lot of greek,armenian and Bulgarian population too you know before the genocide and stuffs
When russia annex several regions in Ukraine and Moldova from ottomans and tatars, several locasl orthodox faith were forced to follow russian version of orthodoxy and local language were curb off under name of national unity. Not the pagan Mongols and nor their muslims successors dare to interfere with local religion and language during thier overlord. Yeah so much help from Russia Christian.
So now we are going to revisit all historical russian losses lol
Add the current war to that list
Great content well done 👍
FOR THE ALGORITHM!
"as a sacrifice to the algorithm." Ha. Great narration, research, and graphics!
Wallachia and Moldova were not part of Austrian Empire
Indeed. Should have been painted in the Ottoman Empire colors and hash over the Russian control after the 1829 Adrianople treaty. The most posh avenue in Bucharest is named, for good reason, after Pavel Kisseleff, Russian governor of the two Romanian principalities and later, after 1856, as ambassador to France, advocate for the unification of the two, which happened in 1859.
We just didn't show the map change after the war. But Wallachia and Moldavia went back to the Ottomans after the Crimean war ended.
@@autnocens W & M could have also been hashed as Austrian, since an Austrian army occupied them as the Russian evacuated, and stayed there - I forget exactly how long - a year or so.
Very good video! Explains a lot.
Russia in a war with 3 Superpowers- How did Russia lose the war?..... I would ask - was it even a possibility to win the war vs 3 Great Powers of the day???
Piedmont-Sardinia and the Ottoman Empire were far from superpowers
@@Sceptonic I would call an empire that has huge amount of land on 3 continents to be a Superpower - The Ottoman Empire. The French and British empires are in control of most of the world at that time. Piedmont-Sardinia was trying to get a higher position through support of this war.... and soon that will pay out when they stand at the center of the Unification of Italy-thus soon they also become a great power in Europe....
If Russia had lost the crimean war wouldn't crimea be back in hands of brits or French as a fort? But still it remained in hands of Russians after war why?
Also Ottoman fought in navaris with 3 great powers.British,France and Russia. In fact, the Ottoman Empire always fought alone against the European coalition for most of its history.
@@kaloyanradkov8962 Huge difference between great power and superpower. At the time one could make the case that neither were great powers let alone superpowers.
6:25
Great Britain 🇬🇧 and France 🇫🇷 were brilliant.
No way, Russian 800k army could reach them without provoking others.
Brilliant 👏
It's always against Russia.. isn't it?
I guess it is a good thing that the Allies were somewhat strategically inept, had a large-scale conflict between the Allies and Russia developed, a Europe-wide great-power conflict could have developed, which would have lead to countless deaths.
Yeah it's not like it happened either way a few decades later or something
@@privatebandana If both had happened is what I'm after
y isnt greece on the map?
Sacrifice to the algoritm it is! Great stuff as always. Many thanks!
Map is wrong. Greece was independent at the time....
Well done! Very even-handed, and full of info BBC sponsored docs don't reveal. Makes all the Allied losses due to disease in the Crimea seem more tragic.
Hahaha 15:50 allies dared not attack anything more defended than Russian fishing villages at the coast. Ukraine does the same now by bombarding Donetsk while not attacking Russian army regiments. So it's the typical behavior of the west :) Didn't know Russia ever lost a physical war to anyone but Mongols.
21:30 "Much to the disappointment to the remaining british orcs"?
Really interesting to listen
"No Papa, don't do it!"
"Sorry, son, but I love HistoryMarche more than I love you. I have to do it."
*Stabs it in the chest, then opens it up and takes out his heart, raising it towards the heavens:
"For the ALGORITHM!"
If I did not know the history of the Crimean War of 1856, I would not understand anything. We hear a certain set of some assumptions and regrets. Britain was simply afraid that Russia would take India from her. I mean the constant rivalry between Russia and Great Britain over Afghanistan, which served as the road to India. All events took place around this. There is no doubt that the British were hawks, but they were very afraid that Russia would deprive them of the main southern wealth - India. The war was the result of misguided Russian diplomacy and British fear, which was the result of the English's ignorance of geography. However, the Central Asian regions of Afghanistan, Bukhara, Khiva were really poorly studied at that time. The British feared that Russia, having defeated the Turks in Istanbul, would enter the trade route between India and Great Britain in the Mediterranean Sea and pose a threat to these supply routes. This was central to this conflict. The military victory in Sevastopol brought absolutely nothing to England, France and Turkey. The Russians exchanged Sevastopol for several fortresses in Transcaucasia taken from the Turks. There were some problems with the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, but they were eventually resolved. What a shameful story, I think. 🙂