Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ottoman involvement in the Crimean War

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ottoman involvement in the Crimean War
    Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 13:53
The Crimean War, until European intervention, was a disaster for the Ottoman Empire. After not adopting iron clads and more modern modes of warfare they were getting spanked. Had not the Europeans intervened there is a very good chance the Russians would've conquered the Ottoman Empire and relatively easy.
 
After France and Britain joined, the tides seemed to turn. However whenever the Russians attacked the Ottomans defeat ensued for the Ottomans. They say the British and French did not trust the Ottomans in major battles. To my understanding the French and British made the Ottoman's moves for them and asked the Ottomans to stay out of their affairs.
 
Why didn't the British and French utilize some of the Ottoman forces? Did they find them so backwards that they would be more of a burden then help? The Russians fought well and were able to steal a couple of victories against the British and French but spanked the Ottomans most of the time. The only times the Ottomans won some minor battles is when they had to hold out and usually received French and British help.
 
My question is how important were Ottoman forces in the Crimean War and had not the European forces intervened would Russia have conquered Istanbul and subsuquently the Ottoman Empire?
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 14:24
Originally posted by andrew

The Crimean War, until European intervention, was a disaster for the Ottoman Empire. After not adopting iron clads and more modern modes of warfare they were getting spanked.
 
Yes, and financially they were not really able to have much.
 
Ottomans had battleships, but they were not in Sinope at the time.
 
However, the incident where the Ottoman navy was burned in the port of Sinope took place in a sudden attack made by Russians.Surprise element.But in any case, Ottomans just had frigates and corvettes while Russian Navy struck with battleships
 
After the Crimean War, with the era of Abdulaziz, large amount of money was borrowed from European countries and Abdulaziz invested in the navy; a lot...Some sources say that near the end of Abdulaziz era, Ottoman navy was one of the most formidable navies in Europe, coming after Britain and France. 
 
Originally posted by andrew

 
Had not the Europeans intervened there is a very good chance the Russians would've conquered the Ottoman Empire and relatively easy.
 
had not the European forces intervened would Russia have conquered Istanbul and subsuquently the Ottoman Empire?
 
Well, total conquest of any country, big or small is not easy at all...Ottoman Empire was not the Kingdom of Liechtenstein...Despite not having financial and industrial resources and enough technology for modernization of army, it was still a major power.
 
But, yes, in fact, it is true that Russians could have ran over in Balkans and Caucasus and made huge gains.
 
That's in fact why Britain and France intervened Wink...They were not willing to leave Ottoman Empire's valuable possessions to the Bear of the East as they call it, Russia.  
 
Originally posted by andrew

 
However whenever the Russians attacked the Ottomans defeat ensued for the Ottomans.
 
If you are talking about the initial battles in Romania that is true because Russian army had the element of surprise against an unprepared enemy, also was technologically and numerically superior.
 
However, that is untrue for the battles in Crimea. 
 
Originally posted by andrew

They say the British and French did not trust the Ottomans in major battles. To my understanding the French and British made the Ottoman's moves for them and asked the Ottomans to stay out of their affairs.
 
In the planning phase, yes, British and French were doing that phase. What do you exactly mean by "Not trusting Ottomans"? To their generals or to their soldiers? First is partially true, they were undermining their Ottoman colleagues but Ottomans were not totally out of the business, though Brits-French making the final decisions. but the second is untrue.
 
Originally posted by andrew

Why didn't the British and French utilize some of the Ottoman forces? Did they find them so backwards that they would be more of a burden then help? The Russians fought well and were able to steal a couple of victories against the British and French but spanked the Ottomans most of the time. The only times the Ottomans won some minor battles is when they had to hold out and usually received French and British help.
 
 how important were Ottoman forces in the Crimean War
 
There is a very common misconception about the Crimean War. People seem to have the idea that only British and French troops were sent to Crimea and fought there. The epic but fictive narrations of some British writers seem to support this idea..
 
But this is very wrong from wherever you got that.
 
It is true that Ottoman troops were not matching their British and French counterparts in terms of military education and especially military equipment(from rifles, to helmets, from uniforms to boots) at the time. However, discipline and bravery of them were not inferior to any of the others.They were not spankmonkey of Russian army as you wrote.
 
Hundreds thousands of Ottoman troops were sent to Crimea, transported by British-French ships. They often were also assigned to serve under the Supreme command of British-French officers and generals, while having their own officers(The language differences were a huge problem for the camp against Russia, as it can be interpreted) and fought, defended as best as they can with their military equipment and weapons, which was inferior comparing to others. , For any duty in such a long term war, you need men...To watch the enemy, to work in the ports for ships to come ashore, to serve as patrols, to jump forward in front of the battle line, anything and everything you can imagine of...Many of those subsidiary services were mostly provided by the Ottoman soldiers. It was impossible for British and French to hold on in Crimea without the presence of Ottoman army there, that's a very clear fact. Logistically, numerically, or in any sense.
 
Ottoman Empire was the main supplier of the food the British/French/Ottoman army in Crimea needed...The war lasted for 3 years..Imagine how it was important in terms of logistics...
 
In fact, just a single proof is enough; Ottoman casualties in Crimean War was twice the British casualties.


Edited by Kapikulu - 19-Jun-2007 at 17:22
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 14:26

For sure, without Aglo-French involvement Ottoman Empire would be defeated.

Allies didn't trust Turks and most of the time Turkish soldiers were employed as a labor force for digging trenches, performing siege works etc.

In fact while, Allies eventually were able to take Sevastopol in Crimea on another, Anatolian front of the war Turkish army was complitely rooted with Russians taking the strategic Kars fortress.

However, recently, I watched on the history channel a new interpretation of the battle of Balaklava. They were basicly saying that "the thin red line" was able to hold only due to the Turkish soldiers. There were like 3 times more Turks in this line than Scots. So basically, Scots just stole all the glory from the Turks.

 



Edited by Sarmat12 - 20-Jun-2007 at 02:41
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 14:33
Originally posted by Sarmat12

For sure, without Aglo-French involvement Ottoman Empire would be defeated.

 
Yes,surely would be defeated, but saying totally conquered would be harsh. I think what we'd see then be a copy of what exactly happened in and after 1877-78 War...
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

In fact while, Allies eventually were able to take Sevastopol in Crimea on another, Anatolian front of the war Turkish army was complitely rooted with Russians taking the strategic Kars fortress.
 
A part of the Ottoman army...The battle in Caucasus was not a priority for both sides. The battle in the Balkans had more priority, but that ceased to be a serious battleground after Austrian Empire threatened to intervene the war on the Ottoman-French-British side if Russia had invaded Romania.
 
Hehe, interesting political games were turning on the tableSmile
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

However, recently, I watched on the history channel a new interpretation of the battle of Balaklava. They were basicly saying that "the thin red line" was able to hold only due to the Turkish soldiers. There were like 3 times more Turks in this line than Scots. So basically, Scot just stole all the glory from the Turks.

 
Yes, that's true and confirmed by many sources. I watched the same documentary in History Channel and that was already confirmed by many historians.
 
As I also said above, the epic but fictive narrative of British writers are taken seriously and this creates misconceptions in people's minds about Crimean War..


Edited by Kapikulu - 19-Jun-2007 at 14:34
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 15:11
Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
The battle in Caucasus was not a priority for both sides.
 
That is true. Crimea was the main battle ground, but eventually Turks had to withdraw their main forces from Crimea in order to protect their native lands in Anatolia. However, they were not able to save Kars and the war was basically over after Kars had been taken.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 16:45
Ottoman navy third best in Europe? I wouldn't think so. They were at that time a thrid-tear producer of weapons and did not adopt iron clads until very late. They needed Brititish naval experts to modernize the navey correct?
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 18:33
Originally posted by andrew

Ottoman navy third best in Europe? I wouldn't think so. They were at that time a thrid-tear producer of weapons and did not adopt iron clads until very late. They needed Brititish naval experts to modernize the navey correct?
 
The adoption of ironclads to the Ottoman navy began right after the Crimean War.
 
Of course, the large ironclads were bought from other countries. But in exchange for huge debts(Read details below)
 
Though, Ottomans were able to produce small-scale ships in their docks in Hali(Golden Horn)..
 
The bright age of the navy only lasted during Abdulaziz era(1856-1876) and that was the point Ottomans had the third strongest navy of Europe...Those ships also got old by time and became old technology. In any case, Abdulhamid II, who was an intelligent but an absolutely paranoiac Sultan, chained all the ships to the Golden Horn and left them to decay, as he was afraid that the navy could be used to depose him one night...Ouch...Some of these ships, like Mesudieh, was still in use during WW I...Huge and modern ship at the time, a weak tinplate in WW I.
 
Also, the Ottoman Empire took its first external debt during the Crimean War and continued to take external debts till it had gone bankrupt in 1880s and Duyun-u Umumiye(The Administration Council of Debts) was founded by European states. That had put whole Ottoman economy under the control of European states and those states simply mortgaged all the Ottoman profits. That was how Ottomans were able to buy the ships.
 
Those debts were inefficiently invested in building a new navy and grand palaces.Sleepy
 
 
 
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 19:19
I thought the Ottoman navy was annihalated at the Battle of Navarino no longer being a maritime power, having the weakest navy in Europe. They had to depend of the navy of Egypt in many instances in order to beat back the Greek navy.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 01:14
Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

However, recently, I watched on the history channel a new interpretation of the battle of Balaklava. They were basicly saying that "the thin red line" was able to hold only due to the Turkish soldiers. There were like 3 times more Turks in this line than Scots. So basically, Scot just stole all the glory from the Turks.

 
Yes, that's true and confirmed by many sources. I watched the same documentary in History Channel and that was already confirmed by many historians.
 
 
Terry Brighton in his book 'Hell Riders' claims that there were only 400 Russian cavalrymen who charged 550 Scotish soldiers and unknown number of Turkish ones. If it is true that there was the proportion 3 Turks to 1 Scot, we have about 1650 Turkish soldiers in 'the thin red line'.
So, 400 Russian cavalrymen charged enemies who outnumbered them over 5 times! It is reason good enough to be stopped Wink Especially that although the first salvo of Scotish-Turkish soldiers didn't kill any Russian cavalryman, Russians withdrew.


Edited by ataman - 20-Jun-2007 at 01:15
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 02:20
Originally posted by ataman

 
Terry Brighton in his book 'Hell Riders' claims that there were only 400 Russian cavalrymen who charged 550 Scotish soldiers and unknown number of Turkish ones. If it is true that there was the proportion 3 Turks to 1 Scot, we have about 1650 Turkish soldiers in 'the thin red line'.
So, 400 Russian cavalrymen charged enemies who outnumbered them over 5 times! It is reason good enough to be stopped Wink Especially that although the first salvo of Scotish-Turkish soldiers didn't kill any Russian cavalryman, Russians withdrew.
 
 In this case, what is the point of the "thin red line" legend ? Unless, it relates to the Russian cavalrymen. LOL 
 
400 heroic Russians charged 2200 enemies.
 
"Thins red line" in big quotation marks...
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 03:19
Originally posted by andrew

I thought the Ottoman navy was annihalated at the Battle of Navarino no longer being a maritime power, having the weakest navy in Europe. They had to depend of the navy of Egypt in many instances in order to beat back the Greek navy.
 
Navarino was 1827, the time period I am mentioning is 1860s...
 
And it was not the Greek navy in Navarino, but a joint Anglo-French-Russian navy.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 08:34
 
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by ataman

 
Terry Brighton in his book 'Hell Riders' claims that there were only 400 Russian cavalrymen who charged 550 Scotish soldiers and unknown number of Turkish ones. If it is true that there was the proportion 3 Turks to 1 Scot, we have about 1650 Turkish soldiers in 'the thin red line'.
So, 400 Russian cavalrymen charged enemies who outnumbered them over 5 times! It is reason good enough to be stopped Wink Especially that although the first salvo of Scotish-Turkish soldiers didn't kill any Russian cavalryman, Russians withdrew.
 
 In this case, what is the point of the "thin red line" legend ? Unless, it relates to the Russian cavalrymen. LOL 
 
400 heroic Russians charged 2200 enemies.
 
"Thins red line" in big quotation marks...
 
The conventional figure has always been about 3,000 Russian cavalry in the initial advance, somewhat under half of which attacked the 93rd Highlanders, the rest being defeated by the British Heavy Brigade. There are mentions of either Royal Marines or Guardsmen with the 93rd, but the Turkish forces around the incident consisted of artillerymen, and the artillery (British and Turkish) had already withdrawn. The line that was formed on the Kadikoi ridge did not involve Turkish participation, which gives something like a 5:1 advantage to the cavalry.
 
There's a detailed description of the whole battle at http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-balaclava.htm
 
What I find interesting is that the infantry fought cavalry in line and not in square, against conventional wisdom, or at least wisdom that would have been considered conventional in the Napoleonic Wars.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 11:31
Originally posted by gcle2003

The conventional figure has always been about 3,000 Russian cavalry in the initial advance,
 
That's correct.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

somewhat under half of which attacked the 93rd Highlanders, the rest being defeated by the British Heavy Brigade.
 
That's incorrect (at least Brighton doesn't agree with this). According to Brighton, who has based on primary sources, the Heavy Brigade (800 cavalrymen) fought with Russian cavalry, which outnumbered British one 2-3 times. Different primary sources give numbers of that part of Russian cavalry between 1500-3500. The lowest number is in colonel Richard Godman's relation (1500-2000 Russians).
The rest Russian cavalry (meaning 400 cavalrymen - according to Brighton) charged British-Turkish infantry. The infantry was supported by cannons.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

There are mentions of either Royal Marines or Guardsmen with the 93rd, but the Turkish forces around the incident consisted of artillerymen, and the artillery (British and Turkish) had already withdrawn. The line that was formed on the Kadikoi ridge did not involve Turkish participation, which gives something like a 5:1 advantage to the cavalry.
 
Well, Brighton has quoted primary sources (captain Shakespear's relation, Donald Cameron's relation) which clearly show that the thin red line was composed of British and Turkish soldiers supported by artillery.


Edited by ataman - 20-Jun-2007 at 11:36
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2007 at 19:56
Britain and French probably didn't want the Russians to be too powerful, but at the same time... they didn't want the Turks to be too powerful either. If Ottoman Empire regains its true potential, Britain's valuable colonies and routes like Suez Canal and India would be threatened. It's all about the balance of power...
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 09:20
 
Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by gcle2003

The conventional figure has always been about 3,000 Russian cavalry in the initial advance,
 
That's correct.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

somewhat under half of which attacked the 93rd Highlanders, the rest being defeated by the British Heavy Brigade.
 
That's incorrect (at least Brighton doesn't agree with this). According to Brighton, who has based on primary sources, the Heavy Brigade (800 cavalrymen) fought with Russian cavalry, which outnumbered British one 2-3 times. Different primary sources give numbers of that part of Russian cavalry between 1500-3500. The lowest number is in colonel Richard Godman's relation (1500-2000 Russians).
The rest Russian cavalry (meaning 400 cavalrymen - according to Brighton) charged British-Turkish infantry. The infantry was supported by cannons.
The troops in the areas were, there's no doubt, British and Turkish, but the Turks were artillerymen not infantry, and the artillery had withdrawn, after, indeed, spiking many but unfortunately not all of their guns. There was no artillery support against the cavalry charge up the ridge.
Originally posted by gcle2003

There are mentions of either Royal Marines or Guardsmen with the 93rd, but the Turkish forces around the incident consisted of artillerymen, and the artillery (British and Turkish) had already withdrawn. The line that was formed on the Kadikoi ridge did not involve Turkish participation, which gives something like a 5:1 advantage to the cavalry.
 
Well, Brighton has quoted primary sources (captain Shakespear's relation, Donald Cameron's relation) which clearly show that the thin red line was composed of British and Turkish soldiers supported by artillery.
 
Well, Julian Spilsbury in The Thin Red Line (2005) also quotes primary eye-witness sources, and comes to a different conclusion.
I'm not sure eye-witnesses are all that reliable. I certainly wouldn't have been taken careful notes if I'd been on the Kadikoi ridge that day.
 
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 11:57
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Well, Julian Spilsbury in The Thin Red Line (2005) also quotes primary eye-witness sources, and comes to a different conclusion.
 
 
It's interesting. I wonder why there is so big difference between these 2 authors. Both books are new. Brighton's one was published in 2004.
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2007 at 14:40
It said that the Ottoman navy was a third-tear producer of weapons ever since the balance of power shifted from east to west. If this is true the only way I see the Ottomans surviving outside European influence from entering their country is if they needed the help of European nations to modernize. I'm assuming a lot of the Ottoman help was from the French seeing as how they were traditional allies. I just don't see the Ottomans as being able to compete with Europe especially in the 1700s to 1800s. It just seems their power was dwindling and the only thing that kept them from falling was the help and ambition of other European nations. That was probably why they couldn't become an imperialist nation, their technology was just not at the same level.

In the Crimean War Russia no doubt would've loved to conquer Istanbul and remake it into a second Constantinople and really they could have. Their army was more modernized and discipline, the use of iron clads and the reaffirmation of it being a  maritime power, they did manage a couple of victories against the French and the British, makes me wonder if not the two strongest nations in Europe at that time intervened could have Russia conquered Asia Minor? If not Austria or any nation intervened could it have been done? If Mohammed Ali's army could've done it without European intervention then why not the Russians?

Just all speculation on my part I suppose.


Edited by andrew - 21-Jun-2007 at 14:43
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 10:46
Originally posted by Kapikulu

 
 It was impossible for British and French to hold on in Crimea without the presence of Ottoman army there, that's a very clear fact. Logistically, numerically, or in any sense.
 
Well, I'm certainly very eager to hear you substantiate this claim. I have dificulty reading turkish texts, so i've never been able to read about the Crimean War (or most other ottoman wars) from a non-western perspective. As you can imagine i'm feeling excited to read a more detailed analysis as to how exactly Ottoman military presence was significant in the Crimean War.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.077 seconds.