For Imperial Russia, loss of some hundred thousand men isn�t so bad due to overwhelming numerical superiority of Russian armies. However, I would say that Russians did suffer from Crimean War. Though the cloudy fear of Russia terrorized and made psychological impact on Europe, Crimean War proved that Russian military can be beaten� just like when Napoleon was forced to retreat from Russian armies. As well, Russian victory in Crimean War would have made huge impact towards Imperial Russia. Popularity of Tsar would boost up, Imperial Russia can improve their economic by controlling strategic areas, and now can literally push their way into declining Ottoman Turks and beyond. Once Russians secure and defend the Dardenelle and route to modern day Turkey, Imperial Russia can conquer Turkey, and much of Northern Middle East and� maybe even have enough luxery to build huge fleet to check the British Royal Navy. Just imagine Imperial Russia absorbing Ottoman Empire. It�s not a pleasant thought to any powers around the world.

Even though it was indeed French and Turks who contributed huge support in numbers, I feel that British aid did made huge difference in Crimean War. British Royal Navy ensured that no Russians could use bodies of water as an advantage in war. Plus, the British bombardment in Stevastopol and later nearly conquering it caused huge stocks of weapons and supplies to be trapped in besieged fortress, along with thousands of Russian soldiers. British fleets ensured that reasonable logistic supply lines are secured, something Russians always lacked in almost any wars. Recall WWII. Should we say Britain made huge importan contribution to victory as Russians did merely because there were more Russians? Number is not everthing. It helps, but only to limited degree. Eastern front in WWI is a classical example of this.

Until near the Franco-Prussian war, French armies were not equipped heavily with rifles. In fact, the infamous Chassepot rifles that became standard issue in French military did not take place until 1866� and Crimean War ended in 1856. There�s ten years gap, people. It is possible that French may had different rifles, but either they were still crude as muskets since bayonet charge and close combats were quite common. (Or is it because they were simply so many Russians?)

I guess reference could really save the day, Sarmat12. Do post it, if you can.

It is true that Russians did not possess huge numerical superiority as we may believe. (Some already pointed out this) But Russians did enjoy the numerical advantage because most of the infantry (Number-wise� wait, is that even a word?) in the grand alliance were Turks, and they often were inferior even against Russian soldiers. France was the shield and the armor of the alliance, helping out the dying Turks by halting the Russian advance� and pushing the shield towards Russia as Britain spearheaded the crucial areas, such as Sevastopol.

I know it�s off-topic, but I felt the word Crimean quite fluffy, like whip cream on mocha.

To some degree, yes. Austrians were not in shape to support or stab Imperial Russia. It is true that Austrians did invaded some Russian land, it was negligible to the overall scheme of war. Besides, Austrians are not going to bash through Russia. They will be checked by Germans. And remember, they were also occupied with political stability. Main issue for Austrians is not expansion. They needed to maintain order in their own land, nevermind getting involve with war against Russia or anyone else for that matter.

Austria-Hungary Empire was in similar position as Italy in WWI. They won�t act unless it is clear that Russians are so beaten up that Austrians could hope to get something out of it without suffering fair loss of men and money.

There was no Trans-Siberian Railway operating in Crimean war. I won�t say no chance, since there were still fair number of reserves that could have been used.

Sarmat12, for future reference� you should try to post your articles in different languages. Clearly, people are still unclear.

This is a complitely wrong picture. Austria in fact was totally in position to stab Imperial Russia. Moreover, due to the unwise Russian foreign policy, Russia couldn't use the hostility between Prussia and Austria for its benefits.

Dear Sarmat,

Lol I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here before everyone gets bored of us repeating ourselves :P

It was clear that Russia was not able to sustain a demanding and heavy war effort long before Austrian belligerence, that the state was not equipped to supply and reinforce its armies, that its infrastructure and communications were some of the worst in Europe and that her military techniques and equipment meant that she failed on every front - indeed she could not defeat the Turks on the Danube front. Allied supremacy at sea meant that Russia had to exhaustively defend every exposed frontier and the blockade saw her trade - which she depended heavily on for imports of military stores especially - drop to almost nothing. But yes - when Sebastopol fell and the Austrians started making noises, Russia sued for peace. It must be seen as an equal factor in the causes of defeat. As historians we must not base historical arguments on the "what-if's" of history. Rather, we must base them on what happened so as to draw historical conclusions.

Again, you tend to focus on your initial assesment. Although, you already recognized that Russians didn't fail "on every front."

If you simply look at the chronology of the war, you'll see that Russian offense in Bulgaria was stopped only due to the Austrian intervention. Moreover, initial Allied operation in Balkans also failed, due to the disease, but nevertheless it was a failure.

You ignored again the allied defeat at Petrapavlovsk-Kamchatskiy.

Britain, wasn't capable at all to have the war on its own. Otherwise, it would continue the war, because no one of the Lord Palmerston's initial goals was achieved. Instead Brittain had to satisfy itself with quite moderate terms of the Austrian ultimatum.

In any case, one can clearly see from the described above that the Allied victory was anything but "swift."

No, unfortunatelly, I can't agree with your conclusions.

At least I'm happy that you finally agreed that Sevastopol was an embarassement for the allies.

Thanks a lot for your contribution and opinion.