Austria's Crimean War: A Tale Of Military Misfortune And Political Loss

The Crimean War was a setback for Russia, but it was the Austrian Empire that was the real loser. Austria's hostile attitude towards Russia wrecked a century-old friendship and blocked the Empire from keeping the Romanian principalities under military control. Austria's neutrality in the war angered Nicholas I of Russia, and contributed to Austria's defeat in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War.

Hostile attitude towards Russia ruined a century-old friendship

The Crimean War was a setback for Russia and the real loser was the Austrian Empire. Austria's hostile attitude towards Russia ruined a century-old friendship and ruined their diplomatic standing.

The Treaty of Paris blocked Austria from keeping the Romanian principalities under military control as a political protectorate. This deeply angered Nicholas I of Russia and was a serious strain to Russo-Austrian relations thereafter.

Russian neutrality towards its former ally clearly contributed to Austrian defeat in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War and its loss of influence in most German-speaking lands.

Russian propaganda portrayed the war as a panslavic crusade, which would have incited the Slavs in the Austrian Empire.

In the 1848-1849 revolutions, only Russian troops saved the Austrian Empire. They literally put down the Hungarian revolt as a favor to a brother Emperor - they expected a Quid for the Pro Quo.

Paris treaty blocked military control of Romanian principalities

The Crimean War and the new order enshrined in the peace treaty signed at Paris on 15 April 1856, dealt the final blow to the Holy Alliance. Russia undoubtedly suffered a setback: for years, it had to refrain from acting as Europe's gendarme, and, with the re-annexation of southern Bessarabia to Moldavia, it lost its foothold on the lower Danube. But, arguably, the real loser was the Austrian empire. First and foremost, because by its hostile attitude it had wrecked a century-old friendship with Russia. Second, because the Paris treaty blocked it from keeping the Romanian principalities under military control as a political protectorate.

The problems with Austrian intervention during the Crimean War are as follows: First, Austria wasn't exactly in the most stable situation during the Crimean War, having suffered from a recent devastating series of rebellions. In addition, Austria wasn't exactly keen on Russian expansion into the Balkans either. The other problem was that Russian propaganda portrayed the war as a panslavic crusade, which would have incited the slavs in the Austrian Empire. Of course, the above reasons can be overcome if Austrian leadership felt that keeping Russia as a close ally is more important. Even so, Austrian intervention is unlikely to change the outcome of the war.

Russia considered Austria's neutrality in the Crimean war that Russia sat by and watched in OTL. Remember, in the 1848-1849 revolutions, only Russian troops saved the Austrian Empire. They literally put down the Hungarian revolt as a favor to a brother Emperor - they expected a Quid for the Pro Quo. ... Of course, 48-49 was also a demonstration of the reasons the Habsburg Empire didn't join the war.

This stance deeply angered Nicholas I of Russia and was a serious strain to Russo-Austrian relations thereafter. Although it was Russia that was punished by the Treaty of Paris, in the long run it was Austria that lost the most from the Crimean War despite having barely taken part in it. Having abandoned its alliance with Russia, Austria was diplomatically isolated following the war. Russia subsequently stood aside as Austria was evicted from the Italian and German states. That Russian neutrality towards its former ally clearly contributed to Austrian defeat in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War and its loss of influence in most German-speaking lands.

Russian neutrality towards former ally contributed to Austrian defeat

Russia's neutrality towards its former ally, Austria, clearly contributed to Austrian defeat in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War and its loss of influence in most German-speaking lands.

Russia's neutrality was a result of Austria's betrayal of their century-old friendship. During the Crimean War, Austria wasn't in a stable situation as they had suffered from a recent series of rebellions. Additionally, Austria was not keen on Russian expansion into the Balkans. Russian propaganda portrayed the war as a pan-Slavic crusade, which would have incited the Slavs in the Austrian Empire.

Russia's neutrality also had implications in the formation of Germany. Bismarck had to secure Russian neutrality before the Austro-Prussian War. In the 1848-1849 revolutions, only Russian troops saved the Austrian Empire by putting down the Hungarian revolt as a favor to a brother Emperor. However, they expected a Quid for the Pro Quo.

The Treaty of Paris also blocked Austria from keeping the Romanian principalities under military control as a political protectorate. Despite having barely taken part in the Crimean War, Austria was diplomatically isolated following the war. Russia stood aside as Austria was evicted from the Italian and German states.

In conclusion, Russia's neutrality towards its former ally, Austria, clearly contributed to Austrian defeat in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War and its loss of influence in most German-speaking lands. Austria's betrayal of their century-old friendship with Russia was a significant factor in this outcome.

Russian expansion into the Balkans angered Nicholas I of Russia

Nicholas I of Russia was angered by Russian expansion into the Balkans. Nicholas' policy towards the Ottoman Empire was to use the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca which gave Russia a vague right as protector of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans, as a way of placing the Ottoman Empire into the Russian sphere of influence. Nicholas wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a stable but weak state that would be unable to stand up to Russia, which was felt to serve Russia's interests. Nicholas always thought of Russia as first and foremost a European power and regarded Europe as more important than the Middle East. Nicholas was deeply committed to upholding the status quo in Europe and feared any attempt to devour the decaying Ottoman Empire would both upset his ally Austria, which also had interests in the Balkans, and bring about an Anglo-French coalition in defense of the Ottomans.

Nicholas I of Russia was angered by Russian expansion into the Balkans. Nicholas' policy towards the Ottoman Empire was to use the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca which gave Russia a vague right as protector of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans, as a way of placing the Ottoman Empire into the Russian sphere of influence. Nicholas wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a stable but weak state that would be unable to stand up to Russia, which was felt to serve Russia's interests. Nicholas always thought of Russia as first and foremost a European power and regarded Europe as more important than the Middle East. Nicholas was deeply committed to upholding the status quo in Europe and feared any attempt to devour the decaying Ottoman Empire would both upset his ally Austria, which also had interests in the Balkans, and bring about an Anglo-French coalition in defense of the Ottomans.

Nicholas I of Russia was angered by Russian expansion into the Balkans. Nicholas' policy towards the Ottoman Empire was to use the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca which gave Russia a vague right as protector of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans, as a way of placing the Ottoman Empire into the Russian sphere of influence. Nicholas wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a stable but weak state that would be unable to stand up to Russia, which was felt to serve Russia's interests. Nicholas always thought of Russia as first and foremost a European power and regarded Europe as more important than the Middle East. Nicholas was deeply committed to upholding the status quo in Europe and feared any attempt to devour the decaying Ottoman Empire would both upset his ally Austria, which also had interests in the Balkans, and bring about an Anglo-French coalition in defense of the Ottomans.

Nicholas I of Russia was angered by Russian expansion into the Balkans. Nicholas' policy towards the Ottoman Empire was to use the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca which gave Russia a vague right as protector of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans, as a way of placing the Ottoman Empire into the Russian sphere of influence. Nicholas wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a stable but weak state that would be unable to stand up to Russia, which was felt to serve Russia's interests. Nicholas always thought of Russia as first and foremost a European power and regarded Europe as more important than the Middle East. Nicholas was deeply committed to upholding the status quo in Europe and feared any attempt to devour the decaying Ottoman Empire would both upset his ally Austria, which also had interests in the Balkans, and bring about an Anglo-French coalition in defense of the Ottomans.

Nicholas I of Russia was angered by Russian expansion into the Balkans. Nicholas' policy towards the Ottoman Empire was to use the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca which gave Russia a vague right as protector of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans, as a way of placing the Ottoman Empire into the Russian sphere of influence. Nicholas wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a stable but weak state that would be unable to stand up to Russia, which was felt to serve Russia's interests. Nicholas always thought of Russia as first and foremost a European power and regarded Europe as more important than the Middle East. Nicholas was deeply committed to upholding the status quo in Europe and feared any attempt to devour the decaying Ottoman Empire would both upset his ally Austria, which also had interests in the Balkans, and bring about an Anglo-French coalition in defense of the Ottomans.

Russian propaganda incited Slavs in the Austrian Empire

The Crimean War was a setback for Russia, as it had to refrain from acting as Europe's gendarme and lost its foothold on the lower Danube. However, the real loser was the Austrian Empire. Austria had recently suffered from a series of rebellions and was not keen on Russian expansion into the Balkans. Russian propaganda portrayed the war as a panslavic crusade, which incited the Slavs in the Austrian Empire.

The ideological bandwidth of pan-Slavism extended from a mere cultural exchange amongst the Slavs to the maximum demand for a single state. Initially, pan-Slav enthusiasm was widespread amongst the Slav peoples under Austrian rule, and derived from the attempt to develop a self-assurance based on the size of the Slav-speaking region in Europe. This was intensified by the Napoleonic Wars, in which Russia gained a reputation as a major Slav power.

The problems with Austrian intervention during the Crimean War are as follows: First, Austria wasn't exactly in the most stable situation during the Crimean War, having suffered from a recent devastating series of rebellions. In addition, Austria wasn't exactly keen on Russian expansion into the Balkans either. The other problem was that Russian propaganda portrayed the war as a panslavic crusade or sorts, which would have incited the Slavs in the Austrian Empire.

Russia's policy towards Austria-Hungary revealed hardly any pan-Slav influences. However, there was an attempt to unify the Austrian Slavs under Russian leadership and their conversion to Orthodoxy as part of Greater-Russian imperialism.

Frequently asked questions