Comprehensive Essay on the Crimean War

The Russo-Turkish war of 1828-29 and the terms and conditions of the treaty of Adrianople had greatly increased the influence of Russia over the Balkan states.

In other words, it can be said that Russia had emerged with increased prestige and power as a consequence of the Russo-Turkish War. Greece was freed from the Turkish rule and, therefore, she was more grateful to Russia than to any other European power.

The influence of Russia was also established in the states of Moldavia and Wallachia. In this way, Russia had succeeded in increasing her prestige, power and influence over the Balkan states. But she was not satisfied with her existing political situation.

Nicholas I, the Czar of Russia, wanted to make attempt to extend the influence of Russia still further. This attempt of Russia reopened the Eastern Question and created the background of a war which was called the Crimean War.

Main Circumstances leading to the Crimean War

It is very difficult to search out the real causes of the Crimean war. Queen Victoria of England had commented that the selfish motive of Nicholas I, the Czar of Russia was mainly responsible for the outbreak of the war.

On the other hand, some historians are of the view that the Crimean War was the result of overweening ambitions of Napoleon III, the Emperor of France.

As a matter of fact, the Eastern Question was so complicated that nothing can be said definitely about the causes of the Crimean War. In order to make them clear, it is essential to have a look at the attitude of different European powers regarding the Eastern Question.

Attitude of France

(i) Napoleon III had presented before his countrymen the programme of Napoleon I. It aimed at raising the prestige and glory of France in foreign affairs. Napoleon III, therefore, always took keen interest in the international problems of his time and played an important role in solving them. The Crimean War was an appropriate problem for him.

(ii) The relation between Napoleon III and Nicholas I were strained. Nicholas I hated Napoleon III and he did not recognise the latter as the emperor of France. He always addressed him as “My friend” instead of ‘My brother’.

(iii) The empire of Napoleon III was based upon the support of the Roman Catholic population of France and soldiers. He wanted to appease them with his foreign policy.

(iv) Napoleon III wanted to avenge the defeat of Napoleon I at Moscow. It was, therefore, inevitable for Napoleon III to take part in the war against Russia so that Russia might be defeated.

As regards the attitude of France regarding the Crimean War, C. D. Hazen has observed:

“Napoleon III wished to pay back old grudges, against Russia, wished revenge for the Moscow campaign of Napoleon I, wished also to tear up the treaty of 1815, which sealed the humiliation of France.”

Attitude of Russia

(i) Russia was also in favour of the war. She demanded the right of protection to all Greek Christians living in the Turkish Empire.

(ii) Russia wanted the dissolution of the Turkish Empire. She wanted that the European powers should divide the states of Turkish Empire among themselves. Several times, she had proposed for it.

In 1844, Czar Nicholas I had expressed his opinion before England in favour of the dissolution of Turkey. In 1853, he again repeated his proposal before the British Ambassador and said:

“We have on our hands a sick man, a very sick man ; it will be, I tell you frankly, a great misfortune if, one of these days, he should slip away from us before all necessary arrangements were made.”

(iii) Nicholas I was a man of high ambitions. He wanted to have his sway up to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean in order to develop international trade of Russia.

Attitude of Great Britain

(i) England was not in favour of the dissolution of Turkish Empire. She considered the sway of Russia over the Mediterranean as a great danger for her colonies situated in the east.

She feared that if Russia was successful in increasing her influence over the Turkish Empire, she might create a great hindrance for the British Empire situated in the eastern countries, especially India.

It was, therefore, essential for England to oppose the aggressive and expanding policy of Russia. Russell, a great politician of England, declared, “If we do not stop Russia on the Danube, we shall have to stop her on the Indus.”

(ii) England wanted that the Eastern Question should not be solved by any one country of Europe. In her opinion, this question involved the interests of the European powers and thus, it should be solved on the international platform.