A Russo-Ottoman War in the 1890s

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
In the mid-1890s, there were large-scale massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire:

Hamidian massacres - Wikipedia

What if Russian Tsar Nicholas II would have decided to militarily intervene to protect the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population?

In this war, Nicholas declares that Russia is only interested in the Armenian vilayets of the Ottoman Empire plus Trebizond and has no interest in capturing the Straits during this war. While Nicholas sends most of his troops to fight the Ottoman Empire, he keeps some troops near Russia's other borders as insurance in the event of a military intervention by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, and/or Japan.

Anyway, how would such a war have went? Also, would any other powers have militarily intervened in this conflict?
 
Jan 2016
1,151
Collapsed wave
Well, as a side note Armenians are not slavs and thus very unlikely to get a massive support from a pan--slavic regime. Historically russians have always been very tribal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Well, as a side note Armenians are not slavs and thus very unlikely to get a massive support from a pan--slavic regime. Historically russians have always been very tribal.
The Armenians are Christians living under Muslim rule. True, they might not be the right kind of Christians, but the land that they live on could be useful for Russia as a future Russian Florida.
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Russia was always interested in more territory, helping the Armenians would only be a premise for war. Britain and France would probably still try to check Russian expansion. At the time Russia was seen as a threat to the balance in Europe (although Germany was starting to take that place).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Russia was always interested in more territory, helping the Armenians would only be a premise for war. Britain and France would probably still try to check Russian expansion. At the time Russia was seen as a threat to the balance in Europe (although Germany was starting to take that place).
The thing is, though, that in spite of any ulterior motivates that Russia might have, conquering Ottoman Armenia and liberating the Armenians there from Ottoman Turkish rule would legitimately improve their lives--for instance, by stopping the Hamidian massacres. I do agree that, in ordinary circumstances, the other Great Powers might be more opposed to Russian expansion in the Ottomans' direction, but these were no ordinary circumstances due to the Hamidian massacres.

Also, just how much Ottoman territory do you think that Russia can actually conquer in the mid-1890s and get away with it? Basically, I want to know the limits of what Russia can do in the Ottoman Empire during this time and nevertheless get away with.
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Its important to remember that preww2 nobody really cared about morality (and to a certain degree not even after), it was just for show. The interests of the nation went before all else, meaning the great powers wouldn't allow Russia to expand into the Ottoman empire even if to save the Armenians.
That being said, the war along the Caucasus was slow due to the terrain. It would probably take several wars to advance all the way to Trebizond, I'd say two at least, without European intervention. Unless the great powers suddenly changed their minds and told Russia to go for broke.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,629
Its important to remember that preww2 nobody really cared about morality (and to a certain degree not even after), it was just for show. The interests of the nation went before all else, meaning the great powers wouldn't allow Russia to expand into the Ottoman empire even if to save the Armenians.
That being said, the war along the Caucasus was slow due to the terrain. It would probably take several wars to advance all the way to Trebizond, I'd say two at least, without European intervention. Unless the great powers suddenly changed their minds and told Russia to go for broke.
Simply not true. The Slave Trade, Greek independence were matters that very much were pressures of public opinion and morality.

some people cared and it swayed public opinion and affected policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Its important to remember that preww2 nobody really cared about morality (and to a certain degree not even after), it was just for show. The interests of the nation went before all else, meaning the great powers wouldn't allow Russia to expand into the Ottoman empire even if to save the Armenians.
That being said, the war along the Caucasus was slow due to the terrain. It would probably take several wars to advance all the way to Trebizond, I'd say two at least, without European intervention. Unless the great powers suddenly changed their minds and told Russia to go for broke.
Several wars or several weeks?

Also, pugsville is correct. Morality does sometimes affect national policy.

Simply not true. The Slave Trade, Greek independence were matters that very much were pressures of public opinion and morality.

some people cared and it swayed public opinion and affected policy.
Also the end of slavery and the expansion of black rights during Reconstruction in the US.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
In fact, didn't Europeans make a moral case in favor of colonization and imperialism? As in, "we need to eliminate slavery and the slave trade, we need to teach backwards people how to become proper and civilized, we need to uplift the huddled masses in the rest of the world, et cetera".
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,629
In fact, didn't Europeans make a moral case in favor of colonization and imperialism? As in, "we need to eliminate slavery and the slave trade, we need to teach backwards people how to become proper and civilized, we need to uplift the huddled masses in the rest of the world, et cetera".
hmm maybe post facto. Britain they was a rise of public morality and stuff Newspapers, Victoria. middle class morals. there was a definite change in importance of appearances, being proper. 1850 onwards is vastly different from 1800. Pretexts and justifications offered in the late Victoria era gave little to with endeavors that happened well before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist