How the Research Is Empirically Examined 85
of interests between countries. Such arguments have been promulgated by
several researchers. Smith Anderson writes that the Crimean War was an
outcome of a series of misjudgments, misunderstandings, and silly mis-
takes, pride and stubbornness, more than morbid wishes.^46 Gavin Hender-
son writes that the war was a result of diplomatic deterioration and lack of
ruling skills among the great powers.^47 Richard Smoke argues that in the
chain of actions and counteractions that led to the outbreak of the war, none
of the decision makers in the major nations wanted the events to develop
into a major European war. But they lost full control of the cycle of actions
and counteractions.^48
The argument that the Crimean War was unintentional is correct but
only insofar as the political leaders of the great powers constructing the
multipolar system did not want or anticipate a war. The current study
rules out the argument that the war was a result of irrational behavior—
such as misconceptions, silly errors, pride, or stubbornness—leading to
mismanagement of crises and unintentional wars.^49
The Crimean War—Systemic Causes of Its Outbreak. The religious dis-
pute concerning the holy sites between the Christian churches in the Holy
Land was not the direct cause of the outbreak of the Crimean War. The
war broke out because France and Russia exploited the crisis in a manner
that endangered the future of the Ottoman Empire and the disputed de-
teriorated in a manner that threatened vital strategic issues of the parties
involved. The war could have easily been avoided but all the powers chose,
at different times, to exacerbate the crisis. It must be asked why. Did all the
powers choose to intensify the crisis because of errors and misunderstand-
ings, or were they forced to do so because of systemic dictates? Systemic
constraints are what forced the major European systems involved to insti-
gate the war and the causes of the outbreak of the war must be sought in
the broader European context.^50
In the Crimean War, Britain fought in a pact with its traditional enemy,
France, to help the infidel Islamic power, the Ottoman Empire, in its war
against another European power, Russia. Although the diplomatic dis-
pute started because of a religious one, it quickly became a struggle over
power and influence in the Ottoman Empire, and this dispute signifi-
cantly affected the strategic interests of each of the major European pow-
ers. The diplomacy that led to the war was clumsy, but the war broke out
because Russia, France, and Britain believed that their vital interests were
in danger.^51
The revolutions of 1848 led to a number of important changes. The Tsar
of Russia, Nikolai, was encouraged by the successful involvement of the
Habsburg monarchy in the Hungarian revolution in 1848. He believed
that Russia was a dominant land power in the system. In France, Louis
Napoleon gained strength through a revolution, thus increasing the fear