The Crimean War

Apr 27, 2012 Don rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a solid, very readable history of the Crimean War, with particular attention paid to the political and religious origins of the conflict.

Just to vent a little, I read this on my Kindle, and was unhappy about the ebook experience here. First, the conversion to ebook seems somewhat sloppy. I know that some books are converted in a process where the text is supplied to Amazon via a PDF file, and then presumably is scanned into Amazon's system. That appears to be what happened here, since so...more

like · see review

Nov 07, 2011 John added it

Shelves: soviet-history

Orlando Figes ranks among the best writers who happen also to be professional historians. His first block-buster, "A People's Tragedy," is a perfectly splenid synthesis of hundreds of monographs that convey bits and pieces of the history of Russia's revolutionary epoch, 1895-1924, beginning with the great famine and ending with Lenin's death and Stalin's incipient rise to autocratic power - deservedly translated into 20 or so languages.

His latest, The Crimean War, provides a thorough introductio...more Orlando Figes ranks among the best writers who happen also to be professional historians. His first block-buster, "A People's Tragedy," is a perfectly splenid synthesis of hundreds of monographs that convey bits and pieces of the history of Russia's revolutionary epoch, 1895-1924, beginning with the great famine and ending with Lenin's death and Stalin's incipient rise to autocratic power - deservedly translated into 20 or so languages.

His latest, The Crimean War, provides a thorough introduction to the pivotal events of 1853-56, years which may well mark the final break of certain elements the Russian intelligensia with tsardom. That's my tentaive conclusion, in any case. And that conclusion accords with much that I have been reading lately about Alexander Herzen and his times. So for now, at least, it appears to me that one could use that war, and this book, as a point of departure for the study of revolutionary socialism in the Russian Empire.

Figes' account of the diplomatic circumstances of the war and its antecedants are very much on the mark as far as I can tell, and his portrait of Nicholas I - as autocrat - illuminates the sources of the intelligencia's conversion to oppositionist ideologies of every variety.

I have to admit that I skipped over no fewer than 200 pages, perhaps a third, of the book. I can barely stomach diplomatic history, but detailed accounts of marches, skirmishes, battles, the dying and the dead, soldiers' depradations, looting, etc., etc., I can not read. Really if you've read one, your've read them all, and I can't really care about this trench or that redoubt. But I'm sure that persons who are eager to read such material will find his narratives gripping.

I do wish that he had written at least a chapter or two, rather than 7-10 pages, on the consequences in Russia of Russia's defeat. He hints that after the Tsar signed the Treaty of Paris, Nicholas' thinking subjects began to reconsider the rationale for the autocracy and all its institutions. I only hope that these consequences serve as the point of departure for his next book. (less)

like · see review

Jul 10, 2011 Khalid rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Orlando Figes restores the conflict as “a major turning point” in European and Middle Eastern history. He argues forcefully that it was “the earliest example of a truly modern war — fought with new industrial technologies, modern rifles, steamships and railways, novel forms of logistics and communication like the telegraph, important innovations in military medicine and war reporters and photographers directly on the scene.” The ferocious yearlong siege of Sevastopol “was a precursor of the indu...more

like · see review

Apr 16, 2011 Alexander Vassilieff rated it 4 of 5 stars

This latest addition to the historical topic of the Crimean War sounds interesting as there are many books in English on the Crimean War. But this is the first in any language to draw extensively from Russian, French and Ottoman as well as British sources to illuminate the geo-political, cultural and religious factors that shaped the involvement of each major power in the conflict.

"It was the earliest example of a truly modern war - fought with new industrial technologies, modern rifles, steamsh...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 16, 2011 Steven Peterson rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A fine history of the nasty Crimean War. This was one of those wars that should never have happened. Neither the French nor British could quite figure out why to go to war. Russia had the deteriorating Czar Nicholas seeing possible war in religious terms. The Ottoman Empire was in decline. The dynamics, thus, were not auspicious.

Once war began, the allies (Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, plus others as well) bruised the Russian forces at the outset. Then, a surprisingly strong stand by the...more A fine history of the nasty Crimean War. This was one of those wars that should never have happened. Neither the French nor British could quite figure out why to go to war. Russia had the deteriorating Czar Nicholas seeing possible war in religious terms. The Ottoman Empire was in decline. The dynamics, thus, were not auspicious.

Once war began, the allies (Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, plus others as well) bruised the Russian forces at the outset. Then, a surprisingly strong stand by the Russians at Balaklava. This is the battle, of course, where history witnessed The Charge of the Light Brigade (which was actually rather successful despite the heavy losses suffered by the troops involved). The invasion force of the British eventually won and moved--with the French--toward the key city of Sevastopol. The allies moved slowly, not seeing need for dispatch. A major mistake. Time played into the Russians' hands as they fortified the city and received reinforcements. Another factor in Russia's favor was the inept British commander, Lord Raglan. He made mistake after mistake, thereby aiding the Russian cause. On the other hand, the Russian forces were afflicted with a set of poor commanders as well.

By the time the allies began their move to Sevastopol, a siege was inevitable. The Russian winter and disease devastated the besiegers--especially the British, who had frighteningly poor logistics.

Media were players in this war, one of the earlier occasions when media played a key role. Media helped fan the flames in the West in favor of war; stories about the appalling conditions facing the soldiers during the war also had an effect on the people back home. In addition, the technology of war had changed. The adoption of the minie ball made the firepower of the English and French far beyond that of the muskets of the Russians.

The war limped to its conclusion, as noted in this volume. The final chapter pulls matters together, exploring the myth and memory of the bloody Crimean War.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 24, 2011 Anastasia Fitzgerald-Beaumont rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It’s Good Friday, April 10, 1846. Jerusalem is packed with pilgrims on an Easter weekend that happened to fall on the same date in both the Latin and Orthodox calendars. The mood is tense. The two religious communities had been arguing over who has the right to be first to carry out the rituals at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the holiest places in Christendom, standing on the spot where Jesus is said to have been crucified.

That Friday was to be anything but good. The Catholics arrive...more It’s Good Friday, April 10, 1846. Jerusalem is packed with pilgrims on an Easter weekend that happened to fall on the same date in both the Latin and Orthodox calendars. The mood is tense. The two religious communities had been arguing over who has the right to be first to carry out the rituals at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the holiest places in Christendom, standing on the spot where Jesus is said to have been crucified.

That Friday was to be anything but good. The Catholics arrived only to find that the Greeks were there first. A fight broke out, priest against priest, soon to be joined by monks and pilgrims from the respective camps. People fought not just with fists but anything they could get a hold of – crucifixes, candlesticks, chalices, lamps and incense burners. Wood was torn from the sacred shrines and used as clubs. Knives and pistols were smuggled into the church. By the time the Mehemet Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Jerusalem, had restored order forty people lay dead.

This dreadful incident, all in the name of a shared belief, marks the departure for Orlando Figes’ Crimea, the Last Crusade, the first full account of the Crimean War that I have read. I know Figes well, one of the best specialists on Russian history in the English-speaking world, the author of the superlative A People’s Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924. Although his history of the Crimean War lacks the range and power of the latter book, he has done a tremendous service, placing the conflict firmly within the context of the Eastern Question – the issues arising from the continuing decline of the Ottoman Empire – and European power politics as a whole.

I’m not completely convinced by his ‘crusading hook’, I have to say. Yes the war did begin with a conflict over who had the best claim to protect the holy places within the Turkish empire, the Catholic French or the Orthodox Russians, and again, yes, Tsar Nicholas I was strong in his conviction that he was a defender of the ‘true’ faith, a defender of the Orthodox faithful in all the Turkish lands. But almost immediately, when the fighting started, the religious issue was obscured by more general issues arising from European geopolitics. Besides, a war which involved Turkish Muslims, British Protestants and French Catholics, on one side, against Orthodox Russians, on the other, does not look much like a ‘crusade.’ The Tsar may have begun with crusading thoughts, but before his death in March 1855 he was more preoccupied by the decline in Russian power.

Figes' greatest service has been to rescue the conflict from fragmentation and partiality, the preserve, at best, of amateur military historians, more interested in the clash of arms than the reason for the clash of arms. The war may have been tragic and ‘unnecessary' but it still marks and important stage in the development of European politics and diplomacy. It marks the end of the Concert of Europe, the arrangement between the powers to police the settlement of 1815 emerging from the Napoleonic Wars. It marks the break in the informal alliance between Russia and Austria that helped preserved that settlement in aspic, allowing for the rise of new nations like Italy and Germany. So, in all, it was so much more than the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Thin Red Line and the Lady with the Lamp.

So far as the conflict itself is concerned there was really no need, as the author shows, for the Crimean War ever to have been the Crimean War. There was no need, in other words, for the landing on the Crimean peninsula, followed by the lengthy, and bloody, siege of the port of Sevastopol, for the simple reason that the Russians had suffered a serious tactical and strategic reverse in early 1854.

They had previously occupied the semi-autonomous Ottoman provinces of Moldavia and Walachia, now Romania, with a view to pushing south of the Danube in a march on Constantinople. But unexpectedly tough resistance by the Turks at the fortress of Silistria prevented any further advance. When this was coupled with the landings of the French and British at Varna, in what is now Bulgaria, and the threat of Austrian intervention, the Russians had no choice but to withdraw from the occupied provinces. But the blood was up; the war had to run its course, Russia had to be humbled; Sevastopol had to fall.

Crimea marks a vital stage in the development of warfare, combining elements of the old and the new, combining the Napoleonic Wars at one remove and the First World War at the other. It was the last of the old wars, if you like, containing the seeds of the new. Although it may come as a surprise, the campaign on the Crimea itself, and its eventual outcome, was far more a French than a British affair. The French contributed many more troops. It was their capture of the Malakhov redoubt in September 1855 that led to the fall of Sevastopol and the end of the war.

Diplomatically their role was also decisive. Palmerston, who succeeded the far less militant Aberdeen as prime minister in 1855, rather took on the role of Cato the Elder. Cartago delenda est was his war cry. His Carthage was Russia, which he intended to remove forever as a threat to the British Empire. If he had had his way the Russian borders would have returned to those of 1709, before Peter the Great’s victory over the Swedes at Poltava. The press was behind his war-drive, the people were behind him, even the Queen was behind him; the French were not. He did not have his way because Napoleon III had other visions. Britain may have had the fleet, but the French had the army.

This is a good story, an important story told with verve and style, told in a wholly compelling fashion with plenty of balance and nuance, placing the Crimean War in proper context. The author is to be commended for his industry and his scholarship, for writing a first-class account of an important passage in European history.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Nov 17, 2012 Emmanuel Gustin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history_britain, history_france, history_russia

The Crimean war is today mostly a dim memory from a bygone age in politics and warfare: Most people faintly remember something about Florence Nightingale, the charge of the Light Brigade, incompetent leadership and much human suffering. And perhaps there is much to be said for that summary.

One thing Figes does is tell that story in more detail, doing more justice to those who lived through the bitter conflict. But he also adds a lot of context to this war, explaining why the governments chose t...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 16, 2011 Aaron rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: russian-history

Figes is my favorite historian. His works are pure poetry. I definitely look at Florence Nightingale differently after reading this book. She saved 58% of all injured soldiers--and that was considered good. The real interesting part is the Russian triage. The Russian pioneering methods in military surgery are most interesting. I now realize that the conflict was a lot larger and consequential than most people realize. This book also gives a good glance into what it would have been like to have b...more

like · see review

Feb 10, 2012 Bas Kreuger rated it 5 of 5 stars

Great book of a mostly forgotten period of history that shaped much of Europe as we see it now.
Figes is an extraordinary writer, mixing the long lines of history with snippets of human interest and petit histoire easily.
The Crimea was a curious mix of the 18th and 19th century, where the Czar, King and Sultan still had real influence, but also where public opinion for the first time reared its ugly head, specially in Britain. Telegraph, steamboats, photography, MiniÃ© rifles, explosive shells an...more

like · see review

Jun 18, 2012 Mitchell rated it 5 of 5 stars

Figes rescued the Crimean War from further obscurity and it's a good thing he did. Unfortunately, it is still too relevant in today's world, especially in Ukraine, Chechnya, and the Balkans. All wars make for some depressing reading, but the Crimean War is even more than most in that regard. No power comes out looking good in this conflict -- the Russians are blinded by Christian messianic attitudes; the British are overconfident, bellicose, and arrogant; the French are determined to win back th...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 02, 2011 David rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, history

A well writen book that left me with the impression that the author really wanted to write a book about religious conflict in southeastern Europe during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Professor Figes did include a detailed (and excellent) account of the Crimean War itself, but he did as part of a broader narrative that went from the 1815 Congress of Vienna to the First World War. I appreciate historical context, but I thought Professor Figes went a little overboard. On the plus side, the ac...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 04, 2012 Jill rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: military-history, world-history

This book began rather slowly for me but I soon became engrossed in Figes' narrative of this somewhat "forgotten" war which claimed so many lives for so little. I have always been fascinated by the Crimean War and this book added to my knowledge as the author had access to sources not previously available to other authors. It was a war of incompetent leadership, missed opportunities, outdated military tactics, and rampant disease. Much mystique and legend regarding the war has grown over the yea...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 27, 2012 Diane rated it 5 of 5 stars

This book provides an in-depth look at the cultural and diplomatic history of the Crimean War, with a focus on the relationship between Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Western countries. The book delves deeply into the social and political aspects of the conflict, and explains the Western powers' reasoning in supporting the Ottomans. He also explains how Russia's experience during this conflict led to its emnity towards the West in the 20th century. I thought the chapters on the military str...more

like · see review

Feb 07, 2013 Christopher Rex rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book is good if you want detailed history. Wow. It's a bit more like "work" than reading. Overall, what the author has put together is an impressive feat, but it's not really cut out for the "common man." Very long and very detailed.

I've always had an interest in the Crimean War - it pre-dates the Civil War and WWI and acts much like a precursor of both conflicts in many ways, both on the battlefield and in the diplomatic negotiations. As such, it is something that is (regrettably) overlook...more

like · see review

Jul 13, 2011 Riet rated it 4 of 5 stars

De Krim oorlog is een soort mythische oolog, waar niet zoveel feitelijks over bekend was (voor mij dan). Orlando Figes heeft deze oorlog goed beschreven; hij is er zelfs in gslaagd om dit redelijk objectief te doen. Dat laatste maakt, dat de engelsen er slecht van af komen. Los daarvan geeft dit boek voor de zoveelste keer aan hoe waanzinnig oorlogen zijn.Deze oorlog was volstrekt onnodig en heeft niets opgeleverd voor de stijdende partijen. Het resultaat was veel ellende vooral voor de gewone s...more

like · see review

Oct 23, 2011 Tomlikeslife rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An excellent book for anyone interested in the Crimean War. The author does a great job of explaining the cause of the war and the events that lead up to it. He also does a nice job of not only explaining the high-level thinking and actions of the politicians and generals involved in the actual war but also provides a good account of what it was like for the average soldier. His final two chapters on how the countries involved in the war were shaped and how European history was changed by these...more

like · see review

May 12, 2011 Hadrian rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, history, war, russia

An impressive new history of a war which seems to be almost completely forgotten over here, with the exception of "The Charge of the Light Brigade".

It covers the war in all aspects, from the grisly siege of Sevastopol, the snarled diplomatic efforts which led to the start of the war, comparisons of the major players, the effects of religious differences, and the relatively neglected campaigns in the Baltic and Caucasus.

A worthy addition to the library of anyone interested in the era, to say no...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 04, 2011 Joe rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A quite excellent military, social, political and cultural history of the Crimean war rolled into one. Packed with detail and anecdote, without becoming too enormous, and very engagingly written.

Details of the military debacle are fascinating; Lord Raglan was clearly a geriatric imbecile (curious to note a pub called The Lord Raglan opposite Postman’s Park in London). However, it’s the cultural and social history that really makes this book. The interaction of the media and public opinion is fa...more

like · see review

May 22, 2012 edifanob rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: my-books, 2012-reads

You should know that Orlando Figes is a profound British historian of Russia. I know it will not take long until I will read a comment which will bring up the story from 2010 with the faked reviews for his book. Please read Historian Orlando Figes admits posting Amazon reviews that trashed rivals over at The Guardian. I have a clear opinion about that.
But that does not debase the quality of the book.

Introduction
This is my first review of a history book. At first sight it seems to be something di...more

like · see review

Jul 22, 2012 Marguerite Kaye rated it 5 of 5 stars

I'll be honest, before I started this book, I had very little idea of where the Crimea was, let alone the causes of the war. Flroence Nightingalge, 'The Thin Red Line', balaclavas and of course The Charge of the Light Brigade I knew about. Cardigan and Raglan, I recognised had given their names to knitting. I'd read about the fall of Sevastopol in the excellent 'Rose of Sebeastopol'and had long had an idea for a book or series of my own set in and around the war, and I'd really enjoyed one of Or...more I'll be honest, before I started this book, I had very little idea of where the Crimea was, let alone the causes of the war. Flroence Nightingalge, 'The Thin Red Line', balaclavas and of course The Charge of the Light Brigade I knew about. Cardigan and Raglan, I recognised had given their names to knitting. I'd read about the fall of Sevastopol in the excellent 'Rose of Sebeastopol'and had long had an idea for a book or series of my own set in and around the war, and I'd really enjoyed one of Orlando Figes other histories, 'Natasha's Dance', so his book on the Crimea seemed like the ideal starting place.

It's intimidating at first, because it takes you back to the causes of the war and stays there for over a hundred pages. You really need to know your European geography or you'll be lost, but keep an atlas close at hand and you'll be amply rewarded. The sheer complexity of Europe in the Nineteenth Century - and the vulnarability of so many peoples, thanks to the smash and grab policies of the big powers - is unbelievable. Time and again, I kept thinkig 'no wonder the Great War happened' or 'now I get the Balkan crisis' - I felt so naive, and I like to think of myself as a historian! Figes doesn't just look at the war from the British point of view (in fact the British were relatively minor players in terms of numbers, although major, thanks to Palmerston, in terms or aggression). He gives a large part of the history to Russia's perspective, and takes equal care to give those of France and Turkey (the original aggresor). And most importantly for me, as well as describing events, he gives a thorough analysis of the why's - the diplomacy, the geographical chess, the competition betwee old-world values and aristocratic rule and the emerging middle-classes.

The war was waged at a key period in history (1854-56). It was the first war which was reported openly in the press, thanks to people like Russell of the The Times, and to the telegraph. Steam powered ships, railways, new rifles, new ammunitiion, all played their part for the first time. In Britain, the abolition of the newspaper tax along with the steam press meant that it was the first war to reach the masses, and as a result the first war in which the masses had a huge influence - and Palmerston was the first Prime Minister to harness this. It was a similar story in France, with Emperor Napoleon III anxious to appease his people lest he lose his loose hold on power (in fact the empire toppled in 1870, not much later). In Russia, an autorcratic Tsar waged a holy war in the teeth of opposition from his military. In the crumbling Ottoman Empire, allied reluctantly to the Christian French and British, western values crept inexorably in as the allies occupied Constantinople and nearby Scutari for the war years.

The battlefield demonstrated more plainly than anything, the differences between the old world and the new. The Russian serf army were poorly equipped, appallingly treated by aristocratic officers who saw them simply as cannon fodder. The serfs were freed in the aftermath of the war, and the Russian army reformed. The elitism in the British army was not much better. Officers and men lived very different lives and kept very strict distances. Ridiculous rules about appearance were enforced through the treacherous first winter when Tsar Nicholas's Generals January and February slaughtered the ill-equipped opposition with biting winds and freezing temperatures. Unlike the Russians (thanks to Pirogov), the British field hospitals had no system of triage, simply shipping everyone, no matter how fatally or lightly injured, off to Scutari. Unlkie the French, the British allowed no nurses in the field - Nightingale's women were kept 500k away in Scutari until near the end - and also unlike the French, the British had no idea of filed kitchens, expecting each man to deal with his own rations, until the renowned chef Alexis Soyer waded in and saved thousands from starting. The British army won no famous victories in the Crimea, and the triumph of the professional officers of the French army, who lived much closer to their own men, was a hard lesson for them to take. Of the 98,000 British soldiers and sailors who served in the Crimea, 20,000 died, and of those, 16,000 surrendered not to wounds, but to disease. Though the war has disappeared from the collective memory of the French, they lost 100,000, and the Russians 250,000.

Figes' Crimea is not an easy book but it's brilliant, and well worth persisting with. It's wonderfully written, beautifully structured, and if you're not interested in certain aspects (the lead up, the fall out) then it lends itsefl to skipping if you really want. But I'd say read it all. This was wonderful. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Mar 19, 2012 Doug Vanderweide rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: european-history, history, military, politics, russia

A comprehensive overview of the Crimean War, fought actively between Russia, the Ottoman Empire, France, Piedmont-Sardinia and Great Britain (and with the indirect participation of Austria-Hungary, as well as several partisan groups) in 1853-1856.

Orlando Figes argues three main points:

1. The war was far more about Russia's vision of itself as the protector of the Orthodox Church and pan-Slavic sentiment than many historians have believed.

2. The origins of the First World War lie largely in the d...more

like · see review

Jan 01, 2012 Wilson Hines rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: European History, History

Shelves: favorites

This book is in amazing detail. In fact, I think this is the reason I put it at 4 stars instead of 5. It was too much detail. There are 480 pages, or so, of text to read and I think it could have been written in 400.

The book is a flashlight on one example of how religion and war have made a deadly mix in human history. I originally started reading the book wanting to get further background on the possibilities of why Adolph Hitler came to his way of thinking and thought processes. Before I read

...more

This book is in amazing detail. In fact, I think this is the reason I put it at 4 stars instead of 5. It was too much detail. There are 480 pages, or so, of text to read and I think it could have been written in 400.

The book is a flashlight on one example of how religion and war have made a deadly mix in human history. I originally started reading the book wanting to get further background on the possibilities of why Adolph Hitler came to his way of thinking and thought processes. Before I read this book, the Crimean War was possibly another closet that needed to be dug into to try to figure out what cause the National Socialist to evolve. In the beginning of the book on into the last couple of chapters, I thought I was digging into a useless closet, but still learning a great deal about a long forgotten and tragic war. Then in the last couple of chapters some light started to be shone on possible connections. I do see connections, and O. Figes specifically mentions how the Treaty of Paris absolutely put Austria in the weakest position going into the 20th Century of all of the Great Powers. It also specifically connected how the Crimean War and the proceeding 25 years of Russo-Francan and then Russo-Austrian pacts ended up creating the Balkan mess, which directly impacted and started WWI, and subsequently WWII.

In the end, the Crimean War was fought, millions died, an entire land mass was leveled, and there was no reason for it. It was pride from the start. Pride on every single side of the equation. The British were Russophobic to the point of rabid stupidity; the French had Napoleon III and he was eager to reclaim France's stance as the leading geopolitical State in Europe - and he did; the Russians and Tsar Nicolas were fed up with Christian persecutions in the Ottoman Empire in a variety of ways and he was fed up with the Latin church and their control of the Holy sites in Palestine. The Greek Orthodox priests egged Nicolas forward. The war was 100% political and 100% religious in nature. The same war would've been fought if either one of the two, political or religious natures, didn't exist.

Figes did a fantastic job of showing the preceding 150 to 200 years of history that lead up to the war. It represents at least a third of the book, maybe more. He mentions in the preface that the casual reader may want to just waltz on up and skip a couple of the first chapters and for me that was nothing but a challenge to dig deep. In my humble opinion, you need to read those first two or three chapters to get a true basis of why this war was fought, especially from the religious point of view.

(less)

like · see review

Oct 17, 2012 Michael M rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An interestingread about a war people mainly remember in this country for the Charge of the Light Brigade.

This incident is of course mentioned but it is seen in the context of the war as a whole.

The author adds mightily to the history of this conflict putting it in context of the events that lead up to the conflict seen from the various perspectives of the participants, follows the war through all its horrors, of which it had many, debunks many of the myths and when the war ends proceed to expla...more

like · see review

Feb 07, 2013 Michael rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: hookah

well-researched professional work; sole weakness was that compared to great WW2 histories where we learn the names of individual divisions/commanders, the Crimean War was a more chaotic, less organized affair and so the story becomes more about generalities (viz., 'the minie gun' vs the 'musket') rather than pure tactics / personages.

professional work. really should give it the fourth star, but probably I'm trying to game the recommendations from the GR alg

like · see review

Jan 21, 2013 Pctrollbreath rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

This is a clever and interesting book. I had previously not really understood the background to the Crimean War, and it was a lot deeper than I had thought.

The sections on the combat were both informative and exciting. The writing style is easy and accessable.

The book would be well worth a read just for those points.

It was interesting to read about the pattern of massacres, and build up of hatreds, between Christian and moslems in the Caucuses and Balkans, it puts more recent events such as the...more

like · see review

Dec 05, 2012 Martin rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

Orlando Figes' book about "the Forgotten War" is one that is easy to read (I mean that it flows well and doesn't go on tangents). It kept me involved and interested. Not only is the war covered, but also the events leading up to it, as well as the aftermath and the ways it affected the countries involved. The main players' arguments and motivations are carefully reviewed. And like all good history books, it got me interested in further reading, be it on certain events of this period, previous wa...more

like · see review

Apr 21, 2012 Paula C rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: abandoned

I am so disappointed with this book -- and with myself for failing to appreciate its style. I have tried scores of times to get into this but I fall back, exhausted, each time...I wish Professor Figes had employed copious endnotes rather than have the reader mired in endless primary source material. I love this genre but Crimea (as it's published in my country) has defeated me!

like · see review

Dec 03, 2012 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

It is typical Figes. So, for instance, fans of his "A People's Tragedy" will enjoy. But. It is typical Figes, so newcomers will have to be tolerant of tangents and loose threads. For example, an assessment of the apparently incompetent British commander, Lord Raglan, appears only episodically, even though Figes's aptitude for mythbusting would have been well-suited to more a thorough, and revealing, conclusion.

like · see review

Aug 02, 2012 Jonathan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: military-history, russian-history, british-history

A beautifully written and comprehensive account of Europe's biggest war post-Napoleon and before the German Wars of unification. Figes, who is primarily a cultural historian, gives the proper weight to the non-British participants in the war, something not usually accomplished by English-language authors. He also breaks down some of the hoarier myths - Florence Nightingale, the Gallant 600, etc. The Crimean War had vast unseen repercussions, and Figes explains carefully how they came about. Ther...more

like · see review

Feb 21, 2013 Zbhall rated it 4 of 5 stars

I knew nothing of the Crimean War. After reading the book, it seems it should be renamed "The Siege of Sevastopol" since that appears to have been the central part of the entire thing.

It was interesting. Well-researched, but I deducted a point since Figes did not list the Russian sources in Cyrillic.

Overall, decent.

like · see review

title link	preview: The Crimean War
avg rating	preview: The Crimean War Goodreads rating: 3.94 (455 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8856965-the-crimean-war?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1317063477l/8856965.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8856965-the-crimean-war?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Crimean War by Orlando Figes[/url]

The Crimean War

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (10)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Orlando Figes

Books by Orlando Figes

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Crimean War: ...