What do you think?
Rate this book
Crimea
The Crimean War is one of the most compelling subjects in British history. Everyone knows about the Charge of the Light Brigade and men like Raglan and Cardigan, have become household names. The story of Florence Nightingale, 'the Lady with the Lamp', and the heroic reporting of William Russell, THE TIMES' intrepid correspondent, and the sonorous names of the battles, are ingrained deep within the British military consciousness - Sebastopol, Inkerman, Balaclava and the Alma. Trevor Royle demonstrates how the Crimean War was a watershed in world coming between the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 and the opening shots of the First World War in 1914 it pointed the way to what mass warfare would be like for soldiers in the twentieth century.
564 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
47 people are currently reading
617 people want to read
About the author
Trevor Royle
68 books34 followersTrevor Royle is a broadcaster and author specialising in the history of war and empire. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and was a member of the Scottish Government’s Advisory Panel for Commemorating the First World War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
April 26, 2016
As a kid, I loved the 1936 Errol Flynn epic The Charge of the Light Brigade. Directed by Michael Curtiz, the film begins in India, in the make-believe city of Chukoti, where the equally-made-up 27th Lancers have been stationed. Why does it begin here? In India? Don’t bother asking – narrative coherence is not one of this film’s many attributes (the film’s many attributes include Errol Flynn, swashbuckling, Errol Flynn’s mustache).
An Arab named Surat Khan, the bloodthirsty leader of a fictional Middle-Eastern nation, lays siege to Chukoti and slaughters the inhabitants. This makes Errol Flynn very angry. Later – somehow, and for some reason – Surat Khan becomes the leader of the Russian forces at Balaclava. Errol Flynn finds out and decides to take his Light Brigade and – you guessed it! – charge.
Then Tennyson wrote a poem about it and the rest was history.
The film has all the hallmarks of a big 1930s production. Extreme racial stereotypes. Blatant disregard for the historical record. And action set pieces that must have killed dozens of horses and injured dozens of stunt men. Altogether is a remarkable movie, one that can’t be made today for any number of reasons. However, if you spend some time of YouTube, you should be able to find enough clips to piece the thing together.
The Charge of the Light Brigade, as portrayed by The Charge of the Light Brigade, forms the bulk of what I know about the Crimean War. Of course, in other reading, I have heard of Alma, Sebastopol, and Florence Nightingale. But until now, I had never taken the time to read a dedicated volume on this mostly-forgotten, extremely violent, mid-19th-century rehearsal for World War I.
In choosing this book, I do what I always do when approaching a new subject. I search for it on Amazon and pick the book at the top of the page. This should tell you all you need to know about the stranglehold Amazon has on my life.
In this case, the title at the top of the page was Trevor Royle’s Crimea. It’s not really a scientific way of choosing, but I’m not a scientist. I’m just a guy who has already given Amazon his credit card and doesn't have a ton of patience.
All in all, it’s not a bad way to introduce yourself to the Crimean War.
Fought between 1853 and 1856, the Crimean War pitted the Russian Empire against Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. Ostensibly, the war started over possession of the key to the main door of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity. Sadly, this is not the silliest reason a war was ever fought. The key, though, was only a pretense. The true cause of the war was the eroding state of the Ottoman Empire, on the perpetual verge of collapse. A hungry and expansionist Russia circled the Ottomans like a shark around a wounded whale; Britain and France stepped in to check Russian expansion and protect their own regional interests. For this reason, three quarters of a million men died in three years.
Though its name marks the conflict as a strictly regional conflict – the Crimean Peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea – the Crimean War actually had quite a global reach. The United States almost got involved, and not on the side a 21st century American would have guessed.
The Crimean War is a big subject, probably too big to fit comfortably in a single volume, especially one that weighs in at just over 500 pages. A lot of information is crammed into a small space, which gives the project a condensed feel.
Royle starts with a brief and fascinating tour of Europe before the war. He then devotes roughly one-third of the book to the diplomacy behind the hostilities. This part of the book involves a lot of unfamiliar (to me) ambassadors and ministers sending a flurry of dispatches back and forth between London, Paris and St. Petersburg. Royle’s writing is crisp and easy to follow. However, these proceedings demand your attention. For one, I didn't have a lot of foreknowledge about the historical figures involved. For another, the lack of space means that most of the historical figures never develop beyond their names. Royle simply doesn’t have time to give them depth, backgrounds, or characteristics. Which is a shame, because the diplomatic corps of the 19th century had a lot of sway over events.
The account of the war itself is serviceable. Certainly, this is not a battle history. Royle will set the stage, briefly describe what happened, and throw in some primary accounts for color. Readers looking for detailed descriptions of movement and maneuver and tactics will have to look elsewhere. This is quite understandable, given the purpose of the book; however, there were times when so little definition was given to the battles that they failed to register as momentous events.
An exception to this is his treatment of Balaclava. Though it is brief, Royle does a fine job (in conjunction with a nice map) explaining one of the glorious disasters (there are many!) of British arms:
The trouble with any single-volume history is the question of what to leave in and what to take out. Royle tries to fit as much in as possible. This leads to a lot of breadth without depth, scope without shading.
Crimea also has its little quirks. For instance, Royle includes a chapter on Florence Nightingale, the famous “lady with the lamp” who brought small mercies to the soldiers dying of wounds and sickness and disease. Strangely, though, Royle uses this chapter mostly to bag on poor Florence. Now, I’m not opposed to revisionism simply because it punctures a cherished myth, but here, it’s shoddily done. Proper revisionism requires Royle to lay out the case for Florence Nightingale, the case against Florence Nightingale, and then present a conclusion based on fair weighing of the evidence. Here, he just doesn’t seem to like her.
(This was really striking to me, especially in a book that is almost entirely sympathetic to the men involved. The generals – not a Wellington, a Napoleon, or a Grant among them – are treated with kid gloves. The commissary department, which sent men off to freeze and die in their own filth are forgiven their blunders. But not Florence Nightingale. No, she was “shrill and self righteous” and the leader of a “motley crew” of illiterates, drunks, and potential whores.)
Royle ends Crimea in 1914, firmly placing the mid-19th century war in a broader geopolitical context. In 1914, as in the 1850s, a general European war began because of crumbling empires and old men clinging to power.
I generally liked Crimea without ever loving it. Certainly, it got me looking for the second book about the Crimean War that I’ll ever read.
The best history books do two things. First, they teach you something. Second, they tell a great story. With Crimea, I learned a bunch of things. As for sheer storytelling ability…Well, like I said, I learned a bunch of things.
An Arab named Surat Khan, the bloodthirsty leader of a fictional Middle-Eastern nation, lays siege to Chukoti and slaughters the inhabitants. This makes Errol Flynn very angry. Later – somehow, and for some reason – Surat Khan becomes the leader of the Russian forces at Balaclava. Errol Flynn finds out and decides to take his Light Brigade and – you guessed it! – charge.
Then Tennyson wrote a poem about it and the rest was history.
The film has all the hallmarks of a big 1930s production. Extreme racial stereotypes. Blatant disregard for the historical record. And action set pieces that must have killed dozens of horses and injured dozens of stunt men. Altogether is a remarkable movie, one that can’t be made today for any number of reasons. However, if you spend some time of YouTube, you should be able to find enough clips to piece the thing together.
The Charge of the Light Brigade, as portrayed by The Charge of the Light Brigade, forms the bulk of what I know about the Crimean War. Of course, in other reading, I have heard of Alma, Sebastopol, and Florence Nightingale. But until now, I had never taken the time to read a dedicated volume on this mostly-forgotten, extremely violent, mid-19th-century rehearsal for World War I.
In choosing this book, I do what I always do when approaching a new subject. I search for it on Amazon and pick the book at the top of the page. This should tell you all you need to know about the stranglehold Amazon has on my life.
In this case, the title at the top of the page was Trevor Royle’s Crimea. It’s not really a scientific way of choosing, but I’m not a scientist. I’m just a guy who has already given Amazon his credit card and doesn't have a ton of patience.
All in all, it’s not a bad way to introduce yourself to the Crimean War.
Fought between 1853 and 1856, the Crimean War pitted the Russian Empire against Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. Ostensibly, the war started over possession of the key to the main door of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity. Sadly, this is not the silliest reason a war was ever fought. The key, though, was only a pretense. The true cause of the war was the eroding state of the Ottoman Empire, on the perpetual verge of collapse. A hungry and expansionist Russia circled the Ottomans like a shark around a wounded whale; Britain and France stepped in to check Russian expansion and protect their own regional interests. For this reason, three quarters of a million men died in three years.
Though its name marks the conflict as a strictly regional conflict – the Crimean Peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea – the Crimean War actually had quite a global reach. The United States almost got involved, and not on the side a 21st century American would have guessed.
The Crimean War is a big subject, probably too big to fit comfortably in a single volume, especially one that weighs in at just over 500 pages. A lot of information is crammed into a small space, which gives the project a condensed feel.
Royle starts with a brief and fascinating tour of Europe before the war. He then devotes roughly one-third of the book to the diplomacy behind the hostilities. This part of the book involves a lot of unfamiliar (to me) ambassadors and ministers sending a flurry of dispatches back and forth between London, Paris and St. Petersburg. Royle’s writing is crisp and easy to follow. However, these proceedings demand your attention. For one, I didn't have a lot of foreknowledge about the historical figures involved. For another, the lack of space means that most of the historical figures never develop beyond their names. Royle simply doesn’t have time to give them depth, backgrounds, or characteristics. Which is a shame, because the diplomatic corps of the 19th century had a lot of sway over events.
The account of the war itself is serviceable. Certainly, this is not a battle history. Royle will set the stage, briefly describe what happened, and throw in some primary accounts for color. Readers looking for detailed descriptions of movement and maneuver and tactics will have to look elsewhere. This is quite understandable, given the purpose of the book; however, there were times when so little definition was given to the battles that they failed to register as momentous events.
An exception to this is his treatment of Balaclava. Though it is brief, Royle does a fine job (in conjunction with a nice map) explaining one of the glorious disasters (there are many!) of British arms:
Having gained permission from Morris to ride with the 17th Lancers [Captain Louis Edward]Nolan had one more contribution to make to the debacle. As the Light Brigade trotted forward he suddenly charged ahead gesticulating wildly with his sword and shouting incomprehensibly. Either he was trying to change the direction of the charge or he was caught up in his eagerness to hasten the attack. Both have been put forward as reasons for his impetuous behavior but the truth will never be known for he was killed immediately by a Russian shell splinter. No one in the leading lines would ever forget his blood-curdling scream – “more like a woman’s wail than a man’s” according to Cardigan – as the shrapnel ripped into his chest mortally wounding him. He was to be the first of the 107 men and 397 horse who would be killed within the next 25 minutes as they rode the one and a half miles toward the Russian guns.
The trouble with any single-volume history is the question of what to leave in and what to take out. Royle tries to fit as much in as possible. This leads to a lot of breadth without depth, scope without shading.
Crimea also has its little quirks. For instance, Royle includes a chapter on Florence Nightingale, the famous “lady with the lamp” who brought small mercies to the soldiers dying of wounds and sickness and disease. Strangely, though, Royle uses this chapter mostly to bag on poor Florence. Now, I’m not opposed to revisionism simply because it punctures a cherished myth, but here, it’s shoddily done. Proper revisionism requires Royle to lay out the case for Florence Nightingale, the case against Florence Nightingale, and then present a conclusion based on fair weighing of the evidence. Here, he just doesn’t seem to like her.
(This was really striking to me, especially in a book that is almost entirely sympathetic to the men involved. The generals – not a Wellington, a Napoleon, or a Grant among them – are treated with kid gloves. The commissary department, which sent men off to freeze and die in their own filth are forgiven their blunders. But not Florence Nightingale. No, she was “shrill and self righteous” and the leader of a “motley crew” of illiterates, drunks, and potential whores.)
Royle ends Crimea in 1914, firmly placing the mid-19th century war in a broader geopolitical context. In 1914, as in the 1850s, a general European war began because of crumbling empires and old men clinging to power.
I generally liked Crimea without ever loving it. Certainly, it got me looking for the second book about the Crimean War that I’ll ever read.
The best history books do two things. First, they teach you something. Second, they tell a great story. With Crimea, I learned a bunch of things. As for sheer storytelling ability…Well, like I said, I learned a bunch of things.
May 7, 2022
I feel like an enormous burden has been lifted from my shoulders. Anyone who reads a book about the horrors of war that is over 500 pages deserves how washed out I feel. This war between Russia and the allied (for once) British and French was over territory Russia is trying to reclaim today. The cities are somewhat familiar, and much of the heavy fighting is along the Black Sea Coast. I suspect the end will be the same with tens of thousands of casualties on both sides, and Ukraine left in rubble. Very sad but informative in the historical sense.
July 28, 2011
The battles of the River Alma, Inkermann, Sevastapol, and the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava.......these spring to mind when one reflects on the Crimean War. And this was about the extent of the fighting that took place in this romanticized war that was basically a series of blunders and inept leadership. A war that started over the possession of the keys to the Holy Places in Jerusalem was the first war that engaged the British since Waterloo and many of the military leaders had served under the great Duke of Wellington. Warfare had changed but they had not and that attitude brought about myriad problems on the battle field and off. The fact that England and France, perennial enemies, were allies in this war did not ease the situation. It is also interesting to note that the French were better prepared and outshone the British on the battlefield.
The author has done meticulous research and is not an apologist for the actions of the military leadership and the government. There are sections of this book which move rather slowly as one would expect in 500+ pages but generally the narrative is crisp and provides the reader with a concise picture of the actions in the Crimea. Highly recommended for the fan of military history.
The author has done meticulous research and is not an apologist for the actions of the military leadership and the government. There are sections of this book which move rather slowly as one would expect in 500+ pages but generally the narrative is crisp and provides the reader with a concise picture of the actions in the Crimea. Highly recommended for the fan of military history.
June 25, 2009
I found this account on the Crimean War by Trevor Royle to be a very enjoyable and easy to read book. The story was well written and the narrative just seemed to flow along, taking the reader on an exciting trip through history. Although, as previously mentioned, the author does not spend a great amount of time on describing the battles of this conflict, he does manage to cover most aspects of this terrible war. I did find out a number of things that I had not previously read in other books and his descriptions of the battles were still well presented. Throughout the book the author utilised personal accounts from a number of the participants and these seemed to fit the narrative quite well.
Trevor Royle has taken the time to give the reader a detailed account of the events leading up to the Crimean War and for once this was as enjoyable to read as the actual details of the conflict. I was fascinated by the story and at no time did I find the book boring which sometimes happens when an author starts talking about politics. I thought that maybe more maps could have been supplied but those featured were detailed enough to follow the story. A number of black and white photographs were also utilised to assist the reader follow the story. However I feel that more photos of the conflict could have been used especially since this was one of the first wars to receive so much media attention, a point mentioned many times by the author.
The book is over 500 pages long and a number of the less known battles and conflicts, both on land and sea, are covered by the author. I found that his defence of Lord Raglan was well presented and deservedly so when consideration is taken of the period and state of society from which Raglan emerged. Overall this is a well-presented and enjoyable account of this terrible conflict and I found it to be as good as Christopher Hibbert's `The Destruction of Lord Raglan' and Alan Palmer's `The Banner of Battle'. I would recommend this book to any person who enjoys a decent history book or just a good read!
Trevor Royle has taken the time to give the reader a detailed account of the events leading up to the Crimean War and for once this was as enjoyable to read as the actual details of the conflict. I was fascinated by the story and at no time did I find the book boring which sometimes happens when an author starts talking about politics. I thought that maybe more maps could have been supplied but those featured were detailed enough to follow the story. A number of black and white photographs were also utilised to assist the reader follow the story. However I feel that more photos of the conflict could have been used especially since this was one of the first wars to receive so much media attention, a point mentioned many times by the author.
The book is over 500 pages long and a number of the less known battles and conflicts, both on land and sea, are covered by the author. I found that his defence of Lord Raglan was well presented and deservedly so when consideration is taken of the period and state of society from which Raglan emerged. Overall this is a well-presented and enjoyable account of this terrible conflict and I found it to be as good as Christopher Hibbert's `The Destruction of Lord Raglan' and Alan Palmer's `The Banner of Battle'. I would recommend this book to any person who enjoys a decent history book or just a good read!
February 17, 2013
This isn't a bad book, but it's pushing 600 pages, which for the lameass Crimean War isn't really defensible. This is not a military history, nor a diplomatic history but a concatenation of both with mind-numbing details of diplomatic notes flying back and forth languidly in the spring breeze of Varna. Whatever. The best bits are on the technologies coming into play for the first time and all the fun diseases that ravaged all armies involved. Figes' might be better.
February 23, 2017
Royle compresses a lot of information into about 500 pages of text. Book covers the war from various angles, but its main focus is diplomacy. Here we learn of Austria's efforts to act as an "honest broker" and ensure a dominant position in postwar Eastern Europe; Sardinia siding with the Allies to gain French help in unifying Italy; Prussia using the conflict as a springboard for German unification; and the very real chance the United States could have intervened. These angles are more thoroughly fleshed out than Royle's chapters on the military campaigns, and frankly more interesting. While Royle does a good job covering peripheral theaters of the war, his commentary on the Sevastopol Campaign adds little to the already-abundant literature. Also he makes mistakes like claiming Cardigan married Lucan's sister rather than the other way around. He does explore the war's technological, tactical and medical innovations in some detail. Overall though I prefer Orlando Figes' more recent volume.
April 21, 2016
An enjoyable and readable history of the Crimean War, a war Royle emphasizes nobody really won in the long term.
Royle covers all of the war’s major aspects, although his coverage of the battles is not too in-depth. He puts the war into its historical context, describing French efforts to regain prominence on the world stage, Britain’s efforts to maintain the peace and protect India, the Ottomans’ inability to defend itself, and Russia pursuing its eastern ambitions with less concern for the status quo.
Of course, it often seems like the war was a bizarre event that accomplished pretty much nothing, but Royle describes how it marked the rise of such developments as the telegraph, the railroad, the field hospital, and steam-powered warships, as well as how the media shaped events.
A smooth, evenhanded and well-written work. Some more and better maps would have helped, though, and the book seems a bit too Anglocentric.
Royle covers all of the war’s major aspects, although his coverage of the battles is not too in-depth. He puts the war into its historical context, describing French efforts to regain prominence on the world stage, Britain’s efforts to maintain the peace and protect India, the Ottomans’ inability to defend itself, and Russia pursuing its eastern ambitions with less concern for the status quo.
Of course, it often seems like the war was a bizarre event that accomplished pretty much nothing, but Royle describes how it marked the rise of such developments as the telegraph, the railroad, the field hospital, and steam-powered warships, as well as how the media shaped events.
A smooth, evenhanded and well-written work. Some more and better maps would have helped, though, and the book seems a bit too Anglocentric.
May 23, 2023
I found this a very complete and interesting history of a war that I knew little about besides the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade through the classic movie. Unfortunatlely, there were parts where I had to reread the page I'd just passed over. Not sure why I'm not giving it a full five stars. Perhaps because it seems so anglo-centric even though all parties involved are mentioned fairly well?
July 23, 2012
The Crimean war broke Europe's peace and set the stage for the horrors of the World Wars to come.
Royle's work is a solid and balanced survey of the Crimean War. He spends a lot of time on the politics and the "behind the scenes" interplay between the belligerents. Yet, he doesn't get too bogged down in the daily grind of the battlefield. If you read one book on the Crimean War, Royle's work is hard to beat. He is fair to be participants (especially Raglan), but he does not leave them without faults.
It is odd to think that this war is not given more attention by historians and the general public. It was the first truly modern war to take advantage of Minié balls, railways, and steamers. Most importantly, Crimea was the first time that the English Press had an all access pass to the horrors of war. As a result, the public was forced to confront life and death in the battlefield. It is also strange to think that the Russian commanders were able to read about English and French troop strengths and movements via the British newspapers. Although, the Russian press was still very much censored.
Still, the most lasting memories of the Crimea are that of the Light Brigade and Florence Nightingale. Although both subjects add flavor to the history, neither had a huge impact of the war itself. That said, both had immediate impacts on the psyches of the public back home. Although both of these areas are touched upon by Royle, there are more specialized works that will go much deeper in detail.
Royle's Crimea is highly recommended for historians or those with an interest in Victorian politics.
Royle's work is a solid and balanced survey of the Crimean War. He spends a lot of time on the politics and the "behind the scenes" interplay between the belligerents. Yet, he doesn't get too bogged down in the daily grind of the battlefield. If you read one book on the Crimean War, Royle's work is hard to beat. He is fair to be participants (especially Raglan), but he does not leave them without faults.
It is odd to think that this war is not given more attention by historians and the general public. It was the first truly modern war to take advantage of Minié balls, railways, and steamers. Most importantly, Crimea was the first time that the English Press had an all access pass to the horrors of war. As a result, the public was forced to confront life and death in the battlefield. It is also strange to think that the Russian commanders were able to read about English and French troop strengths and movements via the British newspapers. Although, the Russian press was still very much censored.
Still, the most lasting memories of the Crimea are that of the Light Brigade and Florence Nightingale. Although both subjects add flavor to the history, neither had a huge impact of the war itself. That said, both had immediate impacts on the psyches of the public back home. Although both of these areas are touched upon by Royle, there are more specialized works that will go much deeper in detail.
Royle's Crimea is highly recommended for historians or those with an interest in Victorian politics.
May 6, 2021
A detailed, excellent account of a complicated subject for which Royle is an excellent narrator. He clearly writes about the complex military and diplomatic blunders of this war. Tactical, weapon and medical developments are traced as the war progresses such as field hospitals and more accurate guns. The author also links the Crimean War, as the first modern war, to the American Civil War and 20th century wars. The Crimean War signalled the end of a European peaceful period dating from 1815
and became a watershed for signalling later European power struggles.
and became a watershed for signalling later European power struggles.
December 31, 2024
The Human drops out of Humanity
Winners?
The British, at the cost of 20,000+ dead, gained a near universal hegemony with unrivaled access to the land and resources of the world through its navel supremacy that remained unchallenged until 1918. This was the beginning of the Pax Britannica and the myth of the empire upon which the sun never set. For the British, the purpose of the War was to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and check the expansion of the Russian Empire. In this, Britain was, for the time, successful.
The French, at the cost of 100,000 dead, moved back into the fold of great powers. The peace treaty ending the war was held in Paris; the Congress of Paris in 1856. Napoleon III finally became as important as he thought he was. France also entered into a new relationship with Russia in facing the Prussia’s steady rise to power as the leading force in German unification. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the end of the line for Napoleon III, yet another (3rd) French Republic and emergence of the German Empire was soon to follow.
Losers?
Russia, at the cost of a staggering 500,000 dead, gained at least one thing, a great deal of debt and for all this saw the power of the Russian State destroyed for at least a generation or more. The Russians unleashed forces of death and mortality they could not control. Russia learned a hard lesson in modernization and industrialization. Russia learned that a pre-modern, non-industrialized state could not hope to compete with modern industrial states. Russia began to develop railways, industry, education and this led to the emaciation of the serfs by Alexander II. A new Russia emerged from somewhere between myth and modernity. But they also lost (sold for $7.2M) Russian-America, aka Alaska. At least the Russians gained Tolstoy who produced the only intentionally fictionalized account of the War in his ‘Sevastopol Sketches’, his overture to ‘War and Peace’. The Crimean has become known as the first literary war.
The Ottoman Empire, at the cost of 100,000+ dead, gained nothing but a temporary extension of a dying empire. As it disintegrated, it awakened dormant national sentiments, upset regional stability and gave birth to a new and fragmented Balkans whose previous and petty rivalries, now newly energized, precipitated WWI.
Austria gained the least and lost the most. The self-appointed king maker did not participate in the hostilities, tried to broker peace its own interest and lost the most, including leadership of the German speaking world to the up and coming Prussian state.
Winners and losers both fought in a war of unspeakable misery, suffering, horror and blundering incompetency that changed the nature of politics and war. When it comes to war, all are losers.
The Real Heroes (Heroines) - Those who tried to put Human back into Humanity
Florence Nightingale
Inspired by shocking press reports from the seat of war, the first of their kind, from a new source we would recognize as the embedded journalist such as the London Times correspondent William Howard Russell (who was heaped with abuse for exposing the facts), the serene Nightingale was determined to help and in her capacity as a private hospital manger when she proposed a private expedition to the Crimea. She organized the complete cleaning of the appallingly filthy and lice infested military hospital. She was a brilliant administrator and much more competent than the bumping politicians and clownish generals who made sure the hospitals stay filled with the sick and wounded. The incompetency and failures of the politicians in starting the war was only matched by the bungling and blundering of the generals in conducting the war. But as the Duke of Cambridge put it so well, “Brains! I don’t believe in brains.” In addition to this, Florence Nightingale took a close and personal interest in as many of the sick and wounded as humanly and humanely possible. Remarkably, many of the in-theater British commanders, including the aforementioned Duke of Cambridge, went home to merry old England for the first devastating winter leaving behind solider without winter clothing, shelter, medical care, adequate food or safe water to suffer as well as be frozen, flogged and shot for cowardness and desertion. The irony is just too tragic to contemplate for too long.
The Grand Duchess Elena Pavlona
Inspired by the British response of Florence Nightingale, The Grand Duchess founded and financed the Orthodox Sisters of Mercy who went to Sevastopol to nurse and care for the abandoned Russian soldiers on the battlefield whose condition was even more pitiful than that of the neglected British soldiers.
Mary Seacole
Originally from Jamaica. When not allowed to become one of the Nightingale nurses, she paid her own from London to The Crimea. Once there, she set herself to the business of supplying the creature comforts to the solders in the form of the ‘British Hotel’ which she established to serve meals, medicine and a small taste of home. With her skill as a natural healer, she became known as ‘Mother’ to the troops.
Alexis Soyer
The singing French Chef. The Reform Club chef who traveled to Scutari (just outside of Constantinople) with Florence Nightingale at his own expense and greatly improved the soldierly diet and eliminated the waste and the inefficiency and greatly boosted British moral.
The Press?
Here the story is not so clear. The capricious press first vociferously advocated for the war as a matter of British honor. This was done to the point of lampooning PM Aberdeen for ineptitude and cowardness in not responding to Russian provocations. Later, as the hardships and setbacks of war made themselves known as they always do, it was the press that agitated for peace. This to the point of forcing a change in the government and a new PM, Palmerstone. However, it was also the innovation of the embedded reporter that uncovered the many abuses, incompetencies and blundering that led to much needed remedy, redress and reform. However again, as much good as this reporting did to remedy deficiencies in command, shortcoming in logistics and abuses in the treatment of soldiers it also compromised operational security.
A Very British Difference
The French leaders were worried about fighting a war while their British counterparts were more worried about winning a war and being heroes. The French, being more experienced with regular military service, had administration and logistical systems in place, ambulance units, doctors and nurses attached to their regular army formations and were much more ready and better able to supply themselves than were the haphazard British and negligent Russians in dealing with the logistical and medical demands presented by war and disease, and thus did not need to elicit a heroic response. Though by 1856, the French also found themselves overwhelmed with cholera and typhus cases. The Turkish soldiers had nothing but the false promise of paradise to console them in their very real misery and suffering. However, there was an afterlife for Ottoman soldiers after all. This was in the muster rolls of the army; their deaths were kept secret allowing senior commanders to collect the salaries and allowances of the living dead soldiers.
A Very British Crimean War
This book is the story of the Great Crimean War from a very British perspective. The documentation upon the story is built is overwhelmingly British. The most detailed descriptions are those of the internal workings and conditions of the British army, navy, government and civilian reactions. By comparison, the same from the perspective of the French, Russian and Ottoman remain somewhat opaque. To the extent they are discussed and presented, it is done so from the British perspective or as observed by and commented upon by the British. But after all, it truly was a very British Crimean War. The British precipitated, pursued, prosecuted and prolonged the war in an effort crush Russian power and were in the best position to document the war through photography and the new feature of the embedded journalist. The British also gained the most and lowest cost and suffered the least though the human suffering of the unfortunate participants on all sides was inhuman. This war was an example of the human dropping out of humanity only to have certain heroes and heroines try to find a way to put the human back into humanity.
The Key to a Church = The Key to a War
Disputes about the beliefs and rights of religious communities was one of the reasons the British and French found themselves involved in a long and costly war with Russia. Remarkable as it sounds, a catalyst to the Crimean War was a dispute over the key to the main door of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. A dispute over the guardianship of, and access to, religious sites in Palestine was a cause of tension between Catholic France and Orthodox Russia. The conflict came to a head in 1853 with rioting in Bethlehem, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. Several Orthodox monks were killed during fighting with French monks. Tsar Nicholas I blamed the Turks for these deaths. In an added wrinkle to the religious dimension of the conflict, the Russians also asserted that is was their right to govern the Russian-Greek-Orthodox church and practice of religion within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Christianity, with its conceit and arrogance, is nothing more than a pernicious cult whose infighting over where the mythical figure Jesus Christ may have perambulated about Palestine was still able to precipitate war in the mid nineteenth century. Part of Tsar Nicholas' strategic thinking was that the Christian nations of Europe would never go to war against another Christian nation in support of an Islamic empire.
This is not to minimize the non-religious differences between France, Russia, and Britain who were all competing for influence in Palestine, particularly with the Ottoman Empire during the years leading up to the Crimean War; religion was also a cover for political ambitions, but there is also no denying that capricious religious differences were certainly a catalyst of the Crimean War - the continuing curse of monotheism and in this case with two of its three impostors active in Palestine, Christianity and Islam.
As Fate would have it, within in a year of the Treaty of Paris being signed (1856), on a Good Friday, fighting as bad as anything that took place before the War, broke out between pilgrims and priests at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Bethlehem.
Winners?
The British, at the cost of 20,000+ dead, gained a near universal hegemony with unrivaled access to the land and resources of the world through its navel supremacy that remained unchallenged until 1918. This was the beginning of the Pax Britannica and the myth of the empire upon which the sun never set. For the British, the purpose of the War was to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and check the expansion of the Russian Empire. In this, Britain was, for the time, successful.
The French, at the cost of 100,000 dead, moved back into the fold of great powers. The peace treaty ending the war was held in Paris; the Congress of Paris in 1856. Napoleon III finally became as important as he thought he was. France also entered into a new relationship with Russia in facing the Prussia’s steady rise to power as the leading force in German unification. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the end of the line for Napoleon III, yet another (3rd) French Republic and emergence of the German Empire was soon to follow.
Losers?
Russia, at the cost of a staggering 500,000 dead, gained at least one thing, a great deal of debt and for all this saw the power of the Russian State destroyed for at least a generation or more. The Russians unleashed forces of death and mortality they could not control. Russia learned a hard lesson in modernization and industrialization. Russia learned that a pre-modern, non-industrialized state could not hope to compete with modern industrial states. Russia began to develop railways, industry, education and this led to the emaciation of the serfs by Alexander II. A new Russia emerged from somewhere between myth and modernity. But they also lost (sold for $7.2M) Russian-America, aka Alaska. At least the Russians gained Tolstoy who produced the only intentionally fictionalized account of the War in his ‘Sevastopol Sketches’, his overture to ‘War and Peace’. The Crimean has become known as the first literary war.
The Ottoman Empire, at the cost of 100,000+ dead, gained nothing but a temporary extension of a dying empire. As it disintegrated, it awakened dormant national sentiments, upset regional stability and gave birth to a new and fragmented Balkans whose previous and petty rivalries, now newly energized, precipitated WWI.
Austria gained the least and lost the most. The self-appointed king maker did not participate in the hostilities, tried to broker peace its own interest and lost the most, including leadership of the German speaking world to the up and coming Prussian state.
Winners and losers both fought in a war of unspeakable misery, suffering, horror and blundering incompetency that changed the nature of politics and war. When it comes to war, all are losers.
The Real Heroes (Heroines) - Those who tried to put Human back into Humanity
Florence Nightingale
Inspired by shocking press reports from the seat of war, the first of their kind, from a new source we would recognize as the embedded journalist such as the London Times correspondent William Howard Russell (who was heaped with abuse for exposing the facts), the serene Nightingale was determined to help and in her capacity as a private hospital manger when she proposed a private expedition to the Crimea. She organized the complete cleaning of the appallingly filthy and lice infested military hospital. She was a brilliant administrator and much more competent than the bumping politicians and clownish generals who made sure the hospitals stay filled with the sick and wounded. The incompetency and failures of the politicians in starting the war was only matched by the bungling and blundering of the generals in conducting the war. But as the Duke of Cambridge put it so well, “Brains! I don’t believe in brains.” In addition to this, Florence Nightingale took a close and personal interest in as many of the sick and wounded as humanly and humanely possible. Remarkably, many of the in-theater British commanders, including the aforementioned Duke of Cambridge, went home to merry old England for the first devastating winter leaving behind solider without winter clothing, shelter, medical care, adequate food or safe water to suffer as well as be frozen, flogged and shot for cowardness and desertion. The irony is just too tragic to contemplate for too long.
The Grand Duchess Elena Pavlona
Inspired by the British response of Florence Nightingale, The Grand Duchess founded and financed the Orthodox Sisters of Mercy who went to Sevastopol to nurse and care for the abandoned Russian soldiers on the battlefield whose condition was even more pitiful than that of the neglected British soldiers.
Mary Seacole
Originally from Jamaica. When not allowed to become one of the Nightingale nurses, she paid her own from London to The Crimea. Once there, she set herself to the business of supplying the creature comforts to the solders in the form of the ‘British Hotel’ which she established to serve meals, medicine and a small taste of home. With her skill as a natural healer, she became known as ‘Mother’ to the troops.
Alexis Soyer
The singing French Chef. The Reform Club chef who traveled to Scutari (just outside of Constantinople) with Florence Nightingale at his own expense and greatly improved the soldierly diet and eliminated the waste and the inefficiency and greatly boosted British moral.
The Press?
Here the story is not so clear. The capricious press first vociferously advocated for the war as a matter of British honor. This was done to the point of lampooning PM Aberdeen for ineptitude and cowardness in not responding to Russian provocations. Later, as the hardships and setbacks of war made themselves known as they always do, it was the press that agitated for peace. This to the point of forcing a change in the government and a new PM, Palmerstone. However, it was also the innovation of the embedded reporter that uncovered the many abuses, incompetencies and blundering that led to much needed remedy, redress and reform. However again, as much good as this reporting did to remedy deficiencies in command, shortcoming in logistics and abuses in the treatment of soldiers it also compromised operational security.
A Very British Difference
The French leaders were worried about fighting a war while their British counterparts were more worried about winning a war and being heroes. The French, being more experienced with regular military service, had administration and logistical systems in place, ambulance units, doctors and nurses attached to their regular army formations and were much more ready and better able to supply themselves than were the haphazard British and negligent Russians in dealing with the logistical and medical demands presented by war and disease, and thus did not need to elicit a heroic response. Though by 1856, the French also found themselves overwhelmed with cholera and typhus cases. The Turkish soldiers had nothing but the false promise of paradise to console them in their very real misery and suffering. However, there was an afterlife for Ottoman soldiers after all. This was in the muster rolls of the army; their deaths were kept secret allowing senior commanders to collect the salaries and allowances of the living dead soldiers.
A Very British Crimean War
This book is the story of the Great Crimean War from a very British perspective. The documentation upon the story is built is overwhelmingly British. The most detailed descriptions are those of the internal workings and conditions of the British army, navy, government and civilian reactions. By comparison, the same from the perspective of the French, Russian and Ottoman remain somewhat opaque. To the extent they are discussed and presented, it is done so from the British perspective or as observed by and commented upon by the British. But after all, it truly was a very British Crimean War. The British precipitated, pursued, prosecuted and prolonged the war in an effort crush Russian power and were in the best position to document the war through photography and the new feature of the embedded journalist. The British also gained the most and lowest cost and suffered the least though the human suffering of the unfortunate participants on all sides was inhuman. This war was an example of the human dropping out of humanity only to have certain heroes and heroines try to find a way to put the human back into humanity.
The Key to a Church = The Key to a War
Disputes about the beliefs and rights of religious communities was one of the reasons the British and French found themselves involved in a long and costly war with Russia. Remarkable as it sounds, a catalyst to the Crimean War was a dispute over the key to the main door of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. A dispute over the guardianship of, and access to, religious sites in Palestine was a cause of tension between Catholic France and Orthodox Russia. The conflict came to a head in 1853 with rioting in Bethlehem, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. Several Orthodox monks were killed during fighting with French monks. Tsar Nicholas I blamed the Turks for these deaths. In an added wrinkle to the religious dimension of the conflict, the Russians also asserted that is was their right to govern the Russian-Greek-Orthodox church and practice of religion within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Christianity, with its conceit and arrogance, is nothing more than a pernicious cult whose infighting over where the mythical figure Jesus Christ may have perambulated about Palestine was still able to precipitate war in the mid nineteenth century. Part of Tsar Nicholas' strategic thinking was that the Christian nations of Europe would never go to war against another Christian nation in support of an Islamic empire.
This is not to minimize the non-religious differences between France, Russia, and Britain who were all competing for influence in Palestine, particularly with the Ottoman Empire during the years leading up to the Crimean War; religion was also a cover for political ambitions, but there is also no denying that capricious religious differences were certainly a catalyst of the Crimean War - the continuing curse of monotheism and in this case with two of its three impostors active in Palestine, Christianity and Islam.
As Fate would have it, within in a year of the Treaty of Paris being signed (1856), on a Good Friday, fighting as bad as anything that took place before the War, broke out between pilgrims and priests at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Bethlehem.
September 20, 2025
The war in the Crimea from 1854 to 1856 was the first major European war since the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. This long period of peace meant that all of the participants were in one way or another caught unprepared for such a war. For the UK and France this was an expeditionary war fought at immense distances from their home country. And while the fighting took place in Russia poor roads and logistics meant fighting in the Crimea was equally difficult for Russia. The war that was fought is perhaps best known for the blunders; the charge of the light brigade and the poor conditions. But it is also well worth studying as the start of war in the industrial age and the technological development that was going on and where it was to lead to. Trevor Royale’s history covers all aspects of the war with a particular focus on the international politics.
Pros
A decent read that does not get bogged down
Big picture account of the war - and surrounding events
Cons
A bit unbalanced in what the book gives room to
Disappointing final few chapters
At over 500 pages this is quite a chunky book but is a good read. Royle makes the causes and stakes understandable, and manages to keep it clear throughout what the participants were trying to achieve at a particular point. While this might seem quite obvious the Crimea can easily be seen as a rather pointless war so it is actually quite useful. And although all theatres of war are included there is an advantage to providing a narrative of a war that is focused on one front in making the account coherent and easy to follow.
Although the subtitle is “The Great Crimean War” I would not consider this primarily a work of military history. It is more of a big picture account and for the most part it does not get into the details of individual actions - with minor actions passed over in a few lines. Bigger battles are given their due space, but it feels like that is because of what the victory or defeat means for the strategic position of the war rather than Royle aiming to provide the nitty gritty of what regiments engaged how and where. The focus therefore is on the why and how. Why was there a war? How was it prosecuted? And then how do we get out of it? The diplomacy before, during and after the war is a particularly significant part of the account.
And while there is not the focus on the fighting I expected there is on the care of the soldiers. Crimea was of course famous for the way Britain comprehensively failed the soldiers in the field in terms of supply and medical care - Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole being just the most famous for the care they provided. Royle does very well in bringing in lots of accounts - both from those at the front, in the hospitals, and also from those outraged back at home.
The book is at its best in covering all the various angles of the war. This is not just a war in Crimea. Other fronts are considered too; initially the Balkans, other actions around the Black sea, and the Baltic. Though I did find it somewhat Ironic to have a chapter titled ‘The Forgotten War: Kars and Erzerum’ which is only 16 pages long (in over 500), and is mostly taken up by the British commander in the region’s complaints against the Turks.
This account is perhaps a little anglocentric. The focus is on the British and most views provided are also British. Those of the French and Russians are not ignored, particularly when it comes to diplomacy - though I would definitely have liked to have heard more from the Turks. I am not sure whether it is this anglocentrism or the focus on diplomacy but there is a remarkable amount about the United States despite the country playing no role. This is because of the tensions between the US and first France and then the UK leading to war scares, these were minor and blown out of proportion in a way that happened quite a lot in the 19th century. But it does mean the US has more space devoted to it than Sardinia (a combatant) or that forgotten war around Kars.
Notwithstanding the big picture focus I found a couple of the last chapters disappointing. The second last on the “New World Order” post Crimea and the Epilogue on 1914 both seemed like potted histories. Where they should have been laser focused on the impact of the Crimean war they don't feel like they draw much significance from the war. There is a case to be made for the links in both places, but I don't think Royle makes it.
This was an enjoyable book even if not quite what I expected as a military history. Perhaps more one for someone looking for the diplomatic/international relations side of the war rather than the details of individual battles.
Pros
A decent read that does not get bogged down
Big picture account of the war - and surrounding events
Cons
A bit unbalanced in what the book gives room to
Disappointing final few chapters
At over 500 pages this is quite a chunky book but is a good read. Royle makes the causes and stakes understandable, and manages to keep it clear throughout what the participants were trying to achieve at a particular point. While this might seem quite obvious the Crimea can easily be seen as a rather pointless war so it is actually quite useful. And although all theatres of war are included there is an advantage to providing a narrative of a war that is focused on one front in making the account coherent and easy to follow.
Although the subtitle is “The Great Crimean War” I would not consider this primarily a work of military history. It is more of a big picture account and for the most part it does not get into the details of individual actions - with minor actions passed over in a few lines. Bigger battles are given their due space, but it feels like that is because of what the victory or defeat means for the strategic position of the war rather than Royle aiming to provide the nitty gritty of what regiments engaged how and where. The focus therefore is on the why and how. Why was there a war? How was it prosecuted? And then how do we get out of it? The diplomacy before, during and after the war is a particularly significant part of the account.
And while there is not the focus on the fighting I expected there is on the care of the soldiers. Crimea was of course famous for the way Britain comprehensively failed the soldiers in the field in terms of supply and medical care - Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole being just the most famous for the care they provided. Royle does very well in bringing in lots of accounts - both from those at the front, in the hospitals, and also from those outraged back at home.
The book is at its best in covering all the various angles of the war. This is not just a war in Crimea. Other fronts are considered too; initially the Balkans, other actions around the Black sea, and the Baltic. Though I did find it somewhat Ironic to have a chapter titled ‘The Forgotten War: Kars and Erzerum’ which is only 16 pages long (in over 500), and is mostly taken up by the British commander in the region’s complaints against the Turks.
This account is perhaps a little anglocentric. The focus is on the British and most views provided are also British. Those of the French and Russians are not ignored, particularly when it comes to diplomacy - though I would definitely have liked to have heard more from the Turks. I am not sure whether it is this anglocentrism or the focus on diplomacy but there is a remarkable amount about the United States despite the country playing no role. This is because of the tensions between the US and first France and then the UK leading to war scares, these were minor and blown out of proportion in a way that happened quite a lot in the 19th century. But it does mean the US has more space devoted to it than Sardinia (a combatant) or that forgotten war around Kars.
Notwithstanding the big picture focus I found a couple of the last chapters disappointing. The second last on the “New World Order” post Crimea and the Epilogue on 1914 both seemed like potted histories. Where they should have been laser focused on the impact of the Crimean war they don't feel like they draw much significance from the war. There is a case to be made for the links in both places, but I don't think Royle makes it.
This was an enjoyable book even if not quite what I expected as a military history. Perhaps more one for someone looking for the diplomatic/international relations side of the war rather than the details of individual battles.
September 1, 2017
A good overview of a complex, tortured event. I liked the details of the failed diplomacy and the subsequent tragic drift to war, the unflinching look at the squalor and its tragic results, and the excellent description of the battles and the harrowing consequences of lives lost or maimed, all for little gain.
There's also a good epilogue of the enduring place this war has in history and how its details echoed through the 20th Century's even more terrible wars.
I would have preferred a few more maps, a cast of characters as an appendix, and more voices of the rank and file rather than predominantly from the aristocrats.
There's also a good epilogue of the enduring place this war has in history and how its details echoed through the 20th Century's even more terrible wars.
I would have preferred a few more maps, a cast of characters as an appendix, and more voices of the rank and file rather than predominantly from the aristocrats.
October 27, 2021
This made sense of a conflict that didn't make much sense, which puts it in good company. Royle did a good job of setting the geopolitical stage, though I think it would be better with a more fuller description of the conflict's aftermath. My biggest gripe is the absence of maps and lack of background on Sevastopol and Crimea - who lived there? How did that fit into the Russian Empire? There's a whole history there - including recent - and I really could have used some maps to see more than just cavalry positions, etc.
June 10, 2017
An excellent overview of the Crimean War in its entirety from the British perspective, but not without its insight into the other parties in the war at the same time. The presentation is immaculate and no punches are pulled when it comes to outlining the British failings and successes in equally-weighted detail.
December 28, 2017
I found this publication an enlightening view into what could be described as a semi-quasi form of world war: with the subject ramifications still evident I think to this day in this old world we inhabit.
August 25, 2020
Accessible account to the Crimea war. As a novice to the war, it seemed a good introduction. Perhaps less focus on the diplomatic machinations and more focus on the military aspect of the war would have been better.
May 24, 2020
Dry as a bone, but the author used "obloquy" like six times, so I guess it must be a good book.
April 3, 2022
Scintillating
April 13, 2024
Rather dry prose with some sloppy syntax hurts what should be a more interesting book than it is.
May 26, 2024
A dry retelling. My interest quickly waned.
April 23, 2025
More about this war than I really wanted to know. Arrogant leaders making bad decisions; much death; and not much to show for it. Sad.
May 28, 2018
Either a bad historical joke or one of the most compulsive subjects of historical writing. The Crimean War is one of such extremes that it tends to provide grounds for obsession. I have been a student of this war since 2010, but never before have I read such a rich narrative filled with both personal characters and deeply impersonal forces, capturing the grand scale of human suffering without parallel, the heroism of the British and French, and the maladministration of all the Great Powers involved.
This book tells a story not only of the war, but also of what preceeded and followed, and more importantly why this was the critical conflict that was both hugely influential and utterly meaningless for the history of the world.
The only failing I can imagine is that this is a book with a tremendous perspective bias towards the British. The French, Russian, Austrians, Prussians, Ottomans, Italians and others had rich involvement in this conflict that while a huge part of this narrative are always told from the perspective of the British. A perspective that doesn't truly provide justice.
That said the involvement of the United States in this conflict was one that I knew little of before this book. "Muddle in Washington, Progress in Vienna" is probably one of the book's most surprising chapters.
This book tells a story not only of the war, but also of what preceeded and followed, and more importantly why this was the critical conflict that was both hugely influential and utterly meaningless for the history of the world.
The only failing I can imagine is that this is a book with a tremendous perspective bias towards the British. The French, Russian, Austrians, Prussians, Ottomans, Italians and others had rich involvement in this conflict that while a huge part of this narrative are always told from the perspective of the British. A perspective that doesn't truly provide justice.
That said the involvement of the United States in this conflict was one that I knew little of before this book. "Muddle in Washington, Progress in Vienna" is probably one of the book's most surprising chapters.
June 22, 2013
This is a really excellent popular history book. Nicely balanced between covering the political aspects, the military maneuvers, and the personal histories.
About all I knew about this war were the Charge of the Light Brigade and Florence Nightingale. This...was even more screwed up than I'd realized. Did you know that a massive conflict involving most of Europe and nearly dragging in America started over who got to have the keys to the grotto of the Nativity? That's it. That's what thousands of people died for. (Well, actually, no, they died because Europe was overeager to dismember the carcass of the dying Ottoman Empire. Also, practically all of the casualties were to disease.) The entire thing is a clusterfuck from beginning to end, from underhanded diplomatic maneuverings to incredibly badly organized logistics to boneheaded military mistakes. Oy, people.
The author tries a bit too hard to establish that this war caused all the wars of the 20th century: I've heard similar arguments made for Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, colonialism, and the Franco-Prussian War. Really, World War I was kicked off because of the incredibly complicated web of alliances and resentments that had been set up over the course of the preceding century, so it's silly to declare that any one war is responsible. But it's still a pretty good explanation of a lot of attitudes and circumstances for the rest of the century.
About all I knew about this war were the Charge of the Light Brigade and Florence Nightingale. This...was even more screwed up than I'd realized. Did you know that a massive conflict involving most of Europe and nearly dragging in America started over who got to have the keys to the grotto of the Nativity? That's it. That's what thousands of people died for. (Well, actually, no, they died because Europe was overeager to dismember the carcass of the dying Ottoman Empire. Also, practically all of the casualties were to disease.) The entire thing is a clusterfuck from beginning to end, from underhanded diplomatic maneuverings to incredibly badly organized logistics to boneheaded military mistakes. Oy, people.
The author tries a bit too hard to establish that this war caused all the wars of the 20th century: I've heard similar arguments made for Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, colonialism, and the Franco-Prussian War. Really, World War I was kicked off because of the incredibly complicated web of alliances and resentments that had been set up over the course of the preceding century, so it's silly to declare that any one war is responsible. But it's still a pretty good explanation of a lot of attitudes and circumstances for the rest of the century.
September 12, 2015
The first war covered thoroughly by the press caused a lot of unaccustomed pressure for politicians at home as well as generals in the field. The published atrocities in field hospitals caused Florence Nightingale to take matters in her own hands, traveling to Constantinople and instituting health care reforms.
The book helps explain Russia's current obsession with the Crimea. They always wanted a port on the Black Sea giving them access to the Mediterranean and they used the problem in Jerusalem regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Ottomans had granted control of this holy site to the French but Russia was complaining that Russian Orthodox Christians were being marginalized and even persecuted by the Ottomans. Using this excuse, they invaded Crimea. Wary of Russian goals, the French and English came to the aid of the declining Ottoman Empire resulting in the two year Crimean war.
The book dealt heavily with political intrigue leading to the war as well as diplomatic efforts to end the war. The book finished by demonstrating how this war in the 1850's affected Europe finally resulting in WWI.
The book helps explain Russia's current obsession with the Crimea. They always wanted a port on the Black Sea giving them access to the Mediterranean and they used the problem in Jerusalem regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The Ottomans had granted control of this holy site to the French but Russia was complaining that Russian Orthodox Christians were being marginalized and even persecuted by the Ottomans. Using this excuse, they invaded Crimea. Wary of Russian goals, the French and English came to the aid of the declining Ottoman Empire resulting in the two year Crimean war.
The book dealt heavily with political intrigue leading to the war as well as diplomatic efforts to end the war. The book finished by demonstrating how this war in the 1850's affected Europe finally resulting in WWI.
November 24, 2014
This book was good for some perspective on the largest war between continental European powers before WWI. My knowledge prior to reading about the Crimean War was limited to the Charge of the Light Brigade a few literary references to it. It's not important or riveting for those not interested in this relatively small war, but good for context to some of the military strategy and causes of the major Wars to follow.
In this work, Royle chose to focus a lot on the personalities of the major political, diplomatic and military protagonists involved. To some extent, so much focus was placed on these personal perspectives, it overshadowed the rest of the book and the military strategy behind it.
In this work, Royle chose to focus a lot on the personalities of the major political, diplomatic and military protagonists involved. To some extent, so much focus was placed on these personal perspectives, it overshadowed the rest of the book and the military strategy behind it.
April 8, 2010
A good and very detailed, sometimes too detailed, book about the Crimean War. He gets caught up in battle plans and doesnt discuss the situation for the people actually living IN crimea during the war, which might add some interesting perspectives, like, what did the people in Balaklava think when the British took over? did the like it? dislike it? Where they Greek, Crimean Tatar, ect. This also plays a part of what happened during the war, and goes entirely unsought after, other then that, it was a great work.
June 10, 2008
The Crimean War was a watershed in many ways. It saw Britain and France, traditional enemies, fighting on the same side, it saw Alexis Soyer and Florence Nightingale working to improve conditions for the troops; it was the first war where a distant government could impose its will on the battlefield by telegraph, and it saw some Englishmen planning the attack that would be the murderous Gallipoli campaign in 1915.
December 22, 2009
A bit of a slog, it picked up in the second half for me. Overall it seems a very comprehensive account of a war that is not greatly discussed outside military history circles. In spite of that it is interesting to see the Crimean War as the proverbial drop in the pond that had far reaching ripples throughout Europe that extended past the end of the second world war.
October 17, 2008
Unfortunately, I have concluded that this war is not worth reading about for more than 200 pages. This book has its moments, particularly when describing some of the bloodiest battles, but it violates the 200 page limit for no good reason. Too much about too little.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews