Crimea : The Great Crimean War, 1854-1856

by Trevor Royle

Release Date: 19 May, 2000

Edition: Hardcover

Price:

More Info

Detailed, thoughtful look at a critical point in history

In "Crimea: The Great Crimean War 1854 - 1856" Trevor Royle has produced a work that is impressive not only for its reporting of the facts surrounding a very muddled war, but also for successfully placing The Crimean War within a greater context of European history. While perhaps slightly too focused on the British point of view, Royle is nonetheless supremely evenhanded, and does a superb job of capturing the numerous diplomatic subtleties which surrounded the events in the Crimea.

Like all successful military histories, Royle's begins well before the years that actually encompass the fighting. Instead he examines France's (embodied in Napoleon III), desire to climb out of the hole it was left in after Waterloo. Having been stripped of all influence in Europe, and having lost much of its colonial Empire, France had nonetheless learned valuable lessons in Algeria during the intervening decades. Moreover, what France lacked in industrialization when compared to Britain, it more than made up for with unabashed ambition.

At the same time, Britain was at the peak of a Pax Britannica that would last until 1914. As such, it was primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, and protecting the crown jewel of the empire: India. Thus it came to pass that when Russia used protestations of religious crimes (which were complete pretexts, in spite of their veracity) as a causus belli for war with Turkey, that Britain and France, longstanding adversaries and frequent enemies, were thrust together to preserve an Ottoman Empire that was too caught up in inertia to save itself. Britain to protect India's fragile northwest frontier, and France to regain some of the luster it had lost

The result, of course, was The Crimean War, a bizarre set of misadventures that seemingly accomplished nothing, and yet set the stage for a host of events to come. Specifically, battlefield necessity saw the invention or adaptation of numerous devices, such as the telegraph, railroad, field hospitals, rifles (as opposed to muskets), sanitation, steam-powered warships etc., many of which are credited to the more famous American Civil War. As such, the Crimean war can rightfully be argued as the first modern war, and it is therefore well worth studying. For example, the difficulties that the fractious British-French-Turkish alliance faced are particularly telling in a world where strategies for global collective action are sorely lacking.

As for the fighting itself, there were precious few of what one might consider battles, the Alma, Inkerman/Balaklava and the siege of Sevastopol being the notable exceptions. For the most part this was a war that presaged World War I, with protracted trench fighting in brutal conditions. Nonetheless, Royle does a good job of setting the stage for the various engagements, including geography, units, commanders and missed opportunities. In particular, he does a superb job of portraying the senior commanders on all sides in an objective manner. However, it is in this area that I must make one of my two complaints: there is a serious lack of both quantity and quality when it comes to the maps. Far too often, I was left referring to other sources in order to follow the battles; most absurdly, there is no map of the Black Sea/Crimean Peninsula until page 375! Moreover, rather than using detailed topographical maps, Royle elected to use the quaint, vaguely hand drawn maps that anyone who studies military history is familiar with (and abhors). What they posses in graphic appeal, they more than lose in lack of useful terrain and coordinate information.

That said, it is the political intrigue that dominates this book and where Royle is truly in his element. He deftly captures the various power plays that come to influence the outcome of events, and at the same time provides an even handed running commentary on the skills/deficits of the various players. Which leads me to my second complaint: the problem is that Royle offers a wealth of information about British decision making, but the step down to France, Russia, Turkey and other associated players is severe. To be fair, this may be a function of the autocratic leadership in these latter countries, which served to compress the decision making cycle and limit correspondence that would shed light on events. Nonetheless, I felt that Turkey in particular could have been better rounded out.

Finally, Royle quite succinctly places The Crimean War within the context of European conflict up through World War I. Just as in its tactics the Crimea foreshadowed the events of 1914-1918, so to did the grand strategy of 1854 rear its head sixty years later. By recognizing this fact, Royle has elevated what might have become a dusty recounting of a largely forgotten war into a superb examination of European (and by extension, world) politics in the ninety-eight years between Waterloo and Franz Ferdinand's assassination. As such, it work successfully as both military history and political science, and is well worth reading by students of both.

Jake Mohlman

The Crimea your teacher skipped over in class

Having never learned much about the Crimean War, aside from Tennyson's famous bit of poetry, I was a bit intimidated by the breadth of this book. That ended once I opened it and found a coherent and well-annotated history that had enough meat to satisfy hard-core historians, yet enough cheese to intrigue and lure along the casual reader. While I cannot say "I couldn't put it down," (the author's English writing style compelled me to take periodic breaks to absorb) I eagerly went through this book and not only learned a great deal about the war itself but, as Royle's thesis observes, its greater impact on warfare, medicine, politics, media, and nearly every other aspect of the world. If you believe Royle, and I am inclined to, the Crimean War was a seminal event of World History.