Customer Reviews

Crimea: The Great Crimean War, 1854-1856

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I found this new 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!

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

In the past the Crimean War has been seen as similar to the First World War, a comedy of errors in which uncaring generals sent brave men off to die. Recent literature would suggest that the Crimean War in itself was not so extraordinary but rather it became an important symbol. The reasons for this was that the war took place when England was run by a limited number of aristocrats. In the next few years the franchise would broaden and more people would be allowed into the positions of power in society. The Crimean War was used by those on the outside of political society to ridicule the competence of their social betters. The army at the time was dominated by men who bought commissions rather than being promoted on competence. Some of these leaders such as Lord Cardigan were objectively hopeless. Others had some mild talent.

The war was also one of the first to be photographed and to have war correspondents reporting back home. The war itself had a limited number of battles and these occurred fairly quickly. The operations then settled down to a prolonged siege of the port of Sebastapol. The war correspondents thus did not have a lot to write about. What they did observe was the failure of the British government to adequately supply their men. Newspaper stories about soldiers without tents and no wood to warm themselves during the Russian winter started to be written.

The provision of medical services was appalling and one of he heroes of the war was Florence Nightingale. She later was to be known as the lady of the lamp although in reality her strengths were not as a nurse but as an organizer and bureaucrat.

The book is a rather strange one. It is quite long but it deals with most of the major battles of the war quite quickly. It also fails to look at the political context of the war and why it became a potent symbol for those who would change British Society. Still the book is easy to read and it covers the other military actions in the war outside the campaign in the Crimea.

The overall impression however is that the conduct of the war although lamentable was perhaps not quite the disaster that has been presented in previous works.

Crimea is a good, sturdy, British account of one of history's least understood crises. The build up, the major battles, the rivalries between the allied powers and the Turks, the shameful hospital conditions, the Charge of the Light Bridgade and the lingering effects on European politics that eventually led to WW1 are all there. Royle writes well, although his style is a wee bit pompous and pro-British for my liking.

Previous reviewers have complained about the lack of maps. There are maps but they are hand drawn affairs and aren't listed in the table of contents. Why? The mind boggles. It would have taken five minutes to prepare a list. There's no chronology either - a major omission given how little is known and how little has been written on the subject.

The other complaint I have is the book's attempt to cover everything without covering anything in detail. For example, it is widely believed that Florence Nightingale was a hero and the instigator of modern medical facilities. Royle thinks not and casts aspersions without ever coming up with evidence. Field battles come and go in the middle chapters without a sub-text explaining where everything was heading.

But, even though there are problems, Crimea isn't a bad book. In fact, it's quite good and has a fast paced text that is so often missing in books of this kind. I liked the sections on the build up best since you get a good feel for the state of mind in the major centres of Constantinople, St. Petersburg, Paris and London. The final sections too, on the long term effects of the war and the peace treaty are pretty good too.

In all a good book. Sturdy, highly readable and without errors if you know how to read and write in The Queen's English. Three stars.

Crimea: The Great Crimean War, 1854-1856 by Trevor Royle may be improperly titled since it is a history of much more than the Crimean War. While concentrating on the Crimean War, Royle gives the reader a thorough overview of European history from the end of the Napoleonic conflicts till the outbreak of World War II. The book is history at its finest since it not only explains the actual events but also discusses the historical context of the War and how the war effected future events.

Royle writes in a very reader friendly manner and the book easily holds the interest of the reader. If the book has a weakness it is its continual focus on the British perspective. At times this is disturbing considering the fact that the French made a much greater investment in men and arms to the conflict and the French front around Sevastopol was where the crucial battles were fought. Maybe, it is too much to expect a British historian to concentrate on anything other than the British involvement.

To Royle's credit he does not ignore the French, Turkish or Sardinian role, nor is he an apologist for the numerous errors that the British made that led to countless and needless deaths. Much of the book is devoted to discussing the inadequacies of the British supply system and the miserable hospital conditions. The chapter relating to Florence Nightingale and her difficulties in reforming the hospital and medical system is compelling. Royle also discusses the inadequacies of the British army and their failure to move beyond the strategy and tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. These failures and the ability to purchase commissions are contrasted with the more modern approach of the French.

Perhaps the strongest part of the book relates to the diplomatic front, although the discussion is almost exclusively focused on the British and only mentions the other participants as they relate to British interests. In reading the book, one gets a real understanding of what the British war aims were, even though they were murky at the time.

This a book that is well worth reading.

This was my first book about the Crimean war and i was looking for something that could get me started on the subject.The author does a magnificent job in explaining the causes of the war and at the end of the book does a great job of explaining briefly the consequences in the future.What i like most about this book is the bold and clear explanations the author gives when explaining the situations sorrounding this war.He talks firm and clear about Lord Clarendon,about Lord Palmerston and some of the other players in the Crimean conflict.I found fascinating the accounts of the soldiers in thir battles and how stupid were their generals during the conflict.This is a great start for someone looking for information on how things carry on all the way to World War I and II.The author explains how everything came back around for the allies....Excellent book!!

This is a very interesting book about an incredibly influential war. Despite the fact that the Crimean War was quite short and almost no great swaths of territory changed hands, this short, bloody little conflict had a huge impact on the formation of modern Europe. Trevor Royle's account of the war is a wonderful read. He covers the causes of the war (interesting enough, despite all the real politik, it was about a set of keys and a silver star in a church), the war itself and the aftermath. The details are wonderful and don't override the flow of the story. The only shortcoming comes during the presentation of the battles. Since there are so few, you'd think we'd get more details, but unfortunately the battles are somewhat glossed over. This doesn't so much detract from the book as, instead, it leaves you hungry for more. I found the natural links drawn by the author of Crimea as a progression from the Napoleonic style of war to the more modern American Civil War, which lead right into the mechanistic nightmare of World War I to ring true in more ways than simply because of the dates involved. Time to dig back through old issues of Military History Quarterly to find some articles on the battles so I can enjoy a much more thorough context for the war, thanks to this book.

While shopping for a history of the Crimean War I hesitated at first to purchase this version because of the negative comments regarding the maps. I'm glad I went ahead and bought a copy because it is a wonderful narration of the Crimean War, and I found the maps to be quite adequate. The only problem with the maps is that they aren't referenced in any manner. There's isn't even a list of maps in the table of contents. No problem. I simply wrote my own list on one of the blank pages following the table of contents. The maps do a poor job of providing the "big picture" as they are mostly restricted to the theater of battle. But there are hundreds, nay, thousands, of maps accessible on the Internet to provide additional perspective. So I say to the cry babies below: Get of your lazy, complaining butts and do a little work! It is well worth the small amount of effort!

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.

Crimea was the first war to have extensive press coverage while it was occurring. Additionally, there were a multitude of memoirs and books of letters published when it was finished. Thus, it is really extensively covered, and this work makes the most of the numerous available sources. Also, this was a "watershed" war; a lot of the tactics harkened back to the Napoleonic era, while much of the hardware and trench warfare looked forward to the more "modern" wars of the early 20th century. The book is replete with extensive quotes, which broke up the narative a bit too much, in my opinion. There were some significant grammatical typos, which were disconcerting. More and better detailed maps, particularly an overview map of the entire area would have been a big help to the general reader. All in all, however, it is well-done work, and you will learn a lot about this often forgotten (except for the "Charge of the Light Brigade") war.