Rating: 
Summary: Good but not Enough
Review: As a reader already observed, this book is, to begin with, very anglo centered as it happens with boring regularity with almost every anglosaxon historian, no matter the issue. French partner in this war appears, of course, how it could be otherwise, but always as if from a side, as a distant guy that by chance was there. I think the subjet is the Crimean war or should be so, not England in-war-in-Crimea.
From a sheer military point of view the book lacks too much. Battles are more or less described, but maps are a joke and the equipment of both sides scarcely mentioned and poorly defined. A reader of this kind of books want to know more: want to know details about personal weapons, artillery, technical innovations, uniforms, etc. It is the more so as the author himself recognizes this was the first modern war, an intermediate step between Waterloo and the slaughters of I World War. There is some of all of it, but prone to be poor and cursorily explained. Even more, the autor makes a serious mistake confusing the innnovation of the Minie bullet -to be used with muskets already in use- with a supposedly new "Minie rifle" that never existed.
Nevertheless, the political side of the war -french again appearing as a guest and often under a disdainful light- is well developped and informative. Same with many personalities, including, this time, french officers.
Last but not least, the quality of the paper in this paperback edition is the worst I have ever seen in this kind of binding. I doubt it will resist more than 10 years in a shell. For the same reason the discrete number of photos available -not acceptable in a book about the first photographed war in history- are a miserable account of bad quality and neglect.
Rating:
Summary: Crimea by Trevor Royle
Review: Being a hardcore history buff, I picked up this book at a hefty 35.00 price from the local book store, and delved into its 500 pages. The book was delightful, with humor (in a dry, British style) pervading all of the passages. However, the book became confusing, and the lack of maps (as mentioned numerous times above) helped to confuse the reader. I ended up pulling out a National Geographic map of the Balkans and Crimea to follow along. The writer tends to use confusing grammatical choices (of course I am not British), and the editor should use spell- and grammar-check more often. If you as a reader and history fan can overcome these downsides, this book is perhaps the most solid history of the most forgotten war (after all, 1815-1914 is taught to our schoolchildren as a time of "the grand European peace").
Rating:
Summary: Crimea by Trevor Royle
Review: Being a hardcore history buff, I picked up this book at a hefty 35.00 price from the local book store, and delved into its 500 pages. The book was delightful, with humor (in a dry, British style) pervading all of the passages. However, the book became confusing, and the lack of maps (as mentioned numerous times above) helped to confuse the reader. I ended up pulling out a National Geographic map of the Balkans and Crimea to follow along. The writer tends to use confusing grammatical choices (of course I am not British), and the editor should use spell- and grammar-check more often. If you as a reader and history fan can overcome these downsides, this book is perhaps the most solid history of the most forgotten war (after all, 1815-1914 is taught to our schoolchildren as a time of "the grand European peace").
Rating:
Summary: A good sturdy account from the British perspective
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: The first literary war
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: History At Its Finest
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: History At Its Finest
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The Crimea your teacher skipped over in class
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable History of the Crimean War
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Anglo-centric but otherwise excellent
Review: I imagine it is hard not to see the Crimean War from a non-British perspective, because the other belligerents did not write their chronicles in English OR see the war as such a big deal. But what this book manages is to put the war into a wider Eropean context of great power rivalries and almost fanatical imperialism. So Russia wanted to join the imperialist club? France and Britain, hardly the best of friends, were horrified at the prospect. And as for Russia developing a strong Mediterranean presence, well, the Ottomans as well as the British and French couldn't allow that. GREAT READ.
|
