Rating: 
Summary: Detailed, thoughtful look at a critical point in history
Review: 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
Rating: 
Summary: Reasonable
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: "Into the Valley of Death They Rode"
Review: The Crimean War is an odd quantity. On paper, it represented an immense military triumph by Britain and France against Russia. But just as their contemporary victory in the Second Opium War against China went largely uncelebrated, the Crimean War is largely remembered as a disaster, immortalized in the best-remembered engagement, the "Charge of the Light Brigade." As Royle explains, this is largely due to the weaknesses in the British supply and support lines: the Commissariat's failure to clothe the troops over the first winter of 1853-54 and its appalling hospital conditions are what is most remembered about the campaign. The fact that the major force to expose these weaknesses was the newly emboldened media - The Times of London - brings odd parallels to Vietnam, where similar home front dynamics had a tremendous effect on the army's morale. Royle's comprehension of nineteenth century diplomacy is superb: in his description of the intrigues of the British, French and Russian ambassadors in Moscow, Vienna, Prussia, Washington and Constantinople, he takes us into the lost world of men-on-the-spot with authority to conduct foreign policy single-handed. His military narrative is similarly high-calibre: he has a special respect for the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Raglan, whose reputation has been much impugned, and he is also adept at describing the Allies' numerous naval misadventures in both the Baltic and Black Seas.
Rating:
Summary: "Into the Valley of Death They Rode"
Review: The Crimean War is an odd quantity. On paper, it represented an immense military triumph by Britain and France against Russia. But just as their contemporary victory in the Second Opium War against China went largely uncelebrated, the Crimean War is largely remembered as a disaster, immortalized in the best-remembered engagement, the "Charge of the Light Brigade." As Royle explains, this is largely due to the weaknesses in the British supply and support lines: the Commissariat's failure to clothe the troops over the first winter of 1853-54 and its appalling hospital conditions are what is most remembered about the campaign. The fact that the major force to expose these weaknesses was the newly emboldened media - The Times of London - brings odd parallels to Vietnam, where similar home front dynamics had a tremendous effect on the army's morale. Royle's comprehension of nineteenth century diplomacy is superb: in his description of the intrigues of the British, French and Russian ambassadors in Moscow, Vienna, Prussia, Washington and Constantinople, he takes us into the lost world of men-on-the-spot with authority to conduct foreign policy single-handed. His military narrative is similarly high-calibre: he has a special respect for the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Raglan, whose reputation has been much impugned, and he is also adept at describing the Allies' numerous naval misadventures in both the Baltic and Black Seas.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent and readable account of the Crimean Conflict
Review: This is a comprehensive account of the Crimean War that is as complete on the diplomatic and political machinations and context as on the military operations. The latter are competently covered, not just in relation to the Crimea itself but as regards Turco-Russian operations prior to involvement of the Western powers and actions in Rumania, the Baltic, the Caucuses and even the Far East. In general the civilian players are covered in greater depth than the military ones - this is not a significant disadvantage since there is already a large and accessible literature available on the latter (readers new to the topic will enjoy Cecil Woodham-Smith's classic "The Reason Why" and Christopher Hibbert's "The Destruction of Lord Raglan.") Despite the complexity of the diplomatic manoeuvrings before and during the war Mr.Royle covers this aspect entertainingly, imposing considerable clarity on a convoluted story. The only criticism of the book is the dearth of good maps, which are essential for a work of this nature, A few inadequate ones are supplied but in these days of computer-assisted graphics the reader has a right to expect something better.
Rating:
Summary: Trevor Royle's account of the Crimean War
Review: This is an excellent book on the British accounts of the Crimean War. Very in depth of the British diplomacy and war correspondents between politicians, chief of staff's and general's. The book however is weak on the accounts of the French, Russian and Turkish participation of the Crimean War. However, it is an excellent book and very easy to read.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic and fascinating!
Review: 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!!
Rating:
Summary: Don't let the "lack" of maps stop you!
Review: 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!
|
