Talk:Crimean War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The current European history WikiProject Collaboration of the Month is Crimean War!
Please read the nomination text and help improve the article to featured article standard if you can.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Crimean War is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(comments)

We've got duplicates on Crimean War and Crimean war. Any volunteers to merge the two and redirect the latter to the former??? WojPob 31-07-02

Looks like someone has ;) --BozMo|talk 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we have a nicer sub-heading than 'Highlights'? mat_x 14:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really..cool! I think your ideas rock! User-Coolio

I'm a bit disappointed by this article. I mean no offence but to me this article represent mostly so to say -"western" point of view on this conflict. (Few facts is't too obvious, some numbers are doubtful and at least one statement is unexeptable). Few things can be changed here i think. I'm completely new to wiki so i don't know how things done here and yes i can be more specific on subject if some body provide me some help on editing(is it possible to edit after all ?) so if it is - please peply, or contact me, we can argue on the facts and ad or remove something in there. Well if at least you interested in possibilty of changes there. I'll stop here or it's too long. Do at least ad the number of Turkish army in "Strength" folder they do fights in that war as well realy Shugai 7:32, 5 Nov 2005

Why is the Ottoman Empire in this "to some extent" as one of the starting parties of the war it seems like it was fully involved

Contents

[edit] Baltic Theatre

We have really no coverage of the signficance of the baltic theatre. I have quickly written something but it's not in a form we can add atm and needs tyding up. I don't have the time just at the moment so if someone else wants edit it into the article go for it.

The most forgotten theatre of the war was most certainly the Baltic. The popularisation of events elsewhere have overshadowed the over arching significance of this theatre in the conclusion of the war. Russia having failed to industrialise was highly dependant on imports for both the domestic economy and the supply of her military forces. From the beginning of the war Britain imposed a blockade on the Baltic waters to restrict imports forcing her to transport far more limited imports overland. As the war continued this constriction crippled the whole of the Russian economy. At the same time a progressive development of attacks on Russian shipping and ports by an increasingly aggressive force that had transformed from a blockade to an offensive force intent on bringing the war to an end by striking at the Russian Capital. The consequence of raids on the Aland Islands and Kinburn saw Russia diverting even more troops, eventually some 250,000, to protect Russian territory in the Baltic. As the Allies never exceeded a fifth of that number of troops this gives some sense of the disproportionate force exerted by this theatre. Russian concern was rightly placed as in 1855 the Baltic Fleet destroyed the heavily defended Russian dockyards at Sweaborg. As a result of this a plan was devised to attack Cronstadt and capture the Russian capital. A massive new fleet fleet of more than 350 gunboats and mortar vessels was prepared but before the attack was launched the Russian's capitulated.
Moved text to main article -- Petri Krohn 03:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I have restored the content as was. I fear this may seem a little drastic but the amendments introduced, apart from being overtly POV and selective, are plagerised in whole or part from this Russian Navy site [[1]]. and we may therfore have a copyright issue considering it says - The above materials are by kind permission of publishing house "Alexander PRINT -.
I felt the original article was fine but if people feel the original is unbalanced then please suggest some amendments but the content as was can't be usedAlci12 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Bar on the Right

There is no "bar" on the right of the article giving quick facts about the war: its players, the major battles, troop strengths, and who "won" or "lost"...

Now there is :) Astrokey44 06:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Weapons

I remember reading that European Chemists were put to work making chemical weapons, such as phosgene, to use in the Crimean War. Does anyone know enough about that to tell about it in the article?

Apparently none of the ideas proposed were carried into action according to [this.] Wiki Chemical_warfare agrees with that site.Alci12 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong map

The map in the article now shows Ottoman losses in the Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878. -- Petri Krohn 11:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "From the Ottoman Point of View"

Why does this section exist? We should consider the Ottoman point of view in the creation of the article as a whole, not isolate in its own, deeply POV, section. This whole article could probably use an overhaul. john k 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with john k. However, I think the whole section can be deleted without editing the rest of the article, as the rest is quite neutral and factual. If anywhere, the ottoman point of view should go into an article about ottoman nationalist propaganda 130.123.128.114 04:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The first section of 'CRIMEAN WAR, 'Beginning if the War' has been sabotaged wit inclusions of lewd sexual suggestions. Please re-edit. Helmut Meier

The first section of 'CRIMEAN WAR, 'Beginning if the War'has been sabotaged wit inclusions of lewd sexual suggestions. Please re-edit. Helmut Meier

The Ottoman's are long gone, so I doubt that's an issue. Atatürkwasn't exactly nostalgic. Let's compare sources for the battle statistics and sort out the differences. If sources are in conflict, maybe we could list an estimated range, take an average, or play Rock, Paper, Scissors for the posting rights. Rklawton 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Events

To whomever edits this section later: 1) The useful comments from "Ottoman Point of View" section ought to be incorporated (numbers of Ottoman fighters, etc). The rest of it should be tossed. It gives the impression that the site is somehow Eurocentric or biased against Ottomans (or should I say "Turks?") and that the "real" interpretation is being repressed by the man. This section plays off the oldest nationalist trope: the Christ of Nations. 2) The "Major Events of the War" section is inexplicably next-to-last. This should be in the main body of the first section right at the very top. The stuff about the telegraph and the news reporting should be added to the "Social Characteristics" section with Florence Nightengale, etc. I actually was about to add this stuff then noticed it below.

Best of Luck!

[edit] Casualty figures

These casualty figures should not include wounded. The British dead (excl. wounded) is nearer to 22,000 approximatley. If you include the wounded, all the casualty figures will be considerably higher.
Sources:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars19c.htm#Crim
http://www.regiments.org/wars/19thcent/53crimea.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/vic_crimean_war.shtml

The wounded are traditionally counted as casualties. john k 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed John. However, I was talking about these specific figures given in this particular article. I’m suggesting that if these figures do include the wounded (as stated), then they are too low. The British suffered 18,000approx wounded and the French nearly 40,000. The figures in the article seem to only include KIA and died of disease even though it states they include the wounded. As for the Russian casualty figures, they are way too low.Raymond Palmer 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is crazy enough (no offense) to put 256.000 russian casualties, here is the reference:

http://bibliotekar.ru/encW/100/71.htm

(in russian), russians sustained 30,000 battle losses (dead), 16,000 wounded and died of wounds, which gives 46,000 total. From diseas there were  88,755 dead, which gives total of 134,000 total casualties from everything. French lost 75,535 of disease, 17,225 english soldiers died of disease, 24,500 turkish soldiers, that is, coalition lost in total over 110,000 to disease.

French lost 10,240 killed in action and 11,750 died of wounds, english had 2755 dead in action and 1847 dead of wounds, Turkey had 10,000 dead in action and 10,800 dead of wounds. In total coalition sustained 47,500 dead due to combat action.

  • Who is crazy enough (no offense) to put 256.000 russian casualties?
Well Dupuy is! And I quote - 'Russia lost 256,000 men from all causes. The Allies, 252,600.' This means including deaths from disease which makes up most of the figures.
  • Dupuy, R. E & Dupuy, T. N. The Collins Encyclopaedia of Military History 4th ed. HarperCollins Publishers, (1995). ISBN 0062700561

As I stated before, the Russians figure is way to low if, as stated in the infobox, you include death from disease. Raymond Palmer 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hand rolled cigarettes

Concerning: The Crimean War occasioned the introduction of hand rolled "paper cigars" — cigarettes — to French and British troops, who copied their Turkish comrades in using old newspaper for rolling when their cigar-leaf rolling tobacco ran out or dried and crumbled.

On the pack of Rizla (rolling papers) I just got it says this: In 1795, the Napoleonic War rampages on... Whilst the soldiers may be battleweary they're certainly still bright. Having had to forgo their traditional clay pipes, in a moment of inspiration they use pages from books to roll tobacco.

Personally, I have no idea. But I think Rizla is probably more informed on this issue than wikipedia, so could anyone clear this up? I realize the Rizla pack doesn't actually state what country was doing it in the Napoleonic War.

[edit] Sardinians and Ottomans

The reason I swapped Sardinia and Turkey with those titles is that the Italians (or Sardinians, I just use Italians out of familitarity) though had less men total than the Ottmen had DEAD, they did play a large role in most of the battles for the Crimea. The Ottomen, on the other hand, were minor minor players in the battles. I don;t want to offend anyone, but the fact is that the Turkish forces were cut to peices by the Russians with relative ease, and after the first few battles the Turks did not fight to even a moderate measure in terms of participation.

My point is that the 10,000 Sardinians fought the entire war. The Turks fought the first few than retreated, or were assimilated into the Western Allied (Italian, French, and British) Armies.

Your point of view may be contended. Far from being assimilated by the Allies, the Turks fought their own battles, such as Siege of Kars or Battle of Eupatoria. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I never said that the Turks were sitting on their butts the entire war, I just said they did not participate in nearly the same magnitude as even the Sardinian army. Yes, the Turks did fight their battles, like Kars and Sinop. However, they lost most of their battles, which notably saw the ones who did not die and did not retreat from the war almost entirly put on guard duty in the rear usually. My point is that the Western Allied Armies: the French, British and Italian/Sardinian; they were seen as good frontline troops. The Turks were seen by the command (which was controlled by the Westerners) as sub-par troops due to horrific defeats, and were put in the rear. They also were either not there or harly there at Stevastopol, during the seige and the fall, and the same goes for most of the major battles. Hence the to some extent. No Sig. Not Regestered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.133.208 (talk • contribs) date.

Please sign your comments even if you are not registered. Unsigned comments can lead to confusion and other issues. To sign your comments put ~~~~ for name, date, and time or ~~~ for name only. Perhaps you would like to register? Philip Gronowski 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI - this anonymous user has made some very inappropriate edits to Spanish Empire and Portuguese Empire writing about events that never happened, and has gone around various articles changing Italian to German in the context of World War 2 because (s)he feels that the Italians were puppets of the Germans. (S)he has also not responded on their talk page to challenges about these edits. I apologise because this is not relevant to the talk page at hand, but if you are conversing with this user I thought you should know. Gsd2000 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As I know Turkish forces once smashed Russians because Turks used low-range,semi-automatic weapons, on the other side, Russians used simple rifles. Also, I have to add that we really didn't "sit on our butts" during the war. With respect, Deliogul 22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I know that at the Battle of Balaclava, in October, 1854, the Russians captured a succession of redoubts from the Turks at the start of the combat. Supposedly the Turks fled in terror at the approach of the Russians. As a result of this poor display by the Turks, the British and French generals forbade them from partaking in front lines operations...the Turks were deemed "not good enough."
I think some research has surfaced recently, though, that establishes that the Turks did not quite flee their redoubts at Balaclava in the manner that, for over a century, historians have described. It's possible that the Turks fought hard in trying to defend the redoubts, but that they were not given the proper support by the British and French, and were compelled to flee only after further resistance proved hopeless. I can't remember the article I read this in...but I'm sure you can find it somewhere on the internet.

Kenmore 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

What interest did Sardinia have in this war? Drutt 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I think this article is also missing the long-term effects of the war, which in my opinion, were of equal importance of the war itself. I will try to get around to writing this section, but I don't have too much time during the next two months. If someone has the time to do this, go right ahead, but if not, I'll get to it hopefully soon. Jordy540 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Baltic Campaign of the Crimean War (Oolannin Sota)

The British Embassy in Helsinki has made available on its web page a "Special Feature", a multi-page article The Baltic Campaign of the Crimean War. [2] Information should be copied and Wikipedia expanded while these pages are still on-line. The site has several old (PD) prints. One is already included in the article, but they should all be downloaded to Wikimedia Commons (if not there already). -- Petri Krohn 01:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I added several PD pictures from this page last month. If you copy the text, I'm afraid this will be regarded as a copyvio. Regards, Ghirla -трёп- 14:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crimean War and the Emancipation of Russian Serfs

In the article Emancipation reform of 1861 in Russia it clearly states the following:

The pitiful display by Russian forces in the Crimean War left the government acutely aware of the empire's backwardness. Eager to grow and develop industrially, hence military and political strength, there were a number of economic reforms. As part of this the end of serfdom was considered. It was optimistically hoped that after the abolition the mir would dissolve into individual peasant land owners and the beginnings of a market economy.

So it implies a very direct connection to the the emancipation and the Crimean War.

While the Emancipation may not have been exclusively due to the war, the war was certainly was a contributing factor. Piercetp 04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It had been realized in Russia for a very long time prior to the Crimean War that serfdom had to be abolished if Russia was modernize itself economically and socially. Because serfdom was so deeply entrenched as an institution in Russian society, though, the daunting task of eliminating it was consistently postponed by the Russian government generation after generation.
The Crimean War was the wake-up call for the Russian elites: reform had to begin immediately if Russia was to avoid being relegated to the status of a third rate power relative to the rest of Europe, and the serfs had to be emancipated in order for the reforms to begin.
Among the world's great powers, defeat in war has tended to cause the defeated to become introspective, and to pursue reforms designed to rectify whatever weakness caused them to lose the war in the first place.

Kenmore 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] More facts

I added The British army abolished Sale of commissions as a direct result of the disaster at the Battle of Balaclava.

This fact can be found in the Wikipedia article on Sale of commissions.

It is also supported by Cecil Woodham-Smith in The Reason Why. Piercetp 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actively enlisting a third party opinion here

Rather than engaging in a revert war I posted a solicitation for a third party at Wikipedia:Third_opinion


This is what I stated:

Revision war. Should it be mentioned that 1) the Crimean war resulted (directly or indirectly) to the emancipation of Russian Serfs, and 2) That the Crimean War resulted in the abolition in the Sale of commissions in the British army? See talk page. Piercetp 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd opinion

Where is the second party? I see what you think Piercetp, but I can't locate the second party's statements. Please point me to them. (All of them if possible). ThanksEagle talk 05:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo is the other party. I had contacted this user asking him/her to please refer to the talk page before reverting my edits. So far this has happened twice. Out of respect for Wikipedias policy regarding reverting edits I decided to get a neutral opinion on this. Thank you. Piercetp 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I don't like commenting on others behavior. I will stick around to make sure this issue is cleared up. (I render no opinion) rather allow me to refer this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Eagle talk 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
All the same I would like it if someone would add that the Crimean War did result, directly or indirectly in the emancipation of Russian serfs. I cannot do this because I edited the article twice and to do so a third time would violate the "three revisions" rule.
To omit this fact (or if you prefer, opinion, which is held by many historians) would be like posting an article about the American Civil War without mentioning anything about emancipation. In many ways, Alexander II could be considered to be Russias counterpart of Abraham Lincoln because 1) he lived at the same time 2) He emancipated enslaved people 3) he was killed, though the killers of Lincoln and Alexander had different reasons for killing them and 4) their deaths had tragic results for their countries, in Russia's case it led to years of repression beginning with Alexander III and was a shock that Russia had never recovered from. In Lincoln's case it led to the disasterous Reconstruction era in the south, the "guilded age" of corruption and greed, and eventually the establishment of the Jim Crow era in the south.
Make no mistake, the Crimean War was a very important war which has been overlooked by many but had a long lasting effect on world history. Piercetp 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Piercetp:
I completely agree with you that the Crimean War had a long lasting effect on world history. It was the event that permitted the unification of Germany; had Russia not been alienated from France and Austria as a result of the Crimean War, then it would have cooperated with those powers in keeping Prussia from uniting Germany later in the 1860s.
As things stand, many historians believe that Russia made a critical mistake in aligning itself with Prussia following the Crimean War, thus facilitating Germany's unity. These historians point out that a united Germany was an industrial and military powerhouse on Russia's border that posed a threat to Russia unlike anything else beforehand. Maybe it would have been better for St. Petersburg to accept having been burned by France and Austria, and to have cooperated with them to keep Prussia from turning a united Germany into the scourge of Europe.

Kenmore 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] Mediation sought

I enlisted the mediation cabal to hopefully reach a comprimise solution. Piercetp 03:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me recommend you appeal to the broader Wikipedia community for input, by posting a Wikiquette alert or at the Willage pump. Ideogram 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Piercetp 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this mediation still active or can we close it? --Galindo 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper Fforde - Thursday Next Series

I have added a heading for where the Crimean War has been used in fiction. This has a subheading for Jasper Fforde. Thanks Woodgreener 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. I knew I wasn't the only one who had read those.

[edit] Austrian-Russian Alliance

I studied this war a long time ago, but I distinctly remember a Russian POV stating that Austria before the war was allied to Russia, but growing uneasy with Russian power approaching the mouth of the Danube and possibly even Constantinople. Therefore when the crisis came, Austria waffled, allowing the other powers to align against Russia. Not only did this allow Russia to slip into a war it probably would have avoided if only it knew its ally was worthless, it diplomatically isolated Austria and allowed it to become Prussia's bitch later on. Has anyone else heard of this? Should it be in the article? Haber 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that Austria immediately assumed a hostile attitude toward Russia when hostilities broke out in 1853. This came as a surprise to the Russians, because for decades Austria and Russia had cooperated diplomatically and militarily regarding European issues.
Just six years earlier, in 1848, the Russians had sent a large army to Hungary to assist the Austrians in crushing the Hungarian revolt.
As to why Austria reversed its traditional policy of cooperating with Russia diplomatically, the answer lies in the fact that, for Austria, the dangers inherent in the expansion of Russian power in the Balkans outweighed the benefits of having Russia and an ally.
Much of Austria's population, as you are no doubt aware, was comprised of Slavs who, conceivably, could someday be swayed by a powerful Russia to reject Austria's hegemony. For this reason Austria felt Russia's power should be curbed sooner rather than later.
The army that Russia sent to fight the Turks along the Danube in 1853, incidentally, was withdrawn not because of Turkish military activity, but rather because the Russians grew increasingly fearful that Austria might intervene in the campaign, in which case the Russian army beseiging Silistria would be encircled by the Turks to the south and the Austrians to the north.
Further, Russia agreed to negotiate with the Allies at Paris in 1856 not because of Allied military successes, but because Austria had sent an ultimatum to St. Petersburg threatening to enter the war unless Russia negotiated peace on Allied terms.
The upshot of Austria's anti-Russian stance in the Crimean War is that Austria ended-up isolated diplomatically. France was not grateful for Austria's diplomatic assistance against Russia, as just three years later Napoleon III went to war with Austria over Italy. Without Russian help, Austria was isolated and defeated by France. The same happened in 1866 when an isolated Austria was defeated in war by Prussia.
Kenmore 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore
Sorry, I just noticed this response. Thanks for your interest. I had totally overlooked the war with France. Seems very relevant in hindsight. And I do agree that Russia could have continued the war and possibly pushed the Allies into the Black Sea given more time. Logistics favored the Russians, and disease was killing the Allies. Austria's self-destructive foreign policy has never made any sense to me, but I guess stupider things have happened. Haber 04:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Austria prevented Russia from winning the war

Because of their military inferiority vis a vis the British and French, the Russians could only have driven the Allies from the Crimea only by compensating with vastly superior numbers of troops. Note that Russia hadn't seriously updated its army's equipment, organization or tactics since the Napoleonic Wars. The Allies, even in spite of their military incompetence, were fully equipped with the latest generation of rifles and artillery pieces, and were using the modern tactics that complimented this new weaponry.
Altogether, Russia maintained about 120,000 troops in the Crimea, against approximately 80,000 Allies. The military advantage lay solidly in favor of the Allies due to their modern weaponry.
The best the Russians could have accomplished in the Crimea, assuming their numbers were equal to the Allies or somewhat superior, was a stalemate or to suffer very indecisive defeats. In either scenario, Russia's long term strategy would be to outlast the Allies in a war of attrition.
So why didn't Russia flood the Crimea with hundreds of thousands of troops and overwhelm the Allies by dint of superior numbers, thus ending the campaign rapidly? The answer is Austria's hostility.
Russia's main army in the Crimean War wasn't even in the Crimea...it was stationed in Poland. About 300,000 Russian troops were kept in Poland in preparation for any Austrian intervention in the conflict.
As long as Austria maintained a menacing attitude toward Russia, the Russians could not afford to dispatch large numbers of troops to the Crimea. Strategically, Poland was more important than the Crimea, and the balance of Russia's huge army had to remain there on guard.
Austria effectively tied Russia's hand in the Crimean War.
Kenmore 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore
Intersting, but I still think that if Russia had hung in they could have eked out a victory. The real threat to the Allies was less Russian bullets and more typhus, cholera, dysentery, and malaria. As long as the Russians could keep a reasonably tight perimeter around them, the Allies could be prevented from living off the land and forced to eat inadequate food, and live in unsanitary conditions. Of course you're entirely right about Austria. If they had opened up a second front, Russia could have been in big trouble. Haber 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not so much Austria as Polish insurgents. Nicholas believed that Austria was his ally and should be greatful for his help in suppressing the Hungarian uprising. The Poles, on the other hand, could not be relied on. They hoped to raise a new rebellion during the war. Mickiewicz, charged with diplomatic preparations of the new rebellion, went to stir up the conflict from Paris to Constantinople, where he died. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
By the end of 1854, Nicholas was pretty clear that Austria was not his ally, and had in fact betrayed him. His son never forgot it, and maintained an animus against Austria for most of his reign, save a brief rapprochement between 1873 and 1876. Any understanding of the diplomacy of the Crimean War has to include an understanding of Austrian policy, which was the key to the whole thing. It was Austria's betrayal, and not active war with Britain and France, that rankled most with the Russians. This is certainly what they blamed their defeat on. A Polish rebellion was also feared, but this was nowhere near as important. Paul Schroeder's Austria, Great Britain, and the Crimean War gives a good outline of Austrian policy before and during the war, although marred, perhaps, by Schroeder's anglophobia. john k 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Haber:

Are you aware that the Allies had a much easier time supplying their troops than did the Russians? This is because Allied dominance of the Black Sea, and their huge naval transporting capacity (England was the dominant seafaring nation in the world at the time) made ferrying supplies to the Crimea easy for them. Russia, by contrast, struggled to supply its troops, owing to the backwardness of the Russian economy, the corruption and incompetence of the government ministries responsible for logistics (graft was a huge problem), and the poor condition of the roads leading from Russia’s interior to the Crimea.

I don’t think the Allies were living off of the land. Their food was shipped to them by sea. As I remember correctly, it was Russian troops that were often reduced to starvation.

Russian logistical operations had always been conducted unskillfully, even in the Napoleonic Wars, when the Russian army was one of the best in Europe. This branch of Russia’s military became steadily worse after the Napoleonic Wars, reaching its low point in the Crimean War.

As the war progressed, more and more Sevastopol came to resemble of huge junk yard of broken down Russian cannon and other war making equipment. This is because the spare parts needed to fix them were not regularly delivered by the supply branch of the Russian army.

As for cholera, dysentery, and malaria, Russian troops suffered even more horribly than did the Allies, owing to the poor state of Russian military medicine.

It is amazing that the Russians managed to stalemate the Allies for so long at Sevastopol under these conditions.

Kenmore 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore

The war was miserable for both sides. Allied logistics might have been better, but conditions for the British and French troops were still horrifying to the public even by the standards of the day. I still think that if the Russians could have reached some understanding with the Austrians, the Allies would have had a very rough time holding on. Haber 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla:

I read that after Austria delivered its ultimatum to Russia in late 1855, Tsar Alexander II called his ministers together to do an immediate assessment of Russia’s prospects should the war continue. One conclusion reached was that the Russian army could not expect victory in combat against the Austrians, as the Austrians were using the latest generation of weaponry, which the Russians lacked.

In the span of two generations following the Napoleonic Wars, Russia’s army went from being one of the Europe’s best to one of Europe’s worst. The government of Nicholas I failed to keep the army’s weaponry, organization and tactics up-to-date.

The Austrians wouldn’t have defeated the Russians decisively, but even an indecisive Russian defeat in Poland would have led to a huge Polish insurrection, as you point out.

It was known also that if Austria entered the war, there was a huge risk of Prussia and Sweden joining Austria.

Austrian intervention, Polish revolt, defeat in Poland, stalemate in the Crimea, the hostility of Prussia and Sweden, a backward economy and limited finances would have been too much for Russia to contend with.

Thus, Alexander II felt compelled to accept Allied peace terms.

Kenmore 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore

While I agree with what you say, I know that the Russians never thought highly about the Austrian military capacity (although Laudon was Suvorov's military hero). Besides, can you name any country which won a war against all Europe? Russia was isolated, all the other great powers joined forces, so the result was pretty easy to predict. --Ghirla<;/font> -трёп- 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that historically Russian military people felt superior to their Austrian counterparts. My grandfather was in Galicia during Brusilov's 1916 offensive and he told me so personally.
But 1855 was different: the Russian army was still using the old Napoleonic flintlocks; the Austrians were using the latest designed rifles. Alexander II's ministers knew Russia couldn't fight another leading European power until the army was reformed and requipped.
By 1870, I believe, Alexander II's reforms had modernized the Russian army sufficiently that it was once again superior to Austria-Hungary's army. But still, it was very much inferior to the armies of France and Germany.
As for the decline of Russia's military might under Nicholas I, it was due entirely to he failure of his ministers to plan, organize, and finance the upkeep of the army.
As early as the 1840s Nicholas I and his ministers knew that the Russian army was falling behind its Western counterparts because its weaponry was becoming outdated. They planned to update Russia's military arsenal, but for some reason, they were slow in following through on the task.
Every major military power in Europe, at one time or another, has failed to keep its troops up-to-date in terms of updating weaponry and tactics, and paid the price the when war broke out.
Remember: military technology can become obsolete overnight if a new artillery piece or rifle is designed. Improvements in military technology sometimes unfold rapidly...with dizzying speed.
It is the job of the defense ministries of major military powers to keep their armies up-to-date and equipped with the latest weaponry. But for administrative, industrial, and financial reasons, this is not always an easy task to accomplish.
Kenmore 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore


John:

I agree. Austria was a potentially bigger threat to Russia than the Allies, as Austria shared a border with Russia and could send a huge army into Poland. Thus, the bulk of Russia’s military resources had to be held in reserve against this very dangerous threat. The Russians were quite correct in blaming Austria for costing them the Crimean War.

Kenmore 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] Reworking

I've started doing some reworking on the "Beginning of War" subsection, which needs a lot of work. Please bear with me, as it may take several days to finish. If you have comments, questions, or suggestions, shoot! --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeat

Citation:

"It has been suggested that the Russian defeat in the Crimean War .... bla bla bla"

Who wrote this is an idiot. Thank you wery much. Sanja

It could be legitimately argued that the Russian army in the Crimea was not defeated, but rather, it finished the war in a stalemated position. However it is also true that Russia's economic, industrial, technological, social, financial, and administrative backwardness rendered it unable to prosecute the war any longer. Hence, Russia was defeated.
Worse still, the diplomatic situation created by the Crimean War meant that any conflict between Russia and another European power would translate into, by definition, a conflict between Russia and an alliance of several European powers. Not since the 1500s had Russia been in such a disadvantageous position internationally. This was a defeat by any measure, and a bad one at that.
Kenmore 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] Battle of Sinope

Hope not to have offended anyone with an edit on this page's reference to the Battle of Sinope. The entire Ottoman Fleet was not destroyed. The British and French were more concerned the catastrophic nature of the defeat, having pledged to protect the Porte and having a sizeable Allied fleet in the Bosphorous at the time, than were they worried about an amphibious Russian invasion of the Anatolian coastline.

--Kazhdenin 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Turks were to blame for the action at Sinope, as they were not supposed to send warships or military transports into the Black Sea per the terms of the truce brokered for them by the Europeans. Admiral Nakhimov was entirely justified in attacking the Turkish flotilla at Sinope, as it was obviously transporting soldiers from Bulgaria to the Caucasus for action against Russia.
The Western European press described Sinope as a massacre in order to whip-up anti-Russian hysteria among the naive masses. Very few of the newspaper articles in England, France and elsewhere mentioned that the Turks themselves were to blame for having provoked the Russian fleet into combat.
Kenmore 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

[edit] Well somebody's having fun with this article...

I see its now known as the 'Cock War'. Somebody responsible please edit it back.


[edit] Impact on Britain

Perhaps there's an argument for a spin off article on the impact on Britain. There were significant reforms stemming from the experience of Crimea.

As somebody mentioned above the British Army curtailed purchasing commissions as a result of Crimea. However there were much wider impacts, for example there was a more general and wide ranging reform of the British Public Sector and including abolishing the purchase of positions in the Civil Service I understand as well as a wider reform of the Army. Northcote Trevelyan REforsm of the Civil service, didn't that stem from Crimea too? Indeed perhaps Florence Nightingale's reforms of the nursing profession could be seen as part of this too??? Indeed the reforms seemed to be the "professionalisation" of these spheres of life. Basically there was a movement from Upper Class Aristoctratic patronage towards Middle class "meritocracy". Is there somebody out there who knows more about this?

The Crimean War is probably one of the most idiotic wars Britain had ever fought. Years later they would regret attacking and stopping the Russians from destroying the Ottomans who would inflict massive casualties on the Allies, especially at Gallopli. The degenerate Hugh Rose who was the chargé d'affaires at the British Embassy used his power to make sure the Ottomans were protected at the expense of liberating millions of people under Ottoman rule. Every British soldier that died during WWI do so in vain because of the actions of this filthy animal named Rose. Jtpaladin 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Jtpaladin I agree! Russia and Britain should've united! Together, not only would we have defeated those turkish animals, but we would even have helped you re-capture your lost colonies, the US would be under you now! But you chose to stab us inthe back then! You chose to attack us while our forces were still suffering from a war with Turkey, which we WON! We pushed those turkish jackals all the way to Istambul, but you morons jumped in! And BTW this article says nothing about this! Biased, pro-western, russophobe piece of crap!

                                      Sergei

[edit] cause of the war

this article makes it seem the war was fought purely for religious reasons. it barely mentions the concern Britain and France had regarding the possible collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and how Russia would benefit from such a collapse. Cwiki 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Casualties

        90,000 French
        35,000 Turkish
        17,500 British
        2,050 Sardinian
        killed, wounded and died of disease

        total
        256,000 killed, wounded and died of disease

What about on the Russian side? Also, is a source available for these numbers? Thanks,

— Emiellaiendiay 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECrimean_War_e897.html"