The Crimea conflict punctured a century of general European peace. Or at least that’s the typical British perspective, as some of the more senior among us learned at school. A war of just over two years to curtail Russian ambitions for warm water ports and for control of the eastern Mediterranean. Called the ‘Eastern Question’ or ‘Straits Question’ in old history books, it was usually seen as little more than an irritating interruption to the Pax Britannica. ‘A great confusion of purpose’ writes historian Richard Cavendish led to a war noted for its notoriously incompetent international butchery.
Far from being a minor skirmish, the war claimed the lives of some 700,000 soldiers (mainly dying of disease) and ended 40 years of European peace. A much bigger conflict in scope and scale than often perceived in Britain, it aggravated Russian and Ottoman rivalry in the Balkans, a spark setting off World War I. It may even have helped the rise of Germany by blocking Russian European ambitions. Historian Orlando Figes calls it a major turning point in European and Middle Eastern history. ‘The earliest example of a truly modern war - fought with new industrial technologies, modern rifles, steamships and railways, novel forms of logistics and communication like the telegraph, important innovations in military medicine, and war reporters and photographers directly on the scene’.
Causes of the war
The conflict began in 1853 with religious tensions over holy
places in the Ottoman towns of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Tsar Nicholas I of Russia,
then a deeply religious state, was an emotional figure. He assumed the role of
protector of the (Orthodox) Christian minorities and sent troops into present
day Romania, threatening to partition Ottoman lands. The Ottoman Empire
declared war on Russia, once it was assured of the support of Britain and
France. Confronted with British and French military superiority, Nicholas still
chose war, perhaps believing ‘God was on his side’ in Russia’s global mission.
France and Britain clearly cared little for holy places but feared Russia would dismantle an already ailing Ottoman Empire. A late diplomatic compromise was actually reached, but Tsar Nicholas then baulked. In fact the resulting imperial struggle for influence over Ottoman lands never wholly lost its religious overtones.
Allied invasion
After a year the war stepped up a gear when in September 1854, under public pressure, the Allies invaded the Crimean Peninsula. A victory at the battle of Alma led to their besieging the key Russian naval hub of Sevastopol. The Allies felt the city would soon fall, but after Russian counterattacks at Balaclava and Inkerman, a stalemate ensued. Trench warfare through a severe winter followed, with artillery bombardment and serious losses on all sides, especially for the French and Russians. Disease, particularly from cholera epidemics, killed far more than the fighting.
It took 11 months before the French broke through and forced Russia to evacuate Sevastopol. Neutral countries saw how things were going and began to join the Allies. It was effectively the end of the Crimean War, though scattered actions lasted until March 1856 when Russia finally admitted defeat. Britain and France were relieved, as the conflict was becoming unpopular at home. The Treaty of Paris on 30th March 1856 formally ended the war. Russia could no longer base its warships in the Black Sea, and the Ottoman vassal states Wallachia and Moldavia became largely independent. Some of the religious access disputes were also settled.
Charge of the Light Brigade
The wider scope
The 'thin red line' at Balaclava
The Allies, despite their technical and logistical
superiority, were not strong as a cohesive force. Britain and France, age old
opponents, often found it hard to work together. British commander Lord Raglan
was even heard to call the French ‘the enemy’. And given religious and cultural
differences, neither power liked the mainly Turkish Ottoman forces. Colonial
prejudices saw them branded as unreliable. They were reduced to manual labour
and sometimes even mistreated. But intra Christian rivalry - Orthodox versus Western,
plus despised absolutism against supposed liberty and civilisation - was just
as marked.
Casualties
Britain’s role in this war was limited and its losses
relatively slight, at least compared to those of Russia, France and the
Ottomans. This is perhaps one reason for Crimea being generally given a back seat
in British history. On the Allied side Ottoman losses totalled over 45,000 men,
of whom 25,000 died of disease. France lost nearly 100,000 in total of whom
75,000 died of disease. And Britain lost 22,000, of whom some 18,000 died of
disease. As for Russia it is believed to have lost at least 450,000 soldiers, with a shocking 377,000 dying of disease. Other belligerents' losses probably totalled another 75,000. Countless civilians were also among the forgotten victims.
Details of the Sevastopol siege and related battles were
publicised in newspaper coverage as never before. Mismanagement and tactical
failures were quickly exposed, prompting demands in Britain for professionalism
in both the military and medical spheres. The Light Brigade action at Balaclava
was the last British cavalry charge in Europe, but unbelievably stupid orders were later played
down with the rather thin ‘someone had blundered’ line. In fact the charge did
scatter much of the Russian artillery, even if this was a small benefit from such
a costly initiative.
Medicine and nursing
A redeeming feature was the supposedly selfless heroism of
Florence Nightingale - the caring ‘mother’ in a suitable woman’s role. Her
hospital was based at Scutari, far from Crimea’s battlefields. Applying what for
the time were modern nursing practices she probably saved some lives, but could
do little against the cholera epidemic. Her patients’ survival figures were not
great. Well connected, she gained publicity and influenced ministers to improve
medical care. The ‘lady with the lamp’ personified the Victorian virtues of godly
self-sacrifice, while accepting the social and cultural pecking order. A national figure chiming
with the times.
She wasn’t the war’s only famous nurse. Mary Seacole travelled to Crimea at her own expense having been rejected by Nightingale. A curious half Jamaican figure - hotelier, barmaid, nurse - she also offered care to some soldiers. And unlike Nightingale she was based near the front. Others without a network of powerful friends performed similarly. Daria Mikhailova on the Russian side used her own money in dressing wounds. Dr Nikolai Pirogov helped introduce field surgery and the use of anaesthetics. His was a lasting contribution in medical care.
Results of the war
France was at the time under the stifling rule of Napoleon III. Despite appalling French losses the dictator survived until 1870. France had no Black Sea interests and obviously wanted peace. It soon resumed its role as Europe’s pre-eminent power.
Russian humiliation badly weakened its influence in Europe. But it led to fundamental reforms under Tsar
Alexander. These covered social institutions, serfdom, the legal and justice
system, and local government. Russia’s backwardness spurred rapid modernisation
in its education and in the military. With Europe’s moving tectonic plates and
new unified states like Germany and Italy emerging, Austria perhaps lost most
of all politically, despite the fact that it took no part in the war.
In Britain the rabble rousing press had smeared those
who questioned the wisdom of the war. Palmerston, a classic imperialist, had
stoked the xenophobic indignation of the British people. When he succeeded Lord
Aberdeen as prime minister in January 1855 he took a hard line, wishing to
widen the scope of the conflict, stir up unrest inside the Russian empire, and
reduce the threat to Europe for good. But as so often, the press and public, so keen
to go to war, by 1856 wanted out.
No comments:
Post a Comment