A Brief History Of The Crimean War

by Alexis S. Troubetzkoy

In September 1854, the armies of Britain, France and Turkey invaded Russia, ostensibly over disputed access to the holy sites of Jerusalem. But few wars in history reveal greater confusion of purpose than this 'notoriously incompetenet international butchery' (Hobsbawm). In the months that followed over half a million soldiers died from wounds, disease, starvation and sheer cold. We all know the heroic folly of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

The Crimean War was a medieval conflict fought in a modern age. This new account by a Russian historian shows that the extraordinary struggle was fought not only in the Crimea, but also along the Danube, in the Arctic Ocean, in the Baltic and Pacific.

Much has been written about the war itself and Troubetzkoy does not aim to cover old ground, but traces its true causes and sketches a vivid picture of the age that made it possible. Woven with developments in diplomacy, trade and nationalistic expression are descriptions of the Russian, Turkish and British armies and principal players - Napoleon III, Marshal St Arnaud, Lord Raglan, the great Russian engineer Todleban, Florence Nightingale, Nicholas I.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, War, 19th Century, European History

353 pages, Paperback

First published November 9, 2006

Reviews

[Colleen · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you're going to read about the Crimean War, I guess you'd have to go with Troyle's mammoth version and bypass this one. I must have a different edition than the one featured here, because mine does not have "History's Most Unnecessary Struggle" on the front but something like "Causes and Consequences of a Medieval War fought in a Modern Age" (don't have the book on me now, but it is a mouthful).

This is only important because as I was nearing the 200 page mark and the war still not declared, I was like wow, he's really drawing this out, then saw the cover and went ohhhh.... Book is supposed to be about how it started. But with the new frontspiece (maybe because there's not a great deal of interest in how the Crimean War got started), this makes the book even more dull and sadly pointless.

I'm not sure quite what the deal was with this book. It was very disjointed at times. Here are some of my issues with it though (and with a lot of history books):

1) Don't lie on the back cover.
"Woven together with developments in diplomacy, trade and nationalistic expression are descriptions of the Russian, Turkish and British armies and the principals of the drama – Napoleon III, Marshal St Arnaud, Lord Raglan, the great Russian engineer Todleban, Florence Nightingale, Nicholas I and his magnificently terrible Russian empire."

For example, he could have had a lot to say about Florence Nightingale and how the Crimean War revolutionized things for nursing and modern medicine (and women's rights since that gave women a respectable career)--but no. Florence Nightingale gets maybe 5 very very brief mentions in the whole book. Instead some people, like the ambassador to Turkey Stratford, rate tons of pages. Which makes sense, since that man singlehandedly started the war. Todleban too got maybe two paragraphs out of this whole book. Don't mention him on the back cover then! Think of all the disappointed Todleban fans out there.

2) Please follow up. With ambassador Stratford, pretty much the first 200 pages of this 320 page book focused primarily on him. So how did things wind up for Statford? Did he get covered in glory for inciting a stupid war or wind up in disgrace? In fact, none of the principles (except for St Arnaud and Nicholas I because they died during crucial moments of the war) do you find out what happens afterwards.

3) Please remind me of people if they're infrequent. This annoys me in almost every history book. When paragraphs are dripping with names and dates and events, if you're quoting someone that you haven't mentioned in over three hundred pages, please give me a first name and a brief recap who they are. Because then I have to go to the index, and then all the way back to page 9, to find out that you're referencing the junior assistant to the Polish diplomat.

4) Fix your quotes! God, I was gnashing my teeth throughout this book. Sometimes the punctuation would be within the quotation marks. Sometimes not. It would vary back and forth within the SAME paragraph. What was the editor or proofreader thinking?

5) Contradictions. I get distrustful of history books that tell me in one paragraph how weak and terrible the French navy is, but then in the very next one, how Britain had to hustle to the Black Sea because France was doing such a great job on the blockade and they might steal all the glory.

6) Don't make amazing claims and then not back it up! In one spot, the author says that the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, and World War II originated from the Crimean War. Well, if that's the case, not really History's Most Unnecessary Struggle. And it's a fascinating idea (and I think of history myself as events tumbling down like dominoes) but could also be argued against just as much. Discuss giant ideas like that with more than one declarative sentence.

[Janelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very readable history of (primarily) the causes of the Crimean War.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

A more accurately descriptive title would have been Causes of the Crimean War With a Few Notes on the Conflict. That said, I thought it was well worth the reading. I'm not a stranger to military history, but it was refreshing to forgo the battlefield details for a change. Troubetzkoy did a good job of setting the stage for the fight and, in this case, that was enough for me. I can't go along with his thesis that the Crimean War caused the major 20th century wars. I'd lay that blame more squarely on the Franco-Prussian and Russo-Japanese conflicts.

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a perfectly ok history of the Crimean War. Not overly well written, though it portrayed ‘wow this war was pretty stupid’ very well, though I do think a book about a war that was basically started because a bunch of aristocrats were too stupid not to start it could have used a more damning perspective on said aristocrats.

Also very little about Florence Nightingale. Didn’t even mention when she turned up! Disappointing.

[Ethan Underwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Struck home the tragedy and pointlessness of the war. The causes are complicated and seemingly trivial and Troubetzkoy rightfully focuses on this - it takes 14 of the 17 chapters to step foot on Crimea! A real page turner, a book I needed to ration out the chapters for fear of finishing it in an afternoon

[DW Rowlands · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was pretty interesting to me, as an American who knew nothing about the war beforehand.

[Leigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Never knew much about this conflict. Interesting in light of current affairs.

[Braeden Udy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well written and thorough history of the Crimean war.

[Maxwell Stapleton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is only about the causes not the actual war. But overall a decent book

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's more concise and readable than the volume on the Hundred Years War...but not quite up to the level of The Middle East volume, primarily due to lapses into dry details that could have been left on the shelf.

[Matt Kelland · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're interested in what happened in the Crimea, you'll be disappointed. This is all about why it happened. Short summary: Europe was run by despots who were happy to throw away people's lives over diplomatic niceties. Long answer: it's complicated, petty, and I ended up not caring.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very informative and well written account of the Crimean war.