russia

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.

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.

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.