Crimea [Kindle Edition]

This is a beautifully paced book. There is an excellent account of the factors leading up to the war making some sense out of the "Eastern Question". The battles are dealt with in sufficient depth but not a blow by blow narrative as is too often the case in military history. What makes the book outstanding is the focus on the ordinary soldier and particularly their suffering during the first winter in the Crimea. We get a clear picture of the awful conditions, the disease, the injuries and above all the incompetence of the commanders.There are many extracts from personal letters and they, along with the illustrations and maps, contribute greatly to the story. The book does not end with the Treaty of Paris but goes on to describe the effect that the war had on European politics during the ensuing deacdes.

On July 18, 1854, two British warships under the command of Captain Erasmus Ommaeny bombarded the monastery on the main island in the Solovetskie Islands in the White Sea. The monastery itself had no real military or political value, but Ommaney lacked the forces necessary to attack the main Russian base in the area at Archangel and decided that the monastery was a suitable enough target to win his men plaudits at home. After the outdated Russian batteries defending the monastery were destroyed, Ommaney demanded the surrender of the place; when this was refused he launched a second bombardment before sailing away in frustration, his bold military action having caused a total of six casualties, all among his own men.

There is no mention of Ommaney's adventure in Orlando Figes's history of the Crimean War, which is unfortunate considering how nicely it encapsulates the pointlessness that is a dominant theme of his assessment of the conflict. Its absence is also revealing, as it shows Figes's focus to be squarely on the eponymous theater of the war. There is some discussion of the combat in the Caucauses, a couple of passing mentions of fighting in the Baltic and no mention of battles anywhere else. This is also unfortunate, as it would have been interesting to see him employ the same penetrating analysis to these other overlooked theaters that he applies to the fighting in the Crimea. For his book offers a insightful reexamination of this often-overlooked conflict, one that demonstrates its underrated significance to the history of Europe in the 19th century.

Figes spends the first part of the book teasing out the complicated origins of the war. While many factors were involved, he considers the role of the Russian tsar Nicolas I to be the most significant one, giving greater weight to religion as a motivating factor in his actions than have previous historians. Yet this only served to define some of the particulars of what was an ongoing struggle between the major European powers over the fate of the Ottoman Empire and her territories. Pressured by Russia, the Ottomans received support from Great Britain and France, each of whom were motivated by different interests and seeking different goals.

Achieving their various goals eventually cost the sides involved far more than they had anticipated. When war did break out in 1854, the British and the French were divided as to what to do to strike at the Ottomans. Eventually an assault on the Russian Black Fleet and their main naval base at Sebastopol became their goal, motivated as much by the allies' desire to move their forces out of cholera-afflicted Bessarabia as anything else. Their landing and subsequent advance soon developed into a ponderous siege of the town. Here Figes excels in describing the siege and the major personalities involved, capturing the bravery of the men and the appalling errors which were made by their leaders in waging it. The fall of Sebastopol, along with Nicholas's death and succession by his reform-minded son Alexander II, led to a negotiated peace that was a humiliation, one which was soon reversed by a combination of adroit diplomacy and fortuitous timing. Figes concludes with a chapter in which he looks at the weight given to the conflict in the national imaginations of the various countries which sent men to fight and die there, a few of whom were immortalized but most ultimately forgotten.

Figes's book is a superb history of a often-overlooked war. His background in Russian history and his command of the Russian-language sources allows him to provide a far more complete examination of the conflict than exists in most English-language accounts, while his abilities as a writer help bring the war to life. In this sense Ommaneny's escapade can go unnoticed, overshadowed as it was by the far larger and bloodier farce that took place further south that Figes recounts with both humanity and insight. The result is a book that, while far from the final word on this complex and multifaceted conflict, is unlikely to be bettered anytime soon for the author's success in providing such an entertaining and informative account of a war that has long been denied its due.

This is the first book by Figes I've read (having until now little or no interest in Russian history, or perhaps more correctly: not the time to immerse myself in the subject), but it will definitely not be the last. 'Crimea' is truly a gem. I had read The Destruction of Lord Raglan (Wordsworth Military Library) years ago, but looking back now I enjoyed 'Crimea' a lot more, and - more to the point perhaps - I think it's not just a fuller account of the Crimean War (and what came before and after) but also a more objective view.

Figes consulted a wealth of primary and secondary sources, considers the conflict from all viewpoints, gives each of the allies and opponents their due (from the commanders-in-chief to the lowliest soldier), and above writes it all down in a clear, easy and sweeping style which kept me reading on well into the night completely oblivious of the time. An unputdownable book about the defining conflict of the 19th century.