Crimean War essay plans

Question 1

How far do you agree that the Battle of Balaclava demonstrated that the British Army’s capabilities were let down by failings in its command structure?

Answer 1

P1 disagree

• Charge of the 93rd Highland Footers huge success → Sir Colin Campbell positioned men into a 2 men deep line (’thin red line’). Firing line at a time, great last minute tactic change.
• Charge of the Heavy Brigade → Brigadier General Scarlett predicted the Russians would move more of their cavalry into the South Valley where they would be caught off guard. No time for preparation, Russians knew they couldn’t win and were forced back into North Valley.

P2 agree

• Charge of the Light Brigade → significant miscommunication. Order was given by Raglan when it was not meant to be given and the charge was a suicide.
• Fail to plan → lack of retreat plan and underestimating the Russians due to not having enough information about the power of their weaponry; troops stuck in the Brigade without a way out. Increased casualties by an unnecessary amount.

P3 agree (but other battles showed this too)

• Battle of Alma → British along with allies (French and Ottoman) had poor communication and coordination during Alma which led to lack of unified command structure and clear battle plan. Caused ineffective attack and large army was not taken advantage of.
• Battle of Alma → awful positioning of British and French army by command near river Alma riddled with steep cliffs which made it difficult to maintain a battle line + number of casualties caused by cholera from the water. Russians were outnumbered (33,000 to 63,000) but utilised their army and weaponry better than Britain + allies.

Question 2

How well prepared was the British army to fight in the Crimea?

Answer 2

P1. supply systems

• Britain had very poor supply systems leading up to the war
• a particularly bad commissariat
• colonial war successes made them complacent and they did not prepare enough for the scale of the war
• Raglan was particularly confident due to the success in the Peninsular, where organising supply was largely successful
• ancillary services were unprepared and medical was poor
  
  • this proved to be a major issue within the war as disease was rife and hospitals were poorly maintained
• bureaucracy was rife which impacted how effective the services were organised and could be run
• civilian contractors were inefficient and fraudulent
  
  • the poor organisation of supply was one of the main factors behind the disastrous winter which caused many deaths
  • supply was a particularly poorly maintained and organised area and is indicative of the view that the army were far from well prepared

P2. technology

• the British style of battle had not really changed since the French wars
• uniforms was the same and firearms were very similar
• however there were a few notable technological changes
• the Minie rifle had replaced the Brown Bess
• it was more powerful and more accurate
• vessels were all wooden steamers and sailors
• the rifle fired a powerful projectile which could cause serious damage
  
  • thus, in terms of technology, the British did have an edge because the Russian technology was inferior at the time, however this does not discount the major issues in other places

P3. leadership

• there was growing professionalism in the officer classes
  
  • however they were still largely landed gentry as the purchase system was still around
• these issues in leadership could be seen throughout the war
• Battle of Alma → misdirection = lying down
• battle of Balaclava → lack of communication betwen officers: caused the charge of the light brigade disaster
• many leaders had also not seen active combat since B&F, meaning they underestimated the scale of crimea

P4. recruitment

• it was very difficult to recruit people into the army
• the conditions were worse than in the increasing amounts of industrial jobs
• there was also very poor pay
• criminals were used in order to meet the quota

Question 3

How effective was the work of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole?

Answer 3

P1. Nightingale

• at the beginning of the war, the Crimea was riddled with poor medical care
• generals prioritised transporting soldiers instead of medical supplies
• Nightingale and her team of 38 nurses set about cleaning and reorganising the ward
  
  • this was important as the poor conditions of the hospital was one of the major issues in Scutari
• she worked very long hours and was known affectionately as the ‘lady with the lamp’
• she had superior medical knowledge to the army veterans who were previously in charge of much of the running within hospitals
  
  • none of the nurses liked her tho and she alienated army doctors (but this was probably just misogyny)
  • she became very popular within Britain at the time as her work was reported and newspapers reported stories of her nurses’ heroism
  • there were limits to her effectiveness however as clean water was still an issue
  • it can be argued that a proportion of her success was down to the sanitary commission as they instigated a radical cleanup of the hospitals

P2. Seacole

• she was born in Jamaica and her mother was a ‘doctress’ who practiced local medicine
• she moved to Panama where she learned about cholera and she was called back to Jamaica due to a yellow fever outbreak
  
  • showing her reputation for healing contagious diseases
• whilst she was initially rejected as a nurse for the Crimea, she went independently
• she set up her British Hotel in 1855 which was part hotel and part clinic
• soldiers could enjoy hot food and shelter as well as small comforts like tea, coffee, and blankets
  
  • her impact is clear as the hotel was popular with officers and soldiers alike
• she cared for the sick and the wounded and prescribed remedies with her knowledge of fevers and cholera
• Seacole also went around the battlefield and treated those wounded on the battlefields
• she was repeatedly the first woman onto the allied side of the battleground
  
  • clearly very impactful in improving soldiers as not only did the British Hotel offer small luxuries

P3. their legacy after the war

• whilst it can be argued that both Seacole and Nightingale were equally as impactful in improving soldiers’ lives within the Crimea, when considering their impact afterwards, Nightingale clearly held far more influence
• Nightingale’s work received major publicly after she returned unlike Seacole
• Seacole took no part in post-Crimea discussions and reforms and settled in London
• Nightingale can also be credited with the shift towards nursing becoming a respected profession
• she spent the rest of her life campaigning for reforms to army and medical services and nursing
• she advocated for improvements in hospital design and nurse training
• in 1959 she wrote Notes on Nursing which is still in print today
  
  • thus whilst both women contributed equally to improving quality of life for patients, following the war, Nightingale’s impact on nursing is clearly more significant

Question 4

How far did the coverage of the war change public perception?

Answer 4

P1. Roger Fenton photography

• Crimea = first photographed war
• shows the major technological changes
• Fenton went to the Crimea and aimed to produce phtoographs
• they would be printed in newspapers
• an improved rail and communication network further increased the influence of the press as newspapers could be printed rapidly
  
  • pictures had a significant psychological impact
  • bypassed illiteracy rates
  • people had literally never seen pictures of war
• had some limitations
• majority of fenton’s audience were private purchasers
  
  • this limits the scope of impact as not everyone would have had access
• due to the size and cumbersome nature of his photographic equipment, he was limited in his choice of motifs
• he could only produce images of unmoving objects, mostly posed pictures
• he avoided making pictures of the dead, injured, or mutilated soldiers
  
  • photos were thus more of a propaganda journey to gain more support for the war and generate feelings of patriotism
  • people didn’t see the real events of the war
  • brutality and scale of war could not be captures as directly
  • however whilst they were a major technological change, it is debatable how much they tangibly impacted public opinion

P2. William Howard Russel

• correspondent for the times
• effective at gaining first hand accounts
• correspondents were allowed to travel freely around the war zone which gave them a fuller view than the limited snapshot of photography
  
  • gives audience a more holistic picture of what war is like
• Russel witnesses battle of alma
  
  • could convey what he saw through his writing
• Russel was critical of generals like Raglan
• newspaper was the most popular method of gaining knowledge of current affairs
  
  • he found Raglan uncooperative and wrote that he was ‘utterly incompetent to lead an army’
• Russell made friends with junior officers and from them, and by observation, he gained his information
• his reports were vivid, dramatic, interesting, and convincing
  
  • this reports identified with the British forces and praised British heroism
• he exposed logistic and medical problems and failures, and the suffering of the troops esp during the winter of 1854-5
• reported that British soldiers began going down with cholera and malaria and within a few weeks an estimated 8,000 men were suffering from these two diseases
  
  • when Seacole heard about the cholera epidemic she travelled to London and offered her services
  • led to the govt changing its mind on their prejudices around women’s involvement with medicine and Nightingale ended up going to offer her services
• practical success of Russel was the Victoria Cross
  
  • thus overall moderate as whilst photography was a major technological turning point, this impact was limited by technology, and whilst the reporting was very influential, this means the overall impact of both is moderate

Question 5

How far do you agree that Lord Raglan was primarily responsible for the problems the British army experienced in the Crimean War?

Answer 5

P1 Raglan’s conduct in the war → most significant factor of his responsibility

• Battle of Alma (20 Sept 1854) → Lord Raglan did not establish a good working relationship with his allies e.g. the French commander Saint Arnaud which meant the battle was confused and poorly coordinated as Raglan was confused about what the French were doing, at one point ordering his infantry to lie down to minimise casualties + at times the British mistook the French for Russians/Raglan was indecisive and did not pursue the withdrawn Russians to drive home advantage/ Confusion amid gun smoke + offers issued contradictory orders.
• Lord Raglan appeared to underestimate the military capacity of the Russians to construct strong defensive positions → after Alma, allies wasted time whilst the Russians had time to prepare defences when they should’ve gone straight to Sevastopol on 23rd September (other officers had suggested that this was unnecessary). HOWEVER, Raglan had wanted to attack Sevastopol at once but was dissuaded.
• Balaklava (25 October 1854) → The Charge of the Light Brigade became emblematic of poor leadership: poor planning, poor communication, vague generalship, conflicting orders.
• Raglan had not communicated his plans and orders clearly to Lucan → Raglan wanted Lucan to stop Russian troops and Lord Cardigan’s Light Brigade had remained immobile, but now Raglan ordered Captain Nolan to tell Lucan to send in Cardigan’s cavalry. Lucan disliked Nolan (lack of professionalism) so they had a little discussion and despite Cardigan being aware of the likely cost of a charge towards Russian artillery, Lucan had insisted they were Raglan’s orders. By the time the brigade reached the Russians, over half the men had been killed/wounded + horses lost.
• Death toll of 113, inc. Captain Nolan.
• HOWEVER, was not Raglan’s fault alone, since British cavalry had a reputation for recklessness + underpinned by a lack of experience, Wellington’s influence meaning the army weer trained in old disciplines, Raglan inherited a situation, maybe exacerbated.

P2 Conditions

• Sevastopol → during November 1854 the Crimean Peninsular was hit by one of the worst storms in living memory- allied camps wrecked/ships carrying supplies sunk, allied soldiers suffered from cold, hunger, and disease/huts and tents gave scant shelter from freezing rain and snow.
• Hospitals → staff shortage and inadequate nursing orderlies, had a very poor medical staff with Dr Hall being particularly inept (perhaps Raglan could have prioritised this more), Scutari hospital was unsanitary with primitive toilet conditions, far more died of disease than in battle.
• Underpinned by events outside his control → medical provision of the time was always going to be inadequate + held hostage to weather and had been persuaded to wait meaning his men spent weeks in camp.

P3 Resources (not Raglan, although he exarcebated)

• Raglan had not prioritised medical supplies to make room for fighting soldiers + horses on ships (reports of it being thrown overboard)
• The supply base was a tentatively held village port and locals were hostile + Raglan knew that a retreat there would allow Russians to resupply
• Even when supplies did reach Balaklava, they were slow to reach the troops outside Sevastopol + took weeks to ship in fresh stores
• The commissariat largely depended on civilian contractors, not always efficient and often fraudulent, and Lord Raglan had requested more land transport at the start of the campaign and was refused. A railway from the port to the battlefront was sanctioned in his time but not completed until after his death.
• Underpinned by the commissariat → was not fit for purpose and his frustration with the Commissary- General Filder was clear.