The Crimean war

| July 18, 2015

Name

Course

Instructor

Date of submission

 

The Crimean War

Introduction

The Crimean war was a succession from the Napoleonic wars. It constitutes a series of lessons regarding the essence of communication and leadership among other virtues in the society. It took place between the years 1856 to 1859. The initial complexity and turmoil commence due to the religious conflict regarding the Orthodox Christian and the Catholics. History depicts that the Catholics were denied their right to the Holy Land, a region that was under control by the Ottoman Empire. The other title of this war is the Eastern War of 1853 to 1856 (Lambert, Andrew and Stephen 23). The major conflict originated from the fact that the Russians supported the Orthodox Christians because France supported the Ottoman Empire’s preference for the Catholics. The war was fought on several fronts, including the Caucus, Crimean, Peninsula and the Lower Danube. The major part of the war took place at the in the Crimean. It is a historical war that provides a point of reference for other political and social environs with regards to the organization, communication, and leadership. The research will depict the sealed incidences of the Crimean war and the eventualities accompanying the war.

 

Summary of the Crimean War

There were a series of intentions that the entirety of the war participants in the Crimean war had. Initially, the Russian demanded to protect the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan of Ottoman (Goldfrank 12). Alternatively, The France was involved in a dispute over privileges of Russian Orthodox in favor of the Roman Catholics churches in Palestine.  However, the war did not actualize in the preliminary stages of starting a preference over the holy land privileges. The post action of the Ottomans declaration of war preceded the Russian’s defeat of the Turkish squadron. The revolt took place in the Black sea. Resultantly, Britain and France offered Russia an ultimatum towards withdrawing from the Danubian Principalities by the year 1854.  The ultimatum served a supportive destination towards the Turkish (Goldfrank 15).

Britain and France joined the Ottoman Empire to revolt against the Russians. First, the Anglo-French fleet moved their metal ships. They were more advanced than the Russians technological fleet. The first initiative that Russian did was to coincide with the threat offered by Austria concerning retreating from Danubian principality. The preliminaries of the war commenced in the year 1854 when the alley forces crossed the black sea with the intention of attacking the Russians. They landed in Crimea for a planned 12-week attack on Sevastopol (Goldfrank 24). The time consumed during the preparation of the war propelled the suitability of the war’s title Crimean war. Initially, the immediate rivals met in a number of wars commencing in the year 1854. The French and British were yet to engage in the war.

The first major war commenced on 20th September of the year 1854. The British and the French troops drove the Russians out of Sevastopol, a strong position for the Russians. The Allied troops had a converged troop that constituted a vast ability in terms of numbers and training. However, the victory was short-lived. The allied troops failed to capitalize on the first victory. The operational delays promoted a chance for the Russians to recoup the Sevastopol region. In fact, the Russians fortified the entire city and propelled their attacks. The first Russian Attack was at the Battle of Balaclava (Lambert, Andrew and Stephen 26). The charge of the “Light Brigade” took place in this instance. This caused immeasurable damage on both sides due to poor communication. For instance, the Light Brigade acquired the wrong orders and attacked the wrong side. The power between the two mistaken forces resulted in numerous deaths.

The Crimean war was characterized by poor leadership and communication between the allied forces. The same case applied to the Russians who faced numerous shortcomings during the war. For instance, the deficient communication and organization led to the successive failures by the allied troops against the Russians. The battles at the balaclava allowed the Russians to regain the power to move in small numbers and win successively. They expressed better training and professionalism in attacking the Allied troops. Statistical references prove that approximately 3, 286 Russia died and 4, 373 allies died (Lambert, Andrew and Stephen 32). There was a steady exchange of power amongst the two sides. The British, French and the Ottoman secured some cities but failed to secure others. Collective poor experience, management, and communication plagued troops and attacks from both sides. It is because of this weakness that each of the parties in the war failed to capitalize on the tyranny of numbers. The signs of victory emerged when the strong base of Sevastopol fell under the power of the allies. The Crimean war stood no chance, but to call for the treaty of Paris. The treaty of peace took place on 30th March of year 1856.

Critical analysis of the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856

The Crimean war is a very significant historical occurrence in the history of territorial conflicts. Most importantly, each of the parties that participated in the war play a very significant role in the designing the future of a resolution finding regarding societal issues. For instance, Russians, whose interest in the parts of Ottoman territory managed to return the territory to the larger Ottoman Empire. The war was full of confused operations where communication bleach cost myriad lives. The war included a very powerful military participant Britain.

The war, with regards to the numerous military failures such as miscommunication, fostered the change in some structural procedures regarding the military. For instance, reliable sources imply that Britain initiated changes in the military. The changes elevated the ideology that a powerful operator had the capacity to acquire whatever he or she wants. A substantial impact emerges with the development of the Young Second Empire of Napoleon III (Lambert, Andrew and Stephen 35). It also facilitates the development of the German state. The war took place between renowned sea powers. However, the final resolution was to come up with a common agenda. It is this unifying agenda that reflected the importance of the regional sobriety.

The war developed advantages as well as demerits with regards to social and regional relations sails. For instance, war did not offer any resolution of power on the Eastern side of Europe. Instead, it established a stronger feeling of revolt of the Russians against the European powers. In fact, they intend to overcome their shortcomings and compete with the European countries. It is a very dangerous and unsafe approach towards finding economic and military resolutions. Concurrently, some of the countries lost social affection. For instance, Austria and Russia cannot converse on a common platform since it supported the Allies (Goldfrank 42). On the other hand, Australia failed to secure any regional assistance from the Allies. The entire concept of war does not offer any historical privilege. Instead, it damages the remnants of social and regional relations.

 

 

 

Works cited

Lambert, Andrew D., and Stephen Badsey. The Crimean War. A. Sutton, 1994.

Goldfrank, David M. The origins of the Crimean War. Routledge, 2014.

 

 

 

Get a 5 % discount on an order above $ 150
Use the following coupon code :
2018DISC
Ethics Paper on Same-Sex Marriage
Case: Jim Poss

Category: Social Science

Our Services:
Order a customized paper today!