@minhounou It was British-French-Turkish victory, which brought nothing to any country, excluding ottoman empire...actually most of russian soldiers were killed by illnesses too...the bullets and explosions killed 24 731 russians and 23 007 allies therefore your statistic is not correct...I suppose you counted wounded people from both sides...
It's a good video, but the random colors make it confusing. Better to assign a color for each side of the conflict, and a neutral color with which to make other notes.
Im surprised you didn't mention the Battle of Balaclava or the development in medicine thanks to pioneers like Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. But apart from the very clear and good use of Maps and Narration :)
@Masterfootballer23 Money, power, territory. I suppose it depends on the individual affected by the war and by which country the person wants to ultimately be governed. But who ever really knows what a post-conflict society or government will be like until they actually live it.
@warscholar1945 can you name one state controlled by Muslims which you would consider civilized? Their states are synonymous with the crushing of infidels and violent suppression any other form of governance other than right wing military dictators , aristocracies, etc. No republics, no congress, just the military and just the mullahs. IMO South East Europe would be a much better place today if the other Christians nations would have supported Russia's attempt to control the Black Sea then
@slovakmath Thats somewhat skewed to a religious perspective isn't it. A lot of the reason Britain went to war was to stop The Great Bears (Russian) expansionism, there were well grounded fears at the time in London that Russia would use Afghanistan as a stepping stone into the British Raj in India, one of the ways they could take Russias eyes of the prize and in the process possibly give them a bloody nose was by opposing them in the Black Sea region.Can you imagine a Russia that dominated,
not only there own vast territories, but the Black Sea region in its entirety, the middle east, central Asia and India ? It would have been the Soviet Union on steroids, run by a Tsar. You have to look at things in the context of the time to understand the reasonings for conflicts.
@padsterp you use periods and questions marks...and by that I would think you had 3 complete sentences in your message to me. but the 3 sentences are totally incomplete. I dont have a clue what you are talking about because those sentences are so incomplete. Please redo so I can understand. I'd love to respond but I really dont understand what you are saying... thanks
@slovakmath Its makes perfect sense. Maybe you only read the 2nd part of the 2 part reply, I can see why that would be quite confusing and read utterly wrong if you did, I sorry but with the characters available I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say in one paragraph. If you read both parts and still find it confusing, then certainly I can retype it tomorrow, but as of now, I am going to bed.
@padsterp 1) ok, I didnt see the first part of your reply. But its all relative. Compare the territories that the Ottoman Empire conquered: the entire Balkan peninsula including Greece, and others; Hungary, Transylvania, Wallachia, Crimea, Georgia, Budapest; as well as the port cities (and the surrounding nations) of Alexandria, Tunis, Algiers, Cairo, Budapest...as well as Jerusalem, Damascus, all of Mesopotamia, Armenia, etc... Compare that to Russia's vast territories of tundra wasteland.
@padsterp 2) All Russia wanted was ONE single yearlong assessable port that wouldn't freeze. I think you have to take this relative comparison into consideration. If you look at the intellectual discourse from the time of those who wrote about the Turks, they were disgusted how Turks horribly treated the nations who they conquered. But dont confuse me with a Christian zealot, I am the furthest thing from one, as an atheist. I simple make a relative comparison of the two.
@yarrn88 Unfortunately many/most of the better maps I find online are copyrighted so I have to go with what I can find. My hope is that the videos get people interested enough in each conflict that they do further research themselves.
I just read a book of this history that was almost 600 pages long. It was soooooo biased. pro-Anglo very anti-Turkish and anti-Russian. At that lenght you would think it definitivce but it left out the Battle of Sinop and The Seaport of Tagarog. Blamed everyone else for British failures and excludes French and Russian war correspondence records. :Crimea : the Great Crimean War by Trevor Royle; don't waste your time.
nice and tidy blurb about the war...perhaps a power point type presentation would allow for some images-paintings of battles, soldiers, ships, terrain, etc. The map used served it's purpose but really didn't provide more than minimal service to the presentation. Finally, the changes in military tactics, etc. was informative but I was surprised nothing was mentioned about the dramatic changes in caring for wounded soldiers. My understanding was this was revolutionary but nothing was mentioned.
@skaselecter I can only put a limited amount of information in to keep it short. I depend on comments like yours to give viewers a richer understanding of a war and to inspire them to do further research on their own so I do thank you for your comment.
@warscholar1945 I agree with you on the topics you chose to mention for such a short amount of time. However I had the idea that the crimean war had also seen the use of steam battleships for the first time in history, and since you mentioned the end of the age of sail I thought you'd add a quick note about it. But you are right, that is the purpose of comments.
So I will add my sand grain: The crimean war saw the first use of Ironclad (steam) battleships for battle purposes in history,
If you have, than perhaps we can rise above your base attitude of intellectual arrogance and deal with real issues. I knew one Texas Techer and his commitment to knowledge impressed me. Don't ruin my impressions of your college with your crass attitude.
Also the reason why the war ended as it did Britain feared America entering the war on the side of Russia. Britain didn't have enough troops to defend the length of the Canadian border so opting for the peace deal with the French. Had the war continued the Austrians and the Swedes together would've entered the war defecting the Russia poorly equipped armies in term of transportation. So the real winner in the end was France breaking the 30 odd years of containment since the Napoleon War.
@lopsidedbunnybunny Interesting comment. Funny to think of America being drawn into a European conflict back then despite the number of Americans who consistently opposed such an option since the American Revolution. Interestingly, hundreds of thousands of Americans, perhaps millions, were opposed to US involvement in WWII, considered a European war, until December 7, 1941. That attack kind of changed thing.
no dude, Prussia is north of Austria, which became the united German states eventually with Prussia being the biggest one. Ignore this guy, he can't even pronounce Sevastopol correctly.
@TxTechRox123 Again, where does this comment about Prussia come from? I only mention Russia in this video. If you plan to base your assessment of someone's ability and knowledge on how they pronounce a word then it'll only be to your detriment. Regardless, I have no doubt that my knowledge of military matters vastly surpasses yours.
@warscholar1945 and I have little doubt your entire knowledge of world military matters is definitely inferior to mine. you've already proven this point.....it's Sevastopol....not Sevastiopole like you're pronouncing it.
@tresckow When did I mention Prussia? I placed the marker for Austria in the proper place. Prussia's involvement in this war was basically limited to political negotiations.
Losses:
Russia - 143 000
Turkey - 175 000
France - 97 000
Britain - 22 000
So 143 000 vs 294 000 =) Alliy lost twice as much! Is it victory of allies?
kibabiba 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kibabiba in war there are no real winners.
MrAl3x0o 8 months ago
Comment removed
minhounou 6 months ago
@kibabiba Actually uou number are wrong Russia lost 220 000 soldiers whereas
the ottoman Empire 180 000
France 95 000
UK 22 000
the Kingdom of Sardaign send a tiny army and they lost only 2000 men.
The most allies 85% were not killzd by the Russian but by the cholera and others illness.
It's a victory of allies because Russian failed to keep his new territory and the Treaty of Paris was an humiliation for this country.
minhounou 6 months ago
@minhounou
143 000:
-in russian wikipedia
-our history lessons
-just watched in 5-6 different sites
220 000:
-in english wikipedia 220 only.
kibabiba 6 months ago
@minhounou It was British-French-Turkish victory, which brought nothing to any country, excluding ottoman empire...actually most of russian soldiers were killed by illnesses too...the bullets and explosions killed 24 731 russians and 23 007 allies therefore your statistic is not correct...I suppose you counted wounded people from both sides...
REDPOWERable 5 months ago
This is just one of those wars I have to relearn every 2 years,don't know why.
A multitude of nations,new technologies being used,fought all over the place.
Why won't this one stick in my head?
Any way thank you for sorting out my slack and idle mind!!!
1joshjosh1 11 months ago
It's a good video, but the random colors make it confusing. Better to assign a color for each side of the conflict, and a neutral color with which to make other notes.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago
it takes about 20 seconds to find a map of the war. try that next time instead of a modern map.
tarnationstation 1 year ago
I always interperted it as a draw, afterall we buggered off in the end despite the treaty in paris.
bengusandlex 1 year ago
Russians should have won.
TheAwp45 1 year ago
thanks i needed this for my project!
ltsDj 1 year ago
As an Austrian, I am sorry that we didn't help you Russia!!
chris8720 1 year ago
@chris8720 And I am sorry we faught you in WW1 =(
dangar45 11 months ago
Im surprised you didn't mention the Battle of Balaclava or the development in medicine thanks to pioneers like Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. But apart from the very clear and good use of Maps and Narration :)
jasperpickering 1 year ago
So who was fighting for a better reason? :)
Masterfootballer23 1 year ago
@Masterfootballer23 Money, power, territory. I suppose it depends on the individual affected by the war and by which country the person wants to ultimately be governed. But who ever really knows what a post-conflict society or government will be like until they actually live it.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
@warscholar1945 can you name one state controlled by Muslims which you would consider civilized? Their states are synonymous with the crushing of infidels and violent suppression any other form of governance other than right wing military dictators , aristocracies, etc. No republics, no congress, just the military and just the mullahs. IMO South East Europe would be a much better place today if the other Christians nations would have supported Russia's attempt to control the Black Sea then
slovakmath 11 months ago
@slovakmath Thats somewhat skewed to a religious perspective isn't it. A lot of the reason Britain went to war was to stop The Great Bears (Russian) expansionism, there were well grounded fears at the time in London that Russia would use Afghanistan as a stepping stone into the British Raj in India, one of the ways they could take Russias eyes of the prize and in the process possibly give them a bloody nose was by opposing them in the Black Sea region.Can you imagine a Russia that dominated,
padsterp 11 months ago
not only there own vast territories, but the Black Sea region in its entirety, the middle east, central Asia and India ? It would have been the Soviet Union on steroids, run by a Tsar. You have to look at things in the context of the time to understand the reasonings for conflicts.
padsterp 11 months ago
@padsterp you use periods and questions marks...and by that I would think you had 3 complete sentences in your message to me. but the 3 sentences are totally incomplete. I dont have a clue what you are talking about because those sentences are so incomplete. Please redo so I can understand. I'd love to respond but I really dont understand what you are saying... thanks
slovakmath 11 months ago
@slovakmath Its makes perfect sense. Maybe you only read the 2nd part of the 2 part reply, I can see why that would be quite confusing and read utterly wrong if you did, I sorry but with the characters available I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say in one paragraph. If you read both parts and still find it confusing, then certainly I can retype it tomorrow, but as of now, I am going to bed.
padsterp 11 months ago
@padsterp 1) ok, I didnt see the first part of your reply. But its all relative. Compare the territories that the Ottoman Empire conquered: the entire Balkan peninsula including Greece, and others; Hungary, Transylvania, Wallachia, Crimea, Georgia, Budapest; as well as the port cities (and the surrounding nations) of Alexandria, Tunis, Algiers, Cairo, Budapest...as well as Jerusalem, Damascus, all of Mesopotamia, Armenia, etc... Compare that to Russia's vast territories of tundra wasteland.
slovakmath 10 months ago
@padsterp 2) All Russia wanted was ONE single yearlong assessable port that wouldn't freeze. I think you have to take this relative comparison into consideration. If you look at the intellectual discourse from the time of those who wrote about the Turks, they were disgusted how Turks horribly treated the nations who they conquered. But dont confuse me with a Christian zealot, I am the furthest thing from one, as an atheist. I simple make a relative comparison of the two.
slovakmath 10 months ago
Thanks loads, helped a lot with my essay
tommccd 1 year ago
Around 4-6 generations back my family fought in this war.
BlitzoftheReich 1 year ago
nice video, but i think it would be better if you did not use a map with present-day political borders
yarrn88 1 year ago
@yarrn88 Unfortunately many/most of the better maps I find online are copyrighted so I have to go with what I can find. My hope is that the videos get people interested enough in each conflict that they do further research themselves.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
I just read a book of this history that was almost 600 pages long. It was soooooo biased. pro-Anglo very anti-Turkish and anti-Russian. At that lenght you would think it definitivce but it left out the Battle of Sinop and The Seaport of Tagarog. Blamed everyone else for British failures and excludes French and Russian war correspondence records. :Crimea : the Great Crimean War by Trevor Royle; don't waste your time.
foreverseethe 1 year ago
Why did Russia lose that war?
Teranex 1 year ago
Technically this war didn't officially end till 1966... Only hostilities ended in 1856.
Delogros 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this. A nice summary. Ignore the ankle-biters, especially TXTechRox, who evidently has a personality disorder.
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
nice and tidy blurb about the war...perhaps a power point type presentation would allow for some images-paintings of battles, soldiers, ships, terrain, etc. The map used served it's purpose but really didn't provide more than minimal service to the presentation. Finally, the changes in military tactics, etc. was informative but I was surprised nothing was mentioned about the dramatic changes in caring for wounded soldiers. My understanding was this was revolutionary but nothing was mentioned.
skaselecter 1 year ago
@skaselecter I can only put a limited amount of information in to keep it short. I depend on comments like yours to give viewers a richer understanding of a war and to inspire them to do further research on their own so I do thank you for your comment.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warscholar1945 I agree with you on the topics you chose to mention for such a short amount of time. However I had the idea that the crimean war had also seen the use of steam battleships for the first time in history, and since you mentioned the end of the age of sail I thought you'd add a quick note about it. But you are right, that is the purpose of comments.
So I will add my sand grain: The crimean war saw the first use of Ironclad (steam) battleships for battle purposes in history,
cubankhan 6 months ago
If you have, than perhaps we can rise above your base attitude of intellectual arrogance and deal with real issues. I knew one Texas Techer and his commitment to knowledge impressed me. Don't ruin my impressions of your college with your crass attitude.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
this commentator is useless, speak clearly
Louis555hob 1 year ago
@Louis555hob Trust me, I'm working on that.
warscholar1945 1 year ago 6
@warscholar1945 I could understand you clearly. Don't worry about it.
Eddiejg03 1 year ago
@warscholar1945 I can understand you perfectly fine dude. That other guy is an idiot. Keep up the good work.
Chukonu5 1 year ago
@warscholar1945 super
diehello1 1 year ago
cool!
cris555000 1 year ago
Also the reason why the war ended as it did Britain feared America entering the war on the side of Russia. Britain didn't have enough troops to defend the length of the Canadian border so opting for the peace deal with the French. Had the war continued the Austrians and the Swedes together would've entered the war defecting the Russia poorly equipped armies in term of transportation. So the real winner in the end was France breaking the 30 odd years of containment since the Napoleon War.
lopsidedbunnybunny 2 years ago
@lopsidedbunnybunny Interesting comment. Funny to think of America being drawn into a European conflict back then despite the number of Americans who consistently opposed such an option since the American Revolution. Interestingly, hundreds of thousands of Americans, perhaps millions, were opposed to US involvement in WWII, considered a European war, until December 7, 1941. That attack kind of changed thing.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
Good vid, cheers bud
Thgrt0 2 years ago
thx, this helped a lot
RubsNL 2 years ago
no dude, Prussia is north of Austria, which became the united German states eventually with Prussia being the biggest one. Ignore this guy, he can't even pronounce Sevastopol correctly.
TxTechRox123 2 years ago
@TxTechRox123 Again, where does this comment about Prussia come from? I only mention Russia in this video. If you plan to base your assessment of someone's ability and knowledge on how they pronounce a word then it'll only be to your detriment. Regardless, I have no doubt that my knowledge of military matters vastly surpasses yours.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
@warscholar1945 and I have little doubt your entire knowledge of world military matters is definitely inferior to mine. you've already proven this point.....it's Sevastopol....not Sevastiopole like you're pronouncing it.
TxTechRox123 1 year ago
@TxTechRox123 Actually, until recently it was generally pronounced Sebastopol.
Shadoom14 1 year ago
hmm
TheFLASHER2222 1 year ago
wtf! prussia is in austria???
tresckow 2 years ago
@tresckow When did I mention Prussia? I placed the marker for Austria in the proper place. Prussia's involvement in this war was basically limited to political negotiations.
warscholar1945 1 year ago
Thanks mate, nice video, came in handy
FlytheUnionJack 2 years ago