Crimean War, 1853 to 1856

A quick and dirty history of the Crimean war, 1853 to 1856. Please go to warscholar.org for more military history. WarScholar.com has been taken by a cybersquatter.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• france
• britain
• russia
• ottoman
• sevastopol
• dardanelle
• sinop

[Masterfootballer23]

So who was fighting for a better reason? :)

[warscholar1945]

@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.

[yarrn88]

nice video, but i think it would be better if you did not use a map with present-day political borders

[warscholar1945]

@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.

[skaselecter]

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.

[warscholar1945]

@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]

@Louis555hob Trust me, I'm working on that.

[minhounou]

@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.

[REDPOWERable]

@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...

[kibabiba]

@minhounou

143 000:

-in russian wikipedia

-our history lessons

-just watched in 5-6 different sites

220 000:

-in english wikipedia 220 only.

[kibabiba]

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?

[slovakmath]

@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]

@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]

@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.