Talk:Crimean War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Grammar

Over the next couple days I will try and work through some problematic grammar. I won't change much content except for additions from sources I have handy. Mostly, I'm letting everyone know the grammar will be improved (not that it was entirely horrible to begin with :P) Jonesa3 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

African Empire?

What's the African Empire and why would they be in a war in Nothern Europe? Someone please explain this to me.rokkafellah (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that an idle person was creating history, an interesting task that contributes to improve this enciclopedia, obviously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.220.114 (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Question: Did the Russians withdraw their troops from the Danubian Principalities at any point after the allied ultimatum? The article gives contradictory information. First it says "Late in March of 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, Great Britain and France formally declared war." Then a few lines later... "Though the original grounds for war were lost when Russia withdrew its troops, Great Britain and France continued with hostilities." What actually happened?--SCJE (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia refused to retreat, but in the end, when the allies invaded, we were FORCED tor retreat, and break off some sieges too. Best regards, Nikitn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Other References

Fort Queenscliff - this shouldn't be referenced here. The article for the fort does mention that the Crimerean War was responsible for the Victorian government looking at coastal defence, but apart from that it has no connection (other involvement were WWI and II). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen D (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Army Strength

Well, i find it very hard to imagine that the russian army had 2.2 million men in the crimean wars. And it seven spelled wrong 2.200000 RussianS not russian. Could someone give some better sources to that? I couldnt find it on google, but sertanly, there werent 2.200000 Russians present in that war. So if anyone now, could they please tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's total approximate strength of the whole russian army (from Warsaw to Alaska) of the period 195.218.211.25 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghhh, someone has completely changed the arcticles casualties and army strenghts. With no sources or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the figures based on the Soviet Military Encyclopedia, citing the source in references (so please check first before writing bollocks like "With no sources or anything". If you want to challenge the numbers please provide the basis of this challenge Chestnut ah (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well of course. Only strange, since noone has purposed any losses anywhere near as high as these...Could you please give me some internet links to youre so called sources, please? How do you expect to think that half a million Russian casualties occured? And 400.000 Turks? Ive red alot of books about the crimean wars, and most of them state 50-100 thousand Russian casualties, 20.000 British are widly recognized 120.000 French and 30.000 Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.202.73 (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you need sources please go to the Congress Library, the British Library or, e.g. library of the London Schol of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies and check the book indicated by yourself. If you live in some godforsaken plase w/o a decent library I can send you a scan of the relevant pages, even OCR-ed so that you can use e.g. gogle Russian-to-English automatic translator and verify by yourself that the numbers inserted are indeed as stated in this encyclopedia Or -- even better -- you can order CD-version of this quality reference book on militera.lib.ru Chestnut ah (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, what really annoys me is that you just came here, and changed everything without mentioning it here on the discussions page. Also, since most of the people here talked from 130.000 Russian casualties to 50.000 dead Russians , how did you come upp with over 500.000 as casualties? And 400.000 Turks? I never ever heard anything close. What seems to be amusing, is that you come here with such ridiculus numbers. And of course i could do as you said to make sure it actually stands anything which you claim there, but that would really take a long time. Also, here is one of mine sources, its a book of Trevor Royle, i red quiet a few years back, ther it is actually stated that there was 60.000 Russian dead. Not 500.000 casaulties.. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you just came here"? Do you consider this article your personal fief? I don't think so. Anyway, please check this reference book: The Osprey Companion to Military History, R Cowley and G Parker (eds.), Osprey Publishing, 1996, ISBN 1 85532 663 9, p.116 ("Crimean War"): "Forced to accept defeat, Russia sought pease in January 1856. It had lost 500,000 troops, mostly to disease, malnutrition and exposure".Chestnut ah (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I consede that some older books cite lower casualties numbers, eg Dupuy and Dupuy The Encyclopedia of Military History, Macdonald and Jane's, 1970, p.829 gives total casualties for Russia 256,000 and for Allies, 252,000, with battle casualties 128,700 and 70,000 correspondingly. However, I think it is better to believe more recent estimates, plus Russian sources for Russian casualties are more reliable. Also, I suspect that you think of the Crimean war only in terms of the siege of Sevastopol, but there were hostilities along the Danube and in the Caucasus (where Turks palyed much more active role than in the Crimea, and suffered all those casualties -- "mostly to disease, malnutrition and exposure" Chestnut ah (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I added these lower estimates of casualties as footnotesChestnut ah (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, i do not actually "own the article", like you try to do. You actually need to learn youre sources arent automatically the best. but i hardly doubt the Russians lost half a million men when i was led to belive by most books i red that they lost far less. Also, i know where the crimean war was, but the crimean theathre was actually the biggest and most important one. Forexample, at sevastapol, i was led to belive that the Allies dead were effectivly 50.000 men, while the Russian ones where only 20.000. And this was the biggest action in the war. Anyhow, does this "encyliopedia" state how many, turks, british, french, and russians died? Because, it also looks strange as the British participated with so many men, but lost so few? Does none of youre so called sources state british casaulties? And please, could you find out the death numbers... It was taht which basically was before. Also, the french losses seem ridiculisly small. As if the Russians had such huge losses, only out of disease. Tell me the death numbers, and we will perhaps agree, because i had some sources about those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added more detailed info on the war losses, from English-language sources. Please note that "casualties" in general means dead, wounded, sick and prisoners, not just dead Chestnut ah (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am aware of that, but before this article was balanced, with 17.500 dead brits, 100.000 french and 60.000 russians. But now its just another example of WIKI incompetence with numbers... :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

British lost dead more than 17.5k, for starters. Also, could you possibly amend your reference to the 60k Russian dead with the page number (I must say I haven't seen such low estimate -- although, as I pointed out, I've seen much higher number for Russia's dead) Chestnut ah (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, mostly people would be happy with 60k dead. Some even suggested 48,000, but mostly 100k was suggested. Ive seen actually lower nubmers then 60k, and 17.500 british isnt much,,, compared taht tehy had 225.000 men there. Also, i wonder about the french? i heard thye had a very high loss, at sevastapol, especially. The russian lost most on sevastapol too, with some 20,000 dead, and allies 50,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to J Sweetman, The Crimean War, Osprey ES-02 (p 89), there was not 225k British in the Crimea but 4,273 officers and 107,040 other ranks. 20% lost dead is quite large proportion, although French lost even more -- 100k+ out of 300k+ that were there (not all of them simultaneously of course) Chestnut ah (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, i was led to belive the French had 445k, the british 225k. But ok,,, Anyhow, nice, the article seems to be ata measure of balance now.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ottomans

There is scant mention of them here, their units, their battle arrangements, commanders, their battlefield results, politics etc..--Murat (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably down to the sources used. They seem to be mostly general works, written to appeal to the pre-concieved ideas of the non-expert, and as such never mention anything in depth and mostly ignore anything that that readership would consider off-topic (such as any fighting that took place in eastern Anatolia). Of course the very misleading name "Crimean war" just reinforces those pre-conceived notions. Meowy 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Media references

Inspired by another editor's comment, I have drastically axed the tediously long fiction subsection flagged. Out were offhand references including those by Conan Doyle, Twain, and others. Too much legitimate stuff to consider. Even Tennyson probably belongs in the Charge article itself and NOT here, but I didn't have the heart (guts?) to chop it! Student7 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

King of Jerusalem?

Now, the Crimean War was started because Napoleon III wanted to exercise his rights as the titular King of Jerusalem (a title which he had inherited from his father Joseph, the king of Naples) to the keys of the Churches of the Nativity and the Holy Sepulchre. The Russians did not like this, because they thought they were the "protectors" of the Orthodox Christians. Does the concept of protector somehow refer to the title of Protector of the Holy Sepulchre used by Godfrey of Bouillon, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Did the Russian tsar Nicholas I view the position of protector analogous to the nominal title of King of Jerusalem? If so, how did he inherit this title? Where the two emperors in fact at war over who could be the titular King of Jerusalem? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Napoleon III or the Crimean War, but "protector of the Holy Sepulchre" was never a real title, as is discussed on Godfrey's article and elsewhere. However, up until a few decades ago, everyone believed it was real, so I suppose it is possible that that is what Napoleon had in mind. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what Napoleon had in mind, he was just simply "King of Jerusalem". The question here is how did Nicholas I become Protector? Did he somehow inherit the title from Manuel I Komnenos? Was it a royal title to be inherited? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Napoleon was no more King of Jerusalem than you or I. That had been a meaningless title for 500 years by that point; did he even actively claim it? Did he even know he could claim it? In any case, "protector of the Holy Sepulchre" was not a title to be inherited, it was not a title at all. Manuel and the other Byzantine emperors believed that the rulers of the various crusader states were their vassals, and on occasion they tried to assert their authority (successfully, at least over Antioch), but there was no specific title. Besides, the meaningless title of "Byzantine emperor" had been sold to someone in Italy (I forget who) in the fifteenth century, and of course by the 1850s it had been an empty title for 400 years. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I found this reference in The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, available on-line at Answers.com:

"Sultan Abdülmecit ... decided to award to France the traditional function and title of Protector of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem."

This clearly states that the Protector was a function and (royal?) title. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, at the time everyone thought it had been a real title. But I'm not sure what you're arguing? Was it Napoleon or Nicholas who wanted the "protector" title? Did Napoleon actually think he was King of Jerusalem? You're not making a lot of sense here. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki link

The link to Chinese Wikipedia zh:克里米亚战争 seems to be OK, but is commented out at present as "...editor may need help with fixing this pointer...". It seems to be working OK. What am I missing here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-inserted by the 'bot, so I've tentatively removed the duplicate version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian Flag

What is that Russian flag used on this page? I have never seen it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.75.70 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the Russian Flag pre-1858. Please check out Russian_Flag#Flags_of_Russia_in_chronological_order before changing again. Rac fleming (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to List of Russian flags, there was no official flag in Russia pre 1858. This is supported by Flags of the World. Geira (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Structural Balance

Sorry to appear rude, but for a piece with the title Crimean War, this article reads very strangely. The structure seems extremely unbalanced, and most readers might be forgiven for concluding that nearly all the action took place in the Baltic. I appreciate that reference is made to the major clashes - Alma, Balaclava, Inkerman and the various assaults on the Russian positions at Sevastopol - at the bottom of the article, under Major events, and that each of them has its own separate article, but surely there should be some mention of the course of the war in the Crimea in this main article, with at least a couple of sentences on each engagement up front. It wouldn't take more than a couple of paragraphs, and appropriate links to the subsidiary articles in the course of the narrative would help readers not familiar with the course of the war to get a proper geographical and chronological sense of its development.

Don't get me wrong. I love all the stuff on the Baltic, which is too often skated over in the standard histories; but this article seems to have moved too far in the other direction.

Djwilms (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having now had time to read the main article in greater detail, I'm going to be ruder. Why on earth has a detailed account of a minor action at the Genitchi Strait that nobody has ever heard of been given more prominence in the main article on the Crimean War than the Charge of the Light Brigade? This is an absurd lack of balance.

This article would benefit considerably from being restructured. There should be a major section on the main campaign in the Crimea, which after all gave the war its name, balanced by a section on the subsidiary fronts (and they were subsidiary), where you can put in all the stuff on the Danube, the Baltic and the Pacific.

At the risk of sounding immodest, I think the approach I have taken in the article Sino-French War (mostly written by myself) is the best way to deal with the relationship between the overall campaign and the constituent battles. Each battle gets an article to itself, but is also briefly described in the main article. That way, you get balance. It shouldn't be too difficult to work out a similar hierarchy of importance for the Crimean War.

Djwilms (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Italian participation in Charge of the Light Brigade

I removed the names of two Italian soldiers who took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade as being too closely detailed for the "broad sweep" topic here. No Italian participation is mentioned in that article (where, for example, the significant role of French cavalry is described) and if this is a significant omission it should be put right, on that page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Major Events

To whomever edits this section later: 1) The useful comments from "Ottoman Point of View" section ought to be incorporated (numbers of Ottoman fighters, etc). The rest of it should be tossed. It gives the impression that the site is somehow Eurocentric or biased against Ottomans (or should I say "Turks?") and that the "real" interpretation is being repressed by the man. This section plays off the oldest nationalist trope: the Christ of Nations. 2) The "Major Events of the War" section is inexplicably next-to-last. This should be in the main body of the first section right at the very top. The stuff about the telegraph and the news reporting should be added to the "Social Characteristics" section with Florence Nightengale, etc. I actually was about to add this stuff then noticed it below.

Best of Luck!

Also: Why does this article have a longer section on the baltic than the actual Crimea? It doesn't even mention Alma, Balaclava, or Inkermann in the main section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.219.23 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering this also. The Battle of Alma in particular is one of the most talked about events during the Crimean War yet there's practically no mention of it. What's even stranger is that there are fairly extensive articles on all of the major battles in the conflict as can be seen here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_of_the_Crimean_War

I would say that some of the content should be copied from these articles on to this one as at present it doesn't make a great deal of sense - many of the major events of the war are missing whilst some of the lesser ones (the Baltic campaign in particular) are included. Blankfrackis (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! See my comments below under 'Structural Balance'. Somebody needs to reorganise this article and dump all the stuff on the Baltic campaign into a subsidiary article. That would free up space for paragraphs on Alma, Balaclava, Inkerman and Sevastopol in the main article.

Djwilms (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian Flag

Shouldn't the flagicon for of Sardinia in the infobox be the flag of the Kingdom of Sardinia, rather than the post-1861 Kingdom of Italy? Brickie (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This link suggests that it was the form adopted by Sardinia in 1851. I have no personal knowledge. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Happened across this page again today, and decided to have another look at the Sardinian Flag issue. Looks to me from a number of other sources (not least the Wikipedia page on the Kingdom of Sardinia) as if the Italian flag was adopted by Sardinia in 1861 on the unification of Italy. Maybe a misprint in your source. I've changed the flags, but if anyone knows better, do feel free to revert. Brickie (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical end of the war?

Technically, the war ended in 1966, not 1856. This is because Berwick-upon-Tweed was on the Allied side. They were seperate from the British Empire. When the peace treaty was signed in 1856, Berwick-upon-Tweed was not mentioned, so technically, Russia was still at war with Berwick-upon-Tweed until 1966, when the mayor of Berwick-upon-Tweed signed the treaty.

If you're wondering where this came from, it was an episode of QI.

MightyJordan (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, read the Berwick article properly. PatGallacher (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed this yet again. Wikipedia already suffers some gentle mockery in The Spectator [1] for including this in the Berwick-upon-Tweed article; let's not add to their fun by having it here as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Sinope

Hope not to have offended anyone with an edit on this page's reference to the Battle of Sinope. The entire Ottoman Fleet was not destroyed. The British and French were more concerned the catastrophic nature of the defeat, having pledged to protect the Porte and having a sizeable Allied fleet in the Bosphorous at the time, than were they worried about an amphibious Russian invasion of the Anatolian coastline.

--Kazhdenin 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

During the battle of Sinope the single Turkish steamer-frigate Taif escaped destruction and brought the news to Constantinople. Russian sources state that commander of this frigate was Adolphus Slade, who served in Ottoman Navy with rank of Mushaver-pasha – General-consultant. Writings of Slade himself make this very improbable. Can anybody who has access to Turkish sources ascertain who was the captain of Taif at the battle of Sinope? --Jkomis (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Turks were to blame for the action at Sinope, as they were not supposed to send warships or military transports into the Black Sea per the terms of the truce brokered for them by the Europeans. Admiral Nakhimov was entirely justified in attacking the Turkish flotilla at Sinope, as it was obviously transporting soldiers from Bulgaria to the Caucasus for action against Russia.

The Western European press described Sinope as a massacre in order to whip-up anti-Russian hysteria among the naive masses. Very few of the newspaper articles in England, France and elsewhere mentioned that the Turks themselves were to blame for having provoked the Russian fleet into combat.

Kenmore 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Tsar or Czar

Both forms of the word appear in the text, should it be modified to just one? ArdClose 11:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Tsar is the current spelling, though why this was ever changed I don't know. Drutt 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

At this time there is an Emperor in Russia 95.29.8.233 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Alexander

Genitchi Strait

I've moved this section to its own page, here. It had undue weight here for a general article, as it was giving more text to this incident than to the whole siege of Sevastopol. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Causes of war

The sections on the causes of the war start with the statement that it "can be traced to the coup d'état of 1851 in France."
This is unexplained, and is pretty bizarre in any event. I thought the war the war was the result of Great Power rivalries over the Eastern Question. Talking of which, there’s a much better explanation in the article there of the causes.
So, unless there are any objections, I’ll add a main article link to there, and replace the section here with a summary. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Accounts by eye-witnesses

Tolstoy’s three stories of the siege of Sevastopol, though framed as fiction, are closer to reportage. Perhaps they should be in a section of eye-witness accounts? They have a stub article under Sebastopol Sketches, which needs correction and expansion. The Lawless One (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian Legion?

Hi, I'm not honestly anyone who knows the facts to edit the article itself, but trying to read over it for personal study, I'm a bit confused by the inclusion of the Bulgarian Legion under "strength" in the right-hand table. The article about the Bulgarian Legion itself tells that it wasn't formed until 1862, so how could they have participated here? Sorry if there's facts I'm just unaware of - correct me if so - but I feel that this is inconsistent and should at least be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.207.247 (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates

There is conflicting dates in this article. The first paragraph states 1853-56, while the information box on the right states 1854-56. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.202.181 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire declared war on October 4, 1853, but neither France nor Britain declared war until March 27, 1854 and March 28, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.246.55 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of this is already in, although worded differently: "By 28 March 1854...Britain and France had formally declared war." On 4 October the Ottoman Empire issued what could be described as a contingent declaration of war, only coming into effect if the Russian troops didn't withdraw within fifteen days. Prince Gorchakov's reply of 10 October seemed to reject the demand and the Sultan's formal declaration was on 23 October. I left most of this out, but it could be included to remove any potential for confusion. Other views?--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well somebody's having fun with this article...

I see its now known as the 'Cock War'. Somebody responsible please edit it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.245.253 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I laughed. The Centipede (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So... what did Nassau did?

The article mentions that Nassau participated. But does not further state, not even a mention, of what they did. Looking at all the battle articles, Nassau is not mentioned again. So... what did they do? --Svip^pong 11:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Campaigns

The "Battles" section could do with some work; there's nothing on the Danube campaign, and the section on Sevastopol says almost nothing of importance.
If there are no objections I'll add some content. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

End of the War - Austria

Currently the article states that "Soon after, Austria would ally with Prussia as it became the new state of Germany." I don't think that this is true (or what the author wanted to say with it). see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War Therefore deleted (not to subject anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.192.3 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strengths in the infobox

Most of the data listed under strength in the infobox is uncited, and it is not clear what they mean.

The so-called Crimean War was a global war. There were theatres in the Baltic, the Black Sea, the White Sea and the Far East. Of these, the Baltic and Black Sea theatres were the most important.

To be useful, the strengths would need to be split by theatre, and also make it clear whether they were ground forces or at sea forces. Normally one would say army and navy - but as the army was supplemented by naval personnel in the Crimea, X000 army and Y000 navy might not be the best split.

If we cannot do this, let us delete the information on strengths in the infobox. If it is meaningless, there is no point having it.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Balaklava sick 2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Balaklava sick 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A tinted lithograph, titled "Embarkation of the sick at Balaklava", shows injured and ill soldiers in the Crimean War boarding boats to take them to hospital facilities. Modern nursing had its roots in the war, as war correspondents for newspapers reported the scandalous treatment of wounded soldiers in the first desperate winter, prompting the pioneering work of women such as Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole, Frances Margaret Taylor and others.Artist: William Simpson; Lithographer: Edmond Morin; Restoration: NativeForeigner

Map

Could someone include a map that shows where the fighting took place?THEMlCK (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The map is lovely--if you read Russian. Could someone find one in English? 75.4.143.213 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the map is lovely too - let's not change it.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Lovely or not, I (as most readers of the English version of Wikipedia) do not read Russian, therefore this map is of very little use to me. If a map can be found which is in English, please post it. Thank you. Stormcellardoor (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, this map should have a key to explain all the different coloured arrows. It's useless to an English speaker at present. Russian speakers, please help. Azkm (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who can be bothered to read the article will find the map useful and easy to understand. Some who cannot be bothered to read the article, would find the map less than ideally useful, especially if they do not speak Russian.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Porte

For those that may be contributing to this article, I ask that you consider the following. In the "Pre-battle Tensions", it refers to Prince Menshikov going on a mission to the Ottoman Sublime Porte, with a link to Porte. I don't know whether there is special significance to the Ottoman Sublime Porte, but Porte in the link gives several meanings. One of which is Topaki Palace. I would have simply inserted (Topaki Palace) in parenthesis if this is what was meant. My point as non-historian, I understand the meaning of the Russians sending Menshikov to the Ottoman empire. The addition of "Sublime Porte" with a link creates some ambiguity and confusion. Is there some significance to "Sublime Porte"? It isn't included in the link. Would Topaki Palace serve better? Similarly, in the Danube Campaign, the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia with a link are again provided. I understand the correctness of the Danubian Principalities, but again would a simple addition of "(regions of modern Romania)" suffice to link the geography of the region for those less familiar with the Danubian Principalities and make the reading easier? For those writing, I ask whether the detail adds to one's understanding of the Crimean War? 173.61.149.115 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked the link: it doesn't mention Topkapi Palace specifically. In this figuative context ("the context of diplomacy") it seems a very good fit. To use Topkapi Palace in a literal sense may be misleading, as it was "on its way out" at that time and may not have been the actual venue.

In addition to refering to the specific palace which was the seat of government in Turkey, "sublime porte" was also used to refer to the turkish government, in the same way that "the Kremlin" is used to refer to the Russian government or "Whitehall" is used to refer to the english government.Eregli bob (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Danubian principalities is the contemporary term and again seems appropriate in the context. It already has a parenthetical description attached and perhaps adding to this with "modern Romania" could be a little cluttered. Modern Romania is linked in the lede of "Danubian principalities".--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian death numbers

How can there be more dead than there was involved in war ? --94.140.88.117 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch: it seems to have been confusion between Kingdom of Sardinia and pre-unification Italy, added afterwards. Fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. This official report [2] at page 39 reports 18,079 troops composing the Sardinian expedition to Crimea. Where is from the previous 15,000 cited figure and what about the 2,000 Italian troops? --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Italian Colonial Campaign

Reference this edit: In what way was this an Italian colonial enterprise, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OP has reverted the link—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Reworking

yo the russian casualties dont sound accurate at all im pretty sure more russian diead than allies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.22.105 (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started doing some reworking on the "Beginning of War" subsection, which needs a lot of work. Please bear with me, as it may take several days to finish. If you have comments, questions, or suggestions, shoot! --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

90,000 French 35,000 Turkish 17,500 British 2,050 Sardinian killed, wounded and died of disease

total 256,000 killed, wounded and died of disease

What about on the Russian side? Also, is a source available for these numbers? Thanks,

— Emiellaiendiay 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find casualties for Russia in the Crimean war on google either, i desperately need that number (or a rough estimation), does anyone know??

A man I know (who is extremely credible) says that 48,300 Russians died.

(Thanks Grace)

I have a book from osprey publishing about that war and it claims that the allied casualties numbers are Ok, but only if we consider them dead and killed, not wounded. For the Russian side the number of dead ranges from 100,000 to 130,000 dead.

Alexis Troubetzkoy in A Brief History of the Crimean War: The Causes and Consequences of a Medieval Conflict Fought in a Modern Age (published in 2006) lists total Russian casualties at 246,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.246.55 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In the battle of sebastapol, only 20.000 russians died, but 50000 allies. So it is said that 111.ooo thousand russian died in less than then major battles? The english and french were idiotically prepared for the war, so they sufferd large causalites from kolera(on the fisrt month 10.000 died out of kolera alone). And in the winter, ecpecially when the transports from the ports where horreble. Russia sufferd small casualites from diseases. But its stupid, that 110.000 russians died in less than ten battles, while the allies where on foregin ground, and masses with disease. The Russian dead would most liekly be c.(i dont remember exact number, sorry)60.000. I got this from an article about russian war history. Best regards, Nikitn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

'374,600 total dead' for allied casualties is pure fantasy (175,300 dead for the Ottomans?!). Lysandros (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The figure of "fewer than 200" survivors of the Charge of the Light Brigade is inconsistent with other articlkes, and sources. Woodham-Smith gives 193 returnees, i.e. survivors with surviving horses and no or only minor injuries. It is known that many British combatants were captured, others would have been unhorsed and might have returned on foot or been made prisoner. Then there are those wounded seriously enough not to be able to return. Other WP articles suggest 200-300 deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.83.82 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Causes of the war

The causes discussion is not perfect. It goes in too much detail into the quasi-religious dispute over the keys which was just the pretext to the war. Also, Marx and Engels are given undue weight. In fact, I see that back in 2008 another editor has succinctly made some points I wanted to make and that are unresolved as yet:

I agree that much is missing, but I would not argue that Russia would benefit from the Ottoman Empire's collapse. Indeed, the great powers tried to keep this "sick man of Europe" around for decades so they wouldn't have to fight a war over it. The main problem I have is that there's no explanation of the long-term causes. It's like saying that the cause of WWI was Franz Ferdinand's assassination -- there's a lot missing. Although this article does a fantastic job of chronicling the short-term lead-up to the war, the real causes are missing. There's no mention of the change in the balance of power in Russia's favour because of their restoration of Austrian control of Hungary, or the Punctation of Olmutz. And Napoleon III's desire to reenter France into the league of great powers is nowhere in sight. IMHO, the causes need to be massively expanded, and I'll be willing to help in a few weeks. - The Fwanksta (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to edit a bit but it'll take more people to get this going. Bazuz (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia the "policeman of Europe"?? Karl Marx a Reliable Source for citation in this context?? Don't recall any Russian forces in Germany during the various revolutions, etc. Good RS-vetted secondary sources are what is needed here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Marx and Engels are given undue weight" - yes, take a look through the Notes. Apparently Marx and Engels are the pre-eminent historians of the Crimean War. Horatio (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul not Constantinople?

Could someone have a look at the references to Istanbul / Constantinople? Both are currently used. Emmjade 06:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same. It most certainly ought to be called Istanbul in this article. Auror 17:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The official name remained Constantinople even under Turkish rule until it became Istanbul in 1926.Buistr (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Where is this information from? I've read primary sources from the era of Mehmed II and it's already referred to as Istanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldayuan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Causes of the war (continued)

An article in the The Economist reviews a book by Figes, The Last Crusade. http://www.economist.com/node/17145178. It seems to blame England and the Anglican Church primarily, calls the French Catholic church a reluctant participant, and the review does not mention Napoleon at all. This seems to be at odds with the current description which blames Napoleon firstly, and secondly the French Catholic Church. This apparent discrepancy needs to be resolved IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

The sentence "The French forces greatly outnumbered the British, but the Russians held their great fortress at Sevastopol for over a year." appearing in the second para of the introduction does not appear to add much and is perhaps an error. I suggest it would be better phrased as follows: "The alliance forces outnumbered the Russians on the Crimean Peninsular but the Russians held their great fortress at Sevastopol for over a year"Dobryen (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First "Modern" War?

quickie: Why would teh Crimean War be considered the first modern war to change the face of war technology, when the Mexican-American War took place seven years before it, which introduced new technology, mobile artillery, and an end to Napoleanic style battle formations and tactics? Nathraq (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Napoleonic formations and tactics were in use in the American Civil War, even though improvements in weaponry made these lethal. Not until the Franco-Prussian War five years later did massed units adopt open order and aimed fire at will. Also, the Civil War was the first to introduce machine guns and movement of large forces by rail. Geira (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The American Civil War, which occurred earlier, was actually the first example of modern warfare. Though Napoleonic strategies were employed, many new advances in technology were also implemented. Widespread use of photography, telegraphs, and railroads all occurred during the Civil War. Modern weapons, such as ironclad warships, submarines, land mines, and Gatling guns first saw combat as well.

At least in one important respect, at least with one of the participants, it was indeed -- this was the first war where newspapers reported teh news the next day (or sometimes the same day) tehy happened -- from The Times correspondent by telegraph, thus directly affecting home public opinion (Vietnam parallels, anyone?)Chestnut ah (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"The American Civil War, which occurred earlier." Whaddya mean occurred earlier? It occurred a decade later (1861-1865). You know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead is too long

As a long-time Wikipedian new to this imposing page, I am startled by the length of the lead, or as some say, lede. With all due respect to the article creators, it needs to be trimmed down to about four paragraphs. And a bit of discussion beforehand on what to delete and what to locate further down would not be a bad idea. Thanks. Jusdafax 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A 715 word introduction/lead section is ridiculous. RobertM525 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Swiss

This book have some reference on the Swiss mercenaries The Crimean War: The Truth Behind the Myth By Clive Ponting. Kakila (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Date discrepancy

The article states as follows:

The peace terms arrived at by the four powers at the Vienna Conference were delivered to the Russians by the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Karl Von Buol on 5 December 1853. The note met with the approval of Nicholas I; however, Abdülmecid I rejected the proposal, feeling that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many different interpretations. Britain, France, and Austria united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but the court of St Petersburg ignored their suggestions.

[9]:143 Britain and France set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia did not believe that the rejection of the proposed amendments justified the abandonment of the diplomatic process. Nonetheless, the Sultan formally declared war on Russia on 23 October 1853,[

If they delivered the Vienna Conference peace terms on 5 December 1853, it does not seem logical that in reaction to that, the Sultan declared war one and half months EARLIER, on 23 October 1853.

Rick

50.139.50.50 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusing article

I start getting confused in the "First hostilities" section. The text starts jumping randomly around in the timeline. Consider:

• First hostilities - which includes events all the way up to 28 March 1854
• Peace attempts - now we are back prior to 23 October 1853
• Danube campaign - now all the way back in May 1953.

I'd suggest that the later events need to be removed from First hostilites and moved elsewhere (I don't know where), and some of the text also moved into Peace attempts. Then Danube campaign should start at the point that the peace "ultimatum" has been rejected. Horatio (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur, the article is unclear written and confusing. But it's on the same line with the fact that this war is not teached in Western history lessons. Why? Because the Europeans were attacking the Russians for no reasons whatsoever. And it doesn't fit into Western ideology that they aren't "the good", that they fight not only "for freedom" (French revolution) aso. Actually, the hole Ukraine's history is a black hole for Westerners, since European history lessons usually end at the borders of the Ottoman empire. Only after reading into its history it became obvious to me that Ukraine has a history as interesting as France or Germany. That's also why many people say things like "France won no war" and similar stupid things. They've at least won the Crimean war, justified or not. --178.197.227.122 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Error

Crimea became part of Russia's Taurida Governorate and was the site of much of the fighting in

...then the sentence abrubtly ends. --178.197.227.122 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You could just remove the sentence fragment yourself. Any editor can do these things, registered or not. Although an edit summary like "delete unreferenced sentence fragment" would be nice. The whole article needs work so I appreciate your attention. I could remove it myself...and will do so if stays there for another day or two...but I'd like to see more participation here, that includes you :) Novickas (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Austria in or out?

"Austria remained neutral in the Crimean War.[23]" "...the Austrians entered the war on the side of Turkey with an attack against the Russians..." 76.178.70.90 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yo guys, there's a HUGE CONTRADICTION here, as someone reported earlier. It sort of looks to me the Austrians might've not attacked the Russians, but moved their troops into the Danube Principalities. Some of you who like being Wikipedian editors should out the definitive answer and fix the contradiction. 5.12.159.229 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Start of the war

The Routledge Dictionary of Modern British History, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey,Wars and peace treaties, 1816-1991, Turkey By Erik Jan Zürcher, A Handbook of Universal History from the Dawn of Civilization to the Outbreak of the Great War of 1914: Ploetz's Epitome, and The Russian Empire, 1801-1917, all list Britain and France declaring war on Russia 28 March 1854. Therefore, the Ottoman declaration of war on Russia should be listed October 8, 1853. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

October 1853 is correct for Turkey, France 27 March 1854 and UK one day later according to the authoritative history of the war from Alexander Kinglake. Refs added to article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Found a contemporary newspaper account from 28 March 1854 and added it. It's a facsimile from the British Library, Colindale, and so not subject to any transcription error. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an alternative dates. There is information that Britain and France declared war on March 15 in response to the same Russian actions that took place on February 9. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-centric

This articles appears to focus disproportionatel on the British forces. However, the troop engaged show that Britain was the fourth power in terms of involvement. This article does not reflect that, it reads more like a history of the British in Crimea. 193.132.242.1 (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case discuss the matter, don't just go making pointless edits that take up server space. RaseaC (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly what I did and please use another tone. The fact is that British involvement in Crimea was less than that of Russia, France and Turkey. However, the article far from reflects that. An example is that Britain is always listed first and the other countries mentioned as after-thoughts. Why did you revert my edits instead of discussing? 193.132.242.1 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have not learned by now, the "en.wikipedia.org" is dominated by Anglo thought, wording, POV, agenda, bias, ad nauseum. You're just going to have to accept it. It's been like this for quite a while now. Jersey John (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason Allied troops were in the Crimea was because the British and French navies had control of the sea. When it was just the Russians and the Turks, the Russian Navy won the Battle of Sinope, and would presumably have ended up controlling the sea. The French Navy was stronger and more modern than the Russian Navy on paper, but it had even greater difficulty mobilising than the British, so conceivably the Russian fleet in the Black Sea could have disputed control of the sea. But against the most powerful navy in the world, the Russians knew they had no chance. British involvement was more important than a talley of land forces would suggest.

In addition, the term "Crimean War" is a later misnomer. At the time, in English, it was called the "Russian War", because it was fought on many fronts - including naval operations in the Baltic and the Far East. The operations in the Baltic, and the threat of worse to come, led Russia to make peace. The British were the leading allied partner in the Baltic.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely support the response of Jersey John. Although I also think that the article is a bit Anglo-centric, it is pretty well balanced. It could be even more expanded. The role of the war is immense for the region and as well as for the whole Western civilization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is not objective.

As usual, the West has it presented a peace-loving angel, and Russia belligerent and barbaric. The main reason for this war, Russia was to clog and not allow her to go to the big water. Religious reasons - a secondary matter.87.249.213.27 (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

'Russia was to clog' makes no sense in English. If you have good, Reliable Sources that bring improvements to the article, then by all means add the material and cite it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And what about the "big water"? Is Black Sea bigger than Pacific Ocean, North Atlantic or even the Baltic Sea? And why does Russia need the big water when most of its population was enslaved? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chercasians or Circassians

The article says that Chercasians or Circassians which is a word that is used to describe the people of north Caucasus that includes Chechens and northwest Dagestans and what the article meant was the Adigaha (or Adygaha plural to Adiga or Adyga), and the Article says that these people ( Adigaha ) did fight at this war with the Russians against the others, This isn’t true as they faugh with the English against the Russians, they lost and most of them are scattered all over the world because of the result of the defeat from the Russian forces, genocides did happen to the Adigaha by the Czar forces, the article isn’t correct and it needs to be verified. Please check the British army letters in the royal library regarding the subject.

P.S. I'm one of them, so I know that we lost and were exiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baterjanjatah (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Parallel to the Crimea War, there was taken place the Caucasian War. I think the Caucasian War could be directly related to the Crimea War. In regards to the Chechen people, please, note that they are not Circassians, but as the author mentioned "people of north Caucasus" among which are also Osetians, Avars, some Tatars and others. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

In view of current events (Russia invading Ukrainian Crimea) perhaps a name change would be in order: Crimean War 1853-1856 Gamweb (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no... Maybe if the 2014 Crimean unrest degenerates into a war, and if it becomes identified by authors and historians as a "Crimean War" we may have to rename that page to "Second Crimean War" or "Crimean War 2014-" or something; but until that conflict's common name becomes simply "the Crimean War", this article is fine where it is, as this conflict is what, currently, the phrase refers to. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

UNREST??? What unrest? It is a full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Caucasus front

The article mentions some of the other fronts, but does not say anything about the Caucasus front, except a link to the Siege of Kars. PatGallacher (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is because the Brits have totally lost it. See Caucasus War. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Economic effects of the war

I believe that one economic effect of the Crimean War was the large profits made by shipowners who chartered their ships to the British government for the transportation of troops and supplies. Much of this was reinvested in the shipping companies. Specifically, some of this was reinvested in better marine engineering of steamships - so creating steamers that could trade over long distances - ending the age of sail for high value cargoes.

General reinvestment of the profits then coincided with the start of the American Civil War - so reducing American competition on world trade routes. So the coincidence of these two wars (separated by some 6 years or so) gave a huge boost to British shipping companies.

Since the sources on the Crimean War do not seem to mention this result of this conflict, I hesitate to put this forward for inclusion - I have only found mention of it in books and other material about the development of marine steam power. Are there any other sources that might support the suggested economic effect of this war?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A far bigger economic effect of the war was the naval blockade in the Baltic smashing a large chunk of the Russian economy. The result being the relative decline of Russia and the economic rise of Prussia and Germany for the next 50 years. Can't remember where I've seen this written, however.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"...was a conflict in which Russia lost to an alliance of ..." Er... I understand that Russian victories often cause a huge amount of butthurt to various Nazi-aligned individuals and groups, but this is supposedly an "encyclopedia" article, isn't it? Shouldn't it at least begin to describe the conflict through more relevant details, as who was involved and what the conflict was about, instead of stating that "Russia lost..." in the very first sentence? Nobody in the Civilized World to know who won and who lost before they know what the conflict was about. 173.11.122.193 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

North America

Given that two of the paties, UK and Russian technically had a land border, (i.e. because in those days Alaska was part of the Russian Empire and Canada the British Empire), was there any type of "North American Theatre" of this war- no matter how minor? Or was what we'd now call British Columbia and Alaska so isolated that the whole thing passed the inhabitants of the area by with absolutely no impact. Surely if nothing else things like trading contacts were affected? Any sources on this? Even if nothing happened it's surely worth mentioning that nothing happened- it's would be quite significant if two opposite sides in a war had a land border with each other and didn't fire a shot in that (potential) theatre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.183.253 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

there was no land border. The settlements were far separated. see Fort St. James and Sitka, Alaska Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Impact on Britain

Perhaps there's an argument for a spin off article on the impact on Britain. There were significant reforms stemming from the experience of Crimea.

As somebody mentioned above the British Army curtailed purchasing commissions as a result of Crimea. However there were much wider impacts, for example there was a more general and wide ranging reform of the British Public Sector and including abolishing the purchase of positions in the Civil Service I understand as well as a wider reform of the Army. Northcote Trevelyan REforsm of the Civil service, didn't that stem from Crimea too? Indeed perhaps Florence Nightingale's reforms of the nursing profession could be seen as part of this too??? Indeed the reforms seemed to be the "professionalisation" of these spheres of life. Basically there was a movement from Upper Class Aristoctratic patronage towards Middle class "meritocracy". Is there somebody out there who knows more about this?

The Crimean War is probably one of the most idiotic wars Britain had ever fought. Years later they would regret attacking and stopping the Russians from destroying the Ottomans who would inflict massive casualties on the Allies, especially at Gallopli. The degenerate Hugh Rose who was the chargé d'affaires at the British Embassy used his power to make sure the Ottomans were protected at the expense of liberating millions of people under Ottoman rule. Every British soldier that died during WWI do so in vain because of the actions of this filthy animal named Rose. Jtpaladin 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think Hugh Rose was awesome :P 91.108.110.211 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When WWI broke out, the Ottomans was not managing by Ottoman "dynasty", there was a coup de'tat against Abdulhamid II in 1908-1909. This committee ruled the empire untill the end of the WWI. And important part of the Ottoman parliament wanted to enter the war on the side of Allies. But the CUP leaders and/or members (the Young Turks) were in a dream of Turan Union (Turkic states union). And they believed that the Germans will win the war. They were a bunch of German loyalists, they were filthy animals named "Young Turks" who caused collapse of the Ottoman Empire. After the exile of him and his family from Istanbul, Abdulhamid II said about the WWI "... Forty years I waited for a quarrel between these countries, they started battling with each other, but I'm not on the throne now ..." If you read full of his statements about it, you can understand that he means that we had to stay neutral in the war. But unfortunately, we didn't. Otto von Bismarck said about Sultan Abdulhamid II “If wisdom is 100 grams, Abdulhamid has 90 grams of it, I have 5 grams of it and the rest of the leaders and politicians have the remaining 5 grams.” You know, Otto von Bismarck is the famous German statesman who established the German unification. Yes... Unfortunately, we didn't stay under the rule of the one of the world's best diplomats and governors. And see what happened next. Karak1lc1k 09:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not erase useful links

Other editors, have included a series of six useful external links dealing with the Crimean war. Antique Rose deleted them for no good reason and I restored them. The claim is that they violate wp:EL, which is simply false. Antique Rose Is unable to quote the so-called rule that would justify eliminating all six good sources. That rule recommends useful links. As for Punch cartoon depictions of the war, Historians all the time use the valuable Punch illustrations as visual depiction of public opinion in Britain during the Crimean war. All the RS agree that public opinion in Britain was a major aspect of the war. In fact there's a full-length monographic scholarly study that deals with the visual interpretations of the war in Punch and other magazines: Keller, Ulrich. The ultimate spectacle: A visual history of the Crimean war (Routledge, 2013). 24 pages of that book makes specific reference to Punch anyone can see for themselves at this link. Google scholar turns up over 1800 citations to books articles and Dissertations linked to "punch Crimean war". It's part of a broader issue – military history is no longer about the charge of the light brigade, it's now including how people saw & Interpreted the charge of the light brigade. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone is in agreement with your view. On March 5 User:Ronz questioned these external links referring to WP:EL and WP:NOTLINKS, i.e. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". For example, "The Baltic Campaign of the Crimean War" is a dead link. And personal websites could hardly pass as reliable sources. Omniatlas.com has been deemed unreliable by several users. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As a well-referenced article, few if any external links should be included, and only to content that cannot be incorporated into the article.

I went through the remaining links, and found none that meet WP:EL.

With an article of this importance, we should be focusing on getting it to GA status. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crimean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726032140/http://www.canalacademie.com/1854-la-Guerre-de-Crimee.html to http://www.canalacademie.com/1854-la-Guerre-de-Crimee.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Turkish number of dead almost same with pre-war Turkish men number

In Turkish version of this article the Turkish men number is 300,000. Here 165,000 and dead number is around 100-175,000, it's clearly irrational. Comment: It was a war between Russians and Turks, British and French were supporters of Turks against Russian expansion. Also Ottoman military strength were no-under British and French quantity. 300,000 is more legitimate to add I think. Karak1lc1k (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Control over the ---- holy places

In the section 'The immediate causes of the war':

"...induced the Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid I to accept a new treaty, confirming France and the Roman Catholic Church as the supreme Christian authority with control over the Roman Catholic holy places and possession of the keys to the Church of the Nativity, previously held by the Greek Orthodox Church."

Should this not rather read "with control over the Christian holy places"? As it stands, it sounds rather biased to the French Catholic point of view.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mary Seacole

Seacole seems to be a semi-important, if not a very interesting figure involved in the war. I feel like at least a name-drop somewhere in the article would be appropriate. Perhaps there should be a section focusing on her and Nightingale? Jonathansuh (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crimean War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409063243/http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/history.htm to http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412042134/http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/book/late_19th.htm to http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/book/late_19th.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701234703/http://www.mypaesano.com/Italian_American_History.htm to http://www.mypaesano.com/Italian_American_History.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Casualty figues

I think there is some problem too with the British Casulaty figues.

They are given in this article as 2755 dead for the whole Crimean war, but the Siege of Sevastopol wiki article gives the same figure just for that siege alone. Both cant be correct...

Andy Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.47 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Badem quote

An IP editor continues to make this addition, which is primarily one long quote. The point being made in the quote appears worthwhile, but it needs to be paraphrased per WP:LONGQUOTE. Also, the quote contains grammatical errors, which may be from the transcription. The paragraph then ends with a sentence that is unclear and unsourced. I have pared down and paraphrased the quote and removed the final sentence. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

the pro forma discussion to allow a block

93.81.215.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists upon edit-warring unsourced material and other original research, point-of-view content. I am asking for a halt to editing and discussion right ahead of implementing a block to prevent further problems. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

On March 22, I requested page protection for this article. At the moment there had been no activity by the IP user(s) for a couple of days, so the request was denied by Anarchyte with the comment, “Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. has died down.” But of course we know the disruption is on-going (history). The IP goes away for days at a time, and was blocked for three days on April 1st. The IP appears to make good faith edits, but virtually everything they have added has been reverted for being unsourced commentary or inadequately citing obscure sources (see, e.g. today’s addition). Chris troutman and others have been intrepidly dealing with this, but isn’t it time that we advance the discussion above to the next level and protect the page? At the very least, the IP user(s) need to engage on the talk page and discuss their edits. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Greece

This article mentions nothing about Greece, about how the Greeks were sympathetic to the Russians and how the English and the French occupied the Greek capital Athens in order to prevent Greece from attacking the Ottomans. Nevertheless many Greek volunteers went to Crimea to help the Russians during the war. Also during the Battle of Sinope, the Greeks living there (who were under Ottoman occupation) helped the Russians using signals with mirrors. So this should all be included in the article.--Waterfall999 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Such treachery should never go unrecognized!--Murat (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Any source about the mirror signals in Sinope? --Greece666 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Weakening of the Ottoman Empire in 1820–1840s section: NPOV content

A few days ago I removed the following blurb from the article:

It must be said that this fact confirms the statements of Russian historians about the absence of aggressive plans of Russia. Russian historian writes: "The signing of the documents was the result of deliberate decisions: instead of bilateral (none of the great powers recognized this Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi), the new Treaty of London was obligatory for all, it closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles."

This quote is sourced, to a Soviet historian of some note. However, I feel that the prose itself is not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice; we are not regretfully forced to come to the conclusion that those poor maligned Russians were right all along, because that implies some kind of political controversy that we shouldn't get mired in in my opinion. The quote itself is fine, it says nothing particularly controversial, and you'll note that it doesn't have any particular bearing on the sentence that precedes it. I don't know whether we need it, but why not. We can name the Russian historian, too, that's a bit more encyclopedic.

As an aside, this same quote was repeatedly added by a certain IP editor I know you're all familiar with and then removed in a kind of slow edit war.

Anyway, coming to the point: recently this blurb was added back in by User_talk:Россиянин2019. I don't much feel like edit warring, so I've left it in, but I think we need to build consensus here, and at the very least correct the poor grammar. ThanksEniagrom (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

I will immediately clarify the situation-IP and Россиянин2019-this is me. I can express my gratitude for your desire to discuss this topic. My opinion (don't want to offend)in english wiki this desire is a bit lacking. Complaining about 150 years of grievances is really stupid. But repeating the propaganda of 150 years ago is no less foolish. Although you can understand how wonderful it is to see your history at the level shown in the 1 minute of the 1968 film "Charge of the light brigade". Isn't it? Well, there's about a noble British lion who protected a poor Turk from an evil Russian bear. :) Life is much more complicated.

Россиянин2019 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, first off sorry for the delay in responding. So here's the problem for me -- "It must be said that this fact confirms the statements of Russian historians about the absence of aggressive plans of Russia." I want to underscore that the problem is in the way this is phrased, not necessarily the content itself. "It must be said" is leading the reader to a subjective, POV conclusion, so we should avoid that kind of writing. "This confirms the statements of Russian historians about the absence of aggressive plans of Russia" also reads better without it. But it's not clear what we're referring to here -- what is "this"? The preceding paragraph talks about the London Straits Convention, which restricted the Russian Navy's access to the Mediterranean and was seen as a blow to Russia generally. This doesn't say anything about whether Russia was aggressive or not, does it? So it's confusing.

Furthermore, it alludes to "Russian historians". Who? I don't mean this to imply that there aren't any, but I think if we pick a notable and respected one, and use his (or her) arguments directly instead of vaguely alluding to a possibly disparate group, it would reduce the NPOV nature of the sentence and also strengthen the article.

Now, the quote that follows is, I assume, one made by Vladimir Vinogradov. We should probably say that and not just call him "Russian historian", as I said. But the other problem is that his quote again has nothing to do with the preceding sentence. It says the treaty affected everyone (which is true -- it reaffirmed Ottoman control of the Bosphorus, and could block warships from any power from crossing). How does this support the claim that Russia was inherently non-aggressive?

Your point about propaganda is well taken of course, and WP editors are all aware of the systemic bias we unknowingly introduce into articles due to the somewhat homogeneous nature of our editor base (mostly male, mostly white, mostly from anglophone western countries). We should definitely strive to combat this. However this must be done in a way that carefully avoids POV. Cheers Eniagrom (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

You wrote:

"it reaffirmed Ottoman control of the Bosphorus, and could block warships from any power from crossing). How does this support the claim that Russia was inherently non-aggressive?".

Of course, it is naive and just silly to imagine the case so that Russia was and is immanently peaceful country. But we're talking about 1841. In the end, Russia accepted the proposed agreement itself. That is, it is quite possible to say that either had no plans at all, or completely abandoned the plans (if they were, but I have not read about them and do not know) from the promotion and captures in the Mediterranean. My opinion is that Russia accepted the agreement because it considered it to be beneficial for itself to a certain extent. The London Convention closed the way for the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean, but it also closed the way for other fleets in the Black sea. That is, it ensured the security of the country. Historian Vinogradov writes about this.

I also agree with you that our common historical base is limited and we need to understand this. Therefore, I specifically turned to the opinion of the Turkish historian Badem. How profitable was the political and economic course adopted by Turkey for itself? Not in the sense that I know better than the Turks themselves who they should have been friends with. I mean, why did the Turkish modernization policy fail in the 19th century? Why did friendship with England and France (the most industrialized and civilized countries then) not lead to the modernization of Turkey? What are the reasons for this? And was not the policy of England and France based on the desire for colonial exploitation of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire in general? Was this not their ambition in the Crimean war? And not at all noble aspirations of "protection of Turks" from "Russian bear". Below I will give you my fragment (which the local visitors were actively removed). Maybe my English isn't quite good, but it's about substance.

European colonialism

It is necessary to consider the impact of the policy of European colonialism. At that time (the middle of the XIX century) was the time of classical colonialism. All the world powers, with the exception of the United States, were empires and pursued a policy of colonial conquest and exploitation. It should come as no surprise that this issue has received a great attention from non-European historians. 
  
Russian historian writes: The question of the conquest or the preservation of Turkey with all its consequences was also primarily a question of economic exploitation of Turkey, as well as in the future and countries like Persia and India.  
  
  
Turkish historian writes: 
  
It has long been argued that the Anglo-Ottoman commercial treaty 1838 was important turning point in the process of the commercialization of the Ottoman agriculture and peripheralization or semi-colonization of the Ottoman Empire.
  
   
The Ottoman Empire was an important exporter of raw materials such as maddle root, raw silk, raisins, wool, wheat to Britain and significiant importer of British manufactured goods such as cotton cloth, refined sugar, iron and steel, hardware and cutlery.
  
According to data published by the London Economist, British exports to the Ottoman Empire, including Egypt and the Danubian principalities, increased nearly threefold from 1840 to 1851.
      
Recent studies have shown that not all Ottoman industries declined after the opening of Ottoman markets to British goods and some sectors adapted themselves to new conditions. But these are just slight modification in the whole picture.
  
The Ottomans levied 3% custom duty on imports and 12% on exports, doing exactly the opposite of other states to protects their industries and their domestic markets.
      
The Ottoman Empire could not even during the Crimean war in 1854 improve the food situation by temporarily limiting the export of wheat, because the agreement with Britain did not allow it.  
  
   
Turkey in 1851 and 1852 annually bought more English goods than Russia, despite the fact that Russia was much more populated and richer than Turkey. Among many other reasons, one important factor was that Turkish customs rates for English goods were negligible, and Russia was increasingly inclined in the 30s and 40s to a prohibitive or at least sharply patronizing customs policy. 
  
   
Therefore, all attempts of St. Petersburg to agree on the division of the Ottoman Empire met in Britain categorical refusal. Britain was fully satisfied with the situation and did not want to support the desire for self-determination of the peoples under national oppression in the Ottoman Empire (Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, etc.), as it would infringe on its commercial interests.
      
Russian historian writes: The generous "protection" of the Ottoman Empire was only a cleverly put on and skillfully used mask.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 

References

cause of the war

this article makes it seem the war was fought purely for religious reasons. it barely mentions the concern Britain and France had regarding the possible collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and how Russia would benefit from such a collapse. Cwiki 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much is missing, but I would not argue that Russia would benefit from the Ottoman Empire's collapse. Indeed, the great powers tried to keep this "sick man of Europe" around for decades so they wouldn't have to fight a war over it. The main problem I have is that there's no explanation of the long-term causes. It's like saying that the cause of WWI was Franz Ferdinand's assassination -- there's a lot missing. Although this article does a fantastic job of chronicling the short-term lead-up to the war, the real causes are missing. There's no mention of the change in the balance of power in Russia's favour because of their restoration of Austrian control of Hungary, or the Punctation of Olmutz. And Napoleon III's desire to reenter France into the league of great powers is nowhere in sight. IMHO, the causes need to be massively expanded, and I'll be willing to help in a few weeks. - The Fwanksta (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I note that Bridge and Bullen are mentioned in the bibliography, and the stuff in their book is exactly what this article needs. - The Fwanksta (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But what was the impact of the war on russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.255.105 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article states: “Menshikov attempted to negotiate a new treaty, under which Russia would be allowed to interfere whenever it deemed the Sultan's protection inadequate. Further, this new synod, a religious convention, would allow Russia to control the Orthodox Church's hierarchy in the Ottoman Empire.” In fact there was talk about “sened”, not “synod”. Sublime Porta offered to satisfy demands of Russia by issuing “firman” – Sultan’s decree, having power of internal law, but Menshikov insisted on making this in the form of “sened” – international treaty. --Jkomis (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Jkomis

Sened can be cited and I will insert in due course. "Synod" is wrong and my reinstatement on the grounds of a broken link was incorrect. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks to User:Jkomis for explaining the error. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the section "First Hostilities" the article, after describing the failure of negotiations says:

"Nicholas responded by dispatching warships, which in the Battle of Sinop on 30 November 1853 destroyed a patrol squadron of Ottoman frigates and corvettes while they were anchored at the port of Sinop, northern Turkey. The destruction of the Turkish ships provided Britain and France the casus belli for declaring war against Russia, on the side of the Ottoman Empire."

-The casus belli would specifically be breach of the London Straits Convention on use of non-Ottoman warships in the area? Maybe someone who's 100% on this could just make this line clearer, it's quite a major point! Harshmustard (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

hi sorry im just kinda confused abt this part it's kind of complicated, so i would love if somebody added a sentence just summarizing all of the causes of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.221.177 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Eastern War" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Eastern War. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Eastern War until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 03:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Eastern?!!

"In Russia, this war is also known as the "Eastern War" (Russian: Восточная война, Vostochnaya Voina)"

Beg my pardon, in what Russia? I have never heard of this war called Eastern, it was Crimean always, esp. considering that Crimean peninsula was in rather western part of the Empire, likewise all the minor theaters (White sea and so on).

95.108.173.159 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Google translation of the Russian version starts: "The Crimean War of 1853-1856, also East war -", and it's presumably written by Russian speakers. Horatio (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Near East (Turkey) is regarded as the East in Russia, and the war is indeed called Eastern, albeit less frequently. You can google it: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=12&smoothing=3 --104.247.234.40 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I reckon Wallachia should figure somewhere, though, even I am not sure where

I came across some interesting writings. Wallachia, as it is known, was occupied by the Russians in 1853-1854. There were definitely military actions involving Wallachian forces, but I'm not even sure on which side should the country be put. On the one hand, the Russians incorporated Wallachian militia units in their army, as well as even the tiny Wallachian Artillery Corps. And I also found an instance when a little brig flying the Wallachian flag was taken for a hostile blockade-breaking ship by a British cruiser and captured. So, form outside at least, Wallachia seemed to be on the Russian side. But on the inside, the story was different. In reality, the Wallachian militia and Russian soldiers skirmished all the time. Wallachian guerrillas were formed and they harassed the Russians. Wallachian peasants crushed a Cossack detachment. In one instance, 500+ Wallachians defected to the Ottomans, and a Wallachian captain shot himself in the head rather than go against the Turks. Now I have sources for all of this, but, I'm not sure what to do with all this info, where exactly it would be best to write it. Was Wallachia even a belligerent, can it be considered as such, based on these info? And if so, on what side really? Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Defeat

Citation:

"It has been suggested that the Russian defeat in the Crimean War .... bla bla bla"

Who wrote this is an idiot. Thank you wery much. Sanja

It could be legitimately argued that the Russian army in the Crimea was not defeated, but rather, it finished the war in a stalemated position. However it is also true that Russia's economic, industrial, technological, social, financial, and administrative backwardness rendered it unable to prosecute the war any longer. Hence, Russia was defeated.

Worse still, the diplomatic situation created by the Crimean War meant that any conflict between Russia and another European power would translate into, by definition, a conflict between Russia and an alliance of several European powers. Not since the 1500s had Russia been in such a disadvantageous position internationally. This was a defeat by any measure, and a bad one at that.

Kenmore 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Crimean War, result=Allied victory...What? The allies might have taken Sevastopol (and many more little towns) but what did they actually win in/from this war, they had greater casualties...and what did the Russians lose (territorially not diplomatically). I ask what the Russians lost because this was after all, on Russian soil. I don't know much on the topic so please enlighten me. Furthermore, I propose we state the that result of this war was the Treaty of Paris. Thanks Bogdan 03:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Russians lost part of Bessarabia, territorially. Beyond that, the result of the war was clearly a Russian defeat - the demilitarization of the Black Sea was taken as a humiliation for Russia, and the replacement of unilateral Russian influence in the Ottoman Empire by a system whereby the powers as a group took responsibility was also clearly a defeat. The war was very clearly a defeat for Russia - I don't see how this could possibly be seen as anything other than a defeat. john k 04:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, in 20 years Russia rebuilt the navy in the black sea, since France no longer wanted to enforce the treaty of paris, and england could never enforce it alone. So it wasnt much a gain for the allies. Sure, England secured its domminance on the sea, and France won some glory. And russia modernized theire industry, adn country, and liberated the serfs. I belive it would be a stalemate. But jonh K, The Ottomans didnt win much other than prolonged life time. But, again, if the Russians hadnt surrended, then perhaps Austrai would have declared Russia war. Anyhow, it was a close run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanja, you must think that a lot of historians are idiots. Most historical intellegence suggests that the war resulted in a Russian defeat because it ended with the fall of Sevastopol to the allies. It is certainly true that the Turks did not submit to the Czars demands regarding the protection of Orthodox Christians (as seen by the Russians.) Defeat is really a matter of opinion of course but this war, though marked with military incompetence on all sides was not really a victory for the Russians. I suppose it was more of a stalemate similar to Russia's involvement in World War One or perhaps the Soviet Winter war with Finland. It certainly was not the wirlwind victory that Nicholas I had envisioned. There was a myth among Russians that the Russian army was invincible when figthing on its own soil. This was propagated as a result of the Battle of Poltava and the destruction of Napoleon's Army in 1812. At any rate it did prove that Turkey was not the "sick man of Europe" as many had thought. Piercetp (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The war resulted in the liberation of Kars, the only difference being that the Russians were not trapped in Sevastopol, but the turks and brits were all captured. Russia won this war, which is why nobody could enforce the treaty and they messen up the turks a few years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.148.133 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Unmitigated Defeat for Russia. War aims were to break up the Ottoman empire. Nothing at all was achieved in that direction. Scarcely a single battle was won by Russia. Crawiki (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Supposed "Atrocities against Russian population in Crimea"

"During the course of the war British and French forces comminted atrocities and war crimes against captured Russian soldjers and civil population. On many occcations captures and wounded Russian soldjers were massacred by British troops, Russian civil population was sold to slavery to Turks."

This section added by an IP has The Ottoman Crimean War: (1853 - 1856), by Candan Badem, as the source. On page 353, it states that the Grand Vizier ordered all kidnapped children to be returned. It is clear from the book, this was not an Ottoman government sanctioned action, nor should it be portrayed as such.
I found nothing on page 353 to support the rest of the sentence(s) in question. I would suggest the IP bring source(s) and page number(s) to support the rest of the sentences and we can work towards a proper wording for the section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The spelling errors 🤣 Did a third grader write that crap? MightyArms (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Low death figures for Ottomans

The article gives very low death figures for the Ottomans. 45,400 is far from correct and the french and even Turkish wikipedia gives different numbers. Figes says that 120,000 turks died. Gouttman says the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.11.157 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is Serbia?

It's Rebel Group should be on the Russian side, duh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.204.144.50 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Original research: Kurdish rebels on the Russian side

"Kurdish rebels" is listed as a Russian ally in the infobox, but this appears to be WP:OR. The Eskander (2014) source, a PhD thesis, literally contradicts the claim ("Yazdan Shir, the leader of this revolt, attempted to co-ordinate his military efforts with the Russian armies. But he failed to establish a direct communication line with Russian forces. "). The other listed source (JSAS, 1999), even more problematically, doesn't even mention the matter (i.e. the supposed coalition). - LouisAragon (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad. Prolly should add an extra column. Koopinator (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Strenght of the Sardinian corps

The infotable on the right says that the Sardinian troops amounted to 21,000 men, quoting "Clodfelter 2017, p. 180" as a reference.

Section "Piedmontese involvement" talks of "an expeditionary corps of 15,000 soldiers", quoting "Arnold, Guy (2002). Historical Dictionary of the Crimean War. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810866133. pp. 111-12" as a source

Sardinian Expeditionary Corps in the Crimean War article says that "Sardinia committed a total of 18,000 troops", quoting Arnold again; it also speaks of 2,574 men on the Naval Division.

Is it possible to clarify better these numbers in the article(s)? --MassimoDellaPena (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuts to popular culture section

Recent cuts to this section go too far. Impossible to believe that the cultural impact of this major conflict begin and end with Tokstoy and Tennyson. By contrast, the shorter and less significant Falklands war gets this : Cultural impact of the Falklands War Crawiki (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

To the IP that isn't indenting

To the IP that is participating in this discussion. Your edits are welocome but you have been asked now a couple of times to indent your comments per Help:Talk pages#Indentation and you just aren't hearing it (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). As you are a dynamic IP (that keeps changing), there is no point in posting to your talk page. I will keep reverting your posts until you start indenting properly. There seems no other way to get your attention that we have not already tried. If you require assistance to understand this, please start a new section at this page. I am more than happy to help. Wikipedia:Competence is required Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This above is a copy of the post I made at #Quotes cleanup. I am starting this section to resolve the issue. Once discussion is started here, I intend deleting my original post there, since the discussion is being started here. I will reinstate your original two posts (with indenting) once you respond here. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP. If you are responding to another's edit, put a colon (ie ":") at the start of your post. If the edit you are responding to already has colons, then just add one more to your post. If your post is more than one paragraph, add the colons at the start of each paragraph. This is "what is required" in a nutshell. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To the IP: Your edit summary is "Please do not interfere with other people's communication". I respond that: by not indenting, you are interfering with other peoples' communication. You have been asked nicely and you have been offered help but ignore it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a {{Welcome-anon}} & links to Help:Talk pages & WP:Talk page guidelines on User talk:93.81.218.236, User talk:93.81.216.236, User talk:93.81.218.20, & User talk:93.81.218.116. Peaceray (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI Peaceray, the IP's edit at #‎Infobox from hell and the edit at #Quotes cleanup have been reinstated since there was never any intention to permanently remove them from the record. This edit and this edit (at #Quotes cleanup) are essentially a duplicate of what has been reinstated. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Quotes cleanup

The following sentences are currently whast appear to be direct quotes from references that appear as unattributed quotes in the prose.

• "The reasons for the Tsar's disquietude are not obscure. Not Turkey alone was threatened by the advance of Ibrahim. The rights secured to Russia by a succession of treaties were also directly jeopardized. The substitution of a virile Albanian dynasty at Constantinople in place of the effete Osmanlis was the last thing desired by the Power which wished, naturallyenough, to command the gate into the Mediterranean"
• "British exports to the Ottoman Empire, including Egypt and the Danubian principalities, increased nearly threefold from 1840 to 1851 (...) Thus it was very important, from the financial point of view, for Britain to prevent the Ottoman Empire from falling into other hands"
• "The Tsar Nicholas had always, as we have seen, been England anxious to maintain a cordial understanding with England in regard to the Eastern Question, and early in the spring of 1853 he had a series of interviews with Sir Hamilton Seymour, then British ambassador at St. Petersburg"
• "By signing the convention, the Russians had given up their privileged position in the Ottoman Empire and their control of the Straits, all in the hope of improving relations with Britain and isolating France"
• "The fall of the Ottoman Empire was not, however, a requirement of British policy in the East. A weak Ottoman state best suited British interests"
• "With the help of French infantry, it was possible to overturn Russia's positions with one blow"
• "All luck depended on whether Muravyov (the Russian commander) would be scared or not"

Due to not much familiarity with the war, I'd prefer to leave any changes to people more familiar with the subject, to avoid any accidental errors being introduced when rephrasing. FDW777 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely wish you to change the direction of your activity and write only in those topics in which you are sufficiently oriented. I assure you that my above quotes are from very authoritative sources, historians, who show a high degree of objectivity in their assessments. I gave quotes only for the reasons that they carry important information and are stylistically successful.93.81.218.236 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

93.81.218.236 wrote: I sincerely wish you to change the direction of your activity and write only in those topics in which you are sufficiently oriented. That's not how Wikipedia works. You may have an expertise in history, but that does not necessarily mean you have an expertise in summarizing material (which is the question at hand) or in how to use H:WIKITEXT or what style English Wikipedia follows or in structuring citations.

I assure you that you must make a cogent argument about the merits of including a verbatim quote instead of summarizing it. To merely list a bunch a quotes does not do the material justice. A reader can go to the citation source to find that. Consider that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source source whose function is summarize a topic & verify the statements by citing reliable sources. Repeatedly throwing in chunks of quotations undermines this purpose.

Please note that the "I know more than you do" argument will get you zero traction here. Peaceray (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE has some relevant recommendations on the use of quotes, as well. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with you that this is not an argument to say, "I'm clever and you're not." I don't agree with you that I can be accused of just adding quotes anywhere. I noticed a significant flaw in the article and tried to correct it. What is the disadvantages? The disadvantage is that there was no coverage of the goals of the European powers (especially Great Britain) in the Crimean War, as well as coverage of Russia's mistakes in foreign policy that led to the outbreak of the Crimean War. I also tried to highlight the goals of the Ottoman Empire. I have added relevant texts and quoted from authoritative sources. I also added a text that highlights the circumstances and the exact date of the beginning of the Crimean War. It's just even strange that the article devoted to the Crimean War did not have an exact date of its beginning. Agree that this is a significant and obvious drawback. If you say that there are shortcomings in the design of quotations, then, of course, this needs to be corrected. I don't see any problems here. 93.81.216.236 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It lists 16 October 1853 – 30 March 1856? in the infobox. Are those not the exact dates?

It is not question of shortcomings in the design of quotations. What is wrong with the ability of summarizing and paraphrasing to convey the information? Too much exact quotes can lead to copyright violation problems. Peaceray (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, only at the very beginning of the article, in the infobox, about this (the date of the beginning of the Crimean War) said. But I think that's not enough. We need a more detailed description of the circumstances of this. Otherwise, why write anything at all if there is an "infobox".If you say that the design of the quote can be improved, then I will ask you to make an example of this. I think that any reader will only be glad of this. 93.81.216.236 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reinstated edit by IP (with indent). See section #To the IP that isn't indenting for detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It turns out this editor was told back in December not to include unattributed quotes within text, yet they are still doing it now with the sentence On October 5 the Porte demanded from Russia the evacuation of the principalities within 15 days, and on October 28 Turkey declared war. I believe we may have a competence issue here. FDW777 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)