Reviews for Exploring Russia's Past: Narrative, Sources, Images to 1856, Vol. 1

The average rating for Exploring Russia's Past: Narrative, Sources, Images to 1856, Vol. 1 based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-03-07 00:00:00 HansGeorg Plinius I don't know why, but military history of Europe after fall of Bonaparte and before outbreak of World War I never managed to catch my interest. Because of that, my knowledge about Crimean War was at best limited before I started reading this book. For that very reason, I also regarded "The Crimean War: 1854-1856" as a perfect litmus paper for quality of Osprey's "Essential Histories" book cycle. I am glad to report that if this book is to be any indication, then the "Essential Histories" is off to a very good start. In a space of a little over 90 pages, Sweetman works his way through the conflict in a traditional systematic manner that strongly reminds of format used in Osprey's "Campaigns" cycle. He starts of with setting the conflict in proper historical context and then proceeds unsurprisingly with chapters that deal with commanders and troops of participating nations. Once the background information is provided, the war itself is covered in traditional manner by chronological retelling of all major events. Short analysis of results and consequences of the conflict acts as a final chapter of the book. Unsurprisingly, the content of this book is a bit dry and scholarly. At the same time I must say that reading this book never felt like a chore - Sweetman's narrative, while focused and fact-filled, is easy to absorb. The text material is supported in traditional Osprey manner by excellent graphics in form of contemporary drawings and beautiful maps. The other trademark element of Osprey books - ubiquitous uniform plates - are however conspicuously absent in this volume, which is a bit of a shame. "The Crimean War: 1854-1856" isn't a very exciting read, that much is obvious. But that was neverthe purpose of this book. Instead, its sole purpose is to provide a consist overview and analysis of Crimean War. This it does very well and as long as it's judged on that merit alone, the final verdict can only be a very positive one.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-08-13 00:00:00 Cesar Ortega بسبب الانشغال، استغرقتُ وقتا طويلا في اتمام قراءة كتاب "حرب القرم" (1853-1856) بين روسيا من جهة وتركيا وفرنسا وبريطانيا وسردينيا من جهة أخرى. قامت الحرب بالأساس ردًا على احتلال روسيا لمولدافيا وتدمير الأسطول التركي في سينوب ورغبة الحلفاء في ضمان حرية الملاحة في البحر الأسود وحماية الطريق الملاحي إلى الهند والمستعمرات بالنسبة لبريطانيا وفرنسا وضمان حرية الرهبان الكاثوليك في الأراضي المقدسة، فضلاً عن رغبة روسيا في حماية المسيحيين في الدول العثمانية. تفاصيل الكتاب عميقة وأحيانًا مملة - بالنسبة لي - عندما يغرق الكتاب في سرد تفاصيل المعارك وتحركات القطعات العسكرية، لكنه راق لي عندما ذكر دور الصحافة في تغطية الحرب للمرة الأولى ودور فلورانس ناينتغيل - وقد قرأت عنها كثيرا منذ سنين المراهقة - في تحسين وضع التمريض والجيش، فضلاً عن الحديث عن مشاعر الجنود ودور النساء في المعركة. قتلت الكوليرا من الجنود ما يزيد عن قتلى المعارك وقد خسرت الدول الخمسة مجتمعة 300 ألف رجل. في النهاية، تم توقيع معاهدة باريس للمحافظة على وحدة الأراضي التركية وضمان حرية المسيحيين هناك مع تحييد البحر الأسود وضمان استقلال مولدافيا ووالاشيا (منطقة الأفلاق) وضمان حرية الملاحة في الدانوب. يذكر الكتاب أن كل ذلك لم يستمر إذ تجددت الحرب بعدها بسبب تحالف النمسا وبروسيا وروسيا ضد فرنسا، ومن ثم الحرب في بلغاريا واستقلالها ودخول روسيا على الخط ضد العثمانيين، وكيف كان لكل هذا دور في وضع أسس المشاكل في البقان والحرب العالمية الأولى فيما بعد. في الوقت ذاته، كان لهذه الحرب دور أساسي في تحديث الجيش البريطاني من ناحية الهيكلة والصنوف وتجديده بشكل مثير للاهتمام ما كان ليحصل لولا هذه الحرب. Quotes: - Before peace settled over the hills, valleys and shattered remains of Sevastopol, approximately 22,000 British, a minimum 80,000 French, possibly 10,000 Turks, 2,000 Sardinians and more than 100,000 Russians had perished. - What made this a different kind of conflict was that the public and politicians at home quickly learnt its graphic details. Extension of an electric telegraph cable right up to the allied positions before Sevastopol and its regular use by newspaper reporters on the spot made this possible. W. H. Russell of The Times was the most famous, but not the only, 'war correspondent' in the Crimea: representatives of several other journals and newspapers filed reports for domestic consumption. - Civilian reporters were unschooled in the byzantine nature of military administration, and thus blamed Raglan and his staff officers for matters over which they had no effective control. - Unresolved disputes in 1852 and 1853 between Catholic monks (backed by France) and Orthodox monks (supported by Russia) over guardianship of holy places in Jerusalem, then part of the Turkish Empire, were the occasion, not the cause, of the Crimean War. - The Tsar refused to accept Turkish attempts at compromise and dispatched a mission to the Porte with demands for recognition of Russia's guardianship over the whole of Turkey's 14 million Christian subjects. - Omar Pasha spoke French, German and Italian, though heavily accented, and his background was extraordinary. Formerly a Croat named Michael Lattas, he had left the Austrian for the Turkish army, converted to Islam, then acquired a new name and a fierce reputation fighting anti-Turkish rebels in the Balkans. The Turks had 11 sail and steam ships under their own admiral in the Black Sea. - On 16 December 1855, Count Esterhazy led a mission to St Petersburg, which conveyed conditions for peace: confirmation of autonomy for Moldavia and Wallachia; freedom of navigation for all nations on the Danube; neutralisation of the Black Sea, with abolition of military installations on its shores; guarantee of the rights of all Christian subjects in Turkey. A fifth condition, allegedly added on British insistence, provided for further matters to be raised during subsequent talks 'in the interest of lasting peace'. The Holy Places in Jerusalem, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits or Sevastopol were not highlighted. - The French historian Paul de la Gorce may not therefore be far wrong in claiming total losses of over 300,000 among the five belligerent nations. - Even before that cataclysmic development, the British statesman Lord Salisbury had famously pondered whether during the Crimean War 'we had backed the wrong horse', an effete, corrupt Turkey. Partition of the Ottoman Empire between the major European powers might well have brought elusive stability to the Balkans and Gavrilo Princip therefore might never have fired the fatal shot at the heir to the Austrian throne on 28 June 1914. #GilgameshNabeel