What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Crimean War (1854-56) (1 Viewer)

kupcho1

Footballguy
The Crimean War (1854-56)

Read how the Crimean War started as an argument over holy ground, and was characterised by inept commanding by the British and French.

The Crimean War (1854-56) developed because of an argument between the French and Russian religious fraternities over who should have access and right to holy areas in the Middle East, namely Nazareth and Jerusalem. It seems that religion has a lot to answer for when it comes to war, because inevitably discussions turned to arguments, which turned to violence, which resulted in death on both sides. The whole debate had been escalated to a level beyond all reason. The situation was compounded when the Russians, under the directive of Tsar Nicholas I, moved troops into the area, supposedly in order to shield the aforementioned sacred grounds.

The more sceptical of the neutral observers around at the time, may have thought that this military movement had slightly more sinister overtones… and they would have been right! Not long after positioning troops in the Middle East, then a part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the Russians upped the stakes by massacring a small fleet of Turkish boats, an act that the Turks must respond to.

Back in England, there was more than a murmuring of discontentment from the British government over the acts of the Russians. After all, they had initiated military manoeuvres, that, if proved successful would give them control of an area vital to the Mediterranean trade route so necessary to the British. The French, eager to be allied to the British, began discussions with them, and consequently both countries sent expeditionary forces to the Balkans to confront the Russians.

The war proper started in March of 1854, and six months later the British and French had driven the Russians back from the land they had occupied in the Ottoman Empire. Buoyed by their victory though, they pursued the Russians, who had decided to defend the key naval base of Sevastopol. After arriving on the shores of the Crimean peninsula, north of the base, the British and French troops made their way to attack it, and on the way the Battle of Alma took place.

The Alma was the second of three rivers they needed to cross to reach the base. The Russians had decided to defend the river because on their side they were able to use to their advantage steep hills and rocky cliffs. In the early stages of the battle the French were able to storm the cliffs near to the coast and drive the Russians back. To their left though, the British soon became a disorganised mob. Although briefly taking a Russian position, they were then forced back. Their retreat was better than their attack though – they drew many Russians into an area where they could pick them off at will. Because of the heavy number of casualties received by the Russians, they were forced to withdraw – the Battle of Alma was over.

The British and French pushed on towards the naval base, to which they laid siege, using the harbour of Balaklava as their supply point. The Battle of Balaklava was a key factor in the war being protracted for more than another year. The Russians performed a surprise attack on the Causeway heights, a sought after strategic position. The British came to the aid of the Turks and pressed the Russians, who were forced to retreat, but still held the Causeway Heights. In their impatience, the British high command ordered the doomed Charge of the Light Brigade, who were forced to charge across an open plain defended by heavy Russian artillery. About two thirds of the light brigade were systematically mown down by the Russian guns. Because the Russian had retreated the British claimed victory, but their enemy still held the best position on Causeway Heights. This is why the war continued for many more months.

It was throughout the rest of the war that starvation and disease set in. Supply lines were poor and medical aid nonexistent. It wasn’t until Florence Nightingale was posted to the war hospital at Scutari that conditions and facilities were improved to prevent the spread of diseases such as cholera and dysentery. She, with her team of nurses were probably the only good thing to come out of the Crimean War, that had been characterised by a series of tactical howlers and breakdowns in communication by the veteran British and French commanders.
:ptts:
 
Crimea: Where Ukraine could explode
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/27/opinion/ghitis-crimea/index.html

Crimea’s Bloody Past Is a Key to Its PresentOn Thursday, masked gunmen vowing loyalty to Russia seized the Parliament building in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea.

The simple explanation was that pro-Russian demonstrators in Crimea, a peninsula of Ukraine that juts into the Black Sea, were unhappy with the political developments here in Kiev, where three months of civic unrest led to the ouster on Saturday of President Viktor F. Yanukovych.

In a historic sense, however, Thursday’s events were as much about Russia’s relationship with Ukraine as they were about Crimea’s relationship with Ukraine. Crimea, a multiethnic region populated by Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars, has been the focus of territorial disputes for centuries, and in recent decades it has frequently been a source of tension between Ukraine and Russia.

Before this week, the most recent of these disputes occurred in May 1992, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the Crimean Parliament declared independence from Ukraine. And there has always been an expectation that when things become tense between Russia and Ukraine, that tension is likely to be felt must acutely in Crimea.

“The Crimean peninsula has become an arena for the duel between Kiev and Moscow on political, economic, military and territorial disputes,” Victor Zaborsky, an expert on the region, wrote in a 1995 paper for the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.

The 1992 dispute was resolved with an agreement known as the Act on Division of Power Between Authorities of Ukraine and Republic of Crimea, which granted Crimea autonomous status within Ukraine.

In that sense, it is similar to the status of Chechnya within Russia. Chechnya’s autonomy nods to that region’s distinct Chechen language and Muslim religion, while in Crimea, such autonomy acknowledges that the political and cultural identity is often more Russian than Ukrainian.

Historically, Crimea has been a crossroads for stampeding empires, and it has been occupied or overrun by Greeks, Huns, Russians, Byzantines, Ottoman Turks, Golden Horde Tatars, Mongols and others. It became part of Ukraine in 1954, when the Soviet ruler Nikita S. Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, as a gift to mark the fraternal bond between Ukraine and Russia.

As part of the 1992 dispute, Russia’s Parliament voted symbolically to rescind the gift.

Crimea is home to the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet, and also beach resorts that have long been favored by Russian and Ukrainian rulers. Russia now leases the naval installations, under a controversial deal that Mr. Yanukovych agreed in 2010 to extend by 25 years, until 2042, in an arrangement that includes discounts for Ukraine on Russian natural gas.

The worst of the conflicts over Crimea was the Crimean War of 1853-56. At least 750,000 people were killed.

Nominally a war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire over a territorial dispute, it also ensnared France, Britain and the Italian kingdom of Sardinia, and the battlefield stretched from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south.

According to the most recent Ukrainian census, Crimea is home to about two million people, with nearly 60 percent identifying as Russian, nearly 25 percent as Ukrainian, and about 12 percent as Crimean Tatar, which gives the peninsula a sizable Muslim population.

The Tatars, who in 1944 were deported en masse by Stalin to Central Asia and have since returned to their homeland, have little affection for Moscow.

This week some members of the Muslim population in Simferopol demonstrated against the pro-Russia activists who, in denouncing the political developments in Kiev, have raised Russian flags and in some cases called for seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia.

Russia’s deep historical ties to Crimea and especially its military interests in the naval bases help explain why President Vladimir V. Putin and the Kremlin were so adamantly opposed to efforts by Europe to tighten ties with Ukraine. The unrest in Kiev began last November when Mr. Yanukovych, under pressure from Russia, backed away from political and free trade agreements with the European Union that he had previously said he would sign.

While Russia has major economic interests in eastern Ukraine, its military-strategic interest is greatest in Crimea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/crimeas-bloody-past-is-a-key-to-its-present.html?rref=world&_r=0

:coffee:

I think this is where Putin is going.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
After 8 years we FINALLY get a Crimean War thread. I pretty much gave up hope in '07.
Just like Sarah Palin called it. She says, "You're welcome".
It was never a ridiculous proposition.

It was always yes very likely that Putin would take advantage of a crisis and move troops into Ukraine, especially Crimea. Frankly she deserves credit for saying it and what's sad is how so often we just can't talk about things like this in our country in public debate over who should be president. She was not the only one to say this either, but it makes us uncomfortable today. There are bad people running powerful nations outside the USA and they don't like us and any president has to face that reality. What was not foreseeable was whether a crisis would indeed arise and what that crisis would be, the specific circumstances that we have seen unfold were unpredictable (yet still not shocking, we have a struggle over Ukraine's future alliance with the EU).

Hell the Clintons said Obama was a fairy tale and that he wasn't qualified to handle the "3:00 am phone call" - and yet here today there are people who think the Clintons should be running the country in the next administration.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Key elements from the original post:

Not long after positioning troops in the Middle East, then a part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the Russians upped the stakes by massacring a small fleet of Turkish boats, an act that the Turks must respond to.
This is a very old deadly game Putin is playing.

Back in England, there was more than a murmuring of discontentment from the British government over the acts of the Russians. After all, they had initiated military manoeuvres, that, if proved successful would give them control of an area vital to the Mediterranean trade route so necessary to the British. The French, eager to be allied to the British, began discussions with them, and consequently both countries sent expeditionary forces to the Balkans to confront the Russians.
England was the USA of its time.

Now, why was it in this war?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top