The Winter of 1854-1855.—It was now obvious that the army must winter in the Crimea, and preparations in view of this were begun betimes. But on the night of November 14th a violent storm arose which wrecked nearly thirty vessels with their precious cargoes of treasure, medical comforts, forage, clothing and other necessaries. After so grave a calamity it was to be expected that the troops would be called upon to undergo great hardships. But the direct cause of sufferings that have become a byword for the utmost depths of misery was the loss of twenty days’ forage in the great storm. Of food and clothing enough was in store to tide over temporary difficulties, but the only paved road from Balaklava to the British camps was now in Russian hands, and the few starving transport animals were utterly inadequate for the work of drawing wagons over the miry plain; things went from bad to worse with Raglan’s troops, until from the outposts before the Redan to the hospitals at Scutari a state of the utmost misery prevailed, relieved only by the example of devotion and self-sacrifice set by officers and men. The British hospital returns showed eight thousand sick at the end of November. Even the French, whose base of Kamiesh had escaped the storm, were not unhurt by the severity of the winter, but Napoleon III. sent freely all the men his general asked, while the Russians in Sevastopol, who had made long painful marches from the interior, were the survivors of the fittest. Canrobert took over the lines before the Malakoff to relieve the British. He had at the end of January 1855 78,000 men for duty; Raglan could barely muster 12,000. But, with the advent of spring, paved roads and a railway were promptly taken in hand, and during the remainder of the war the British troops were so well cared for that their death-rate was lower than at home, while the hospitals in rear, thanks to the energy and devotion of Florence Nightingale and her nurses, became models of good management.
Course of the Siege.—Meanwhile the siege works were making but slow progress, and the fortress grew day by day under the skilful direction of Todleben. Rifle-pits pushed out in front of the defenders’ lines were connected so as to form a veritable envelope. Beyond the left wing a new line, the “White Works,” sprang up in a single night, and the hill of the Mamelon was suddenly crowned with a lunette to cover the still defiant Malakoff. But the absence of bomb-proof cover exposed the huge working parties necessary for these defences to an almost incessant feu d’enfer, by which the Russians every week suffered the losses of a pitched battle. Meanwhile the field army was idle, Menshikov had been replaced by Prince Michael Gorchakov, Liprandi’s corps had withdrawn from the Vorontsov ridge, and Omar Pasha, with a detachment of the troops he had led at Oltenitza and Cetatea, repulsed a Russian attack on Eupatoria (Feb. 17th). The besiegers steadily approached the White Works, Mamelon, Redan and Flagstaff bastion, and as spring arrived the logistic and material advantages of the allies returned. On Easter Sunday (April 8th, 1855) another terrific bombardment began, which lasted almost uninterruptedly for ten days. The White Works and the Mamelon were practically destroyed, and the Russians, drawn up in momentary expectation of assault, lost between six and seven thousand men.
But the bombardment ceased, and assault did not follow. For, at the allied headquarters and at Paris, grave differences of opinion on the conduct of the war had developed. Napoleon III. wished active operations to be undertaken against the Simferopol field army, whereas the leaders on the spot, while admitting the theoretical soundness of the French emperor’s views, considered that they were wholly beyond the means of the two armies. The discussions culminated in Canrobert’s resignation of the chief command, though he would not leave the army, and took a subordinate post, which he filled with great distinction to the end of the war. His successor, General Pélissier, was a soldier trained in the hard school of Algerian warfare, and endowed, as was soon evident, with the most inflexible resolution of character. He did not hesitate to take up and maintain a position of decided opposition to his sovereign’s views; and the capture of Kerch (24th May 1855), carried out by a joint expedition, was the first earnest of new vigour in the operations. This success served all the purposes of a complete investment of Sevastopol, the want of which had greatly troubled the allied generals. The line of communication and supply between Sevastopol and the interior was cut, vast stores intended for the fortress were destroyed, and the sea of Azov was cleared of shipping. On the 25th Canrobert established himself on the Fedukhin heights, his right continued along the Chernaya by General la Marmora’s newly arrived Sardinians, 15,000 strong, while masses of Turks occupied the Vorontsov ridge and the old Balaklava battlefield.
As June approached, Raglan and Pélissier, who, unlike most allied commanders, were in complete accord and sympathy, initiated very vigorous methods of attack. They decided that the works west of Flagstaff could be comparatively neglected, and the full weight of the bombardment once more fell upon the Mamelon and the Malakoff. Once more these works were reduced to ruins, but the rest of the defences still held out.
The Assault of the Redan.—On the 7th of June 1855 the French stormed the Mamelon and the White Works, the British captured and maintained some quarries close to the Redan, and next morning the whole of Todleben’s envelope had become a siege-parallel. The losses were, as usual, heavy, 8500 to the Russians, 6883 to the allies. This was merely a preliminary to the great assault fixed for the 18th, the fortieth anniversary of Waterloo. But meanwhile Pélissier’s temper and Raglan’s health had been strained to breaking-point by continued dissensions with Paris and London. The telegraph, a new strategic factor, daily tormented the unfortunate commanders with the latest ideas of the Paris strategists, and on the fateful day the two armies rushed on to failure. The French attack on the Malakoff dwindled away into a meaningless fire-fight: the British, attacking the Redan in face of a cross-fire of one hundred heavy guns, at first succeeded in entering the work, but in the end sustained a bloody and disastrous repulse. Of the six generals who led the two attacks, four were killed and one wounded, and on the 17th and 18th the losses to the Russians were 5400, to the allies 4000. But the defenders’ resources were almost at an end, and the bombardment reopened at once with increased fury. On the 20th Todleben was wounded, and soon afterwards Nakhimov, the victor of Sinope, found a grave by the side of three other admirals who had fallen in the defence. Pélissier resolutely clung to his plans, in spite of the failure of the 18th, against ever-increasing opposition at home. Raglan, worn out by his troubles and heartbroken at the Redan failure, died on the 28th, mourned by none more deeply than by his stern colleague.
The Storming of the Malakoff.—During July the Russians lost on an average 250 men a day, and at last it was decided that Gorchakov and the field army must make another attack at the Chernaya—the first since Inkerman. On the 16th of August the corps of Generals Liprandi and Read furiously attacked the 37,000 French and Sardinian troops on the heights above Traktir Bridge. The assailants came on with the greatest determination, but the result was never for one moment doubtful. At the end of the day the Russians drew off baffled, leaving 260 officers and 8000 men on the field. The allies only lost 1700. With this defeat vanished the last chance of saving Sevastopol. On the same day (Aug. 16th) the bombardment once more reduced the Malakoff and its dependencies to impotence, and it was with absolute confidence in the result that Pélissier planned the final assault. On the 8th of September 1855 at noon, the whole of Bosquet’s corps suddenly swarmed up to the Malakoff. The fighting was of the most desperate kind. Every casemate, every traverse, was taken and retaken time after time, but the French maintained the prize, and though the British attack on the Redan once more failed, the Russians crowded in that work became at once the helpless target of the siege guns. Even on the far left, opposite Flagstaff and Central bastions, there was severe hand-to-hand fighting, and throughout the day the bombardment mowed down the Russian masses along the whole line. The fall of the Malakoff was the end of the siege. All night the Russians were filing over the bridges to the north side, and on the 9th the victors took possession of the empty and burning prize. The losses in the last assault had been very heavy, to the allies over 10,000 men, to the Russians 13,000. No less than nineteen generals had fallen on that day. But the crisis was surmounted. With the capture of Sevastopol the war loses its absorbing interest. No serious operations were undertaken against Gorchakov, who with the field army and the remnant of the garrison held the heights at Mackenzie’s Farm. But Kinburn was attacked by sea, and from the naval point of view the attack is interesting as being the first instance of the employment of ironclads. An armistice was agreed upon on the 26th of February and the definitive peace of Paris was signed on the 30th of March 1856.
Decisive Importance of the Victory.—The importance of the siege of Sevastopol, from the strategical point of view, lies beneath the surface. It may well be asked, why did the fall of a place, at first almost unfortified, bring the master of the Russian empire to his knees? At first sight Russia would seem to be almost invulnerable to a sea power, and no first success, however crushing, could have humbled Nicholas I. Indeed the capture of Sevastopol in October 1854 would have been far from decisive of the war, but once the tsar had decided to defend to the last this arsenal, the necessity for which he was in the best position to appreciate, the factor of unlimited resources operated in the allies’ favour. The sea brought to the invaders whatever they needed, whilst the desert tracks of southern Russia were marked at every step with the corpses of men and horses who had fallen on the way to Sevastopol. The hasty nature, too, of the fortifications, which, daily crushed by the fire of a thousand guns, had to be re-created every night, made huge and therefore unprotected working parties necessary, and the losses were correspondingly heavy. The double cause of loss completely exhausted even Russia’s resources, and, when large bodies of militia appeared in line of battle at Traktir Bridge, it was obvious that the end was at hand. The novels of Tolstoy give a graphic picture of the war from the Russian point of view; the miseries of the desert march, the still greater miseries of life in the casemates, and the almost daily ordeal of manning the lines under shell-fire to meet an assault that might or might not come; and no student of the siege can leave it without feeling the profoundest respect for the courage, discipline and stubborn loyalty of the defenders.
Minor Operations.—A few words may be added on the minor operations of the war. The Asiatic frontier was the scene of severe fighting between the Turks and the Russians. Hindered at first by Shamyl and his Caucasian mountaineers, the Russians stood on the defensive during 1853, but next year they took the offensive, and, while their coast column won an action on the 16th of June at the river Churuk, another force from Erivan gained an important success on the Araxes and took Bayazid, and General Bebutov completely defeated a Turkish column from Kars at Kuruk Dere (July 31st, 1854). Next year Count Muraviev completely isolated the garrison of Kars, which made a magnificent defence, inspired by Fenwick Williams Pasha and other British officers. In one assault alone 7000 Russians were killed and wounded, and it was not until the 26th of November 1855 that the fortress was forced to surrender. The naval operations in the Baltic furnish many interesting examples for the study of naval war. The allied fleet in 1854, after a first repulse, succeeded in landing a French force under Baraguay d’Hilliers before Bomarsund, and the place fell after an eight days’ siege. In 1855 seventy allied warships appeared before Kronstadt, which defied them. Reinforced they attacked Sveåborg, but after two days’ fighting had to draw off baffled.
The numbers engaged in the Crimean War and the cost in men and money is stated in round numbers below. In May 1855 the Crimean theatre of war occupied 174,500 allies (of whom 32,000 were British) and 170,000 Russians. The losses in battle were: allies 70,000 men, Russians 128,700; and the total losses, from all causes and in all theatres of the war: allies 252,600 (including 45,000 English), Russians 256,000 men (Berndt, Die Zahl im Kriege, p. 35). In the siege of Sevastopol the Russians are stated by Berndt to have lost 102,670 men dead, wounded and missing. Mulhall (Dict. of Statistics, 1903 ed., pp. 586-587) gives much greater losses to each of the four powers principally engaged. The cost of the war in money is stated by Mulhall to have been £69,000,000 to Great Britain, £93,000,000 to France, £142,000,000 to Russia.
Authorities.—Of the many works on the Crimean War those of the greatest value are the following. English: the official work on the Siege of Sebastopol; A. W. Kinglake, The Invasion of the Crimea (London, 1863; “Student’s edition” by Sir G. S. Clarke); Sir E. B. Hamley, The War in the Crimea (London, 1891); (Sir) W. H. Russell, The War in the Crimea (London, 1855-1856); Sir Evelyn Wood, The Crimea in 1854 and in 1894 (London, 1895); Sir D. Lysons, The Crimean War from First to Last (London, 1895); Col. A. Lake, The Defence of Kars (London, 1857). French: Official, Guerre de l’Orient, Hist. de l’artillerie (Paris, 1859); (Marshal Niel), Siège de Sébastopol (official account of engineer operations, Paris, 1858), and Atlas historique et topographique de la guerre de Crimée (see also the map of Russia by the French staff, sheets 56 and 57); Baron C. de Bazancourt, L’Expédition de Crimée (Paris, 1856); C. Rousset, Histoire de la guerre de Crimée (Paris, 1877). Russian: the work of Todleben, Die Vertheidigung von Sevastopol (St. Petersburg, 1864); Défense de Sébastopol (St Petersburg, 1863); Anitschkoff, Feldzug in der Krim (German trans., Berlin, 1857); Bogdanovitch, Der Orientkrieg (St Petersburg, 1876); Petroff, Der Donaufeldzug Russlands gegen Türkei (German trans., Berlin, 1891). Of German works the most useful are: Kunz, Die Schlachten und Treffen des Krimkrieges (Berlin, 1889); Der Feldzug in der Krim; Sammlung der Berichte beider Parteien (Leipzig, 1855-1856).