Search

In much the same way as today, nineteenth-century diplomats were expected to represent their government politically abroad and implement foreign policy as decided by their superiors. However, quite a few of them held personal views that conflicted with their instructions, causing numerous difficulties. British diplomats sent to the Habsburg Monarchy provide a prime example of this problem, with Anglo-Austrian relations strained by ideological conflicts and British ambassadors repeatedly ending up supporting the Austrian point of view. This article uses two of them, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Westmorland, as case studies, focusing on their diplomatic practice and the changing relationships with their superiors. It examines the extent of their agency, the consequences of rebellious behaviour, and their ability to influence British foreign policy according to their own convictions.

Research Objectives: Studying the contributions of the Crimean and Nogai Tatars to the military efforts of the Ottoman state from the moment that the Crimean Khanate fell under the Turkish protectorate until the mid-19th century. Research materials. The article is based on an analysis of sources and rich historiographical material, the works of domestic and foreign scientists on the topic of research. Results and Novelty of the Research: An analysis of sources and historiography shows that over the centuries, thousands of Tatars (Crimean, Nogai, Kazan) fought in the ranks of the Ottoman army. The participation of the troops of the Crimean Khanate significantly strengthened the capabilities of the Sultan’s armies. After the joining of Crimea in 1783, thousands of Crimean and Nogai Tatars left the territory of the Khanate and continued to fight against Russia. In 1787, the Ottoman authorities proclaimed the revival of the Crimean Khanate. The armed forces of the Girays fought against the Russians and Austrians in the Russo-Turkish War of 1787–1791. After the war of 1787–1791, despite the liquidation of the Khanate, the Ottoman government continued to actively involve Tatars in military service. The Tatar cavalry fought on the side of the Sultan in the Russian-Turkish wars of 1806–1812 and 1828–1829. Military personnel of the Dobruja Tatar Regiment took part in a number of key events in the Turkish military history of the 19th century. During the Crimean War (1853–1856), the combined forces of British, French and Turkish troops landed in Crimea. The allies, at the same time, used the help from the Crimean Tatar population. Later, Crimean Tatars also participated in Turkish wars, such as the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 and World War I (1914–1918).

In the 17th century Japan decided to pursue a policy of limiting or completely prohibiting external contacts. This policy lasted more than two centuries. During the XVIII ‒ early XIX centuries Russia made attempts to establish diplomatic and trade relations with the Land of the Rising Sun, which had only limited success. The end of the isolation policy is associated with the expeditions to Japan by E. V. Putyatin in 1853–1854. The article gives a general overview of the international situation that had developed around Japan at that time. The role of the Russian-American company in supplying the expedition of E. V. Putyatin is noted. An analysis of the negotiations between Russia and Japan is carried out, its features are shown. The Treaty of Shimoda is being studied. The article provides memoirs of contemporaries of those events. The agreement became a model for similar agreements between other countries and Japan. Simultaneously with Putyatin’s journey, the defense of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky took place, as part of the Crimean War. The article shows how those events influenced the establishment of relations with Japan. The article has been prepared using an interdisciplinary approach that combines historical and linguistic methods as well. Close attention is paid to publications by Japanese authors and work with archival materials, especially with documents from the Russian State Archive of the Navy, the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire, the State Archive of the Irkutsk Region, the Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library and the electronic archive of the National Diet Library of Japan.

The readers are invited to review the book by Andrey Petrovich Dmitriev “The Aksakov Family: Literary Heritage and Civic Position: From Archival Research.” It is dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the birth of Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, an outstanding Russian publicist of Slavophile trend, poet and public figure. The monograph explores various aspects of the life and activities of the representatives of the famous Aksakov family, who in their writings and correspondence actively responded to all the most important events in the cultural and social life of Russia. The research is based on extensive archival data, partly introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. In addition to covering a wide range of subjects the book provides a new approach to the accumulation of research potential in the study of the history of Russian clans and social processes in Russian society of the 19th century. The research is provided with illustrations, a list of abbreviations, an index of names and a valuable bibliographic references to the first publications of the materials placed or mentioned in the book.

The article deals with the Sevastopol stories of Leo Tolstoy in comparison with memoir sources and documents reflecting the events of the Crimean War of 1853‒1856. The works of M. I. Bogdanovich, E. I. Totleben, H. J. Gubbenet, F. K. Zatler, N. I. Pirogov, N. V. Berg, O. I. Konstantinov demonstrate the examples of historical evidence. The article shows that the source of the genre nature of the Sevastopol stories was the military experience of the young officer Tolstoy, who created a panorama of events woven from a qualitatively different figurative and artistic material and having an immeasurably greater impact than statistics and official documents. The analysis covrers artistic techniques of the writer in the paintings of the Sevastopol hospital, the assault on the Malakhov Kurgan and the departure of the Russian army from Sevastopol. Summing up the results, it can be concluded that the artistic scale of the Sevastopol stories created by Tolstoy corresponds to the historical scale of military events. The author not only did not deviate from the historical truth, but revealed the tragic depth and sacred meaning of the Crimean War in Russian history.

Introduction. Diary manuscripts in historical scholarship are a curious material, which in most cases is a unique testimony of the era. Numerous such sources have been discovered and published on the Russian history of the 19th century. It was mainly the nobility and intellectuals who had the opportunity to keep diaries. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries they were joined by merchants. Materials and methods.The rarest phenomenon remains the diaries of city dwellers, in particular those of peasant origin. In 2009, Tambov historians prof. Kanischev and Lyamin published a unique material: the diary of E. A. Kovrigin, a Tambovite. Results. This source contains interesting information on the life of a man who belonged to the trade-industrial strata of the provincial town - the so-called "silent estate". The article presents an analysis of the diary in its historical context, in particular the notes concerning the author's participation in the State Mobile Militia. The part of the diary devoted to the author's participation in the Tambov militia is of particular interest because it allows us to compare the official data available to us - such as the route of the squads - with the real state of affairs. Conclusion. The study and analysis of the diary of Kovrigin not only showed us a portrait of a particular man and the details of his personal life, but also revealed important details of significant events in Russian history, the realities of everyday life of a 19th century man, and also showed by example how the mentality of a provincial man was transformed in the transition from a traditional to an industrial society.

The article examines the multifaceted process of voluntary entry of Ossetia into the Russian state. Based on numerous archival sources, the author concludes that the annexation of Ossetia to Russia was the only possible positive vector of development for it. At an early stage in the formation of Russian-Ossetian relations in the second half of the 18th century, cooperation in the military sphere was especially fruitful. During the Seven Years' War in 1760, by decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, a detachment was formed from the Caucasian highlanders, among whom were Ossetians. In 1763, in Mozdok, a mountain team of ―Mozdok Cossack Brothers‖ was formed from Ossetians and baptized Circassians, numbering 214 people. A significant military detachment of Ossetians as part of the regular units of the Russian army took part in the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Caucasian squadron was formed in St. Petersburg, in which, along with other highlanders, there were Ossetians. In 1828, on the initiative of the Ossetians themselves, a military detachment was formed, the members of which heroically proved themselves during the Russian-Turkish war. The creation of the Ossetian military detachment was the first event of its kind in the Caucasus, which makes this fact of particular importance in the context of the entire history of Russian-Caucasian relations.

The article is devoted to the analysis of new sources found in the National Archives of the Republic of Tatarstan in Kazan, which clarify the picture of the censorship policy of the tsarist government during the war years. The study was carried out based on the modernization concept of Russian history, in which the printed word appears as one of the main engines of modernization, as well as on the methods of intellectual history, in which book publishing and the press are studied in close connection with issues of censorship policy. The modern historiography of the Crimean (Eastern) War continues to be enriched with new works devoted to Russian public life and connected with the history of the press and censorship. А rich literature is devoted to the history of Russian periodicals and journalism, but not to the censorship policy of the Russian Empire. The article considers a number of circulars of the Ministry of Public Education, which was the leading state body in the implementation of the censorship policy, but in war conditions it carefully took into account the requirements of the Military Censorship Committee under the General Staff. The emperor actively intervened in censorship issues, especially in publicizing literary works in the press. For example, the newspaper Samarskiye Gubernskiye Vedomosti shows, that the provincial press reprinted notes and reports about the war from the capital news that had already passed the censorship check. Despite the selection of information, these reports did not hide information about the losses of Russian troops

The monograph under review is a successful attempt to reconstruct the place of Sevastopol in the cultural memory of the Soviet period by means of in-depth analysis of the system of discourse related to the history of this city, “places of memory,” and commemorative practices (with special attention to the celebration of historical anniversaries). The authors managed to create a holistic image of how the main stages in the history of the “City of Russian Glory” together with the related narratives and personalities were included in the general context of the Soviet politics of history and are presented in the collective consciousness. To achieve the purpose of the study, they gave a detailed description of numerous memorial constructions, museum expositions, works of fine art, musical works, scientific and popular-science literature, memoirs and fiction, theatrical productions, documentaries and feature films – all the things that determined general visual and discourse content of the collective memory of the past in the context of the 20th century. The monograph under review is of great significance for Russian memory studies and is recommended to those who are interested in the history of Sevastopol and engaged in memory studies, new cultural history, symbolic policy, and discourse studies. At the same time, despite the variety of the topics raised and the depth of the analysis conducted, there remains a broad heuristic field for new studies devoted to the legendary “City of Russian Glory” in domestic memorial culture and historical memory.

The article examines L.N. Tolstoy’s Sevastopol stories. The analysis is provided with hitherto unpublished archival sources, namely letters to Archbishop Innokenty (Borisov) of Crimean monks and white clergy. The study reveals the reasons why the Crimean War, according to some, turned out to be a defeat for Russia, and according to others, it was the victory of the indestructible Russian spirit. The author shows how Tolstoy recreated the psychological picture of the Crimean War in the Sevastopol stories, clearly outlined its spiritual meanings; and how an artistic, imaginative system of Tolstoy’s narrative is built in an interpolar space: peace and war, eternal and momentary, divine and human. Truth is the protagonist of the Sevastopol stories, and it is revealed in them in all the variety of Tolstoy’s artistic techniques, the origin of which lies in real life. Tolstoy’s own unique system of moral assessments was further developed in the novel “War and Peace.” The author of the article outlines parallels between the Crimean War and the Patriotic War of 1812 — both in historical memory and in the work of Tolstoy.

On the example of commemoration of various wars and key historical events, it is possible to reconstruct and comprehend the value orientations of states at certain phases of their development. In this article, we propose to turn to the Crimean War of 1853-1856, which was reflected in the historical memory of the two participating countries - Russia and France. With such a comparative approach, attention is drawn to different levels of commemoration of this event: we are talking about scientific research on the Crimean campaign, about the people's memory of generations, about state and political practices. The authors analyze these aspects and identify which of them are most widespread in Russia and Europe, so that the memory of the Crimean War is preserved in modern society. The authors analyze the phenomenon of the forgotten war - a term that has entered the scientific lexicon of the French community and is used to describe the campaign of 1854-1856. The study of the problem makes it possible to answer an important question: why do certain traditions of memory exist, whether they help to form a certain consciousness, value attitudes.

The article focuses on the work of the members of the first Russian Orthodox Ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem, Bishop Porphyrius (worldly Konstantin Uspensky), St. Theophan the Recluse (who was hieromonk at that time) and student Pyotr Sokolov on the translation of the work of the French Abbot Jean-Hippolyte Michon. Michon’s publicistic brochure “A New Solution to the Question of the Holy Places” published in Paris in 1852 and contained proposals for a fair disposal of a dispute between Christian confessions over the possession of the Holy shrines of Palestine. At the height of the Crimean War, the translation of the work was entrusted to members of the Russian Orthodox Ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem. The article traces the history of work on the translation, and it also gives a characteristic to the recently discovered fair copy of the translation, preserved in the collection of Pavel Tikhanov at the Department of Manuscripts of the National Library of Russia. The stages of translation and editing were investigated basing on the textual analysis of a draft manuscript from St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a fair copy from Manuscript department of Russian National Library.

This article is devoted to the study of the French historiographical tradition of studying the Crimean war. Due to the fact that the French historiography of the Crimean campaign has diff erences from the Russian or Anglo-Saxon, it is interesting to turn to the study of the features that are characteristic for the works of French historians. One of the key theses of this article is the statement of the following situation in French historical science: since the second half of the 19th century the Crimean war was studied in the framework of studies on the history of the Second Empire. In the late twentieth century the scientifi c tradition has undergone certain changes, as a result of which the events of 1853-1856 became the subject of separate studies on the military history of France and historical anthropology. This feature infl uenced the perception of the war in French public opinion and the scientifi c community and led to the diff erentiation of certain problems and subjects directly related to the history of the Crimean war. The study of French historiography allows us to determine the themes that prevailed in the scientifi c thought of France during the second half of the 19th - 20th centuries, as well as those trends that are currently key in discussing the prerequisites, the nature, the results of the military campaign of 1853-1856. The authors conclude that the scientifi c and possibly public interest in the Crimean war in France is much lower than in Russia. The events of 1853-1856, largely overshadowed by the discussions and memory of the First World war, gradually turn into a little-known period of French history. However, the jubilee years associated with the Crimean war and the siege of Sevastopol are an important point that allows us to revisit the study of both the military campaign and diplomacy, and in general the history of Russian-French relations.

The article analyzes the modern Western historiography of the Crimean war of 1853-1856. The authors refer to problems and issues that prevail in the French and British studies of the events of 1853-1856. In the Western historiographical tradition based on researches of the XIX-XX centuries, still remain insufficiently explored aspects of the Crimean war, for example, the siege of Sevastopol, military operations in the Baltic and White seas, in the Pacific ocean, in the Caucasus. Despite the obvious trend existing in modern European science, associated with the study of the Crimean campaign in the context of the first pan-European war, the attention of historians of Western Europe is more focused on the study of the First world war. However, in recent years there has been a clear interest of French, English and Italian authors to the Black sea region, to the history of the Crimea and, as a consequence, to the Crimean campaign. Generalization of modern experience of historiography of the Crimean war allows to define prospects for further researches.

1830-1835 ve 1845-1847 yılları arası İstanbul Rus Sefȃreti’nde diplomat olarak görev yapan Pyotr Aleksandroviç Çihaçov 1808-1890 , 1847-1863 yılları arasında Ege ve Marmara’dan Fırat havzasına ve Erzurum’a, Akdeniz’den Karadeniz’e Anadolu’un birçok bölgesine seyahat gerçekleştirmiştir. Seyahatleri sırasında jeolojik, botanik, zoolojik, paleontolojik ve arkeolojik olarak Anadolu’yu bilimsel anlamda gözlemleyen Çihaçov, özellikle günlüklerinde Anadolu’da seyahat ettiği bölgelerin etnik, dinî ve idarî yapısı, siyasî meseleleri, insanların ekonomik ve yaşamsal sorunları gibi konulara da yer vermiştir. Bu bakımdan Çihaçov, 15 Mayıs – 11 Ekim 1853 tarihleri arasında altıncı Anadolu seyahati sırasında tuttuğu günlüklerinde eski bir diplomat olarak Osmanlı’nın ‘iç meseleleri’ni diplomatik ve siyasî seviyelerde gözlemleyerek tespitlerde bulunmuştur. Çihaçov, bu günlüklerinde bir jeolog ve doğa bilimci olarak seyahat güzergâhındaki yer şekillerini ve bitki örtüsünü detaylı bir şekilde tasvir etmiştir. Ancak daha da mühimi Çihaçov, Kırım Savaşı’nın hemen öncesinde tuttuğu bu günlüklerinde taşradaki Osmanlı memurlarının ve Türk ve Türk olmayan Osmanlı unsurlarının yaklaşan Osmanlı-Rus savaşına ve bu sırada Osmanlı taşrasında seyahat eden bir “Rus”a karşı tavır ve tutumunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu bağlamda bütün aksi telkinlere ve hatta savaş esiri olma pahasına Kırım Savaşı arifesinde Anadolu’daki “tehlikeli” seyahatine devam eden Çihaçov, Anadolu’nun çeşitli bölgelerinde Rusya ile yaklaşan savaş nedeniyle yükselen toplumsal heyecana karşın “Türk örgütlenmesi ve Türk düzenin ne kadar zayıf olduğunu görme imkânı” bulmuştur. Ulaştığı her bölgenin önde gelen resmî ve gayrıresmî simalarının misafiri olan Çihaçov, bu temasları sırasında Kırım Savaşı’nın Osmanlı devleti ve toplumuna yansımalarının anlaşılması açısından oldukça ilginç diyaloglar gerçekleştirmiştir. Çihaçov’un günlüklerinde kısa ve öz olarak yer verdiği bu tür ilginç temaslarının, seyahatinin özellikle Konya, Karaman, Mersin ve Adana kısmında yoğunlaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda eldeki bu çalışma, Anadolu’nun ünlü kâşifi olarak Rus doğabilimci, coğrafyacı ve seyyah Pyotr Aleksandroviç Çihaçov’u ve Kırım Savaşı arifesinde gerçekleştirdiği altıncı seyahatinin Osmanlı taşrasının toplumsal ve idarȋ yapısına dair önemli bilgiler sunan ilgili günlüklerini konu almıştır.

In this article we analyze the establishment of public granaries in Bessarabia according to the Regulation of 24 January 1834, their opening in 1840 and functioning during 16 years, in which, according to Regulation’s provisions, they were to be fully filled with prescribed quantity of grain. The analysis of unpublished archival and published sources on this issue allows us to conclude that the system elaborated by the Russian law-makers did not really give any benefit to the population, which in the drought years was forced to buy the grain they gave to the reserve granaries for free. The Crimean War (1853-1856) eloquently proved that the entire system created with the stated goal of ensuring the food security of the population had completely different goals. Grain stocks, which were located in rural reserve granaries, were provided to the army, practically they were transformed into army supplies, and the population was left even without the grain needed for sowing. On a larger scale, the reserve granaries were a serious obstacle to the involvement of peasants in the system of market relations. At the same time, it was advantageous for landowners, since they no longer had to take care of food for the peasants who lived and worked on their estates during the famine, thus selling their grains without making any reserves, to be exported abroad.

Osmanlı subaylarının modern bir edebi tür olan hatıra yazımına ilgileri Kırım Harbi ile başlamıştır. Kırım Harbi başlangıcında Anadolu ordusu komutanlığı yapan Mustafa Zarif Paşa’nın harbin ardından kaleme aldığı hatıraları bir Osmanlı subayı tarafından modern anlamda yazılmış bilinen ilk hatıradır. Batum ordusu komutanı Mustafa Paşa’nın yaverliğini yapıp daha sonra Rusya’ya kaçan Binbaşı Osman Bey’in (Frederick Millingen) Rusça yayımlanmış hatıraları Kırım Harbi’ne dair bilinen bir diğer hatıradır. Kırım Harbi’nde Tuna Cephesi’nde görev alan Tevfik Mustafa Paşa da harp sonrasında harp hatıralarını yazmıştır. Bu çalışmada Tevfik Mustafa Paşa’nın kaleme aldığı harp hatıraları değerlendirilecektir.

Introduction. The article analyzes the battle on the Ingour river on November 6, 1855 from the political perspective in order to establish its role in the Caucasian campaign of 1855 of the Crimean war (1853-1856). Methods. Using the approach created by Carl von Clausewitz and developed by Alexander Svechin, the author views war as the continuation of politics and explores the political impact of the Ingour battle regarding its connection with the development of guerilla war in Mingrelia against the Turkish army under Omer-pasha (Ömer Lütfi Paşa). Analysis. Tactical analysis of the battle demonstrates that its organization and conduct on Russian side included considerable flaws. However, political analysis allows understanding that the impact of the Ingour battle went beyond its immediate tactical outcome. Political instability in Mingrelia demanded imperatively that major-general I.K. Bagration-Mukhranskiy, who commanded Russian Gurian force, would confront Omer-pasha at Mingrelian border in order to confirm the political credibility of Russian authorities among the local population. Discussion. Russian readiness to fight for Mingrelia influenced the political situation positively and contributed to the development of guerilla war against Omer-pasha. It was especially beneficial in the difficult conditions of Batum operational area and made a significant contribution to the outcome of the campaign. Thus, it is established in the article that one should view the Ingour battle not as a woeful defeat, but as the sensible tactical sacrifice for political ends that yielded considerable results and influenced the outcome of the 1855 Caucasian campaign in an important way.

Military actions of allies in the Crimean War of 1853-1856 had the coalition character, and therefore it is quite problematic to evaluate the contribution of individual troops objectively. At the national historical schools, as well as in public opinion of the state, the army’s participation and its contribution in the course of military operations are actualized. This trend has been common both in the war years and today. The imaginary and the real successes of the army are highly appreciated, and it is impossible to do this without downgrading the role of allies in the coalition. The evaluation of Ottoman troops’ behavior during the Balaklava battle in the Crimean War may serve as an example of such ambiguity. This article deals with the problem of ambiguity of contribution made by the armed forces of the Ottoman Empire to the military operations of the Crimean war in the context of existing assessments. On the one hand, the behavior of the Ottoman forces does not give reasons for the low evaluation of their fighting qualities. On the other hand, current attempts to form an image of the Egyptian contingent as one of the main conflict factors seem to be very far from reality.

This article provides information about the 3rd International Scientific Conference “Military History of Russia: problems, searches, solutions”, dedicated to the 160th anniversary of the Crimean War of 1853-1856. This conference was held in Volgograd on September 23-24, 2016. The conference was held at the Volgograd State University. Conference was organized by Volgograd State University, Centre for collective use “Military History of Russia”, Centre for the Study of the Battle of Stalingrad, The State Historical and Memorial Museum “Battle of Stalingrad”, State Archive of Volgograd Region, the Volgograd regional Division of the Academy of Military Sciences, the Volgograd Regional Branch of the Russian Military-Historical Society. The conference was informative and representative in its composition: more than 100 representatives of scientific institutions of the Academy of Sciences, universities, archives, museums and libraries from 20 cities of Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine. 22 doctors of sciences and 40 candidates of sciences were among the participants. Together with respected professors and lecturers the conference was attended by young scientists: assistants, postgraduate students, master students and students. The article analyzes the work of the plenary sessions and 10 sections, the central section of which was “The Crimean War: Russia and the World”. The permanent sections were presented by the reports: on Military History in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages, in New and Recent History; on social protection of the population in wartime; on the military-political conflicts as a threat to the security of society and state; on the international aspects of military conflicts; on the art of war in the methodology of the international “wargame” research; on the results of work of the Centre for the Study of the Battle of Stalingrad.

The article is devoted to the events that took place on the Crimean peninsula during the Eastern War (1853-1856) beyond the main battle fields. The author describes overall picture of what was happening in the Crimean cities on the background of heroic defense of Sevastopol, names cities which experienced invasion and tells about the consequences of their occupation. The article mainly focuses on Simferopol and Bakhchisaray as the front-line cities that played a significant role in defense of Sevastopol and experienced all the consequences of military actions on the Crimean peninsula. The author names the famous participants of the Crimean War whose lives were closely connected with those cities, and tells about historical monuments related to the events of those years. The aforementioned participants include the famous writers L. N. Tolstoy and N. V. Berg, who spent significant amount of time in those cities during the war. Another personality that draws the author’s close attention is N.I. Pirogov, a surgeon whose professional activity on the peninsula at that time was tightly connected with Simferopol. The article also tells about active participants of military operations – generals P.A. Vrevskiy and P.V. Veimarn who lost their lives during the battle at the Chornaya river and were buried in Bakhchisaray. The author believes that knowledge of events that were happening on the entire territory of the Crimean peninsula substantially improves our understanding of the scale of the Crimean War, reveals the drama of the War and its impact on nations, cities and individuals – whether well-known to us or not – and provides additional material for patriotic education. The article describes in detail the work on preservation of memorials of the Crimean War and promotes the attitude of care towards the monuments located all over the Crimean peninsula.

The article examines the stages of the national liberation struggle of the peoples of South- Eastern Europe against the Ottoman Empire. The Russian Empire supported the Christian population and helped the southern Slavs and the Greeks to get free from the Ottoman dependency. But Emperor Nicholas I opposed the revolution. The 1850s were marked by the strained political and economic relations between Russia, Turkey, Britain, France and other European States. The Bulgarian and the Greek bourgeoisie had moved from enlightment activity to the political one. Bulgarians, Serbs, Moldovans, Greeks joined the volunteers and defended national interests with the weapon in hands. During the Crimean war the Russian command created military units on the territory of the Danubian principalities. Volunteers fought on the Danube, in Moldavia and Wallachia, and the Crimea. They protected the borders, defended the bastions of Sevastopol. The subject of the research is the organization of volunteer groups, national and social composition of the groups. The role of volunteers was of an exclusive political significance. The number of volunteers in the ranks of Russian troops was insignificant. But the volunteers were guides of Russian policy in the Turkish lands. They represented the fighting core.

The article deals with the prerequisites and establishment of the first Russia-Mexico contacts, which took place after the Crimean War (1853-1856). It was revealed that Mexico’s interest in the collaboration with Russia began to reveal in a higher degree after the Crimean War. The factors, which had led to the diplomatic rapprochement of the two states, include the Mexico’s search for allies in the contradiction to increased aggression of European states and the USA in the Central American region, and the increase of Russian intellectuals’ emigration, resettlement of religious groups of the Old Russian sectarians to the region. At the turn of 19th – 20th centuries many Russian travelers and writers, such as S.D. Protopopov and K.D. Balmont, visited Mexico for the purpose of studying the culture of ancients Indians, who lived in Central America during many centuries before the Spanish colonization. Besides of the impressions on ancient Indian culture, these travelers described the life of ordinary Mexican people of that time. They mentioned their poverty and hopelessness in the years of Porfirio Dias’s dictatorship. Nevertheless, political and cultural contacts had begun to established in the late 19th century between the Russian Empire and Mexico, because after the Crimean War the Mexico’s interest to Russians increased. In addition, Russia tried to strengthen its position in Central American region. In total, these factors had led to the strengthening of political, social and cultural contacts between Russia and Mexico.

40 years after the Congress of Vienna that ended the Napoleonic Wars, European diplomats gathered in Paris. France, together with England, managed to defeat Russia in the Crimean War, and now it was crowned with the laurels of success. On the agenda of foreign policy of the Great Powers appeared Romanian question. Despite the fact that Russia was defeated, it approached to France as a result of secret negotiations between the Duke de Morny and Russian ambassador in Vienna Gorchakov in 1855. The Congress of Paris in 1856 demonstrated evidence of this rapprochement. France put forward for discussion the question of the union of two Romanian principalities that suddenly found support from Russia, which wanted to be rehabilitated to Romanians and looked for an opportunity to destroy the Franco-British alliance. Despite this, both countries warring at the time of the Crimean War, cooperated in implementing the desires of Romanians, and sometimes France was ready to concede to Russians. The Congress of Paris did not give a definitive solution on the question because of divergent views of the Great Powers, but managed to find support from Russia.

Medals are symbols to honor people and also to increase their loyalty to the state. States have revealed forces through medals in a symbolic sense. Although the Ottoman Empire met with the tradition of medal in the period of Sultan Mehmed II, medals became important with Sultan Mahmud I. Commemorative and military medals were pressed by the Ottoman Empire at the end of the Crimean War. The Ottomans used medals as a reflection of not only awards for those showing usefulness in the war but also as a souvenir to commemorate this important battle. Even allied forces and defeated Russia had made medals for Crimean War. In our study, information will be given about Crimean War commemorative and military medals in Ottoman era of the Crimean War. Mecidi Crimean War badges were not included in the study due to the scope of the research.

This essay is an account of the making of England and her Soldiers (1859) by Harriet Martineau and Florence Nightingale. The book is a literary account of the Crimean War, written by Martineau and based on Nightingale’s statistical studies of mortality during the conflict. Nightingale was passionate about statistics and healthcare. Whilst working as a nurse in the Crimea, she witnessed thousands of soldiers die of infectious diseases that might have been prevented with proper sanitation. After the war, she launched a campaign to convince the British government to make permanent reforms to military healthcare, compiling a dataset on mortality in the Crimea. She worked with the government’s Royal Commission investigating healthcare during the war, but also worked privately with Martineau to publicise her findings. Martineau and Nightingale grasped that the lay reader was more receptive to statistical information in a literary format than in dense statistical reports. As such, Nightingale’s data was interwoven with Martineau’s text. The pair illustrated their book with Nightingale’s ‘Rose Diagram’, a statistical graphic which simply illustrated the rate of mortality.

Disregarding the Allies' ingratitude and the practical consequences of applying the principle of European balance of power, Tsar Nicholas I started the Crimean War in 1853. In 1856 Russia lost the war. The same year the Congress of Paris took place and the issue of the Romanian Principalities uniting was raised. The ide a of building this national state was supported by Emperor Napoleon III, later dubbed "Romania's godfather", but there were two strong opponents: Turkey and Austria.

Eleven letters sent to Lord Raglan, Commander-in-Chief of British troops in the Crimea in 1854 and 1855, by Thomas Fonblanque, British Consul General at Belgrade, constitute a little known group of documents that provided useful information for the Allied campaign in the Balkans and the Crimea. The paper, however, pays special attention to the Consul’s "Sanitary Memorandum", as it reflects the scope of interest and range of knowledge of the average British diplomat at the time.

The Crimean War occurred during a formative period of ‘civic publicness’, a term used by John Plunkett to describe the press-mediated public duties undertaken by Victoria and Albert to affirm the monarchy’s popular constitution. The war triggered significant royal intervention into the condition of the army, one of the few sites of royal prerogative. At a time when aristocratic governance was being attacked and the privations of soldiers exposed to an unprecedented extent, the monarchy was keen both to legitimize its role as head of the army and to demonstrate its sensitivity to popular concern for the suffering of ordinary soldiers. This manifested in a highly publicized leaked letter from the Queen expressing her regard for ‘her troops’, the royal family’s visits to wounded soldiers, and the distribution of the Crimean Medal at a special ceremony, which portrayed the accessibility of the Queen through the use of touch. This article explores the symbolism and impetus of these occurrences and assesses the reception of royal intervention in the press. The few assessments of royal influence during the Crimean War have focused largely on Victoria’s personal fascination with the progress of the war and her soldiers. This article explores instead the wider, political significance of the army as extension of the royal family. The Liberal press and artists responded favourably to demonstrations of the Queen’s maternal sympathy for the troops, but my article will point to a hidden struggle to assert the Crown’s authority.

The Crimean War (1853–56) is much more culturally significant than its popular mythologies suggest. Now remembered mainly for the Charge of the Light Brigade and the Lady with the Lamp, the Crimean War is a pivotal moment in the history of modern warfare seen as both the last of the old wars and first of the new. The first total war, it inaugurated new forms of weaponry, tactics, communication, war reporting, military medicine, and new attitudes towards soldiers. The introduction outlines this issue of 19’s case for the conflict’s wide-ranging significance, placing the Crimean War in the context of earlier and later nineteenth-century warfare, and considering its varied cultural afterlives.

There is probably no important event in times past whose historiography is free from misinformation, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or mistakes; and in this regard the Crimean War is no exception to this rule. The misinformation quoted in this article can be placed in at least one of four principal categories. The first involved either the failure to seek out primary sources for the correct information, or a demonstration of ignorance of military protocol, or the misrepresentation of data which in itself is not necessarily inaccurate. The three other examples are characterized by Samuel Butler’s bon mots that ‘though God cannot alter the past, historians can’. The first of these involved flights of fancy that are clearly absurd; the second comprises unkind and sometimes malicious remarks made without any reference to contemporary documents or reliable secondary sources that might support the assertions made; while the third, and possibly the most serious, was the seemingly deliberate falsification of the facts. The purpose of this article is to provide a selection of the many available examples of these misrepresentations which relate to the medical aspects of the Crimean campaign and to provide responses that hopefully go someway to setting the record straight.

Although Russian historiography of the Crimean War yields slightly to its English counterpart in output, it still includes dozens of works from solid multi-volumed research to popular science reviews. The majority of works done before the revolution of 1917 were greatly influenced by the Paris peace of 1856 (dubbed ‘humiliating’) and tended to exaggerate the shortcomings of the Russian military and political system in the middle of the nineteenth century. During the Soviet period — with its overwhelming party control over the social sciences — most research followed the Leninist thesis that the Crimean War ‘demonstrated the rottenness and impotence of feudal Russia’. Nothing suited this axiom more than the catastrophic situation with regard to the treatment of Russian wounded and sick during the conflict. Quite apart from the overall level of casualties, the fact that the vast majority of deaths occurred in hospitals rather than on the battlefield caused a huge public outcry. Immediately after the conflict the Russian government commenced a series of reforms to modernize the army medical system and adapt it to the realities of modern warfare. Overcrowded hospitals, men dying on the ground with minimal medical care available, heartless bureaucrats plundering the government’s money — all became part of a new Crimean War mythology which obscured the real ‘reason why’. Just recently, Russian historians have produced new works on the subject which adopt a more critical approach to conventional doctrines. New research uncovered interesting archival materials, allowing us to look once again at the army medical service during the Crimean War and, using both published and unpublished sources, to try to discover the cause of the large number of deaths from different diseases and determine whether they were avoidable.

The signal event of the Crimean War, the Charge of the Light Brigade, transpired on 25 October 1854. Its reverberations would, however, last long after, as a battle that was waged in the popular press and in auction rooms across the twentieth century attests. The battle involved a bugle and its provenance. In question were two competing claims to have sounded the charge at the Battle of Balaklava, fought at the height of the Crimean War. Did the distinction belong to Trumpet Major William Brittain or to Trumpet Major Henry Joy? The case, which preoccupied family members and interested parties, was closed some fifty years ago in favour of Brittain’s partisans. Why did the contest attain such longevity? Why did it rage with such fervour? This article offers an answer beyond the simple question of provenance as it charts the twists and turns in the dispute, from the mid-nineteenth century through the moment of resolution in the 1960s. In the process, it attests to the politics of presence on the field of battle. It points, too, to the long afterlife of the Crimean War and the lingering shadow of the Victorian Age.

Carol Pop de Szathmári was born in Cluj, Transylvania, on 11 January 1812. His talent for painting shone out from an early age. Being a passionate traveller, Szathmári journeyed through Europe and often crossed the Carpathian Mountains to visit Wallachia and its capital, Bucharest, where he eventually settled in 1843. An accomplished landscape and portrait painter, at ease with both watercolours and oil paints, Szathmári obtained commissions from the wealthy Wallachian boyars. Szathmári kept up constant, good relations with the successive ruling princes of Wallachia for whom he painted portraits and various other compositions. By 1848, Szathmári began to experiment with photography. The outbreak of the Russian-Ottoman War in late June 1853 saw the Romanian principalities occupied by the Russian army. In April 1854, Szathmári filled a van with his cameras and glass plates and went to the Danube to document the fighting between the Russian and Turkish armies.The result of Szathmári's bravery and hard work was a photographic album. His album, containing some two hundred images, became famous due to its presentation at the 1855 Paris World's Fair and Szathmári was awarded the Second Class Medal for his work.From that time on, photography, painting and lithography were always closely connected in Szathmári's career. In 1864 he became a member of the Société Française de Photographie in Paris and in 1870 of the one in Vienna. In 1863, he was appointed Court Painter and Photographer, a position he held for the rest of his life. In that capacity, he followed his patron, Prince Carol I, on the battlefield during the Russian-Romanian-Ottoman War of 1877, which was waged south of the Danube. Alongside martial compositions and albums, Szathmári had long been attracted by folk types and produced a large series of pictures of peasants, gypsies, postillions, merchants and artisans. He toured the fairs and the crowded streets of the town in search of picturesque types. The artist's last major work was the chromolithographic album of the themed floats which paraded the capital city at King Carol's coronation pageant, on 10-11 May 1881. Szathmári died in Bucharest on 3 June 1887.

Carol Pop de Szathmari was born in Cluj, Transylvania, on 11 January 1812. His talent for painting shone out from an early age. Being a passionate traveller, Szathmari journeyed through Europe and often crossed the Carpathian Mountains to visit Wallachia and its capital Bucharest, where he eventually settled in 1843. An accomplished landscape and portrait painter, at ease with both watercolours and oil paints, Szathmari obtained commissions from the wealthy Wallachian boyars. Szathmari kept up constant, good relations with the successive ruling princes of Wallachia for whom he painted portraits and various other compositions. By 1848, Szathmari began to experiment with photography. The outbreak of the Russian-Ottoman War in late June 1853 saw the Romanian principalities occupied by the Russian army. In April 1854, Szathmari filled a van with his cameras and glass plates and went to the border of the Danube to document the fighting between the Russian and Turkish armies. The result of Szathmari's bravery and hard work was a photographic album. His album, containing some two hundred images, became famous due to its presentation at the 1855 Paris World Exhibition and Szathmari was awarded the Second Class Medal for his work. From that time on, photography, painting and lithography were always closely connected in Szathmari's career. In 1864 he became member of the Société Française de Photographie in Paris and in 1870 of the one in Vienna. In 1863, he received the title of Ruling Prince's Court Painter and Photographer which he kept for the rest of his life. The official painter followed his patron, Prince Carol I, on the battlefield during the Russian-Romanian-Ottoman War of 1877, which was waged south of the Danube. Along martial compositions and albums, Szathmari had long been attracted by folk types and produced a large series of pictures with peasants, gypsies, postillions, merchants and artisans. He toured the fairs and the crowded streets of the town in search of picturesque types. The artist's last major work was the chromolithographic album of the symbolic carts which paraded the Capital city on 10-11 May 1881, King Carol's coronation pageant. Szathmari died in Bucharest 3 June 1887.

Con las paces liispano-turcas de finales del siglo xviii se acaba con la rivalidad de estas dos naciones en el Mediterráneo. A lo largo de la Cuestión de Oriente militares, diplomáticos, corresponsales de guerra y periodistas irán dando noticias de los cambios producidos en los ejércitos otomanos.At the end of the Wthe century the Spanish-turkish rivalry in the Mediterranean is over. All through the Eastern Question soldiers, diplomáis, war reporters and journalist will give notices of the changes in the ottoman army.