119. Ending a war, replacing a government

Conditions in Crimea were appallingly bad, and all sides lost more men to disease than in combat. Britain did particularly badly in the first year, when the French performed rather better. However, in the second year (two years, note: the quick war the Allies had hoped to fight had transformed into a grind) the British did far better, and much of that was down to a radical change in healthcare. Next episode we’ll be looking at two people who played key roles in that process, Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole.

With the slow siege of Sevastopol grinding on with little progress, while the cost in lives and treasure constantly climbing, the government eventually fell. The hunt for a new one revealed two striking facts: William Gladstone was an increasingly key figure in British politics, and the pressure propelling Palmerston onwards and upwards was finally going to get him into Downing Street.

He would be in charge in Britain as the war ended, with limited concessions from Russia, all of which would be reversed within 24 years. Leaving the question, was it all worth it? And wouldn’t the expenditure, seven times higher than relief for the Irish famine, have been far better spent there than on this bitter, costly and ultimately unproductive war in Crimea?

Illustration: Combat dans la Gorge de Malakoff by Adolphe Yvon: the French capture of the Malakoff,. Public Domain.

Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License.