Source two is a letter written to Queen Victoria from Lord Raglan, the commander-in-chief of the British army. The fact that the Queen of England wrote to Lord Raglan to begin with, highlights that the lack of welfare is a widely known and is severe enough to reach the queen. The letter implies that Lord Raglan is aware of the poor conditions that the soldiers are being put through, but makes excuses that he cannot do anything about the situation; “it has not been in my power to lighten the burden of their duties”, even though he could do something about it if the concern is great enough. He says that he is “satisfied with their exertions” which further points out that he is knowledgeable about the overworked soldiers. He also blames the “inefficiency of the staff” and uses them as scape goats to divert the problem from him, which seems to be the theme of the letter. It subtlety also, confirms that the soldiers are working too hard, which is the apparent idea of source one.
Source three, like source one criticises the army leaders, but more so on the lack of services that are fundamental for the welfare of the soldiers. It is an extract from an ex-soldier from the Crimean war, Lieutenant Colonel Antony Sterling, which was judging the way the war was run. It is a first-hand account and so could be seen as a trustworthy source. He implies the mismanagement of the war departments and compares Britain to France, which slightly mocks GB. Sterling suggests that the British were naïve in thinking that peace would remain and services would not be needed. It agrees with the statement because it suggests there is no “permanent wagon-train…commissariat… or ambulance” for the soldiers, which is important for their welfare. It relates to source one because it is also talking about the lack of equipment and services for the army needed for their tireless efforts.
The only which more obviously challenges the statement is source two, but there are implications that source one and three could not be as qualified to give an accurate account. Source one because, as it is a newspaper article, it may have been exaggerated for the sympathy from the British public for the soldiers, but also to sell more copies and the reporter may have gone to the most affected area and also in the dead of winter, when soldiers would be down anyway. And source three because it is written by a man who has been affected by the Crimean war, and may have had bad experiences, and he could be scrutinising every detail and missing out the successes of the government because of his grudges. Also, the extract was published in 1895, almost forty years after the Crimean war had ended, when more stories had emerged about the causes of the failures and would have been easier to pick up on.
Source two, because it is from Lord Raglan, shows that the army leaders are slightly concerned because if they weren’t, he would not praise “their untiring efforts” and “unwavering close attention to their duties” and say so to the queen of England. He also says that his “whole time and all my thoughts are occupied in attempting to provide the various needs of your majesty’s troops” so indicates that there was some concern for their welfare, and from the highest person in charge.
In conclusion, the overall concept of the British army leaders not being concerned with the welfare of the British soldiers is confirmed by sources one and three, as they both are useful in getting an accurate view in how the war was run and underscores the poor conditions thoroughly. And even though source two shows a little concern from Lord Raglan, the idea of substandard quality and treatment is known to him and not much is done about it, making the source slightly contradictory to itself and stresses the other two in their definitiveness.
by
OliviaC (student)
