Good leadership was lacking on all sides during the Crimean campaign. The British commander, Lord Raglan, was elected due to his seniority, rather than on merit. As a consequence he was overly cautious, and indecisive. However, apart from the initial failures of Allied strategy, there were no major strategic mistakes on the Allied side as a consequence of bad leadership. There were also no examples of particularly good leadership. So it can be said that leadership played no large role in the outcome of the campaign. It may have been a hindrance in some instances, but largely it had little influence.
The Allied strategy went through three stages during the Crimean war. Initially, the Royal Navy planned to bombard St. Petersburg, but this failed due to the strong northern Russian defences. The Allies then landed forces in Bulgaria, attempting to engage the Russian invading army. However, the Russians retreated back behind their borders. Finally, it was decided to capture Sevastopol, the port from which the Russian navy had sailed to Sinope, in order to “teach the Russians a lesson”. This third stage was a sound strategy that worked well. The Allies did not try to capture the Russia capital, despite Jomini’s advice, and the capture of Sevastopol lead to the re-opening of negotiations, just as the Allies had wanted. If the Allies had attempted a full-scale invasion of Russia, it would most likely have failed, just as Napoleon did in 1812. Instead, they chose a smaller scale conflict, and restricted themselves to the Crimean peninsula. In this sense, Strategy was a very important factor in the overall victory. But within the Crimea conflict itself, it had little influence over the campaign.
The quality of the Allies’ troops varied greatly. The Turkish troops were largely untrained and lacked motivation. On the whole they were there because their religion encouraged it. In contrast, the British had a small, well-trained, professional army. Events such as the charge of the light brigade clearly show their discipline and courage. This training allowed them to engage and withstand the Russians successfully. Examples such as the “thin red line” demonstrate the British training. However, they also demonstrate the importance of technology in the success of the British infantry. No matter how disciplined or well trained they may have been, without modern rifles, they would not have been able to withstand the Russian cavalry.
The successes of the British infantry relied largely on their use of the new Enfield rifles. They were a huge improvement over the old muskets in range, accuracy and rate of fire. The rifled barrels and minie bullet accounted for the increased accuracy and range, and the breech loading system created a greater rate of fire. As mentioned before, in one case a “thin red line” of British infantry with 500 rifles were able withstand 2000 Russian cavalrymen. For the first time, cavalry took a secondary role, unable to compete with the newly armed infantry. The new rifles were hugely important in the successes of the Allied army.
Logistics was a very large problem in the Crimea. All the supplies needed had to be transported by sea to the port of Balaclava. But strangely, the largest problems occurred whilst transporting the supplies from the port up to the trenches surrounding the besieged Sevastopol, even though this was a distance of only a few miles. There was only a single track upon which all the supplies had to be transported. Eventually, the system of supply almost collapsed, and few supplies reached the troops at the front line. This inevitably meant the campaign was less successful, and Sevastopol was unable to be captured. The British military finally brought in a civilian railway firm, who constructed a railway line from the port of Balaclava up to the city. The supply problem was solved, with 300 tonnes of supplies able to be transported every day. Soon after its construction, the Allied army captured Sevastopol. The technological innovation of the railway provided the supplies needed for victory. This shows that technology played the most significant role in the Allied successes.
As in all conflicts, the victor was decided by many factors. The outcome of the Crimean War was affected by strategy and quality of troops, and to a lesser extent leadership and the media. But the main influence on the outcome was the technological innovations put to use for the first time. The British infantry’s new rifles allowed them to withstand the Russian attacks, and successfully capture Sevastopol, and the newly constructed railway gave them the supplies they needed to do so.
