There are many other factors that lead to the idea that Seacole was the real angel of mercy. One of the most important being that she was right within the fighting zone and thus in real danger and even so, as Source V says, ‘she showed courage under fire.’ This shows a real deep caring for the men for her to put herself in such danger. On top of this, her self-motivated desire to travel to the Crimea to help the troops showed her determination and commitment to the welfare of the soldiers. Even after she was rejected by the government she still carried on and used her own money to travel to the Crimean and care for the soldiers. Seacole is the real angel of mercy if she was out in the Crimea using her own money to care for the troops and then to come back to England bankrupt.
This is in comparison to Nightingale who had massive government support and funding. She was given 32 nurses to take with her to Scutari and also was given supplies when she asked for them. Even though her effort was greatly appreciated, Mary Seacole did it off her own back whereas Nightingale was acting more out of duty and this means in natural disposition it was Seacole again who the real angel of mercy was.
However in medical terms this may not be the case. Aspersions can be cast over Seacole’s real skill as a doctor. She learned her medicinal knowledge, which most of which was herbal, from her mother and didn’t have any standard medical education that Nightingale did. Despite this her methods seemed to be just as effective, as reports from people like William Russell praised her healing skills.
Source U can be more connected with Nightingale’s role in the Crimean War than it can be with Seacole’s. Source U is a view of one of the wards at the Scutari Hospital. However, considering its seamless nature I don’t place much weight on this source being very accurate, it seems to be more of a government propaganda painting than an accurate account of the truth. It reflects the idea that Nightingale did a brilliant job in turning Scutari from a rundown place in to an amazingly clean and professional hospital. Even though we know Nightingale did improve the cleanliness at Scutari, historical evidence shows that it was not to an extent that is shown in Source U. In reality, death rates in Scutari were incredibly high even with the improvements to some of its cleanliness as there was a huge lack of qualified surgeons and the fact the hospital was built over a cess pit meant conditions were never going to be great. Florence Nightingale even supports this view in her own biography, she wrote about the four miles of beds with merely 18 inches between them. Therefore, Source U can be seen as useless propaganda which built a false image of Nightingale being the angel of mercy in the Crimea. This led to the idea of Nightingale becoming the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ in the eyes of the public.
However, there are some valid points about Nightingales positive contribution at Scutari which can be used to help understand why this image was created around Nightingale. Nightingale was very persistent in writing letters to the British Government begging them for basic supplies such as bandages. The notion that she used her influential role to benefit the soldiers shows great concern and care for their welfare. It was also noted that she was very dedicated to her work and that she had “formidable gifts of organization”, as mentioned in source V. Hence there is no doubt that Nightingale was fully committed to her effort and showed great skill in the art of nursing. There is also the argument that she did significantly improve the Scutari hospital from her arrival in 1854. However obviously nowhere near the level as seen in source U. Despite all of this, the statistics on death rates and things of the like at Scutari are not in keeping with Nightingale being the angel of mercy.
In conclusion, it is clear that I agree with the view that Mary Seacole, and not Florence Nightingale, was the real angel of mercy, during the Crimean War. Although Nightingale was obviously committed to her role of running Scutari, she had no real effect on the moral of the soldiers like Seacole did. Despite rejection, Seacole showed dedication and determination to serve in the Crimea, she associated a lot more with the men, unlike Nightingale, and she administered treatment on the front line whilst in danger herself. Although Nightingale achieved many things after the Crimean War, like setting up her nursing school, and even though she highlighted the importance of nursing and the role of women in British medicine, during the actual war my judgment is that Mary Seacole was the real angel of mercy. Seacole was the real angel of mercy at the time regards to actual work during the war, however Nightingale’s reputation (the Lady with the Lamp) with the British public supersedes this. Florence Nightingale became the angel of mercy over time, but the truth is that it was really Mary Seacole.
