Clothing: Where and Wear | History Today Clothing: Where and Wear By Christopher Winn Posted 8th October 2012, 9:46 James Potter Brown attended the Autumn Ball of the Tuxedo Club in New York State 126 years ago this October. He was wearing a new kind of short, tail-less evening jacket tailored for him by Henry Poole & Co of Savile Row, on the recommendation of Edward, Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, with whom Potter had been staying at Sandringham that summer. The jacket was admired by other members of the club, who had ‘dinner’ jackets made up for themselves for when they were dining at the club. One evening a group of members wore their new jackets to a dinner at Delmonico’s in New York City and upon being asked about their attire replied: ‘This is what we wear for dinner at the Tuxedo.’ From then on the dinner jacket was known in America as the Tuxedo or ‘Tux’. Here are some more articles of clothing named after people and places. Jersey: A knitted garment of wool or cotton with long sleeves, worn over the upper body as a pullover.

Since the Channel Island of Jersey was famous for its knitting trade in medieval times, especially for its dark blue, water-resistant sweaters, the name jersey became associated with all such knitted items of clothing. Cardigan: A type of sweater that opens down the front, as worn by the 7th Earl of Cardigan during the Crimean War. The earl, of course, took his name from Cardigan in Wales. Balaclava: A type of woollen headgear that covers the whole head with just an opening for the eyes and mouth, as worn by British troops at the Battle of Balaclava on October 25th, 1854, during the Crimean War. Balmoral: A type of hat as worn by Scottish Highland warriors. The name dates from the 19th century when the hat was traditionally worn as full dress head-gear at Balmoral Castle, the Deeside home of Queen Victoria. Mackintosh: A type of waterproof raincoat made from rubberised material, often abbreviated as ‘mac’, and named after the inventor, Charles Macintosh of Glasgow. The invention is spelt with a ‘k’, the inventor is not.

Ulster: A heavy herringbone or tweed overcoat with a cape and sleeves made in Belfast by the Ulster Overcoat Company, particularly popular in Victorian times. Sherlock Holmes frequently wore an Ulster, as did Billy Connolly in his role as Queen Victoria’s ghillie, John Brown, in the 1997 film Mrs Brown. What are the origins of the balaclava? - Facemasks What are the origins of the balaclava? Home > Blogs > Maskers & Mutsen > What are the origins of the balaclava? A balaclava is a very popular garment during winter, on winter sports vacations and as an attribute for a great number of sports. You can wear a balaclava in multiple ways, depending on the part of the face you want to be protected. Perhaps you didn’t realise that balaclavas have a very interesting history. As a matter of fact they were invented in the nineteenth century and used for the first time during the Crimean War!

Balaclavas A balaclava covers all of your head (except for the eyes), but you can wear it also like a cap, a scarf or you can protect only part of your face with this practical item. Although balaclavas were originally knitted from wool, a modern balaclava can consist of all kinds of material. This type of mask is also known as a ski or snowboard mask. Origin of the balaclava Balaclavas were used for the first time during the Crimean War (1853-1856). This was a war between the Russians on one side and the French, British, Sardinians and Ottomans on the other. In 1854 the battle of Balaclava was fought and after that battle “balaclava” became the name for this type of headgear. Especially the British soldiers were very glad with this new form of facial protection, because in the Ukraine – where the battle was fought – winters can be very harsh!

The importance of the balaclava After the Crimean War balaclavas stayed immensely popular and up till now they’re still in use for a lot of activities like winter sports and in various roles in the army. The same goes for motorcyclists who see the balaclava as a crucial part of their equipment. A biker often wears a balaclava underneath his crash helmet to expel cold, keep insects away from his face or to keep the lining of his helmet clean. Race car drivers are even required to wear a fire-resisting balaclava in case of an accident. Function of the balaclava You can use a balaclava for a variety of different purposes. You can wear it simply to keep your face warm during snowboarding or during a long hike through the mountains. A balaclava is however also excellently suited to protect you during dangerous sports or – like some medical experts claim – to prevent asthmatic attacks during physical exertion. Originally the balaclava was meant as a versatile garment with multifunctional uses. Notwithstanding all the modern adaptations, balaclavas are still valued as a very divers and practical article of dress.

Etymology of the balaclava As earlier mentioned, the Crimean War was fought out mainly on the Crimean peninsula, which at the moment is part of Ukraine. Balaclava (sometimes spelled as Balaklava) was a little town near the city of Sevastopol where during this war all balaclavas were designed, produced and distributed to the British troops. Are you looking for a balaclava? In that case check our extensive collection of balaclavas ! New products The Crimean War (1853-1856) The Crimean War (1853-1856) The Thin Red Line of the 93rd Highlanders of the British Army at the Battle of Balaclava Crimean War Summary | Crimean War Statistics and Data | Crimean War Sources The Crimean War was, in many senses a war fought throughout the world between seveal of the most powerful nations on Earth. The British Empire, the newly recreated French Empire, the Turkish Ottoman Empire, along witht the smaller Kingdom of Sardinia , battled against the huge Russian Empire.

While the bulk of the ground fighting took place in the Russian Crimean Peninsula (from whence the war's name originates), combat also occurred in the Ottoman-controlled Balkans, along the Russian-Ottoman Caucasus border region, in the Russian Far East, and naval combat took place in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the western Pacific Ocean region. The Crimean War was publicly about control of the "Holy Lands," but was really about geopolitics and diplomatic/military strategy. Russia sought to chip away at Ottoman control of the Balkans and other areas, and sought to use the sensitive issue of the Muslim Ottomans' control of Jerusalem and other areas holy to both Christians and Muslims. Historians consider the Crimean War to be one of the first truly modern wars for several reasons. New technologies, and new ways to apply existing technologies to warfare were pioneered in the Crimean war. These modernities includied the first tactical use of railways to transport troops, and the use of the electric telegraph to improve communication between the national leadership of Britan and France to the battlefield commanders in far-off Crimea.

The Crimean War also saw an improvement in the care of wounded and ill soldiers through the work of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole, two nurses who pioneered modern nursing practices in the British Army. In terms of new weapons technology, the British and French used the new rifled muskets, thereby increasing accuracy and the deadliness of their fire. The public back home in Britain were more engaged and informed in this war due to the work of what we now call the news media, in the written reports and photographs of combat submitted by journalists such as William Russell (for The Times newspaper) and Roger Fenton. The aftermath of the British Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War Crimean War Statistics and Data: The Crimean War Began: The Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia on October 23, 1853. France and Britain formally declared war on Russia on March 28, 1854. The Crimean War Ended: March 30, 1856, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The Crimean War Was Fought Between: The Allies (France, Britain, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire vs.

The Russian Empire The Crimean War Also Involved: Rebels in Greek-populated parts of the Ottoman Empire's Balkan territories staged rebellions against the Ottoman Turks during the Crimean War. In the Russian-occupied Caucusus region, Chechen rebels led by Imam Shamil rebelled in 1853 and 1854. The Crimean War Resulted In: Allied victory.

The Crimean War Casualties: French Crimean War Casualties: 95,000 dead (10,240 killed in action, 20,000 died of wounds, and some 60,000 died of disease) British Crimean War Casualties: 21,097 dead (2,755 killed in action, 2,019 died of wounds, and 16,323 died of disease) Sardinian Crimean War Casualties: 2,050 dead Ottoman Crimean War Casualties: 175,300 dead Russian Crimean War Casualties: 450,015 dead Facts About the Crimean War | Primary Facts Facts About the Crimean War Posted on Here are some facts about the Crimean War. Hopefully you’ll find them useful. The Crimean War took place between October 1853 and February 1856. The war was between Russia on one side and Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and the Kingdom of Sardinia on the other.

The causes of the war and the reasons for conflict are really complex, but in general terms, it was about who would control the territories of the Ottoman Empire. The British and Russians were disputing who would control the Dardanelles (a channel of water in Turkey connecting the Aegean Sea with the Sea of Marmara). Russia and France were in conflict over the guardianship of Palestinian holy sites, and Turkey was objecting to the demands made on it by Russia. Much of the fighting took place on the Crimean Peninsula (located in modern-day Ukraine , on the northern coast of the Black Sea. Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole nursed and cared for the wounded soldiers of the Crimean War. (Click on their names to find out more about them) The Battle of Balaclava (1854) is a particularly famous battle of the Crimean War because it featured the Charge of the Light Brigade in which the Light Cavalry Brigade, commanded by the Earl of Cardigan, charged a heavily defended part of the battlefield. The assault was very brave, but was unsuccessful and resulted in over 70% of the men losing their lives.

Peace talks began in 1856 and the war came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The Black Sea was named a neutral territory -no warships were allowed on it and no-one could build defences around the coast. It is estimated that more than 300,000 soldiers were killed during the war. The last survivor of the Crimean War was Timothy the Tortoise. Timothy was actually a female tortoise and she died in 2004 (aged about 165). She was ship’s mascot on the HMS Queen which took part in the bombardment of Sevastopol. wow this infomation is epic and helped lots with my history homework. Thankz This website is great easy to read helped with homework. Amazing thx 😀👍🏼 BBC - History - The Crimean War The Crimean War By Andrew Lambert Last updated 2011-03-29 The Crimean War, famed for the 'Charge of the Light Brigade', would fundamentally alter the balance of power in Europe and set the stage for World War One.

On this page Print this page The Vienna Settlement At the end of the Napoleonic wars, the Great Powers assembled in Vienna to restore the European state system – a delicate balance between the various major and minor powers that restrained aggression by the mighty, and upheld the rights of the weak. They hoped to build a permanent peace by suppressing revolutionary republics and upholding stable, orderly monarchies. Despite the divergent aims and ambitions of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Britain and France, a compromise was created, following the brief interruption of Napoleon’s ‘Hundred Days’ and the Battle of Waterloo. Nicholas decided to settle the ‘sick man of Europe’ by carving up the European part of Turkey. After the Treaty of Vienna the great powers enjoyed three decades of peace, years in which industrial, political, economic, social and nationalist pressures were suppressed or deflected. But eventually the Vienna system broke down. The initial problem was the weakness of the Ottoman-Turkish empire, and the opportunities this provided for European interference in support of the Christian populations. The new president of France, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, exploited Turkish weakness to secure concessions for the Catholic church in Palestine, hoping to gain conservative support for his planned coup d’etat.

When Tsar Nicholas I of Russia retaliated, sending a mission to recover Greek Orthodox rights, the Turks simply gave way to both parties, and hoped the issue would go away. Having established the Second Empire, (Louis) Napoleon III lost interest, but Nicholas decided to settle the ‘sick man of Europe’ once and for all. Expecting support from Prussia, Austria and Britain, he planned to carve up the European part of Turkey. He was mistaken, neither Britain nor Austria wanted to see Russia controlling the Dardanelles. Sensing an opening for a useful diplomatic success France joined Britain in support of Turkey, which rejected the Tsar’s outrageous terms. Top Road to war Istanbul at sunset © In July 1853, Russia occupied the Danubian Principalities (Moldavia and Walachia) to pressure Istanbul, but this threatened Austria’s economic lifeline - the Danube. For a ‘sick man’, Turkey proved remarkably dextrous and aggressive. Outwitting Austria, Britain and France, who still favoured a diplomatic settlement, they declared war in October 1853 and attacked the Russians. In late November, the Russian Black Sea fleet annihilated a Turkish squadron at Sinope.

Britain, anxious to secure her trade with Turkey and access to India by maintaining the Ottoman regime, saw this as an insult and popular opinion made a vigorous response inevitable. Britain and France demanded that Russia evacuate, setting their ultimatum to expire in late March 1854. The arriviste French empire, for its part, was desperate for military glory and revenge for its defeat at the hands of Russia in 1812. For them, the Ottoman-Turkish empire was incidental. Britain and France demanded that Russia evacuate the Danubian Principalities, setting their ultimatum to expire in late March 1854 - the timing determined by the break up of the Baltic ice fields off Reval where the British hoped to annihilate part of the Russian Baltic fleet. Britain always saw its main instrument for the coercion of Russia to be naval force in the north. After all, Russia’s capital was on the Baltic littoral, close to her other great security concern, Poland. The ultimatum expired and although the harbour at Reval was empty, the powerful Anglo-French fleet nonetheless took command of the Baltic, destroying the key fortress of Bomarsund in August 1854.

Top Outbreak of war British troops are cheered as they set off for the Crimea © At the outbreak of war, an allied army of 60,000 was already in Turkey to defend Istanbul. Austria then joined French and British demands that Russia evacuate the Danubian Principalities, whereupon Nicholas I actually agreed, thereby calling the allies' bluff. This forced the allied army, which had moved up to Varna on the Bulgarian coast, to change its strategy. By early August Austrian troops had created a neutral buffer between the combatants. With a powerful force in position, but ravaged by a cholera epidemic, the allies adopted a British plan to land in the Crimea, assault the naval base at Sevastopol and destroy the fleet and dockyard. The Russians were so frightened by the cold courage of the British troopers, they never again dared face them in the open field. They expected this would take 12 weeks. In the event in took twelve months, three major land battles and countless actions between two large and well equipped armies deeply entrenched just outside the city.

The battle of the Alma on 20 September 1854 was the first in which new rifled muskets were used, although only by the British and French. This advantage, in concert with superior skill, initiative and numbers, enabled the allies to drive the Russians out of a strong position north of Sevastopol. They failed to follow up the blow by attacking Sevastopol directly, largely to avoid a rupture in allied command system, and marched around the city to begin a regular siege from the south. This allowed the Russians time to fortify the city, and stage two flank attacks from their field army, based in the central Crimea. The first, the Battle of Balaclava on 24 October, ended with the legendary British ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’, which was, although misguided, an astonishingly successful operation of war, with relatively light casualties - only 118 killed out of 620. The Russians were so frightened by the cold courage of the British troopers, they never again dared face them in the open field. On 5 November, a major Russian attack at the Inkerman was beaten back with massive losses by isolated British infantry units.

A week later the weather broke, sinking transport ships, ruining vital roads and bringing the campaign to a standstill. Over the winter, the allies were joined by the Italian kingdom of Sardinia, which sent a useful army to secure British and French support for the expulsion of Austria from Italy. Top Treaty of Paris The 'Valley of the Shadow of Death', near the location of the Charge of the Light Brigade © In the spring of 1855, the allies, heavily reinforced with French troops and employing improved logistics, began to batter their way into Sevastopol, and British gunboats cut Russian supply lines across the Sea of Azov. After a last despairing counter attack in August, the Russians were resigned to defeat and evacuated the city following the storming of the vital Malakhov bastion by French troops on 9 September 1855. With that, the allies settled down to destroy the docks and tinker at the margins of the Russian empire. The Russians, for their part, took the Turkish city of Kars and held off Circassian Shi'ite rebels. The Baltic, where so many key events took place, was ignored, because the casualties were minimal.

In the Baltic, the allies had demolished the fortress and arsenal of Sweaborg, outside Helsinki, in August, and threatened Cronstadt and St Petersburg. With France anxious to end the war and harvest the prestige of victory, Britain needed a strategy to ensure he Russians accepted the demilitarisation of the Black Sea and the European settlement of the Turkish question. The massing of naval forces for an attack on Cronstadt-St Petersburg backed up allied demands, and in early 1856 Russia accepted an Austro-French initiative. Further afield, the allies had also attacked Russia in the White Sea and the Pacific, but it was the heroism and blunders of the Crimea, along with the pioneering nursing work of Florence Nightingale and others, that came to dominate the literature. The Baltic, where so many key events took place, was ignored, because the casualties were minimal.

At the Treaty of Paris, signed on March 30, 1856, Russia returned southern Bessarabia and the mouth of the Danube to Turkey; Moldavia, Walachia and Serbia were placed under an international rather than a Russian guarantee; the Sultan promised to respect the rights of his Christian subjects; and the Russians were forbidden to maintain a navy on the Black Sea, or refortify Bomarsund. Top Human cost The Victoria Cross © In military terms, the war was a midway point between Waterloo and World War One. The armies employed Napoleonic uniforms and tactics, but improved weapons. It emphasised the overriding importance of logistics, entrenchments and firepower, anticipating the experience of the American Civil War (1861-1865). In addition it saw the first military use of many innovations, such as armoured warships, the intercontinental electric telegraph, submarine mines and war photography. American experts were quick to visit the Crimean, and published a full report on ‘The Art of War in Europe’ in 1861, just in time to shape their own conflict. The human aspect of the conflict was recognised in Britain by the introduction of the Victoria Cross.

The human cost was immense, 25,000 British, 100,000 French and up to a million Russians died, almost all of disease and neglect. The human aspect of the conflict was recognised in Britain by the introduction of the highest decoration for gallantry. Unlike other medals, the Victoria Cross was awarded to officers and men without distinction. It has long been believed that all Victoria Crosses are made from a captured Russian bronze gun, seized at Sevastopol, but the cannon in question was in fact Chinese. Top Media coverage Roger Fenton's van and assistant © This was the first media war, typified by Times correspondent William Howard Russell, who sent first-hand dispatches from the front line. His reports, often exaggerated or partial, caught the attention of the public, and played a large part in bringing down the prime minister, Lord Aberdeen’s government in January 1855. Roger Fenton’s photographs brought the Crimean battlefields to life, while the electric telegraph enabled news to travel across the continent in hours, not weeks. War became much more immediate - a massive leap forward on the way to our age of instant global coverage by satellite. William Howard Russell refused to become an 'embedded' journalist.

Many officers regretted the presence of reporters, regarding them as a source of security leaks, and tried to control the news. But it was without success. To use the modern parlance, Russell refused to become an 'embedded' journalist. Reports of the suffering of the sick and wounded - and far more were sick than wounded - inspired a number of organisations and individuals to set out for the war zone to minister to the soldiers. Florence Nightingale became national heroine, although her work was essentially hospital management, while Mary Seacole combined a profitable canteen business in the Crimean with combat nursing. By 1856, Britain cared about the health of its soldiers and Florence Nightingale continued to campaign tirelessly to improve their conditions. Top 'Cold War' The British had waged a limited war, relying on naval power, economic blockade, allies and industrial output to secure their aims. In mid-1855, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston had a choice between a limited war and a 'total war' effort to destroy Russia in the field. Total war, of the kind waged during the world wars, would however require widespread social and political reform. He elected instead to limit the war and preserve the existing system.

The Ottoman empire, excluded from the Vienna settlement of 1815, was brought into the European political system. Only Britain had the luxury of such choices. Even so, this conflict was a major success in the 19th century equivalent of the Cold War - the Anglo-Russian rivalry for global empire and influence. Russia would pose no further threat to British interests for close on 30 years. The Crimean War was also a watershed in Western involvement in the Middle East. The Ottoman empire, excluded from the Vienna settlement of 1815, was brought into the European political system. At the same time, the war continued the process of dismantling the Ottoman’s multi-ethnic, multi-faith Eurasian Empire, developing nationalist ambitions in various Ottoman provinces, from Bulgaria to Arabia – ambitions that would exploited in World War One, when new nations and new boundaries would be drawn. The current conflict in Chechnya is another legacy of the much misunderstood Crimean War. Top A new Europe British soldiers go 'over the top' in World War One © More fundamentally, the Crimean War witnessed the collapse of the Vienna Settlement, the system that had enabled Austria, Britain, France, Prussia and Russia to cooperate and maintain peace for three decades.

Russia lost the war and with it the myth of Russian might, the legacy of 1812, was shattered. The other big loser would be neutral Austria. Within a decade it had been expelled from territory held in Germany and Italy and forced to enter into a dual-monarchy with Hungary, formerly a subject province. Multinational empires were on notice - the 19th century was an age of nations. Britain was unable to balance the new system, and the European Great Powers finally returned to war in 1914. The shock of defeat forced Russia to adopt a programme of sweeping internal reforms and industrialisation under Tsar Alexander II, who came to throne in early 1855. Elsewhere, Russia’s defeat facilitated the unification of Germany under Prussian control. While France became the dominant military land power in Europe, this was a temporary situation and one that Prussia (Germany) overturned in 1870-1871. Sardinian intervention ensured the kingdom a central role in the unification of Italy. The Crimean War laid the foundations for two powerful new nation states - Italy and Germany - states that would be united and secured in short, limited conflicts.

The new six-power European system proved less stable than its predecessor, while the expectation that political and diplomatic aims could be satisfied by war led these states to adopt ever closer alliances. Ultimately, Britain was unable to balance the new system and the European Great Powers finally returned to war in 1914, ninety-nine years after the Vienna Settlement. The Crimean War was a decisive turning point in European history, marking the end of the Vienna settlement, and the beginning of a new system.

The Charge by M Adkin (Leo Cooper, 1996) The Crimean War, 1853-1856 by W Baumgart (Arnold, 1999) Britain and the Crimea, 1855-56: Problems of War and Peace by J B Conacher (St Martin's, 1988) Russia’s Crimean War by J S Curtiss (Duke UP, 1979) The Origins of the Crimean War by David M Goldfrank (Longman, 1994) The Crimean War: British Grand Strategy, 1853-56 by Andrew D Lambert (Manchester University Press, 1990) 'I have done my Duty': Florence Nightingale in the Crimean War, 1854-56 by Florence Nightingale, (Manchester University Press, 1987) The Banner of Battle: the Story of the Crimean War by Alan Palmer (St Martin's Press, 1987) The Origins of the Crimean Alliance by A P Saab (Virginia UP, 1977) .

Austria, Great Britain and the Crimean War: The destruction of the European Concert by P W Schroeder (Cornell UP, 1972) Top About the author Andrew Lambert is Laughton professor of naval history at King's College, London. His three-part television series 'War at Sea' was broadcast on the BBC in 2004. History Ireland Published in 18th–19th - Century History , Features , Issue 1 (Spring 2003) , Volume 11 The 50th Foot, the first to leave for the Crimea, marching through Kingstown (Díºn Laoghaire) on their way to board the troopship Cumbria on 24 February 1854. (Illustrated London News, 4 March 1854) In the light of recent events in Palestine, it is interesting to note that a dispute over the control of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem was one of the immediate causes of the Crimean War of 1854–6.

In the summer of 1850 Orthodox and Roman Catholic monks clashed over the question of who should control the church, several Orthodox monks being killed as a result. Tsar Nicholas demanded to be appointed the protector of all Christians in the Ottoman Empire, a demand to which the sultan could not, of course, accede. By July 1853 Russia had invaded Turkey’s Danubian principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia), and France and Britain, fearing Russian control of the eastern end of the Mediterranean and also further expansion into their own territories in North Africa and India, promised to go to the aid of Turkey. After the failure of diplomatic efforts, France and Britain declared war on Russia on 28 March 1854, Turkey joining the Anglo-French alliance on 10 April. In January 1855 Sardinia-Piedmont joined the war on the allied side and, while the conflict was centred on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, there was further fighting in the Baltic and naval activity in the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Indeed, many Crimean historians now argue that the Crimean War was the first ‘world war’, while the trench fighting around Sevastapol foreshadowed later events in World War I. Attitudes to the war in Ireland What was the impact of this European war on Ireland? One could well imagine that Ireland, just a few years after the Famine and the failed Young Ireland rebellion of 1848, would regard the war with a sense of sullen disinterest. Newspaper accounts of the period, however, suggest the contrary. In the early months of 1854 Ireland was gripped by a kind of war fever as regiments departed and young men rushed to join up to fight in a war which, it was assumed, would be over in a few months. Indeed, in scenes that mirrored later events in 1914, public enthusiasm bordered on hysteria as the troops left for the east. Lieutenant-General Sir George de Lacy Evans, from Moig, County Limerick, distinguished himself at the battles of the Alma and Inkerman. Many regiments left before war was even declared as a conflict was deemed inevitable.

On 24 February 1854 the 50th Foot, commanded by Wexford-born Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Waddy, left Dublin. The Dublin Evening Post describes the regiment’s departure as it marched from the Royal Barracks (later Collins Barracks) to Westland Row railway station. Such scenes were repeated in all of the towns and cities of Ireland: The bands of three other regiments of the garrison led them along the line of route, one of the finest in Europe; and vast crowds accompanied them, vociferously cheering, while from the windows handkerchiefs and scarves were waved, and every token of a ‘God Speed’ displayed. As the regiment took the north side of the long and splendid line of quays for which Dublin is so well celebrated, the bands struck up ‘Old Lang Syne’, which the citizens took as a compliment, as the ‘Blind Half-Hundredth’, as the regiment used to be called, had often shared their hospitality. As they came to the Queen’s Bridge, they played ‘A good time coming’, the bands took up the concluding line of each verse, as the instrumental music died away, and sang it.

This vocal repetition was quite in unison with the habits and tastes of the Dubliners, and old Eblana echoed with the shouts of the people. When the regiment arrived at Essex Bridge, it crossed, passing up Parliament Street, where the Exchange steps presented a splendid position for the sight, and from which the cheering and waving of handkerchiefs was most enlivening as the corps turned down Dame Street. When they arrived in College Green, instead of wheeling to the left between the Bank of Ireland and the statue of William III, they kept to the right of ‘King William’ and leaving the university to the left, proceeded up Nassau Street and Leinster Street to Westland Row, affording by the longer route the better opportunity to the people to display their feelings.

It also gratified the gownsmen who, at the front of Trinity College, welcomed the soldiery by waving of caps and shillelaghs, and various original demonstrations of good will, retired through the grand entrance into College Park, and climbing the railings, continued their healthy plaudits along the line of Nassau Street, and then penetrating to the rear of the College grounds by the school of Anatomy, met the procession again in Westland Row.’ The Irish in the Crimea This public interest in the regiments departing for the war is perhaps not surprising when one considers the large number of Irishmen who were serving in the British army at this time. Irish soldiers made up around 30–35 per cent of the British army in 1854, and it is estimated that over 30,000 Irish soldiers served in the Crimea. There were some prominent men among them. General Sir George De Lacy Evans, from Moig in County Limerick, and General Sir John Lysaght Pennefather, from County Tipperary, both distinguished themselves at the battles of the Alma and Inkerman. Irish-born soldiers and seamen won 28 Victoria Crosses.

Master’s mate Charles Davis Lucas, from Poyntzpass in County Armagh, was awarded the first-ever Victoria Cross for throwing overboard a live shell that landed on the deck of HMS Hecla during a bombardment of the Bomarsund fortress in the Baltic in June 1854. Alongside this Irish involvement in the military, there was a large Irish civilian contingent in the Crimea. In the years following the Napoleonic wars the British government had run down the army medical and supply services. On the outbreak of the war a call was made for volunteers for both the supply service (the Commissariat) and the medical services. Several Irish doctors volunteered to work in the hospitals at Scutari and Balaclava, where Irish nurses and nursing sisters also worked. There was a total lack of Roman Catholic chaplains, and several priests—including two Dublin-based Jesuits, Father William Ronan and Father Patrick Duffy—volunteered to serve in the Crimea.

Contemporary illustration of Charles Davis Lucas, from Poyntzpass, County Armagh, throwing overboard a live shell that landed on the deck of HMS Hecla during a bombardment of the Bomarsund fortress in the Baltic in June 1854, for which he was awarded the first-ever Victoria Cross. Irish engineers and navvies also worked on the new roads and the railway in the Crimea. The chief engineers of both the road and railway projects, William Doyne and James Beatty, were Irish. One of the most unusual aspects of this Irish civilian involvement was the participation of members of the Irish Constabulary, who worked as military police with the Mounted Staff Corps and also with the Commissariat Department. In January 1855 a letter written by Sub-Constable Richard Bradshaw from the Irish Constabulary barracks in Kilkenny was published in The Times.

In it he described the misery of camp life at Balaclava: The weather, as yet, is not colder than in Ireland, but when a man gets wet to the skin, he has no place to go to but a cold tent; and when he gets up in the morning he must go about collecting wood to boil his breakfast; which consists of green coffee, which must be roasted on the stable shovel, pounded and thrown into the water; that, with some biscuit, is our breakfast; biscuit and salt beef for dinner; and supper same as breakfast. We get two glasses of rum every day, which is chiefly the thing that keeps life in us, but we hope it won’t be always as bad as it is now. If Sevastapol was once taken our condition would be better. Why, if it is not taken, and that the troops have to winter here, history will record another 1812. Some of the Mounted Staff Corps are in excellent health and spirits and we hope, with the Divine assistance, to rub out and return to our native country again. Hundreds of Irishwomen also travelled to the Crimea and their experiences have not been the subject of sustained research.

Each regiment allowed a small number of the men’s wives to accompany their husbands to the Crimea. They washed and cooked for the men and, after each battle, helped with the wounded. Indeed, it could be argued that the army wives were used to help redress the deficiencies in the support and medical services. Margaret Kirwin, the wife of Private John Kirwin of the 19th Foot, later described her experiences after landing at Varna: We marched on up to Devna and remained for a fortnight. There I bought a little wash tub, and carried my cooking things in it. This was the whole of my baggage which I carried on my head during the march. I also had a water bottle and a haversack to carry biscuits in. The priest and minister had to carry their own bottles and sacks, like the soldiers. On the march the men kept falling out from the heat and they kept me busy giving them drinks. When we got to Monastne the [washing] duty of No. 5 Company fell to me; there were 101 in it and the clothes were brought by its transport horse. I stood in the midst of the stream from 6 am to 7 pm washing.

The Colour Sergeant would not keep account and some men paid and some did not, so that I was left with very little for my trouble. Irish war correspondents The Crimean War was also significant as it was the first conflict to be covered by war correspondents, the most prominent being the Dublin-born William Howard Russell. The war is unique in the history of war-reporting as the correspondents operated without the restrictions imposed by any form of censorship. It was not until late in the war that the military commanders in the Crimea began to censor their despatches, and never again would war correspondents enjoy such freedom. Russell’s reports in The Times often told of the shambolic supply and medical systems and resulted in severe public criticism for Lord Aberdeen’s administration and also the military commanders. In a despatch of September 1854 he wrote: The management is infamous and the contrast offered by our proceedings to the conduct of the French most painful. Could you believe it: the sick have not a bed to lie upon? They are landed and thrown into a rickety hut without a chair or a table in it.

The French with their ambulances, excellent commissariat staff and boulangerie etc., in every respect are immeasurably our superiors. While these things go on, Sir George Brown only seems anxious about the men being clean-shaved, their necks well stiffened and waist belts tight. For the first time the public was given regular information about the management—or, in this case, mismanagement—of a war, and Russell’s despatches served to destroy the reputation of the British commander, Lord Raglan, while also playing a part in the fall of Lord Aberdeen’s administration in January 1855. Only a small number of war correspondents worked in the Crimea, and it is interesting to note that there were two other Irishmen among them—Edwin Lawrence Godkin, born at Moyne, Co. Wicklow, and James Carlile McCoan, born in Dunlow, Co. Tyrone. Both Godkin and McCoan wrote for the Daily News. Post-war celebrations In view of this high level of Irish involvement in the Crimea, in both the military and civilian capacities, the intense interest of the Irish public in the war is perhaps less surprising.

Many families must have had members in the Crimea serving in some capacity. The work of war correspondents such as William Howard Russell fed this public demand for information, and the large number of Crimean War ballads in Irish collections is a further manifestation of this interest. When the south side of Sevastapol was captured in September 1855 a series of celebrations took place around the country, and these were repeated when an armistice was signed in Paris in February 1856. William Howard Russell, Dublin-born London Times correspondent, photographed in the Crimea by Roger Fenton. Perhaps the most extravagant demonstration of the Irish public’s enthusiasm for the war was the Grand Crimean Banquet held in Dublin in 1856. Over £3600 was raised by public subscription, and 4000 Crimean veterans and 1000 members of the public gathered in Stack A in the Custom House Docks on 22 October 1856 for what must surely have been the largest-ever formal dinner in Ireland. Three tons of hot potatoes were sent in four vans, which pulled up to the hall ‘steaming like locomotives’.

The drivers of these vans were ‘literally enveloped in clouds of steam’, much to the delight of the small children who were looking on. A vast amount of food and drink was consumed, including 250 hams, 230 legs of mutton, 500 meat pies, 100 venison pasties, 100 rice puddings, 260 plum puddings, 200 turkeys, 200 geese, 250 joints of beef, 100 capons and chickens, and 2000 two-pound loaves. The Dublin Grand Crimean Banquet, 22 October 1856-5000 soldiers, seamen and guests gathered in a bonded warehouse (Stack A, Customs House docks) to celebrate the end of the war. (Illustrated London News, 8 November 1856) Each soldier was given a quart of porter and a pint of port or sherry. Such a conspicuous display seems incredible when one considers that just ten years previously Ireland was being ravaged by famine.

There are also physical reminders of the war in Ireland in the shape of monuments and even Russian trophy guns, such as the cannons on the steps of the courthouse in Tralee, on the pier in Dun Laoghaire and on the Armaghdown Bridge in Newry. Yet despite the public enthusiasm displayed, the Crimean War has been largely overlooked by Irish historians. Usually just remembered for events such as the charge of the Light Brigade and the work of Florence Nightingale, the war was, without doubt, one of the major episodes in Irish history in the mid-nineteenth century. Not only was there a high level of Irish involvement, but the work of the Irish-born correspondents ensured that the public was fully informed of events in the Crimea. While the end of the war was hailed by the government as a great victory, the public was now fully aware of the inadequacies of the army’s commanders and organisation. The majority of the British army’s 21,097 fatal casualties had succumbed to disease, only 4774 being killed in action or dying of their wounds. Irish names feature prominently on the casualty lists, and the Irish public must have come to realise that most of these deaths could have been avoided.

Towards the end of the war newspaper reports in Ireland began to sound more war-weary, and it became increasingly obvious that thousands of Irishmen had paid for the army’s lack of organisation with their lives. David Murphy is an editorial assistant with the Dictionary of Irish Biography, Royal Irish Academy. Further reading:

Question: What type of headgear was named after a battle in the Crimean War?
Answer: Balaclava