To what extent did the Crimean War see a change in the conduct of warfare?
Carl Von Clausewitz spoke of the contribution of nation, and how it can affect warfare. He spoke of the public opinion of a nation and how it can dramatically change the resolve, politics and potential of a war. The Crimean war was perhaps the first instance where the national opinion directly affected the nature of warfare and this would be a theme that would continue till present day. The refining of weaponry for more accuracy and rate of fire would be a significant enhancement to warfare, signalling a time for change for old head strong tactics. Despite these changes not all was progressive in Crimea, a combination of poor leadership, poorly co-ordinated logistics lead to unnecessary casualties such as the famous ‘Charge of the light brigade’ and worsening of the Chlorea breakout. Crimea was the rare exception in which three nations of Europe rarely conflicted and this war lead to advancements, static progress and regression of various fields.
The most significant advancement was in weaponry, with the creation of the Minnie bullet and the application of riffling. The Minnie bullets replaced old musket balls, with its smaller tighter fit lead to increased accuracy and the range of rifles. To further this improvement rifling, the spiral grooves inside the barrel, gave the Minnie bullets a spin improving accuracy. This meant the British infantry men were more likely to hit there targets and this significantly changed the formations the British kept. No longer did they keep deep squares to hold of against Calvary charges but assembled in long two men deep lines called the ‘Thin Red Line’. This formation was used in the battle of Balaclava in which the British where able to defeat a Russian Calvary attacks. The increased rate of fire and accuracy meant that the incoming charge was simply demolished. In contrast the Russians relied on dense columns which alas could not deal with...