However, in spite of all these disastrous campaigns, Nicholas had not

lost sight of his most important task--that of consolidating internal

order by reforms. His attention had been directed above all to the

administration, from the heart of which he had sought especially to

exterminate corruption with a severity and courage proportioned to the

immensity of the evil. Then he had announced his firm desire to perfect

the laws, and had charged Count Speranski to work at them under his

personal direction. The digest (_svod_) promulgated in 1833 was the

first fruit of these efforts and was followed by various special codes.

Finally, turning his attention to public instruction, he had assigned to

it as a basis the national traditions and religion and charged Uvarov,

president of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, a man of learning and

talent, to animate it with this spirit, so hostile to the ideas of the

west, but--let us say it at once--better suited to the real needs of the

country.

Nicholas, allowing himself to be ruled by this spirit, plunged further

and further into a system which, though contrary to that of Peter the

Great, we do not pretend absolutely to condemn on that account, and which

the marquis de Custine[e] has highly extolled in his celebrated book,

_La Russie en 1839_. “The emperor Nicholas,” he said, “thought that the

day of mere seeming was past for Russia, and that the whole structure of

civilisation was to remake in that country. He has relaid the foundations

of society. Peter, called the Great, would have overturned it a second

time in order to rebuild it: Nicholas is more skilful. I am struck

with admiration for this man who is secretly struggling, with all the

strength of his will, against the work of Peter the Great’s genius. He

is restoring individuality to a nation which has strayed for more than a

century in the paths of imitation.”

Without ceasing to borrow diligently from Europe her inventions and arts,

her progress in industry, in administration, in the conduct of land and

sea armies--in a word, all the material improvements which she devises

and realises, he endeavoured to close Russia to her ideas on philosophy,

politics, and religion. He condemned exotic tendencies as pernicious

to his states, and, without depriving himself of the services of the

Germans, the principal depositaries of superior enlightenment in that

country, as yet only imperfectly moulded to civilisation, he relied by

preference on the party of the old Russians, which included the clergy,

whom he treated with respect in spite of the inferiority of their

position. Nationality, autocracy, orthodoxy--these three words, taken as

the national watchword, sum up the ideas to which he subordinated his

internal policy. The expression, _Holy Russia_, which has been the object

of such profound astonishment to the Latin world, reflects also this

spirit.

He surrounded with great solemnity those acts which he performed in

his quality of head of the church in his own country, and posed as the

protector of all his co-religionists in Moldavia, Wallachia, Servia,

Montenegro, and other countries. Like his ancestors of preceding

dynasties, he adorned himself on solemn occasions with a gold cross which

he wore diagonally on his breast. This bias was summed up in the new

word _cæsaropapism_. He regarded with special enthusiasm that one act

on account of which, the accusation of religious intolerance was fixed

upon him--an accusation justified by many of his deeds. In consequence of

the decisions of the council of Florence, and up till 1839, there were

in Russia 1,500,000 United Greeks, subjected to the papal obedience.

At their head was the archbishop, sometimes the metropolitan, of White

Russia, and the bishop, or archbishop, of Lithuania. In 1839 these two

prelates, having met in conjunction with a third, at Polotsk, the seat

of the first of these eparchies, had signed a document in which they

expressed the wish to unite, they and their church, with the national

and primitive church, and prayed the emperor to sanction this union.

Nicholas referred the matter to the holy synod, and, the latter having

with great eagerness signified its approval of the act, he sanctioned

it in his turn, adding these words beneath his signature: “I thank God

and I authorize it.” It is well known to what complaints on the part of

the pope this suppression of the uniate Greek church soon afterward gave

rise.[c]

UNVEILING OF THE MONUMENT AT BORODINO

The emperor Nicholas was fond of great gatherings of the troops, and an

occasion for such was afforded in 1839 by the unveiling of the monument

erected on the battle-field of Borodino. The thought of this muster of

the troops had already occupied the emperor’s mind since 1838, but at

that time he had in view not merely the participation of the troops in

manœuvres and exercises, but the immortalisation of the tradition of the

valorous exploits of the Russian army in the defence of the fatherland

against the invasion of Napoleon. On the day of the unveiling of the

Borodino monument, August 26th, 120,000 men were gathered around it.

The emperor invited to take part in the solemnities all the surviving

comrades of Kutuzov and many foreign guests.

On the anniversary of the battle of Borodino a great review of all the

troops assembled on this historic spot took place. In the morning, before

the review began, the following order of his imperial majesty, written by

the emperor’s hand, was read to the troops:

“Children. Before you stands the monument which bears witness to the

glorious deeds of your comrades. Here, on this same spot, 27 years ago,

the arrogant enemy dreamed of conquering the Russian army which fought

in defence of the faith, the czar and the fatherland. God punished the

foolish: the bones of the insolent invaders were scattered from Moscow

to the Niemen--and we entered Paris. The time has now come to render

glory to a great exploit. And thus, may the eternal memory of the emperor

Alexander I be immortal to us: for by his firm will Russia was saved; may

the glory of your comrades who fell as heroes be also everlasting, and

may their exploits serve as an example to us and our further posterity.

You will ever be the hope and support of your sovereign and our common

mother Russia.”

This order aroused the greatest enthusiasm amongst the troops, but it was

highly displeasing to the foreigners; it appeared to them strange and

almost offensive, they considered that “in reality it was nothing but

high sounding phrases.”

Three days later the emperor Nicholas had the battle of Borodino

reproduced. After the unveiling of the Borodino monument the laying of

the first stone of the cathedral of Christ the Saviour took place in

Moscow. This solemnity brought to a close the commemoration of the year

1812 which had delivered Russia from a foreign invasion and was the dawn

of the liberation of Europe.

The year 1839 was remarkable for yet another important event: the reunion

of the Uniates.[68]

DEATH OR RETIREMENT OF THE OLD MINISTERS

Little by little the workers in the political arena of Alexander’s reign

had disappeared. Count V. P. Kotchulzi, who had been president of the

senate since 1827 and afterwards chancellor of the interior, died in 1834

and had been replaced by N. N. Novseltsev as president of the senate.

After his death the emperor Nicholas appointed to that office Count I. V.

Vasiltchikov, who remained at his post until his death, which took place

in 1847.

The emperor was above all grieved at the death of Speranski in the

year 1837. He recognised this loss as irreparable, and in speaking of

him said: “Not everyone understood Speranski or knew how to value him

sufficiently; at first I myself was in this respect perhaps more in

fault than anyone. I was told much of his liberal ideas; calumny even

touched him in reference to the history of December 26th. But afterwards

all these accusations were scattered like dust, and I found in him the

most faithful, devoted and zealous servant, with vast knowledge and vast

experience. Everyone now knows how great are my obligations and those

of Russia to him--and the calumniators are silenced. The only reproach

I could make him was his feeling against my late brother; but that too

is over”.... The emperor stopped without finishing his thought, which

probably contained a secret, involuntary justification of Speranski.

In 1844 died another statesman who was still nearer and dearer to the

emperor Nicholas; this was Count Benkendorv of whom the emperor said: “He

never set me at variance with anyone, but reconciled me with many.” His

successor in the direction of the third section was Count A. F. Orlov;

he remained at this post during all the succeeding years of the emperor

Nicholas’ reign.

In that same year Count E. F. Kankrin who had been minister of finance

even under Alexander I was obliged on account of ill health to leave

the ministry of which he had been head during twenty-two years. As his

biographer justly observes Kankrin left Russia as an heritage: “Well

organised finances, a firm metal currency, and a rate of exchange

corresponding with the requirements of the country. Russia was in

financial respects a mighty power whose credit it was impossible to

injure. And all this was attained without any considerable loans, and

without great increase in taxes, by the determination, the thrift and

the genius of one man, who placed the welfare of the nation above all

considerations and understood how to serve it.”

But at the same time it must not be forgotten that all these brilliant

results were attainable only because behind Count Kankrin stood the

emperor Nicholas. The enemies of the minister and of his monetary

reforms were many; but the snares they laid were destroyed before

the all powerful will of a person who never wavered. This time that

inflexible will was directed in the right path, and the results showed

unprecedented financial progress, in spite of the three wars which it had

been impossible for Russia to avoid, despite the ideally peace-loving

disposition of her ruler; and to these calamities must be added also

the cholera and bad harvests. Kankrin’s resignation was accompanied by

important consequences; he was replaced by the incapable Vrontchenko,

while Nicholas took the finances of the empire into his own hands, as he

had previously acted regarding the other branches of the administration

of the state.

Among the old-time servitors of Alexander I, Prince P. M. Volkonski

remained longest in office. He lived until he attained the rank of

field-marshal and died in 1852, having filled the office of minister of

the court during twenty-five years.

One of the younger workers of the Alexandrine period, P. D. Kisselev,

former chief of the staff of the second army, attained to unusual

eminence in the reign of the emperor Nicholas. In 1825 his star nearly

set forever, but soon it shone again with renewed brilliancy and on his

return from the Danubian provinces, which he had administered since 1829,

Kisselev was created minister and count. “You will be my chief of the

staff for the peasant department,” said the emperor to him, and with this

object, on the 13th of January, 1838 there was established the ministry

of state domains, formed from the department which had until that time

been attached to the ministry of finance.

GREAT FIRE IN THE WINTER PALACE

A disastrous fire at the Winter Palace began on the evening of the 29th

of December, 1837, and no human means were able to stay the flames; only

the Hermitage with its collection of ancient and priceless treasures was

saved. The ruins of the palace continued to burn during three days and

nights. The emperor and the imperial family took up their abode in the

Anitchkov palace.

The rebuilding of the Winter Palace upon its previous plan was begun

immediately; the palace was consecrated on the 6th of April, 1839 and the

emperor and his family were installed there as previously. As a token of

gratitude to all those who had taken part in the rebuilding of the palace

a medal was struck with the inscription: “I thank you.”--“Work overcomes

everything.”

On the last day of the Easter holidays the emperor Nicholas resolved to

allow visitors access to all the state rooms, galleries, etc.; and in

that one day as many as 200,000 persons visited the palace between the

hours of six in the evening and two in the morning.

Twice the emperor and his family passed in all directions through the

palace that was thronged with the public. An eye-witness writes that

“the public by prolonging their visitation for seven hours so filled the

palace with damp, steamy, suffocating air that the walls, the columns,

and carvings on the lower windows sweated, and streams of damp poured

down on to the parquet flooring and spoiled everything, while the marble

changed to a dull yellowish hue.” 35,000 paper rubles were required to

repair the damage. But the matter did not terminate with this; during one

night that summer, fortunately while the imperial family were staying

at Peterhov, the ceiling in the saloon of St. George fell down with the

seventeen massive lustres depending from it.

THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CORONATION OF NICHOLAS I (1851 A.D.)

[Sidenote: [1851 A.D.]]

In August 1851, upon the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary

of his coronation the emperor Nicholas left St. Petersburg for

Moscow, accompanied by his family. For the first time the journey was

accomplished by the newly completed Moscow railway, constructed in

accordance with the will of the emperor, and in opposition to the desires

of many of his enlightened contemporaries. The opening of the railway to

the public followed only on the 13th of November. In Moscow the emperor

was met by Field-marshal Paskevitch, prince of Warsaw. On the eve of

the festivities in honour of the anniversary of the coronation Nicholas

visited the field-marshal, and addressed the following memorable words to

him:

“To-morrow will complete twenty-five years of my reign--a reign which

you, Ivan Feodorovitch, have made illustrious by your valiant service

to Russia. It was under sorrowful prognostications that I ascended

the throne of Russia and my reign had to begin with punishments and

banishments. I did not find around the throne persons who could guide

the czar--I was obliged to create men; I had none devoted to me. Affairs

in the east required the appointment there of a man of your intellect,

of your military capacity, of your will. My choice rested on you.

Providence itself directed me to you. You had enemies: in spite of all

that was said against you, I held fast to you, Ivan Feodorovitch. You

proved, commander, that I was right. Hardly had affairs in the east

quieted down when my empire was overtaken by a public calamity--the

cholera. The people ascribe every misfortune to the person who governs.

God knows how much suffering this national affliction cost me. The war

with Poland was another grievous trial. Russian blood was shed because

of our errors or because of chastisement sent from above. Our affairs

were in a bad way. And again I had resource to you, Ivan Feodorovitch, as

the only means of salvation for Russia; and again you did not betray my

trust, again you exalted my empire. By your twenty years’ administration

of the Polish land you have laid the foundation for the happiness of

two kindred yet hostile elements. I hope that the Russian and the Pole

will constitute one Russian Empire--the Slavonic Empire; and that your

name will be preserved in history beside the name of Nicholas. It is

not so long ago--when western Europe was agitated by aspirations after

wild, unbridled freedom; when the people overthrew lawful authority and

thrones; when I decided to give a helping hand to my brother and ally,

the monarch of Austria--that you, commander, led my soldiers to a new

warfare: you tamed the hydra of rebellion. In six weeks you had finished

the war in Hungary, you supported and strengthened the tottering throne

of Austria, Ivan Feodorovitch. You are the glory of my twenty-five years’

reign. You are the history of the reign of Nicholas I.”

THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS’ VIEWS ON LOUIS NAPOLEON

When Prince Louis Napoleon had accomplished his _coup d’état_ of the

2nd of December, 1851, and the restoration of the second empire was to

be expected, the emperor Nicholas, judging by a letter which he had

received from Frederick William IV, said: “Before the end of next year

Louis Napoleon will become our colleague. Let him become what he likes,

even the great mufti, if it pleases him, but to the title of Emperor or

King I do not think he will be so imprudent as to aspire.” According to

the emperor’s opinion, as soon as Louis Napoleon desired to make himself

emperor he would become a usurper, because he did not possess the divine

right--he would be emperor in fact but never by right; in a word, “a

second Louis Philippe, less the odious character of that scoundrel.”

[Sidenote: [1853 A.D.]]

When the French diplomatic representatives in St. Petersburg and Warsaw

evidenced an intention to celebrate the 15th of August, the emperor

Nicholas drew up the following resolution: “A public church service

for Napoleon cannot be allowed, because he ceased to be emperor, being

banished and confined to the island of St. Helena. There is no propriety

in celebrating the birthday of the late Napoleon in our country, whence

he was despatched with befitting honour.” The Napoleonic empire had

already transcended the limits which the emperor Nicholas would at one

time have allowed; it was in direct contradiction to the stipulations

of the congress of Vienna, which formed the basis of the national law

of Europe. The emperor’s allies, however, looked on the matter somewhat

differently. Austria and Prussia recognised Napoleon III; it therefore

only remained to the emperor Nicholas, against his will, to follow their

example; but still he departed from the usually accepted diplomatic

forms, and in his letter to Napoleon III he did not call him brother, but

“_le bon ami_” (good friend). Soon on the political horizon appeared the

Eastern question, artfully put forward with a secret motive by Napoleon

III; his cunning calculations were justified without delay; the Russian

troops crossed the Pruth in 1853, and occupied the principality, as

a guarantee, until the demands presented to the Ottoman Porte by the

emperor Nicholas were complied with. Austrian ingratitude opened a safe

path for the snares of Anglo-French diplomacy. The Eastern War began, at

first upon Turkish territory and afterwards concentrated itself in the

Crimean peninsula around Sebastopol; France, England, and afterwards,

in 1855, little Sardinia, in alliance with Turkey, took up arms against

Russia; on the side of the allies lay the sympathy of all neutral Europe,

which already dreamed of wresting Russia’s conquests from her.[b]

EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CRIMEAN WAR

The revolution of July, 1830, by threatening Europe with the ideas then

triumphing in France, had tightened the bonds, previously a little

relaxed, between the czar and the two great German powers, Austria and

Prussia. Independently of diplomatic conferences, the three monarchs had

frequent interviews for the purpose of adopting measures to oppose the

invasion of the revolutionary principle. Even whilst affecting to abandon

the west to the dissolution towards which he felt it was marching, and to

regard it as afflicted with approaching senility, Nicholas by no means

lost sight of its development. But the East, then in combustion, remained

the true mark of Russian policy. A movement was on foot for the overthrow

of the declining Ottoman power, and its substitution by an Arab power,

inaugurated by Muhammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt. France regarded this

movement with no unfriendly eye, but Russia entered a protest. By giving

the most colossal proportions to this Eastern Question, which extended

as far as the countries of central Asia, the situation created grave

embarrassments for the British government. For, to begin with, when, in

1833, Ibrahim Pasha, at the head of the Egyptian army, was ready to cross

the Taurus and march on Constantinople, within two months the northern

power (summoned to aid by that very sultan whom Russia had hitherto

so greatly humiliated) landed on the Asiatic coast of the Bosporus a

body of fifteen thousand men in readiness to protect that capital;

then the secret treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi (July 8th, 1833) granted her,

as the price of an offensive and defensive alliance with the Porte,

the withdrawal in her exclusive favour of the prohibition forbidding

armed vessels of foreign nations to enter the waters of Constantinople;

finally, by the conclusion of the Treaty of London July 15th, 1840, which

left France, still obstinately attached to the cause of Muhammed Ali,

outside the European concert, she had the joy of causing the rupture of

the _entente cordiale_ between that country and Great Britain--but only

momentarily, for a new treaty, concluded the 13th of July, 1841, likewise

in London, readmitted the French government to the concert.

The events of the year 1848, by bringing back the Russians into Moldavia

and Wallachia, afforded Europe new apprehensions relative to the

preservation, growing daily more difficult, of the Ottoman Empire and

the political balance, the latter of which was seriously threatened

if not destroyed by the colossus of the north, with its population

now increased to as much as sixty-five million souls. But Germany was

absorbed by the serious situation of her own affairs, to which the czar

was far from remaining a stranger; and the latter linked himself by new

ties to Austria, in whose favour he had already renounced his share in

the protectorate over the republic of Cracow, when at the request of the

Vienna cabinet he marched against insurgent Hungary (June, 1849) an army

which beat the insurrectionary forces, compelled them to submission,

and thus closed the abyss in which one of the oldest monarchies of

Christendom was about to be engulfed. Then, in 1850, chosen as arbiter

between Austria and Prussia, who were on the point of a rupture, the

czar turned the scale in favour of Austria, and kept Prussia in check by

threats.

“Austria will soon astonish the world by her immense ingratitude”: this

famous prophetic saying of Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg, prime minister

of the young emperor Francis Joseph, was not slow of accomplishment. The

ingratitude was a necessity which the history of Austria explains; for

in her case, as for the rest of Europe, the continued and immoderate

aggrandisement of Russia was the greatest of dangers. This leads us, in

finishing this general glance over the history of the period, to say a

word on the complications which, at the moment of the empire’s attaining

its apogee, commenced for it a new phase.

We have elsewhere explained the final cause of the decay of Turkey. That

decay was consummated in favour of the northern neighbour who followed

with attentive gaze the progress of what she called the death struggle.

Certain words pronounced by the autocrat on this subject, and consigned

to diplomatic despatches, had, not long ago, a great circulation. But

the influence of Russia was counterbalanced by that of France and that

of Great Britain. The cabinets of Paris and Vienna obtained important

concessions, we might say diplomatic triumphs, from Constantinople--the

one in relation to the Holy Places, the other on the subject of

Montenegro. Russian jealousy immediately awoke. According to the czar,

Turkey had a choice between two things only: she must regard Prussia

as either her greatest friend or her greatest enemy. To remind her of

this, and to neutralise the embassy of the prince of Linanges on behalf

of Austria, Nicholas sent Prince Menshikov, one of his ministers and

confidants, to Constantinople. Arriving February 28th, 1853, Menshikov

exhibited a haughty and irritable demeanour; and, after astonishing the

Divan by his noisy opposition, put forward pretensions relative to the

Holy Places which were only designed to lull the vigilance of England,

but were soon followed by others more serious and exorbitant; for

they amounted to nothing less than the restoration to the czar of the

protectorate over all the sultan’s subjects professing the Græco-Russian

worship--that is to say the great majority of the inhabitants of Turkey

in Europe.

OUTBREAK OF THE CRIMEAN WAR (1853 A.D.)

In vain the Divan protested; in vain the friendly powers interceded.

Unable to obtain the satisfaction he was demanding with the extreme of

violence, the Russian ambassador extraordinary quitted the Bosporous

with menace on his lips. And, in effect, on the 2nd of July, the czar’s

troops crossed the Pruth to occupy, contrary to all treaty stipulations,

the two Danubian principalities. Nicholas was not prepared for war and

did not expect to be obliged to have recourse to that last appeal; he

hoped to triumph over the Divan by audacity. Moreover, he did not think

the western powers were in a position to come to an understanding and

to act in common. He was mistaken: Turkey’s death struggle did not

prevent her from making a supreme effort to sell her life dearly, if it

were impossible for her to save it; and on the 26th of September the

sultan declared war on the aggressor. Hostilities began in the course

of the month of October, first on the Danube and afterwards in Asia,

where a surprise made the Turks masters of the little maritime fort of

St. Nicholas or Chefketil. The Porte was not long abandoned to its own

resources, for the time of political torpor in regard to the territorial

aggrandisement of the Muscovite colossus had gone by; the eyes of all

were at last opened and a European crisis was inevitable. At that moment,

the fleets of France and England were already at the entrance of the

Dardanelles; and even before the end of October these fine naval armies

passed the straits under the authority of a firman, and approached

Constantinople. In consequence of the position taken up by these two

states, the autocrat broke off relations with them in the beginning of

February, 1854. On the 21st of the same month he informed his subjects of

the fact in a manifesto, recalling to some extent, by its tone, by its

biblical references, and its exalted language, the Treaty of the Holy

Alliance. It may be worth while to reproduce here the following passage:

“Against Russia fighting for orthodoxy England and France enter the lists

as champions of the enemies of Christianity. But Russia will not fail in

her sacred vocation; if the frontier is invaded by the enemy we are ready

to resist him with the energy of which our ancestors have bequeathed us

the example. Are we not to-day still the same people whose valour was

attested by the memorable displays of the year 1812? May the Most High

aid us to prove it by our deeds. In this hope, and fighting for our

oppressed brothers who confess the faith of Christ, Russia will have but

one heart and voice to cry: ‘God, our Saviour! whom have we to fear? Let

Christ arise and let his enemies be scattered!’”

FRANCE, ENGLAND, AND TURKEY IN ALLIANCE

[Sidenote: [1854 A.D.]]

Thus, by an almost miraculous concourse of circumstances, an alliance was

formed between France and England, those two ancient and ardent rivals.

Preceded by a formal alliance with the Porte (March 12th), it was signed

in London, April 10th, 1854. This was not all: this memorable document

was immediately submitted to the governments of Austria and Prussia and

sanctioned by a protocol signed at Vienna by the four powers, by which

the justice of the cause sustained by those of the west was solemnly

proclaimed. Austria and Prussia laid down the conditions of their

eventual participation in the war in another treaty, that of Berlin,

of the 20th of April, 1854, to which the Germanic Confederation on its

side gave its adhesion. Finally at Baïadji-Keui, on the 14th of June,

1854, the great Danubian power also concluded a treaty with the Ottoman

Porte, in virtue of which she was authorised to enter into military

occupation of the principalities, whether she should have previously

expelled the Russian army or whether the latter should of its own will

have decided to evacuate them. Russia was in the most complete isolation;

the Scandinavian states, who had hitherto been her allies, declared

themselves neutral; an insurrection in her favour, which was preparing in

Servia, was prevented; that of the Greeks, openly favoured by King Otto,

was stifled. The Turks, thus effectively protected, were able to turn

all their forces on the frontiers, and to prove by heroic acts that they

had not lost all the bravery of their ancestors. In return for Europe’s

efforts in favour of the integrity of his empire, and in order to ward

off the reproach they might incur by supporting the cause of the crescent

against a Christian state, the sultan as early as the 6th of June, 1854,

published an edict or _irade_, by which he improved in a notable manner

the condition of the rayas, and prepared for their civil freedom, as well

as for a complete remodelling of the laws which, governing up to that

day the internal government of the Ottoman Empire, seemed to render its

preservation almost impossible.

Thus that movement of expansion to which Russia had been impelled during

four centuries, and which by conquest after conquest, due either to

diplomacy or the sword, had made Russian power the bugbear of Europe,

finds itself suddenly arrested. “Republican or Cossack,” was the famous

prognostic of Napoleon.[c]

The immense superiority of the marines belonging to the allies made it

possible to attack Russia on every sea. They bombarded the military port

of Odessa on the Black Sea (April 22nd, 1854), but respected the city

and the commercial port; the Russian establishments in the Caucasus had

been burned by the Russians themselves. They blockaded Kronstadt on

the Baltic, landed on the islands of Åland, and took the fortress of

Bomarsund (August 16th, 1854).[f]

THE TAKING OF BOMARSUND

This fight had lasted from four in the morning until four in the

evening, when the allies saw a white flag over the tower battlements.

The commander asked an armistice of two hours, which was granted. He

recommenced firing before the interval was over. The French batteries

overthrew the armaments, whilst the Vincennes _chasseurs_ acting as

free-shooters attacked the cannoneers. Resistance ceased towards evening

and the tower yielded at three o’clock in the morning. One officer

and thirty men were made prisoners. On Monday no notice was taken of

provocation from the fortress, but preparations were made for the morrow.

On the morning of August 15th the English attacked the north tower.

In six hours three of their large cannon had been able to pierce the

granite and make a breach of twenty feet. The north tower was not long

in surrendering; four English and two French vessels directed their fire

on the large fortress. A white flag was hoisted on the rampart nearest

the sea. Two officers of the fleet were sent to the governor, who said,

“I yield to the marine.” This officer had only a few dead and seventy

wounded, but smoke poured in through the badly constructed windows, bombs

burst in the middle of the fortress, without mentioning the carbine fire

of the free-shooters. A longer resistance was useless.[g]

In 1855 the Russians bombarded Sveaborg. The allies attacked the

fortified monastery of Solovetski, in the White Sea, and in the sea of

Okhotsk they blockaded the Siberian ports, destroyed the arsenals of

Petropavlovsk, and disturbed the tranquillity of the Russians on the

river Amur.

Menaced by the Austrian concentration in Transylvania, and by the landing

of English and French troops at Gallipoli and Varna, the Russians made

a last and vain attempt to gain possession of Silistria, which they

had held in a state of siege from April to July at the cost of a great

number of men. In the Dobrudja an expedition directed by the French was

without result from a military point of view, the soldiers being thinned

out by cholera and paludal fevers. The Russians decided to evacuate the

principalities, which were at once occupied by the Austrians in accord

with Europe and the sultan. The war on the Danube was at an end.

THE SEAT OF WAR TRANSFERRED TO THE CRIMEA (1854 A.D.)

The war in the Crimea was just about to commence.[f] Siege-trains were

ordered from England and France, transports were prepared, and other

preparations were gradually made. But the cholera attacked both the

armies and the fleets, which for two months lay prostrate under this

dreadful scourge.

In the Black Sea, meantime, the preparations for the Crimean expedition

were pressed forward with greater energy in proportion as the cholera

abated. But many successive delays occurred. Originally the invading

force was to have sailed on the 15th of August; then the 20th was the

day; then the 22nd; then the 26th; then the 1st of September (by which

time the French siege-train would have arrived at Varna); then the 2nd

of September. At length all was ready; and 58,000, out of 75,000 men,

cavalry, infantry, and artillery, were embarked at Baltjik on the 7th.

The French numbered 25,000, the English the same; and there was a picked

corps of about 8,000 Turks. In a flotilla of between two and three

hundred vessels, this first and much larger part of the united army were

transported up the coast to Fidonisi, or the Island of Serpents; from

which point to Cape Tarkhan, in the Crimea, they would make both the

shortest and the most sheltered passage. Being reviewed and found all

ready at Fidonisi, the armada took its second departure on the 11th, and

reached without accident the destined shore on the 14th. On that day

the troops were landed prosperously at “Old Fort,” some twenty miles

beyond Eupatoria, or Koslov, within four or five easy days’ march from

Sebastopol. Upon this great fortress the columns were at once directed;

while the transports returned in haste to fetch the reserves, amounting

to about 15,000 men.

Contrary to the expectation of the allies, Prince Menshikov, who

commanded in the Crimea, had resolved not to oppose their landing, but to

await them on the left, or southern, bank of the river Alma. The nature

of his position may be gathered from Lord Raglan’s despatch. He says:

“In order that the gallantry exhibited by her majesty’s troops, and the

difficulties they had to meet, may be fairly estimated, I deem it right,

even at the risk of being considered tedious, to endeavour to make you

acquainted with the position the Russians had taken up.

“It crossed the great road about two miles and a half from the sea,

and is very strong by nature. The bold and almost precipitous range of

heights, of from 350 to 400 feet, that from the sea closely border the

left bank of the river, here ceases and formed their left, and turning

thence round a great amphitheatre or wide valley, terminates at a salient

pinnacle where their right rested, and whence the descent to the plain

was more gradual. The front was about two miles in extent. Across the

mouth of this great opening is a lower ridge at different heights,

varying from 60 to 150 feet, parallel to the river, and at distances

from it of from 600 to 800 yards. The river itself is generally fordable

for troops, but its banks are extremely rugged, and in most parts steep;

the willows along it had been cut down, in order to prevent them from

affording cover to the attacking party, and in fact everything had been

done to deprive an assailant of any species of shelter. In front of the

position on the right bank, at about 200 yards from the Alma, is the

village of Burliuk, and near it a timber bridge, which had been partly

destroyed by the enemy. The high pinnacle and ridge before alluded

to was the key of the position, and consequently, there the greatest

preparations had been made for defence. Half-way down the height and

across its front was a trench of the extent of some hundred yards, to

afford cover against an advance up the even steep slope of the hill. On

the right, and a little retired, was a powerful covered battery, armed

with heavy guns, which flanked the whole of the right of the position.

Artillery, at the same time, was posted at the points that best commanded

the passage of the river and its approaches generally. On the slopes of

these hills (forming a sort of table land) were placed dense masses of

the enemy’s infantry, whilst on the height above was his great reserve,

the whole amounting, it is supposed, to between 45,000 and 50,000 men.”

It was against this fortress--for it was little less--the British,

French, and Turkish forces were led, having broken up their camp at

Kimishi on the 19th of September. The way led along continual steppes,

affording no shelter from the burning heat of the sun, nor water to

assuage the intolerable thirst suffered by all. The only relief was

afforded by the muddy stream of Bulganak, which the men drank with

avidity. That day an insignificant skirmish took place between a body of

Cossacks and the light division. On passing over the brow of a hill, the

former were discovered drawn up in order. A slight fire was opened, which

wounded three or four of the allies, but a gun drove up and threw a shell

with such wonderful precision in the midst of the enemy that above a

dozen were knocked over by this one projectile, and the Cossacks speedily

disappeared.[d]

THE BATTLE OF THE ALMA (1854 A.D.)

The allies’ plan of aggression was quite as simple as the Russian plan

of defence. It consisted in turning the enemy’s two wings and then

overwhelming them by a front attack. On the extreme right General

Bosquet, in advance of the rest of the army, was to approach rapidly the

Alma, cross it at a point not far from its mouth, ascend the slopes at

all costs, then fall suddenly on the Russians’ left, surround them, and

throw them back on the centre. This movement carried out, Canrobert’s and

Prince Napoleon’s divisions, supported by a portion of the English army,

would cross the river, climb the heights between Almatamak and Burliuk,

and make the grand attack. At the same moment the English army at the

left of the French lines would endeavour to turn the enemy’s right, and

thus secure the day. Forey’s division would remain in reserve ready to

help either the weaker columns or those in immediate danger, as the

case might be. On the evening of the 19th of September Field-Marshal

Saint-Arnaud had sent to each division a tracing of the proposed order of

battle. The plan was so simple that the soldiers had already anticipated

and guessed it. At nightfall they gathered round the camp fires and

discussed the chances of the plan with gleeful excitement. They pointed

out to each other the Russian camp fires, scintillating dots of light

shining out on the hill sides, and tried to reckon up the enemy’s number

by the number of lights. A good deal of imagination mingled with their

calculations, but the results did not frighten them, they were convinced

that the following day they would rest victorious on the plateau.

At the first sounds of the reveille the troops of Bosquet’s division were

a-foot and ready to start, very proud of the place assigned them by the

confidence of the commander-in-chief. The fog having somewhat lifted,

at seven o’clock they left the banks of the Bulganak and marched off

in quick time towards the Alma. They were not more than two kilometres

distant from it when one of the field-marshal’s aides-de-camp arrived

hot-foot with orders to halt, as the English were not ready. Obedience

was yielded with some degree of unwillingness, which grew to impatience

as the halt was prolonged. It was already half-past eleven when the

march was resumed. The division was formed into two columns; Autemarre’s

brigade marched towards Almatamak, where the French scouts had just

discovered a ford; the other brigade, under Bouat, turned towards the

sea, so as to cross the river near its mouth by a sand bank shown them by

a steam pinnace. From their dominating positions the Russians could see

this manœuvre, but they paid no attention to it, judging that nature had

provided sufficient defence for them on that side. They looked upon the

whole of this movement as merely a diversion, and concentrated all their

watchfulness on the main body of the army, which had hitherto remained

motionless three kilometres to the rear of the Alma.

In the mean time Autemarre’s brigade, close on Almatamak and hitherto

hidden from the enemy by the escarpments of the neighbouring cliff,

began to cross the Alma. The 3rd zouaves were the first over the ford,

and began with amazing “go” to climb the plateau. This ascent, which

the Russians, heavily equipped and accustomed to the level, believed

impossible, was relatively easy for men accustomed time out of mind to

the foot-tracks of African mountains. It was wonderful to see these

strong, agile soldiers springing up the slopes, giving a helping hand

to one another, clinging to tufts of grass and scrub, and profiting by

the smallest foothold. The Algerian sharp-shooters followed, then the

50th foot. The most difficult matter was to get the artillery over,

and the boldest faltered before such a task. By a sheer miracle of

stout-heartedness and energy they managed to hoist several pieces the

whole length of the escarpments. Suddenly the zouaves appeared at the

top of the hill, before the very eyes of the astonished Russians, and by

a brisk fire drove off the enemy’s vedettes. In another moment Algerian

sharp-shooters and men of the 50th foot climbed the last slopes in their

turn; then the field guns, dragged up to the heights, were placed in

line. At this identical moment Bouat’s brigade, which had been delayed in

crossing the bar, appeared on the extreme right and began to scale the

cliffs nearest the sea. Only the second battalion of the Minsk infantry

occupied this position, which had hitherto been held impregnable.

Debouching from the little village of Aklese they ran forward; but

confused by the fantastic aspect of this unexpected enemy, flurried by

the gaps made in their ranks by the French long-range guns, they wasted

no time over doubling back. Soon, running away altogether, they threw

themselves on the Russian reserves, followed by the shots of French

artillery and by the missiles thrown on to the plateau by the fleet at

anchor near the shore.

Saint-Arnaud, from his position in the rear of the Alma, had watched

the zouaves climb the hill. When they had disappeared over the crest,

he had listened anxiously for the sharp-shooters to open fire. Soon

the roar of cannon was heard, but it was difficult to believe that the

artillery was already engaged. “Are they French guns or Russian guns?”

asked the staff-officers grouped round the commander-in-chief. But the

field-marshal joyfully cried: “I assure you it is Bosquet’s cannon; he

has reached the heights.” Then searching the distance with his glasses:

“I can see red trousers. Ah! there I recognise my African veteran

Bosquet!” Summoning his generals, Saint-Arnaud gave then the final

instructions. The sound of the guns had revived his failing strength; his

voice was as strong as in his palmiest days, and his face was lighted up

with confidence, a last and touching reflection of his warrior spirit. By

a gesture he indicated to his officers the course of the river and the

hills which shut in the horizon: “Gentlemen,” he said, “this battle will

be known as the battle of the Alma.”

It being now one o’clock in the afternoon, the front attack was

immediately begun. The first division, under command of General

Canrobert, held the right; to the left was drawn up the 3rd division

commanded by Prince Napoleon. Following the common plan, the latter was

to attach itself to the English right, but it did so only imperfectly,

on account of the slowness of the allies. Set in motion simultaneously,

the two French divisions marched towards the Alma. This time the Russians

had anticipated the attack and were ready to repulse it. Sheltered by

clumps of trees, enclosing walls, and the gardens bordering the river,

innumerable sharp-shooters directed a well-sustained fire against the

enemy, and, in addition, a battery established on the edge of the plateau

covered the plain with missiles. Overwhelmed by this murderous fire the

French troops halted. But the artillery of the 1st and 3rd divisions

shelled the ravines, compelling the Russian sharp-shooters to retreat

against a high bank on the left, and by thus diverting their attention

enabled the rest of the French army to advance as far as the Alma. Laying

down their knapsacks the soldiers themselves sounded the river with

branches of trees and boldly crossed wherever it appeared practicable.

Towards two in the afternoon the 3rd division effected a crossing not far

from Burluk. As to Canrobert’s division, it had, almost entirely, already

found a footing on the left bank a little above Almatamak. His first

battalions had already reached the heights and slanted off to the right

so as to join hands with Bosquet’s division.

It was quite time. When Prince Menshikov was informed of the appearance

of Bosquet on the heights near the mouth of the Alma, he at first refused

to believe the news and only the roar of the cannon had convinced him.

Realising the greatness of the danger, the Russian commander-in-chief

immediately hurried to reinforce his left flank, which in his excess of

confidence he had left almost uncovered. As the brigades of Autemarre

and Bouat took up a position, fresh Russian troops debouched on the

western side of the plateau. First a battery of light artillery, which

arrived before the infantry it was summoned to support, lost half its

number in a few moments; then four battalions of the Moscow infantry

regiment supported by another battery. Shortly after this occurred,

Prince Menshikov, having himself visited the scene of action, decided

to make a fresh attempt. By his orders three battalions of the Minsk

regiment, four squadrons of hussars and two batteries of Cossacks were

drawn from the reserve to afford active support to the troops already

engaged. Happily for the French these troops arrived only in driblets,

so that their impact was weakened by being broken up. Even so their

little main body, launched on the plateau with no retreat possible,

found itself in a position almost as critical as it was glorious. If it

continued to penetrate into the Russian flank victory was assured, but

if it faltered it had no other prospect than to be brought to bay on

one escarpment after another and routed in the valley, beyond hope of

salvation. The Russian troops were not more numerous than the French, but

the twelve guns of the latter could scarcely hope to hold out against the

forty pieces which the Russians had brought into this part of the field.

On receiving overnight the commander-in-chief’s instructions, General

Bosquet had replied: “You can count on me, but remember I cannot hold out

for more than two hours.”

The general weariness was great and moreover the ammunition was giving

out. With growing anguish Bosquet turned his gaze towards the plain,

waiting for the general attack which was to lighten his task. His joy may

be imagined when he heard on the left, above Almatamak, the sharp crack

of the zouaves’ rifles, and saw appearing over the edge of the plateau

General Canrobert’s first battalions.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER SERGEVITCH MENSHIKOV

(1787-1869)]

Help was at hand, and with help the almost certainty of victory. At that

very moment a happy inspiration of Saint-Arnaud’s rendered assurance

sure. Judging that the moment had arrived for calling on his reserves, he

sent orders to General Forey to bring up one of his brigades to succour

Bosquet, and with the other to support General Canrobert. From that

moment the tide of battle set steadily against the Russians. Surrounded

on their left wing, outflanked in their centre, threatened by the French

reserves, they yielded step by step, no doubt with fearful reprisals, but

finally they retired. It was in vain that the Minsk and Moscow regiments,

retreating obliquely, tried to resist both Bosquet’s and Canrobert’s

divisions; these brave endeavours only prolonged the resistance without

affecting the result. After losing the greater number of their leaders

they were compelled to retreat behind the heights and to retire to a

tower for telegraphic communication which marked the enemy’s centre.

There a final bloody engagement took place. At last the flags of the 3rd

zouaves and the 39th foot were hoisted on the top of the tower, signal of

the victory which the Russians thenceforward never disputed.[h]

The part taken by the British troops in the final assault is thus

described by the special correspondent of the _Times_:

“The British line was struggling through the river and up the heights

in masses, firm, indeed, but mowed down by the murderous fire of the

batteries and by grape, round shot, shell, canister, case shot, and

musketry, from some of the guns of the central battery, and from an

immense and compact mass of Russian infantry. Then commenced one of

the most bloody and determined struggles in the annals of war. The 2nd

division, led by Sir De L. Evans in the most dashing manner, crossed the

stream on the right. The 7th Fusiliers, led by Colonel Yea, were swept

down by fifties. The 55th, 30th, and 95th, led by Brigadier Pennefather,

who was in the thickest of the fight, cheering on his men, again and

again were checked indeed, but never drew back in their onward progress,

which was marked by a fierce roll of Minié musketry; and Brigadier Adams,

with the 41st, 47th, and 49th, bravely charged up the hill, and aided

them in the battle. Sir George Brown, conspicuous on a grey horse, rode

in front of his light division, urging them with voice and gesture.

Gallant fellows! they were worthy of such a gallant chief. The 7th,

diminished by one-half, fell back to re-form their columns lost for the

time; the 23rd, with eight officers dead and four wounded, were still

rushing to the front, aided by the 19th, 33rd, 77th, and 88th. Down went

Sir George in a cloud of dust in front of the battery. He was soon up

and shouted, ‘23rd, I’m all right. Be sure I’ll remember this day,’ and

led them on again, but in the shock produced by the fall of their chief

the gallant regiment suffered terribly while paralysed for a moment.

Meantime the Guards, on the right of the light division, and the brigade

of Highlanders were storming the heights on the left. Their line was

almost as regular as though they were in Hyde Park. Suddenly a tornado of

round and grape rushed through from the terrible battery, and a roar of

musketry from behind thinned their front ranks by dozens. It was evident

that we were just able to contend against the Russians, favoured as they

were by a great position. At this very time an immense mass of Russian

infantry were seen moving down towards the battery. They halted. It was

the crisis of the day. Sharp, angular, and solid, they looked as if they

were cut out of the solid rock. It was beyond all doubt that if our

infantry, harassed and thinned as they were, got into the battery they

would have to encounter again a formidable fire, which they were but ill

calculated to bear. Lord Raglan saw the difficulties of the situation.

He asked if it would be possible to get a couple of guns to bear on

these masses. The reply was, ‘Yes,’ and an artillery officer (Colonel

Dixon) brought up two guns to fire on the Russian squares. The first shot

missed, but the next, and the next, and the next cut through the ranks

so cleanly, and so keenly, that a clear lane could be seen for a moment

through the square. After a few rounds the square became broken, wavered

to and fro, broke, and fled over the brow of the hill, leaving behind it

six or seven distinct lines of dead, lying as close as possible to each

other, marking the passage of the fatal messengers. This act relieved our

infantry of a deadly incubus, and they continued their magnificent and

fearful progress up the hill. The duke encouraged his men by voice and

example, and proved himself worthy of his proud command and of the royal

race from which he comes. ‘Highlanders,’ said Sir C. Campbell, ere they

came to the charge, ‘don’t pull a trigger till you’re within a yard of

the Russians!’ They charged, and well they obeyed their chieftain’s wish;

Sir Colin had his horse shot under him, but his men took the battery at

a bound. The Russians rushed out, and left multitudes of dead behind

them. The Guards had stormed the right of the battery ere the Highlanders

got into the left, and it is said the Scots Fusilier Guards were the

first to enter. The second and light division crowned the heights. The

French turned the guns on the hill against the flying masses, which the

cavalry in vain tried to cover. A few faint struggles from the scattered

infantry, a few rounds of cannon and musketry and the enemy fled to the

southeast, leaving three generals, three guns, 700 prisoners, and 4,000

wounded behind them. The battle of the Alma was won. It is won with

a loss of nearly 3,000 killed and wounded on our side. The Russians’

retreat was covered by their cavalry, but if we had had an adequate

force we could have captured many guns and multitudes of prisoners.”

It appears from papers found in Prince Menshikov’s carriage, that he had

counted on holding his position on the Alma for at least three weeks.

He had erected scaffolds from which his ladies might view the military

exploits during the period of obstruction he had provided for the

invading force, but he was hurried away in the midst of a flying army, in

a little more than three hours.

THE SEIZURE OF BALAKLAVA (1854 A.D.)

Without sufficient cavalry, and having exhausted the ammunition of the

artillery, the allies did not pursue the defeated foe; but rested for

a couple of days, to recruit the able-bodied, succour the wounded, and

bury the dead. Then they went forward towards Sebastopol. A change now

took place, as remarkable an incident as any in the campaign. Learning

that the enemy had established a work of some force on the Belbek, and

that this river could not readily be rendered a means of communication

with the fleet, and calculating that preparations would be made for

the defence of Sebastopol chiefly on the north side, the commanders

resolved to change the line of operations, to turn the whole position

of Sebastopol, and establish themselves at Balaklava. After resting

for a couple of days, they started on the march, turned to the left

after the first night’s bivouac, and struck across a woody country,

in which the troops had to steer their way by compass; regained an

open road from Bagtcheserai to Balaklava; encountered there at Khutor

Mackenzia (Mackenzie’s Farm) a part of the Russian army, which fled

in consternation at the unexpected meeting; and were in possession of

Balaklava on the 26th--within four days after leaving the heights above

the Alma. Thus an important post was occupied without a blow.

Balaklava is a close port, naturally cut by the waters in the living

rock; so deep that the bowsprit of a ship at anchor can almost be

touched on shore, so strong that the force possessing it could retain

communication with the sea in spite of any enemy. It is a proof of

Menshikov’s want of foresight, or of his extreme weakness after the

battle of the 20th, that Balaklava was left without effectual defence.

The change of operations reminds one of Nelson’s manœuvre at the Nile, in

attacking the enemy on the shore side, where the ships were logged with

lumber and unprepared for action.

By this date, however, the allies were destined to sustain a grave loss,

in the departure of Marshal Saint-Arnaud. The French commander-in-chief

had succeeded in three achievements, each one of which would be

sufficient to mark the great soldier. He had thrown his forces into

the battle on the Alma with all the ardour of which his countrymen are

capable, but with that perfect command which the great general alone

retains. He had succeeded in exciting the soldierly fire of the French,

and yet in preserving the friendliest feelings towards their rivals

and allies, the English. He had succeeded in retaining his place on

horseback, notwithstanding mortal agonies that would have subdued the

courage, or at least the physical endurance, of any other man. Many can

meet death, numbers can sustain torture; but the power of holding out

in action against the depressing and despairing misgivings of internal

maladies, is a kind of resolution which nature confers upon very few

indeed, and amongst those very few Marshal Saint-Arnaud will be ranked

as one of the most distinguished. He was succeeded in the command of the

French army by General Canrobert, and died at sea on the 29th. By this

event Lord Raglan became commander-in-chief of the allied forces in the

Crimea.

THE ADVANCE ON SEBASTOPOL

Had Marshal Saint-Arnaud lived, it is hardly to be doubted that he would

have attempted to take Sebastopol by the summary process of breaching and

storming instead of the slower one of a regular siege. The former plan

might have been successful, for it is now known, upon the authority of

the Russians themselves, that when the allies first broke ground before

the fortress its preparations for resistance were very incomplete. On

the other hand, events have too painfully demonstrated that the force

with which the siege was undertaken was totally inadequate, both in

numbers and weight of metal. It was not sufficient to invest the place on

every side, or to hinder the garrison of one of the strongest fortresses

in the world from receiving unlimited reinforcements and supplies of

all kinds. Hence, to use General Peyronnet Thompson’s homely but very

apt illustration, the operations before Sebastopol have hitherto been

like the work of drawing a badger out of one end of a box, with an

interminable series of badgers entering at the other.

The position occupied by the English before Sebastopol was to the right

of the French, at a distance of six miles from their ships. They held the

summit of a ridge, whence at long range, they could fire with some effect

on the Russian outworks; but as they descended the slope, their force

was broken in two or three parts, while they were exposed to a fire like

that which destroyed so many brave men at the Alma. The French, on the

left, rested on Cape Chersonesus, and were within three miles of their

ships, in a position where, though they might suffer from the fire of

the garrison, they were protected from the attacks of the Russian army

in the field. The attack on the place by the land batteries and by the

ships began on the 17th of October. The Russians had closed the entrance

to the harbour by sinking two ships of the fine and two frigates (they

subsequently sank all the rest of their fleet), and the fire of the

allied ships at long range produced so very little effect, whilst the

casualties sustained by them were so disproportionate to the damage they

inflicted, that the experiment was not repeated.

Eight days afterwards the Russians in turn became the assailants. A large

reinforcement having been received under Liprandi, that general was

detached to the Tchernaia with some 30,000 troops to attack our rear. The

peculiarity of the position of the allied army facilitated its efforts.

It has already been explained that Balaklava is at some distance from the

lines of the besiegers. The road connecting the two runs through a gorge

in the heights which constitute the rear of the British position, and

which overlook the small grassy plain that lies to the north of the inlet

of Balaklava. The possession of the port and the connecting road are

essential to the success of the siege. To defend them, Lord Raglan had

placed a body of marines and sailors with some heavy guns on the heights

above the village and landing place of Balaklava; beneath the heights

he had stationed the 93rd Highlanders, under Sir Colin Campbell, who

barred the road down to the village. The plain running northward towards

the Tchernaia is intersected by a low, irregular ridge, about two miles

and a half from the village, and running nearly at right angles to the

rear of the heights on the northwestern slopes of which lay the British

army. This ridge in the plain was defended by four redoubts, intervening

between the Tchernaia and the British cavalry encamped on the southern

part of the plain; and the rising ground in their rear was held by the

zouaves, who had entrenched themselves at right angles with the redoubts.

The extreme right of our position was on the road to Kamara; the centre

about Kadakoi, with the Turkish redoubts in front; the left on the

eastern slopes of the high lands running up to the Inkerman ravine.

THE BATTLE OF BALAKLAVA

The object of the Russians was to turn the right and seize Balaklava,

burn the shipping in the port, and, cutting off our communication with

the sea, establish themselves in our rear. To accomplish this, General

Liprandi gathered up his troops behind the defiles at Tchorgun on the

Tchernaia. Here, having previously reconnoitred our position, he divided

his forces on the morning of the 25th of October, directing one body by

the great military road, the other by Kamara, and debouching upon the

plain near the Turkish redoubts. The redoubts were armed with two or

three heavy ship-guns, and each manned by about 250 Turks. The Russians

coming on with the dawn, some 12,000 strong, with from thirty to forty

field-guns, attacked the redoubts with horse artillery, and carried them

in succession; the Turks firing a few shots, and then flying in disorder

under a fire of artillery and the swords of the Cossacks. Sir Colin

Campbell, aroused by the firing, instantly drew up the 93rd in front of

the village of Kadakoi; and the affrighted Turks rallied for a moment

on the flanks of that “living wall of brass,” to use the language of

a French writer, presented by the Highlanders. But the redoubts being

taken, the enemy’s artillery advanced and opened fire; and the cavalry

came rapidly up. As the 93rd was within range, Sir Colin Campbell drew

them a little backward behind the crest of the hill. The British cavalry

lay to the left of the Highlanders, and a large body of Russian cavalry

menaced both. The larger section went towards the encampment of the

British cavalry, and were met at once by the heavy brigade, under General

Scarlett. A brief but brilliant encounter followed: for a moment the

Greys and Enniskillens in the first line seemed swallowed up, in another

they reappeared victorious. The long, dense line of the Russian horse had

lapped over their flanks; but the second British line, consisting of the

4th and 5th Dragoons, charging, the Russians were broken and rapidly made

off. While this was proceeding, a body of some 400 cavalry rode at the

Highlanders, who, not deigning to form square, mounted the crest of the

hill, behind which they had taken shelter, fired in line two deep, and

sent the enemy flying.

But the fighting was not yet over. Seven guns taken in the redoubts yet

remained in the possession of the enemy; and Lord Raglan sent an order to

Lord Lucan to prevent the enemy from carrying off the guns, if possible.

The order was wrongly interpreted as a peremptory order to _charge_, and

in that sense it was repeated by Lord Lucan to Lord Cardigan, who obeyed

it and charged into the very centre of the enemy’s position, with a

desperate sacrifice of men, but not without inflicting severe blows upon

the enemy. Nor was the loss of life entirely a waste. To the Russians the

incident proved the unmeasured daring of the foe they had to face; to the

British troops it showed the lengths to which discipline and fidelity can

be carried. The light cavalry brigade mustered 607 sabres that morning;

in the twenty minutes occupied by the charge and the return, they lost

335 horses, and had nearly as many officers and men killed or wounded.

The heavy dragoons and the Chasseurs d’Afrique covered the retreat of

the bleeding remnant of this daring band. It was now nearly noon: the

fourth division, under Sir George Cathcart, and the first division, under

the Duke of Cambridge, had come up; and the Russians abandoned all the

redoubts, except the furthest one to the right. Nothing more was done

that day. Looking to the extent of the position previously occupied.

Lord Raglan determined to contract his line of defence to the immediate

vicinity of Balaklava and the steeps in the right rear of the British

army.

Next day the enemy sallied forth from Sebastopol, 7000 or 8000 strong,

and attacked the right flank of the British army; but, steadily met by

the second division under Sir De Lacy Evans, supported by the brigade of

Guards, a regiment of Rifles, two guns from the light division, and two

French battalions, the Russians were gallantly repelled, and then chased

down to the slope, with a loss of some 600 killed and wounded, and 80

prisoners.

THE BATTLE OF INKERMAN (NOVEMBER 5TH, 1854)

Another fierce engagement, the most important of all in which the

belligerents have yet been engaged, took place on the 5th of November.

For some days previously, the Russians, who already possessed a large

force in the prolonged fortifications, and others to the rear of the

allies in the neighbourhood of Balaklava, had been observed to receive

large reinforcements, which, added to Liprandi’s corps on the Russian

left, of 30,000 or more, and the garrison, would probably justify Lord

Raglan’s estimate of 60,000 men arrayed against the allies on the

memorable 5th of November. To augment the weight of the force brought

down to crush the besiegers, the now useless army of the Danube had been

withdrawn from Moldavia, leaving Bessarabia still defended by its special

army, but not, it is supposed, entirely exhausting the reinforcements

to be brought from the interior. The effort of Menshikov to throw his

strength into a succession of powerful and, if possible, decisive blows,

is shown by the advance of Dannenberg’s army in the very lightest order,

augmenting the numbers about Sebastopol without much regard either to

their equipment or provision. The aim was to bear down by accumulated

pressure; and it was with such a view that the batteries resumed the

bombardment of the allies in their besieged camp, a strong force from

the garrison moved out to act with Dannenberg’s army, and Liprandi made

a feint, that might have been, had it succeeded, a penetrating attack

towards the rear; and as it was, it did busy a portion of the British and

French forces. Thus the allies were to be occupied all round, while the

weak, unintrenched, and unfortified point in their position towards the

valley of the Inkerman was to be penetrated by a force of great weight

and momentum.[d]

The English encampments were established between Karabelnaia and the

valley of the Tchernaia, on a plateau called Inkerman, which two ravines

narrowed at the south in a way which made it a kind of isthmus. Two

strong Russian columns, consisting together of thirty-six thousand men,

converged in this direction. The first came out from Karabelnaia; the

second descended from the heights on the opposite bank of the Tchernaia

and crossed that river near its mouth in the bay.

They had to join in order to turn the English camp and take it from

the back. Their movements were badly planned; each acted on its own

initiative instead of joining. However, the English were in extreme

danger. The Karabelnaia column surprised one of their divisions and

nearly overwhelmed it by force of numbers. With a small reinforcement the

English disputed every inch of ground with desperation and the struggle

was prolonged through rain and fog, till the Russian general Soimonov was

mortally wounded; fear struck his battalions: they ceased to advance,

then retreated, not receiving any orders, and did not return to the

combat.

The column which came from the opposite side of the Tchernaia, and which

General Pavlov commanded, had in the meantime commenced its attack on

the other part of the English camp. Here were furious shocks and long

alternations of success and defeat. Although the English right had been

joined by their left, having got rid of the Karabelnaia column, the

inequality of numbers was still great. The English had driven back the

advance guard of Pavlov’s column to the valley of the Tchernaia; but the

greater part of this column, supported by an immense artillery (nearly

one hundred guns) pushed forward its closely serried battalions with

such violence that in the end they were masters of an earthwork, which

protected the right side of the English camp (a battery of sand bags).

Had the Russians remained in this position, the allies would have lost

the day. Till then the English had made it their pride to keep up the

struggle without the help of the French. There was not a moment to lose;

two of their generals were killed, several no longer able to fight; the

soldiers were exhausted. Lord Raglan called the French, who were awaiting

the signal.

General Bosquet, who commanded the corps nearest the English, sent out

the first two battalions he had at hand. It would have been too late if

the enemy had passed the fortification they had seized and had extended

beyond the isthmus. The Russians had been less active than brave. The

French foot soldiers renewed the marvellous charge of the English cavalry

at Balaklava. In their vehemence, they drove the greater number of the

Russians far behind the battery of sand bags; they were repulsed in

their turn by the mass of the enemy; but the movement of the latter had

nevertheless been checked. The Russian leaders were not able to manœuvre

promptly enough to place themselves, as they might have done, between the

English and the new reinforcements of French.

The French battalions arrived in double quick time with that agility

already shown at Alma by the soldier trained in African wars. The

Russians repulsed a second attack; they succumbed under a third made

with more reinforcements. One of their regiments was precipitated by the

French zouaves and turcos from the summit of the rocks into a deep ravine

where it was shattered. The rest of the Russian troops made a slow and

painful retreat under the terrible fire of the French artillery.

This sanguinary day cost the Russians twelve thousand men, killed,

wounded, or missing. The English lost about twenty-six hundred men, the

French seventeen to eighteen hundred. Beside their decisive intervention

on the plateau of Inkerman, the French troops had repulsed a sortie of

the garrison at Sebastopol.

According to military historians, the check of the Russians was due,

to a great extent, to their want of mobility and their incapacity for

manœuvring; the pedantic and circumstantial tactics imposed on them by

Nicholas only served to hinder them in presence of the enemy.

The allies, victorious, but suffering after such a victory, suspended the

assault and decided to keep on the defensive until the arrival of new

forces. They completed the circumvallation which protected the plateau

of Chersonesus, from Inkerman to Balaklava; the Russians had retired

completely; the French protected themselves on the town side by a line of

contravallation.[i]

While the allies were occupied in digging trenches, laying mines, and

increasing the number of their batteries, the Russians, directed by

the able Tottleben, strengthened those defences of the city that were

already in existence and under the fire of the enemy erected new ones.

The allies, in spite of the sufferings incident to a severe winter,

established themselves more and more securely, and on a strip of sandy

coast prepared to defy all the forces of the empire of the czar.

On the 26th of December, 1825, Nicholas had been consecrated by the blood

of conspirators as the armed apostle of the principle of authority,

the destroying angel of counter-revolution. This was a part that he

played not without glory for thirty years, having put down the Polish,

Hungarian, and Rumanian revolutions and prevented Prussia from yielding

to the seductions of the German revolution. He had obstructed if not

destroyed the French Revolution in all its legal manifestations, the

monarchy of July, the republic, and the empire. He had saved the Austrian

Empire and prevented the creation of a democratic German empire. Like

Don Quixote he was chivalrous, generous, disinterested, but represented

a superannuated principle that was out of place in the modern world. Day

by day his character as chief of a chimerical alliance became more of

an anachronism; particularly since 1848 aspirations of the people had

been in direct contradiction to his theories of patriarchal despotism.

In Europe this contradiction had diminished the glory of the czar, but

in Russia his authority remained unimpaired owing to his successes in

Turkey, Persia, Caucasus, Poland, and Hungary. All complaints against

the police were forgotten as well as the restrictions laid on the press,

and all efforts to control the government in matters of diplomacy, wars,

and administration were relinquished; it was believed that the laborious

monarch would foresee everything and bring all affairs of state to a

fortunate conclusion. Indeed the success of this policy was sufficient

to silence the opposition offered by a few timid souls, and to furnish

justification for blind confidence in the existing government.

The disasters in the East were a terrible awakening; invincible as the

Russian fleet had hitherto been considered, it was obliged to take

refuge in its own ports or to be sunk in the harbour of Sebastopol.

The army had been conquered at Alma by the allies and at Silistria by

the despised Turks; a body of western troops fifty thousand strong was

insolently established before Sebastopol, and of the two former allies

Prussia was neutral and Austria had turned traitor. The enforced silence

of the press for the last thirty years had favoured the committal of

dishonest acts by employés, the organisation of the army had been

destroyed by administrative corruption. Everything had been expected

of the government, and now the Crimean War intervened and threatened

complete bankruptcy to autocracy; absolute patriarchal monarchy was

obliged to retreat before the Anglo-French invasion. The higher the

hopes entertained for the conquest of Constantinople, the deliverance

of Jerusalem and the extension of the Slavonic empire, the more cruel

the disappointment. At this moment a prodigious activity manifested

itself throughout Russia, tongues were unloosed, and a great manuscript

literature was passed secretly from hand to hand, bringing audacious

accusations against the government and all the hierarchy of officials:

“Awake, O Russia!” exhorted one of these anonymous pamphlets; “awake from

your deep sleep of ignorance and apathy. Long enough we have been in

bondage to the successors of the Tatar khans; rise to your full height

before the throne of the despot and demand of him a reckoning for the

national disaster. Tell him plainly that his throne is not God’s altar

and that God has not condemned our race to eternal slavery. Russia, O

czar, had given into your hands the supreme power, and how have you

exerted it? Blinded by ignorance and passion, you have sought power for

its own sake and have forgotten the interests of the country. You have

consumed your life in reviewing troops, in altering uniforms, and in

signing your name to the legislative projects of ignorant charlatans.

You have created the detestable institution of press-censorship that you

might enjoy peace and remain in ignorance of the needs and complaints of

your people. You have buried Truth and rolled a great stone to the door

of her sepulchre, and in the vanity of your heart you have exclaimed,

‘For her there shall be no resurrection!’ Notwithstanding, Truth rose on

the third day and left the ranks of the dead. Czar, appear before the

tribunal of history and of God! You have trodden truth under foot, and

refused to others liberty while you were yourself a slave to passion. By

your obstinacy and pride you have exhausted Russia and armed the rest

of the world against her. Bow your haughty head to the dust and implore

forgiveness, ask advice. Throw yourself upon the mercy of your people;

with them lies your only hope of safety!”[f]

DEATH OF THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS I

[Sidenote: [1855 A.D.]]

The chivalrous soul of the Emperor Nicholas could not reconcile itself to

the complete wreck of all its political and spiritual ideals. Nicholas

fell a sacrifice to his persistent pursuit of traditions bequeathed to

him by the Alexandrine policy of the last decade.

On the 2nd of March, 1855, Russia, and all European nations, were

dismayed by the unexpected news of the sudden death of the emperor

Nicholas.[b] “Serve Russia!” were his last words to his son and heir. “I

wished to overcome all national afflictions, to leave you a peaceful,

well-organized and happy empire.... Providence has ordained otherwise!”[j]

SKRINE’S ESTIMATE OF NICHOLAS

Nicholas I died as grandly as he had lived, in the firm assurance that

he had done his duty. The nations of Europe watched him shining as a

pillar of fire amid the clouds of anarchy which beset the dawn of his

reign. They stood aghast at his aggressions on Turkey and the relentless

severity with which he crushed the Polish and Hungarian rebellions. For

a generation he was the sword drawn against revolution. He saved Austria

from dismemberment, and checked the premature creation of a democratic

German Empire. Diplomatists styled him the “Don Quixote of politics”; and

his chivalrous spirit had much in common with that of Cervantes’ immortal

hero. While he ruled his subjects with a rod of iron, he was ever ready

to serve them with an unselfishness which has no parallel in history. But

his attempt to stereotype the existing order of things failed because it

infringed the law of nature which decrees that all organisms must advance

or decay. As the nineteenth century wore on, bringing with it inventions

which linked mankind in closer bonds and stimulated the exchange of

thought, the czar of all the Russias became an anachronism.

Nicholas’s conceptions of his duties as a ruler were equally based on

illusions. He strove to cut Russia adrift from Europe, to place her

in quarantine against the contagion of western ideals. Here, again,

he essayed the impossible. Thought defied his custom’s barriers, his

censorship, his secret police; and Russia was already too deeply

impregnated with foreign influences to take the bias which the autocrat

sought to give her energies. But, despite the calamities which it brought

on his people, Nicholas’s reaction served as a corrective to the cardinal

vice of Peter the Great’s reforms--their tendency to denationalise. The

world saw in him a despot of the most unmitigated type. When the storm of

hatred in which he went down to his grave had passed away, his bitterest

foes were fain to admit that he had given to all the peoples of his

empire the germs of a sense of brotherhood, a robust faith in Russia,

which is the surest guarantee of a splendid and prosperous future. Nor

were his subjects slow to recall his many admirable qualities. He was

steadfast and true, devoted to the Fatherland, inexorable to himself

even more than to others. He despised feudalism and privileges--those

quicksands which engulphed the French monarchy and threaten the existence

of others as venerable. When Metternich took exception to the grant of

the highest Russian order to Field-Marshal Radetzki, on the score of the

veteran’s humble origin, Nicholas replied that he valued a man, not for

his ancestors but solely for his deserts. In the private relations of

life--as a husband, father and friend, he shone with the serenest light,

and conferred undying obligations on the empire. Before his reign men

spoke of an imperial dynasty; they now allude to the house of Romanov as

a “family”; and the domestic joys in which succeeding czars have sought

relief from the cares of state find a counterpart in millions of Russian

homes.[k]

FOOTNOTES

[68] [The Uniate is a part of the Greek church which has submitted to the

supremacy of the pope.]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]