Department of War Studies, King’s College London

_______________________________________________________________________________
6SSW 2015
BRITISH STRATEGY 1815 - 1856: FROM THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA TO THE PEACE OF PARIS.
2010 – 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________

Module Organiser: Professor Andrew Lambert

Office Hours: Please see Departmental webpage
Contact Details: Office: Office: K7.10
Phone: 020 7 848 2179
E-mail: andrew.lambert@kcl.ac.uk

This module examines the development of British strategy between the end of the Napoleonic wars in 185
and the conclusion of the Crimean war in 1856. The course consists of weekly lectures and seminars on a
range of subjects, which take in British and rival strategies, international history and the impact of economic
and technological issues.

AIMS
The aims of the module are to enable students to comprehend the development of national strategies from
an historical perspective. This will be achieved through a detailed examination of the development and
implementation of British strategy between the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars. To understand the context
within which British strategy was determined, students will also make critical comparisons with the position
of the other major powers.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
Students who successfully complete this module will be able to demonstrate the ability to analyse complex
patterns of national and international activity, to research in secondary sources, to develop a critical
approach to source material, and to present their findings in writing and verbally, with or without visual aids.
The specific focus on security planning and the interaction of economic, political, international and
technological concerns will equip them to address the making of national policy in both historical and
contemporary contexts.

MODULE REQUIREMENTS
It is expected that students will complete appropriate preparatory reading to engage actively and critically in
in-class discussions, attend all lectures and seminars, and submit 3 essays of 3,000 words each.

In addition,
• All essays must conform to the ‘Guidelines on the Presentation of Essays’ in the Student Handbook.
• Students must read the section in the Handbook on plagiarism very closely. Plagiarism (cheating) is a
very serious offence and may result in referral to the Misconduct Committee. Please come to see the
module convenor if you have any concerns or doubts.
• Students should note that attendance at seminars, tutorials etc. is mandatory and that all deadlines
are absolute. A failure to submit work by the appropriate dates will result in a mark of 0. Word limits
are fixed and over-length work may result in penalties being applied. Students should be reminded
that a copy of the comments sheet and mark for all formatively assessed essays is copied and added
to the student files. A failure to submit all required assessed work or to meet other module
obligations, such as making presentations, may be regarded as lack of due industry and may result in
failure to progress, in accordance with the sections on submission of work, attendance, and student
progress in the Student Handbook.
Department of War Studies, King’s College London

ASSESSMENT
To successfully complete the module students have to submit three essays, the first two will be based on seminar
presentations, the third will be chosen form one of two overview essays. Each essay will be of no more than 3,000
words. All three essays will be marked equally. The Module work essays must be handed in no more than one
week after the seminar at which the paper is presented. The final essay is due on the last Monday of the Spring
Term. The module is continuously assessed.

The final assessed essay requires students to demonstrate a mastery of the core issues of the module. The
questions address the three specific issues described under Objectives. The assessment strategy has been
deliberately designed to ensure that the module can only be completed successfully by those who have attended
the full seminar programme. This can requires students to demonstrate a broad knowledge of the module
content.
Students should note that attendance at seminars, tutorials etc. is mandatory and that all deadlines are
absolute. A failure to submit work by the appropriate dates will result in a mark of 0. Word limits are fixed and
overlength work may result in penalties being applied. A failure to submit all work in fulfillment of module
obligations, or to meet other module obligations, such as making presentations, may be regarded as lack of
due industry and may result in failure to progress, in accordance with the relevant sections in the Student
Handbook.

The module will be assessed by adding together the marks form all three essays.

All assessed work is marked under the terms outlined in the College Generic Marking Criteria for
Undergraduate Awards, a copy of which is available in the Handbook, and is subject to further scrutiny in
accordance with the College Marking Framework.

TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS
The module will be taught weekly in two hour blocs, combining lectures, student presentations and seminar
discussion.

LECTURE AND SEMINAR TOPICS

Lectures:

1. The strategic position in 1815, the lessons of war 1793-1815, alternative sources of power, the Royal Navy and
British security.

2. Technology at sea: steam, the threat of invasion and naval rivals.

3. The Mediterranean Basin, from Algiers to Besika Bay.

4. India: a second centre of power in the Eastern Seas.

5. The Origins and conduct of the 'Crimean War', including the Baltic Theatre.

6. British Strategy after the fall of Sevastopol and the peace Process.

Seminars.

Students must answer two questions from Section One, and one from Section Two.

1. EITHER Explain why Britain was interested in (a) the creation of the United Netherlands in 1814-15, OR (b)
the creation of an independent Belgium after 1830?

2. Why was it necessary to reconstruct the Royal Navy after 1815?

3. How did Britain exploit the synergy between commerce, industry and defence in the period 1815 –1856?
Discuss with regard to national policy, strategy and weapons procurement.
Department of War Studies, King’s College London

4. What were the primary roles of the British Army between 1815 and 1854: Were they different from those
of other European and American armies ?

5. Was British policy towards Ottoman Turkey between 1827 and 1834 clear and consistent?

6. Did France pose a strategic threat to the British Isles at any time between 1815 and 1853?

7. Did Russia pose a serious threat to British interests in Asia, the Baltic or the Black Sea region?

8. Why did Britain and America keep the peace after 1815?

9. How did Britain defeat China in the First 'Opium War' (1839-42).

10. Was the Syrian Crisis of 1839-1840 a successful example of armed diplomacy? Consider the crisis in the
context of European and Indian concerns, the political state of Europe and the wars in Afghanistan and
China.

11. Was the British invasion of Afghanistan a success?

12. How far was British strategic planning for a Russian War between March 1853 and March 1854 merely a
revival of Napoleonic experience?

13. Analyse the strategic, operational and tactical issues that determined the outcome of a Crimean battle;
the Alma, Balaklava or Inkerman.

14. Was Paul Kennedy correct to claim that the Baltic campaigns of 1854 and 1855 were 'never very serious'?

15. What was achieved in the Black Sea Theatre after the fall of Sevastopol?

16. Why did Russia make peace in 1856?

READING LIST

This list contains all the core texts. Students should begin by reading the relevant sections of Kennedy and
Bourne, and all of Graham. Thereafter their reading should be informed by the directed the subject being
examined each week.

Anderson, O. A Liberal State at War. Macmillan 1967

Bartlett, C. Great Britain and Seapower 1815 - 1853. Oxford UP 1963

Baumgart, W. The Crimean War. Arnold 2000

Bourne, K. The Foreign Policy of Victorian England. Oxford UP 1970

Cain, P. & Hopkins, A. British Imperialism Vol. 1 1688 - 1914 Longmans 1993

Fuller, W.C. Strategy and Power in Russia: 1600-1917.New York 1992

Goldfrank, D. The Origins of the Crimean War. Longman 1994

Graham, G. The Politics of Naval Supremacy. Cambridge UP 1965

Kennedy, P. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Unwin Hyamn 1988 ch.4

Lambert, A. The Crimean War. Manchester UP 1990

Lambert, A. 'Preparing for the Russian War' War & Society 1989

Lambert, A. The Last Sailing Battlefleet. Conway 1991

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

LeDonne, The Russian Empire and the World, 1700-1917. Oxford 1997

Partridge, M. Military Planning for the defence of the United Kingdom 1814-70. Greenwood 1989

Porter, A. Ed. Atlas of British Expansion. Routledge 1994

Schroeder, P. The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848. Oxford 1995

Strachan, H. Wellington’s Legacy: The Reform of the British Army 1830-1854.

Manchester 1984

Strachan, H. From Waterloo to Balaklava. Cambridge 1985

Section One
1. EITHER Why was Britain so interested in the creation of the United Netherlands in 1814-15, OR after 1830
of an independent Belgium ?

Bartlett, C.J. Great Britain and Seapower Oxford 1963 Part One

Bindoff, S.T. The Scheldt Question to 1839. Allen & Unwin 1945 pp.143-155

Bourne, K. Palmerston. Allen Lane 1982

Cookson, J. Lord Liverpool's Administration. Scottish Academic 1975

Glover, R. The French Fleet 1805-14. Historical Journal 1967

Kennedy, P. Naval Mastery. Allen Lane 1976

Kossman, E. The Low Countries. Oxford UP 1978

Lambert The Last Sailing Battlefleet Conway 1991 Part One & Two.

Schroeder, P. Transformation of European Politics. Oxford UP 1994

Webster, C. The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh. Bell 1934 Ch. V & VIII

Webster, C. The Foreign Policy of Palmerston. Bell 1951

2. Why did Britain reconstruct the Royal Navy after 1815?

Bartlett, C. Great Britain and Seapower. Oxford UP 1963 Part One & Two

Cookson, J. Lord Liverpool's Administration. Scottish Academic 1975

Graham, G.S. The Politics of Naval Supremacy. Cambridge 1965

Hilton, B. Corn, Cash Commerce. Oxford UP 1977

Kennedy, P. The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery. Allen Lane 1976

Lambert The Last Sailing Battlefleet. Conway 1991 Pt. 1 & 2

3. What was the relationship between commerce, industry and national power in the period 1815 –1856?
Discuss with regard to to national policy, strategy and weapons procurement.
Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Cain, P. & Hopkins. A. British Imperialism. Longman 1993

Clapham, J. An Economic History of Modern Britain. Vol 1. Cambridge UP 1930

Crouzet, F. The Victorian Economy. Methuen 1982

Evans, E.J. Forging the Modern State. Longman 1983

French, D. The British Way in Warfare. Unwin Hyman 1990

Hilton, B. Corn, Cash. Commerce. Oxford UP 1977

Kennedy, P. both books

Lambert The Last Sailing Battlefleet. Conway 1991

Porter, A ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century.

4. What were the main roles of the British Army between 1815 and 1854. Did they differ from those of other
European armies ?

Beckett, I. The Amateur Military Tradition. Manchester UP 1991

Burroughs, P. 'The Victorian Army’ Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History vol. 15

Burroughs, P. 'The Ordnance Department and Colonial Defence 1821-1855' Journal of Imperial and

Commonwealth History 1982

Fortescue, J. A History of the British Army. Macmillan 1925

Partridge, M. Military Planning. Greenwood 1989

Strachan, H. Wellington’s Legacy: The Reform of the British Army 1830-1854.

Manchester 1984

Strachan, H. From Waterloo to Balaklava. Cambridge 1985

Strachan, H. 'Lord Grey and Imperial Defence' in Beckett & Gooch Politicians and Defence. Manchester UP
1981

5. What was British policy towards Ottoman Turkey between 1827 and 1834, was it clear and consistent?
Bartlett, C Great Britain and Seapower Oxford UP 1963 pp. 74-87 103-110

Bourne, K. Foreign Policy of Victorian England Oxford UP 1970 Ch 1 & 2

Bourne, K. Palmerston. Allen Lane 1982 ch.VII & VIII

Chamberlain, M. Lord Aberdeen. Longman 1983 ch. 13

Cunningham, A. Eastern Questions in the 19th Century. Cass 1992

Daly, J. Russian Seapower 1827-41. Macmillan 1993

Fuller, W.C. Strategy and Power in Russia: 1600-1917.New York 1992

Gash, N. ed Wellington. Manchester 1990 (As Foreign Secretary).

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Jelavich, B. Russia's Balkan Entanglements. Cambridge 1991

Lambert, A. The Last Sailing Battlefleet. Conway 1991

LeDonne, The Russian Empire and the World, 1700-1917. Oxford 1997

Mitchell, D.W. A History of Russian and Soviet Seapower London 1974 (a very basic narrative, lacking any
analytical merit)

Saul, N. ‘The Russian Navy 1685-1854: Some Suggestions for future Study’ : in Symonds, C. L. ed.
New Aspects of Naval History. Annapolis 1981

Schroeder, P. Transformation of European Politics. Oxford 1995

Shaw, S. & Shaw A History of the Ottoman Empire. vol.2 Cambridge UP 1977

Webster, C. The Foreign Policy of Palmerston. Bell 1951 ch.IV

Woodhouse, C. Navarino. Hodder & Stoughton 1965

6. Did France pose a strategic threat to the British Isles at any time between 1815 and 1853?

Battesti, M. La Marine de Napoleon III. Service Historique 1998

Bartlett, C. Great Britain and Seapower. Oxford UP 1963 ch. 4 & 5

Cox, G. The Halt in the Mud. Westview 1994

Gooch, J. The Prospect of War. Cass 1981

Hamilton, C.I. Anglo-French Naval Rivalry. Oxford UP 1993

Hamilton, C.I. 'The Royal Navy' Journal of Strategic Studies. 1983

Lambert, A. ed. Steam, Steel and Shellfire. Conway 1992 ch.1 & 2

Lambert, A. Last Sailing Battlefleet. Conway 1991 Pt. 1 & 2

Morriss, R. Cockburn and the British Navy. Exeter UP 1998

Partridge,M. Military Planning. Greenwood 1989 Ch.1 & 2

7. Was Russia a serious threat to British interests in Asia, the Baltic or the Black Sea region?

Bartlett, C. Great Britain and Seapower. Oxford 1963 ch.3

Beskrovny, L. G. The Russian Fleet and Army in the Nineteenth Century. Gulf Breeze 1996

Bourne, K. The Foreign Policy of Victorian Britain. Oxford UP 1970

Bourne. K. Palmerston Allen Lane 1982

Chavda, V.K. India, Britain and Russia: 1838-1878. 1967

Daly, J. Russian Seapower. Macmillan 1993

Fuller, W. Strategy and Power in Russia. Free Press 1992

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Ingram, E. Beginnings of the Great Game in Asia 1828-1834. Oxford UP 1979

Jelavich, B. Russia's Balkan Entanglements. Cambridge UP 1991

Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Unwin Hyman 1988 Part Four

Lambert, A. Crimean War. Manchester UP 1990 Ch. 1 - 3

Lambert, A. The Last Sailing Battlefleet. Conway 1991 Part One

Lincoln, W. Nicholas I. Illiniois UP 1978 Ch. 4, 6, 8, 9, 10

Mitchell, D. A History of Russian and Soviet Seapower. Deutsch 1974 ch.7-8

Norris, J. The First Afghan War. Cambridge UP 1967

Seton-Watson,H.The Russian Empire 1801 - 1917. Oxford UP 1967 Ch. IX

Yapp. M.E. Strategies of British India. Oxford UP 1980

8. How did Britain and America keep the peace after 1815?

Bartlett, C. Great Britain and Seapower. Oxford 1963 pp. 65-73, 174-182

Bourne, K. Britain and the Balance of Power in North America. Longman 1967

Graham,G. Empire of the North Atlantic. Toronto UP 1950 ch. 13 , 14

Hagan, K. In Peace and War. Greenwood 1978 Ch 4, 5.

Hitsman, J.M. Safeguarding Canada: 1763-1871. Toronto UP 1968 Ch.6-8

Lewis, E.R. Seacoast Fortifications of the United States. Naval Institute 1993

Schroeder, J. Towards a Maritime Empire. Greenwood 1985

Symonds, C.L. Navalists and Anti-Navalists. Delaware UP 1980

9. Why did Britain attack China in the First 'Opium War' (1839-42).

Bourne, K. The Foreign Policy of Victorian Britain. Oxford 1970

Bourne, K. Palmerston. Allen Lane 1982 Ch. XI

Chesneau, J et al. China from the Opiuum War to the 1911 Revolution

Costin, W. Great Britain and China 1833 - 1860. Oxford 1937

Fay, P.W. The Opium War. Norton 1975

Graham, G.S. China Station. Oxford 1978 Ch. 3-8

Greenberg, M. British Trade and the Opening of China. Cambridge UP 1951

Platt, D. Finance, Trade and Politics in British Foreign Policy. Oxford UP 1968

Kuo, P. The First Anglo-Chinese War. Hyperion 1973

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Steeds, & Nish, I. China, Japan and Nineteenth Century Britain. Irish UP 1977

Twitchett, D. & Fairbanks J.K. The Cambridge History of China. Vol 10 pt. 1

Waley, A. The Opium War through Chinese Eyes. Allen & Unwin 1958

10. Was the Syrian Crisis of 1839-1840 a successful example of armed diplomacy? You should consider the
relative importance of European and Indian concerns, assess the state of Europe and link events in Syria with
the Afghan and China wars.

Bailey, F.E. British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement. Howard 1970

Bartlett, C. Great Britain and Seapower Oxfrod 1963 pp. 128-147

Bourne, K. The Foreign Policy of Victorian Britain. Oxford UP 1970

Bourne, K. Palmerston. Allen Lane 1982 Ch. XI

Bury, J. Thiers. Allen & Unwin 1986

Collingham, J. The July Monarchy. Longman 1988 Ch. 17

Cox, G. The Halt in the Mud: French Strategy. Westview 1994

Cunningham, A. Eastern Questions in the 19th Century. Cass 1992

Daly,J. Russian Seapower and the Eastern Crisis. Macmillan 1993

Hamilton, C.I. Anglo-French Naval Rivalry. Oxford 1993

Jenkins. E. A History of the French Navy. Macdonald 1973

Johnston, D. Guizot. Routledge 1963

Lambert, A. ‘Within Cannon shot of Deep Water’ in Hore, P.ed. Seapower Ashore.Chatham 2001

Mitchell. L. Lord Melbourne. Oxford UP 1997

Schroeder, P. Transformation of European Politics. Oxford UP 1995

Webster, C The Foreign Policy of Palmerston. Bell 1951 Ch.VIII

Temperley, H. England and the Near East. Longmans 1936

11. Why did Britain invade Afghanistan?

Alder, G.J. 'India and the Crimean War'. in Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 1973

Gillard, D.R. The Struggle for India. Methuen 1980

Ingram, E. 'The Rules of the Game' Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth

History. 1975

Moore, R.J. 'India and the British Empire'. in Eldridge, C. Ed. British Imperialism in the Nineteenth

Century. Macmillan 1984

Norris, J. The First Afghan War. Cambridge UP 1967

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Peers, D. 'Between Mars and Mammon: The East India Company and its efforts to reform its Army.'
Historical Journal 1990

Peers, D. Between Mars and Mammon. Tauris 1995

Wolpert, S. A New History of India. Oxford UP 1989 Ch.14

Yapp, M.E. Strategies of British India. Oxford 1980 esp. Chap. 1 & the discussion of policy

relating to Russia.

Webster, C. The Foreign Policy of Lord Palmerston. Bell 1951 pp.738-752 & Ch IX

12. Was the British strategy for a Russian War that developed between March 1853 and March 1854 merely a
replay of Napoleonic period examples?

Goldfrank, D. The Origins of the Crimean War. Longman 1994

Hamilton, C.I. Sir James Graham, the Baltic Campaign and War Planning at the Admiralty in 1854.The
Historical Journal. 1976

Lambert, A. 'Preparing for a Russian War.' War & Society 1989

Lambert, A. The Crimean War. Manchester Up Ch. 2 - 7

Munsell, D. The Unfortunate Duke: (Newcastle). Missouri UP 1985

Strachan, H. Soldiers, Sevastopol and Strategy' The Historical Journal. 1978

13. Analyse the strategic, operational and tactical issues that determined the outcome of a Crimean battle;
the Alma, Balaklava or Inkerman.

Adkin M. The Charge Cooper 1998 which re-considers the action at Balaklava.

see also:

Kinglake,A. The Invasion of the Crimea. 8 vols. Blackwood 1863-1887

Seaton, A. The Crimean War: A Russian Chronicle. Batsford 1977

Sweetman, J. Raglan. Arms & Armour 1993

Curtiss, J.S. Russia's Crimean War. Duke UP 1979

Gooch, B.D. New Bonapartist Generals. Martinus Nijhoff 1959

Anglesey, Lord History of the British Cavalry. Volume 2 Leo Cooper 1975

for narrative accounts.

14. Paul Kennedy asserted that the Baltic campaigns of 1854 and 1855 were 'never very serious'. Was he
correct?

Anderson, O. A Liberal State at War. Macmillan 1967 Part Three.

Bonner-Smith, D The Russian War: 1854. Navy Records Society 1943

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Curtiss, J. Russia's Crimean War. Duke UP 1979 Ch. 17

Fuller, W. Strategy and Power in Russia Free Press 1992

Goldfrank, D The Origins of the Crimean War. Longman 1994

Greenhill, B. & Giffard, A. A Forgotten Naval War. Conway 1988

Hamilton. C. I. Anglo-French Naval Rivalry. Oxford UP 1993

Kennedy, P. The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery Allen Lane 1976

Kennedy, P. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Unwin Hyman 1988

Lambert,A. The Crimean War. Manchester UP 1990 Ch. 12-14, 19-24

Lambert, A. ‘Under the heel of Britannia: The Bombardment of Sweaborg, 9-11 August 1855.’ In Hore,
P.ed. Seapower Ashore. Chatham 2001

Mitchell, D. Russian and Soviet Seapower. Deutsch 1974

15. Why was so little achieved in the Black Sea Theatre after the fall of Sevastopol?

Baumgart, W. The Crimean War. Arnold 2000

Conacher, J.E. Britain and the Crimea. St. Martin's 1987

Conacher, J.E. The Asian Campaign Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. 1990

Echard, W.E. Louis Napoleon and the Concert of Europe. Louisiana UP 1983

Lambert, A. The Crimean War. Ch. 18, 21-24

Gooch, B.D. The New Bonapartist Generals. Martinus Nijhoff 1959 Ch. 14

Saab, A. 'French Foreign Policy' French Historical Studies. 1986

16. Why did Russia accept the allied terms in 1856?

Baumgart, W. The Crimean War Arnold 2000

Curtiss, J.S. Russia's Crimean War. Duke UP 1979

Fuller, W. Strategy and Power in Russia. Free Press 1992

M. Gammer Muslim Resistance to the Tsar: Shamil and the Conquest of Chechnia and Daghestan

London: Cass, 1994.

Goldfrank, D. The Origins of the Crimean War. Longman 1994

Lambert, A. The Crimean War. Manchester 1990

Mosse, W.E. The Rise and Fall of the Crimean System. Macmillan 1963 Ch. 1-2

Rich, N. Why the Crimean War ? Brown UP 1985 Ch.10-12

Schroeder, P. Austria, Great Britain and the Crimean War. Cornell 1972
Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Steele, E.D. 'Palmerston's Foreign Policy' in Wilson K. Ed British Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Policy.
Croom Helm 1987

Section Two Final Assignment: All students to answer one of the following questions.
Either 17. What impact did technology, imperial expansion and economic advances have on the
development of British strategy develop between 1815 and 1854?

Or 18. Was national strategy an effective instrument for securing Britain’s principal interests in the period
1815-1856?