Information on the Turkish Army is, unfortunately, extremely limited. Even Turkish language histories of the war provide much less detailed information on the Turkish armies than they do on any of the other belligerents. This appears to be largely due to the abysmal state of the Turkish state archives at Topkapi. Infantry and artillery both wore blue coats trimmed red and a red fez with blue tassels. Long grey or white cloaks or overcoats with hoodswere issuedfor winter wear. Their officers (French and British) described them as fine men, well drilled and disciplined, but with shoddy uniforms, and they were badly armed and badly officered. They were for the most part armed with French smoothbore muskets. Sketches taken from Embleton, G.A. The Crimean War 1853-56, Almark (London, 1975). Since modern Turkish uses the Roman alphabet, there are relatively few scholars, even in Turkey, who can work with the archival material utilizing the Arabic alphabet. in fact, my understanding is that these archives are largely uncatalogued and consist in part of large bales of documents. However, a game requires reasonably precise information in order to paint and mount armies and deploy them for battle. As a result, the following section includes what information I have been able to unearth as well as a large number of suppositions and guesses. To the extent possible, I have indicated where I have departed from known information and entered the realm of guesswork. The largest uniform component of the Turkish Army was the Corps (Ordu), of which there were six in peacetime. The corps contained six regiments of infantry (each of three battalions), six separate rifle battalions, four regiments of cavalry (each of six squadrons), and a regiment of artillery with twelve batteries (each of six guns). Given a nominal strength of 900 men per battalion and 120 men per squadron, a full-strength corps would muster 21,600 infantry, 2,880 cavalry and 72 guns. During wartime, an additional six reserve infantry regiments and four reserve cavalry regiments would nearly double the strength of the corps to over 40,000 men. However, it is doubtful that units were ever up to their full strength. Actual field strength of infantry battalions and cavalry regiments appeared to hover at about 350 to 400 later in the war, although the troops that served with the French and British -around Sevastopol often averaged about twice that. The corps was formally divided into two divisions. I am not certain of the exact composition of brigades under the divisions, or whether they were of a uniform composition. In addition to the regular and reserve troops of the Turkish Army proper, there were also troops raised from North Africa, particularly Egypt and Tunisia. Egypt at this time was functionally autonomous and fielded its own armed forces. There was considerable variation in quality among Turkish troops, but the Anatolian troops were generally regarded as quite good. Egyptian troops were also among the best of the Turkish forces available. 27,000 Tunisian troops were also used in the war, although the majority (about 20,000) were poorly trained, equipped and disciplined reservists, generally regarded as of limited military value. BATTLE OF THE ALMA There was, according to the Turks, a corps of 20,000 men assigned to support the invasion of the Crimea, under the command of Ahmed Pasha (referred to variously as an Admiral and a General, unless there are two Ahmeds floating around in the same force). One division was landed and placed under the command of the French, and this is referred to at Alma as the "General Ahmed Firkasi" (General Ahmed division). One western source, however, refers to the Turkish commander as Sulieman Pasha. I am inclined to trust the Turks on this one, although it is possible that Ahmed was the overall commander and Sulieman was the commander on the ground. Apparent strength of the division was between 7,000 and 9,000 men. (I assume 7,000 is correct.) One source lists it as having ten battalions. GUESS: 3 infantry regiments, 1 rifle battalion. BATTLE OF BALAKLAVA There were either 6 or 8 battalions of Turks in the Balaklava area at the time of the Russian attack, all under the command of General Rustem Pasha. The Turks say that eight battalions are present, but I am inclined to believe that only six were in the actual defensive lines, with the other two being somewhat to the rear (perhaps on the plateau in the area of the Col). Most western sources list the causeway redoubts as having one battalion in Redoubt No. 1 (Canrobert's Hill) and a wing (half of a battalion) in each of the other five redoubts, or a total of 3 1/2 battalions. Selby places the number of Turks at Kadikoi supporting the 93rd at 2 1/2 battalions. Taken together this totals six battalions, and it is my suspicion that the missing two battalions are deployed near the "Col" where the road from Balaklava ascends the cliffs of the Chersonese plateau. One source suggests that these troops areTunisian reservists or irregulars and, as a result, of poor quality. Total strength in the Balaklava area was 4,000, although whether this is the strength of 6 battalions or 8 is uncertain. Rustem-Pasha's rank was "Liva", which I take to be brigadier general (Livasi = Brigade). Thus, the troops at Balaklava are presumably part of Division Ahmed. GUESS: Rustem-Pasha: 2 infantry regiments, 2 rifle battalions. BATTLE OF INKERMANN There are 11,000 Turks on the Chersonese by the time of Inkermann, but they are divided into two detachments (divisions?). 5,000 are under French command and are deployed south of the Col. 6,000 are under British command. Since the British had become disillusioned with the Turks after Balaklava, these appear mostly to have been deployed as laborers. GUESS: Ahmed-Pasha, division commander; Sulieman-Pasha (French): 2 infantry regiments, 1 rifle battalion (5,000); Rustem-Pasha (British): 2 infantry regiments, 2 rifle battalions (6,000). BATTLE OF EUPATORIA The initial force would appear to be two Rumelian divisions of the 3rd "Ordu" under Ismail Pasha, one of the better Turkish corps commanders according to one source. According to Todleben, the two divisions were commanded by Mehamed Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha and totaled 21,000 men in 33 battalions. Hamley places the Turkish strength at 23,000 by February 16th (the attack) and lists the artillery strength as 34 heavy guns. By March, the Turkish force had grown to between 30,000 and 35,000 infantry, according to Guerin, and included the divisions of Mehemet Pasha, Berhen Pasha and Tefich Pasha. Mehemet and Mehamed are probably one and the same. Berhen-Pasha was an English general of the Indian Army serving with the Turks who had commanded a brigade of irregular infantry during the siege of Silistria in 1854. Guerin also mentions Selim Pasha as being present. It is unclear to me whether this is the same Selim who earlier commanded ist Ordu in Anatolia and subsequently was named commander of Armenia, or if he is the commander ot an Egyptian division as is claimed by one source. The Turks say that by May 16th Omar Pasha's army had grown to a strength of 55,000 men, and thus there probably are more than just three divisions present. This (again according to the Turks) consisted of 36 infantry regiments, 32 cavalry regiments, and 400 "cossack" cavalry (which I take to be Bashi Bazooks). A western source lists Omar Pasha's army as having 55,000 infantry, 11,000 cavalry, and 111 guns. An alternative reading of this is 55,000 men, 11,000 horses, and 111 guns. This would give them about 45,000 infantry and 9- 10,000 cavalry. I am inclined toward this view. GUESS: I assume that the initial force was 21,000 to 23,000 and consisted of the following: Corps Commander: Ismail-Pasha; Mehamed-Pasha: 5 infantry regiments, 3 rifle battalions (11,500), 3 batteries; Ibrahim-Pasha: 4 infantry regiments, 3 rifle battalions (9,500), 3 batteries; 6 heavy corps batteries. By March, this force has been reinforced to a strength of 35,000 by the arrival of Tefich-Pasha's and Berhen-Pasha's divisions. Tefich-Pasha: 6 infantry regiments, 5 rifle battalions (7,000), 1 battery; Berhen-Pasha: 6 infantry regiments, 5 rifle battalions (7,000), 1 battery. By May 16, the total strength has grown to 55,000 with the following additions: Selim-Pasha's Egyptian Division: 8 infantry regiments, 6 rifle battalions (10,000), 2 batteries; 5 divisions of cavalry, each with 6 cavalry regiments (2,000 per division); plus two regiments of irregular cavalry (400 total). Total Infantry: 36 regiments. Total Cavalry: 30 regiments of regulars, 3 regiments of irregulars. INVASION OF KERTCH The Turkish force sent to Kertch consisted of 5,000 infantry under Rechid Pasha. GUESS: 3 infantry regiments. BATTLE OF CHERNAYA In June of 1855 there are, according to Hamley, 10,000 Turkish troops with the siege force. The Turkish troops in the vicinity of the Chernaya consisted of 10,000 infantry and 36 guns (or six batteries) under Osman Pasha at Komary, according to Seaton. The Turks make this a force of 12 battalions. GUESS: Osman-Pasha: 3 infantry regiments, 3 rifle battalions (10,000), 6 batteries. NOTE: The troops of Rechid Pasha and Osman Pasha are a combined total of 15,000 men in 6 infantry regiments and 3 rifle battalions. The total at the time of Inkermann was11,000 men in4 infantry regimentsand 3 rifle battalions. It is probable that those troops are still present and have been reinforced with two additional regiments of infantry. ABOUT SOURCES I make several references to what "the Turks" say about this or that in the course of this article. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide much more by way of specific bibliographic citation. About ten years ago a customer, aware of my interest in the Crimea, sent me a photocopy of a Turkish language history of the war. With a Turkish-English dictionary I have haltingly deciphered parts of it (particularly those references to troop strengths, numbers of battalions, etc.) and have included them here. Unfortunately the title page of the photocopy is missing and I am unable to give the book's title, author's name, or any other bibliographic information. I also do not remember who sent me the photocopy. I considered leaving any reference to it out, but included it because I don't consider this to be a scholarly article; it is merely a presentation of what little I've been able to piece together over the years on the Turkish Army in the Crimea. it is by a wargamer for wargamers, and is presented at face value for whatever usefulness the reader may find in it. In addition to the Turkish language history, the main works consulted were Kinglake's ever-valuable history of the Crimea, and the following smaller volumes. Guerin, Leon, Histoire De La Derniere Guerre De Russie (1853-1856). Dufour, Mailot et Boulanger; Paris, 1858. v. I and II. Hamley, General Sir Edward, War ln TheCrimea. Charles Scribner's Sons; New York, 1891. Rousset, Camille, Histoire De La Guerre De Crimee. Libraire Hachet et Cie; Paris, 1877, v. I and II. Seaton, Albert, The Crimean War, A Russian Chronicle. St. Martin's Press; New York, 1977. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VII #6 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1987 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com