Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole

Use pages 44 and 45 in your textbooks.
We are going to try and produce a collaborative answer to the question below.
Do you agree with the view that Mary Seacole, and not Florence Nightingale, was the real 'angel of mercy' during the Crimean War?
Use source U and V and your own knowledge.

Your task is to read the sources and write either an introduction, paragraph for or against (using the sources and your own knowledge) or a conclusion.
You must try and write a different part of the essay than the people before you, so we end up with all sections of an answer.
Good luck.

Overall i agree with the statement. Without undermining Nightingales role in the Crimean war, which was huge, i dont believe she was an 'Angel of Mercy'. This term suggests that Nightingale would be compassionate and attentive towards the soldiers but there is no evidence shown for this. She was a 'Genius' of organisation and source u clearly shows that she knows how to run a hygenic hospital but merciful? However Mary Seacole on the other hand ( ) is praised for hving the these attributes, as shown in source V her 'British hotel' was seen as a 'Refuge' which relates to the idea of mercy (due to connotations of safety and shelter). Thus proving she was the true Angel of Mercy.

The term ‘angel of mercy’ is taken to mean the superior person in the field of nursing in the Crimean War. When comparing Mary Seacole to Florence Nightingale, one only has to examine the extent of Seacole’s achievements in the Crimea to see that she falls short of Nightingales own success.

Both nurses were made famous by their actions in the Crimea and impact they had on nursing, however it is debatable on how far Mary Seacole’s ‘British Hotel’ actually benefitted the soldiers health. An extract The Victorians by A.N. Wilson does reveal that Seacole “treated patients suffering from cholera and dysentery”. However outweighing this fact is the point that Seacole’s hotel seems little more than a place of rest and rehabilitation for the soldiers during the “long months when nothing much appeared to be happening”. From private letters from Nightingale we see her opinion that Seacole “did some good – and made many drunk”. Seacole was certainly on hand to give out supplies and refuge to the soldiers on the front, yet it is highly questionable to whether these actions earn the right to name her a true ‘angel of mercy’.

Nightingale on the other hand, was a fully established nurse at a time where the field of nursing was largely disorganized and primitive. Her hospital in Scutari held a large number of wounded and sick soldiers from the Crimea, many of which died from the poor conditions of the hospital. Yet these conditions would have been much worse were it not for Nightingale and her team of nurses, as historian Clive Pointing points out in The Crimean War “Their programme was indictment of the previous management and the death rate was subsequently reduced from 42 per 1,000... to 2 per thousand by June of that year”. On a personality scale, it is true that Nightingale was seen as a cold and strict teacher compared to the apparent warmness of Seacole, as proven by private complaints of Nightingale towards her staff “I fear they must be recalled... because I don’t”.

Despite her many criticisms, Florence Nightingale was undoubtedly the pioneer for the vast improvements in the standard of nursing years after the Crimean War. Her fame and public support in Britain paved way for the Nightingale school of nursing in London, allowing students to learn nursing in a professional environment. Whilst not forgetting that Seacole might have equally made an impact had she shared the same amount of fame, Nightingale certainly is the superior nurse in the Crimea and deserving of the title ‘angel of mercy’.

Both Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale were innovative nurses who changed professional nursing and paved the way for improvements to professional nursing for the future. They are both very well known for very different reasons, Nightingale being the first nurse to gain huge success from her well regarded work within Crimea and acquiring her nickname 'The Lady With The Lamp' after the huge support she gained from Britain after having heard of the horrific illnesses and injuries the soldiers were suffering from William Russell's reports. On the other hand, Seacole was one of the first black nurses to feature especially since the abolishing of slavery which only occurred less than 50 years ago therefore this breakthrough was very major at the time. Nightingale was certainly the more successful of the two both during and after the Crimean War as the Nightingale nursing school and trust fund had featured shortly after the War however it can be said Seacole was the better of the two by some historians or in other words the real 'angel of mercy'. The term 'angle of mercy' can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, it can be interpreted to mean the personality of Nightingale or Seacole, the nursing skills or even the quality of care that they carried out to the soldiers. Most historians would believe this title is better suited to Nightingale however some may argue and would believe it's better suited to Seacole.

To conclude, i agree with the statement. Without demoting Nightingales job in the Crimean war it is hard to beleive that she was the true angel of mercy.This means that Nightingale would be hard working and helpful to the soldiers but there is not much evidence to be shown. When it came to organizing and understanding the needs of the men which source u shows clearly, it also says she knows what a hospital needs to be hygenic. However Mary Seacole is shown for having attitudes of care and kindness to these men, in source V it mentions her 'British hotel' whuch she began to use as a form of Refuge for the men which comes to the idea of mercy. This shows that the real angel of mercy was Marry Seacole due to her actions.

There is no clear answer to the question "Who was the real angel of mercy during the Crimean war?" without evaluating the sources. Both Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole showed aspects of being angels throughout the course of the Crimean war, to perfectly come to a conclusion regarding the matter, the sources must be taken into account.


Do you know what I'm saying?

Source U details a Lithograph of a ward in one of the hospitals in the Chrimea which was published at the end of the war. Its important to any historian looking at the conflict or more importantly the state of medical care for soliders and nursing during the war since it gives some indication of public perception of teh conflict and the effectiveness of the nursing at teh end of it in particular. The source is of a hopsital in scuttari which is where Florence Nightingale was based during her time in the region. The fact it is a Lithograph is important because this was an expensive method of prduction (on polished stone/metal) and so would have only been created if it was the commonly held belief of the public. It can be inferred from it that at the end of the war Florence Nightingale was held in high esteem by the public. It can be further inferred that a contributing factor towards her being attributed the title of "Angel of Mecy" was due to publications and pictures such as this which show her hospitals as being clean neat and ordered as the source does show.

The "Angel of Mercy" could be seen as either Florence Nightingale or Mary Seacole. we see from the two sources, source U and source V, that both Nightingale and Seacole had a positive impact during the course of the war. Nightingale; due to her organisation skill and her ability to cope and deal with suffering could be seen as the 2Angel of Mercy" however, Seacole could be seen as the "Angel of Mercy" due to her practicality and attentative skills.

The term Angel of mercy implies many things, in the context of this answer i will take it to mean the most caring and devoted nurses.

Florence Nightingale and Mary seacole both used very different methods of nursing. Florence nightingale had funding from the governmet so she could afford to buy supplies for her hospitals, she foccussed alot of her efts on gaining supplies for the hospitals and getting them cleaned up, source U shows a clean ward which nightingale had obviously cleaned up, this was effective in saving patients lives but would not have given her the title angel of mercy.

On the other end of the scale, mary seacole did not have any government funding meaning she had to pay for all her supplies my herself, this shows commitment to her job, she also spent alot of her time on the frontline tending to wounded soldiers and giving them food and tea. source V shows that she was attentive to all their needs which may well have gained her the title of the angel of mercy.

In conlusion i think that mary seacole was the true angel mercy as she risked her own life to save the soldiers, who loved and admired her, he may also have appeared physically like an angel to some of the soilders as she drifted throught the battlefields healing people. althought Nightingale was still a very effective nurse i dont think she would have been called this as she spent alot of time in the hospitals cleaning and buying supplies for the horts on gaining supplies for the hospitals and getting them cleaned up, source U shows a clean ward which nightingale had obviously cleaned up, this was effective in saving patients lives but would not have given her the title angel of mercy hospitals.

Sam WebbEEEEEEEEE

It is impossible to come to a definitive answer on whether Mary Seacole is the real, ' Angel of mercy ' over florence Nightingale from the Crimean war, until we have analysed all the evidence possible about the two prolific nurses. Factors such as achievements in the field, government support and how the British soldiers reported the two woman, have to be analysed and cross referenced for any form of answer to be structured. Once these factors have been taken into consideration, a conclusion to the question can be made, but until this process has been undertaken, it is not possible to come to a clear judgement.

The sources show that both nurses had a positive impact on the Crimean war. Source U shows the hospital that was maintained by Nightingale, showing that she performed effective medical care for troops wounded in battle. In contrast to this, source V details the work performed by Seacole. It says that she was "attentive to their practical needs" and that the men felt at ease with "Mother Seacole." This account shows that Seacole did more than just treat the men medically, she was there for them at all times and even under fire kept up her work, showing that she was indeed the real "Angel of Mercy."

Florence Nightingale always seems to be the focus of people's attention when looking at the Crimean War. This is unfair because Mary Seacole played just as important a part as Nightingale. Nightingale is referred to as 'the angel of mercy' when in fact she did very little nursing, but more worked on the running and organising of the hospital, meaning she was more an administrator than a nurse. The phrase 'angel of mercy' indicates some sort of care and compassion towards the soldiers in her care, but there is no evidence to back this claim up and so it cannot be relied upon. Source U does turn around and support the idea that she was more into the organisational aspects of the hospital because she is referenced as a 'genius'. Mary Seacole is shown in a more merciful light because her hospital is referred to as a 'hotel' which implies she does well to make sure that the soldiers are well looked after and are comfortable in their surroundings. Therefore I feel that it is a fairer judgement to call MAry Seacole an angel of mercy rather than Nightingale

what the hell. its my birthday and im writing on a history forum at 12am........happy birthdaty me :S

Do you agree with the view that Mary Seacole, and not Florence Nightingale, was the real 'angel of mercy' during the Crimean War?
Use source U and V and your own knowledge.

Your task is to read the sources and write either an introduction, paragraph for or against (using the sources and your own knowledge) or a conclusion.
You must try and write a different part of the essay than the people before you, so we end up with all sections of an answer.

I agree with this statement, the word angel suggests someone who is from heaven doing good, mercy is someone who is forgiving and empathises (think thats how you spell it) with someone. mary seacole was exactly that.
Source U is a lithograph showing a picture of a field hospital, possibly mary seacoles as nightingale had a hospital in balaclava. I can infer from the lithograph that hygine was at its peak. This is crucial especially as most of the deaths were from poor hygine.
Source V states that if a soldier was to be injured, he would have been taken to Nightingales hospital, If however were just simply ill, they would have been taken to Seacoles hospital. soldiers felt more comfortable there and is described as a hotel. Nightingale was a crucial figure in maintaining hospitals, but on the other hand soldiers felt more comfortable with seacole.[b]

Happy birthday for yesterday Con... gettin beatssss!

Sources U & V show that both nurses had a good impact on the war. Source V shows how useful Seacole was, it details her as "attentitive" to soldiers needs and soldiers were so comfortable with her that they called her "Mother Seacole" On the other hand you have source U that shows Nightingale was too effective on the front line. Perhaps Seacole was more effective - The real Angel of Mercy but you would have to look closer at the sources to get a better opinion of who was better.