A disaster? No.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Charge of the Light Brigade
tenkisoratoti — 19 years ago(July 17, 2006 01:33 PM)
The films good, and will give usual Hollywood viewers who know little of history a real shock at the end. However, the Charge of the Light Brigade, conducted by the 4th and 13th Light Dragoons, 17th Lancers, and the 8th and 11th Hussars was not the disaster it was made out to be. It was certainly a sour mis-understanding to send probably the best cavalry in the world to certain failure but the Brigades performance under such pressure is outstanding. British casualties were in and around 200, Russian casualties however, according to a French body count, were roughly 600. Several Cossack Officers, after the battle, proclaimed that they would not face British cavalry again. French heavy cavalry covered the Light Brigades retreat and retook the captured guns in the process.
All in all, it was a blunder but certainly not a catastrophe. -
nowhereman-4 — 16 years ago(May 02, 2009 12:22 AM)
Old post, I know, but still worth answering.
I don't think anyone questions the British cavalry's performance at Balaclava; it's the staggering percentage of casualties - and the failure to accomplish anything - that makes the Charge such a grievous blunder. Of 673 mounted men that began, 247 were killed or wounded; when the missing are added in, the number is 297. 297 of 673 is
44 percent casualties
. That's appalling. After regrouping, only 195 men were left with mounts. Well over 400 horses were killed. And, all this loss of life was basically for naught. The guns captured by the Russians, and retaken by the French (
not
the Light Brigade), had already been spiked, and were useless.
So, I must respectfully disagree. IMHO, I don't think it's inaccurate to term such a futile, fruitless deed - however valiantly carried out - a disaster, especially when it resulted in so much senseless loss of life. -
willjohn — 13 years ago(April 27, 2012 01:47 PM)
More Turkish troops than British troops were killed at Balaclava. The Turks were described, unfairly, as cowardly by British media coverage. Tennyson? He was nowhere near the place.
British contempt for the Turks led to Winston Churchill's underestimation of Turkish willingness to defend their own country, leading to the catastrophic invasion of Gallipoli during World War I.
The Turks lost many battles in Palestine, but defended their home patch valiantly. Churchill later got it right about Hitler, but he was dead wrong about Turkey in 1915. -
willpollock — 12 years ago(October 26, 2013 03:01 PM)
It may be noted that the number killed in the charge was nothing compared to the 16,000 British troops who died from dysentery in the Crimean War.
Hygiene at that time was appalling and clean water was something people talked about. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 12 years ago(July 03, 2013 08:16 PM)
Lord George Paget (who led the 4th Light Dragoons in the Charge) makes a similar point in his memoir. To wit (p. 205):
[The Light Brigade] attacked a line of 18 field guns, and they disabled them.
Cavalry, I conceive, cannot
take
guns, in the light of
retaining
them. [emphasis in the original]
When they have disabled guns, it is all that can be expected of them, and this they did, and it cannot be construed in the light of a defeat that they could not retain them.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Paget%2C_George_-T he_Light_Cavalry_Brigade_in_the_Crimea%281881%29.pdf
Not to take away from the question of whether the Charge should have happened in the first place. But worth considering.
"The melancholy truth was that his glorious golden head had nothing in it." -
finnegansword — 12 years ago(November 20, 2013 07:51 AM)
For those of you who wish to see the survivors of the Charge of the Light Brigade see Roger Fenton's fine early photograph made in the field. Go to my Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/finnegansword/5536163144/
and for those who wish to hear the bugle call that rallied the men, why not try https://archive.org/details/EDIS-SWDPC-01-04