| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| wILD I |
Posted - October 29 2004 : 1:53:50 PM
This month is the 150th anniversity of the charge of the Light Brigade.
Re-enactors rode over the same ground in full regimentals, down the same valley of death,sounding bugle calls on the original bugles.Not a dry eye in the house.
Did any of the 7th bugles survive?
And of course I think there was a spot of bother with a message [DC] |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 28 2005 : 10:20:54 PM
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114884/
Is the Roger Fenton article. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 11:25:08 AM
It's a very legitimate and necessary question, but if you read the guy's bio and the story of all this it doesn't seem the sort of think he'd do. Still, cynical is helpful. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 02:39:51 AM
I have seen that photo for years labeled as "after the charge of the Light Brigade" and have not questioned it.
However, considering the way that Sullivan and Brady posed bodies to enhance the impact of their photos, your question is legitimate; especially since the photographers were in competiion with other London newspapers.
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 7:14:49 PM
Given that photo was famous (weren't a lot of them to choose between in 1856), you'd think some mention of fakery would have appeared, no? Nothing. He wasn't driven for cash or fame, being born rich and relatively well known. I never heard of the guy till Slate ran a piece on him and a photo exhibition of his work. Could be, but I don't think that sort of stuff happened till our Civil War when there were photographers in competition. I think when this guy left the Crimea, another arrived. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 5:42:34 PM
I sometimes watch battles of WW2 on the discovery channel.I find that they will take newsreel footage of German troops advancing in France and use it to illustrate an advance in Russia.Perhaps your Victorian photographer was taking similar liberties. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 3:04:28 PM
Dunno, but it's five months after. Pretty grim looking. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 1:54:10 PM
I had a look at the picture.The valley looks too narrow to be the one at Balaklava.And it shows dozens of solid shot coming to rest within inches of each other.Looks very dodgy to me. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 12:13:57 PM
That's not the impression I have, but here's the site.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/251_fen.html
He's called the first war photographer, but I seem to recall photos of American soldiers in the Mexican War the decade previous. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 09:28:29 AM
DC
3 Russian batteries engaged the Brigade.The fire of the flanking batteries would have been dispersed over a wide area as the guns were swung through an aiming arc in order to engage the target as it moved across its front.Only the guns at the end of the valley did not have to alter their aim and the fall of solid shot from these guns would have ended up in or about the same area.
This battery had 8 guns 4 of which were howitzers.This means that the solid shot in your photo came from 4 guns.It is estimated that the battery fired 88 rounds.11 rounds per gun.The last 3 volleys were canister.That means that this battery fired 32 rounds of solid.Yet you count 50.
I don't think a picture of a valley showing a few scattered rounds of solid shot would have brought home to the Victorians the intensity of the barrage the Brigade had ridden through.So for a little effect you get a few troopers from the brigade [who want to be seen as heros]to gather up a few extra for a good snap to empress the folks back home. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 8:22:55 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Not sure who you're referring to, or why, but to imply that if you somehow don't understand something only a deity or son of deity could is pretty vain and silly. What you apparently consider impossible is what most consider high school level. For a claimed soldier, cop, and especially teacher that's an incriminating position. Further, Wiggs, reading you trying to sound comfortable in grammar and vocabulary with which you're at sea is unsettling. Recall how many times you utterly misunderstood what you yourself had posted?
I am utterly and completely devastated. Did you think that I was referring to you? Forsooth D.c., my admiration for your informative and all encompassing threads is exceeded only by your in-depth ability to spread joy and mirth whenever you post.
The individual I was referring to is the antithesis of you. While you are warm and understanding, the jerk I was referring to is an idiot and pompous ass. While you seek to understand the underlining realities of this battle, the jerk I referred to is an Idiot-Savant determined to impress the universe with his arm-chair generalship. While you have continuously offered genuine information that enables all of us to achieve a better understanding of this famous battle, the jerk I referred to does nothing but incite, anger, and encourage participants to exit stage left. While you assiduously study your facts prior to posting informative information, the jerk I was referring to has not read a complete book in his life, let alone a source of information regarding this battle.
No D.c., I was not referring to you. I, therefore, forgive your harsh statements regarding my tenure as a Police officer, member of the U.S. Air Force, and a teacher in the great state of Oklahoma. I know you did not mean to say what you said. Once before I publicly posted my home telephone number and the number of the Prince George's County Police Department to you. Somehow, that entire thread was erased. Perhaps that was a wise decision by whomever was responsible to make such a decision.
However, I have good news. If you will contact 301-336-8800 and asked for the Prince George's County Police Academy they can verify my tenure there. Just mention my name. As for my personal number, just "PM" me my friend, I will gladly give it to you again.
In conclusion, I truly hope that you can appreciated my deep respect for you and my insatiable desire to meet with you, Mano Y Mano, just one time...Money is no object! |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 7:21:42 PM
But the point is that he didn't arrange them, and there's about fifty in a very small area. He just had a retrospective and SLATE covered it and I cannot recall his name except he was Victoria's photographer and if not the first, one of the first war photographers, died young, etc. His were the ones of the Crimean War that are more or less 'famous.' It doesn't prove anything, but all that cannon issue lying in close proximity would suggest, anyway, a lot more firing than has been suggested.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 6:31:26 PM
In any event, the photo shows lots of cannonballs suggesting heavy fire which doesn't comply with the claimed level of Russian cannon fire. Hate to break tradition and be on topic, but there you go.
Did you ever see those civil war photos with dead rebels proped up to make it look like auhentic.Perhaps an imaginative photographer rolled a few balls into position for effect.Be that as it may it is estimated that 190 rounds were fired.But all were not solid as the batteries were mixed 12 pounder guns and howitzers.The howitzers only fired shells and the 12 pounders switched to canister for the last volley.So at a guess I would say that about 100 solid rounds lay around the valley of death for your photographer to amuse himself with. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 12:07:05 PM
Not sure who you're referring to, or why, but to imply that if you somehow don't understand something only a deity or son of deity could is pretty vain and silly. What you apparently consider impossible is what most consider high school level. For a claimed soldier, cop, and especially teacher that's an incriminating position. Further, Wiggs, reading you trying to sound comfortable in grammar and vocabulary with which you're at sea is unsettling. Recall how many times you utterly misunderstood what you yourself had posted?
In any event, the photo shows lots of cannonballs suggesting heavy fire which doesn't comply with the claimed level of Russian cannon fire. Hate to break tradition and be on topic, but there you go. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 9:24:22 PM
To argue and defend a position is the essence of the American way of life. It exemplifies an ideology that separates us from the rest of the world governed by potentates and despots. However, to argue, attack, defame, nit-pick, and generally infuriate the general populace, needlessly, exemplifies a jerk. All things can be over done. It takes a wise man to realize this truism, a fool to ignore it.
However, in defense of jerks (names need not be mention as everyone knows to whom I am referring) can you imagine life without them? Their presence and gasconading is beyond human rationale and understanding but, nevertheless, an important part of the human experience. Our particular "Grinch" is, admittedly, difficult to digest, but still necessary. His desire to lead the conversation in all areas often leads him to comment on items he knows absolutely nothing about; then how the comedy spews forth.
After all, such wisdom and expertise from a single individual has not occurred in a little over 2,000 years. It behooves us to accept and cherish the great "thinker" who is among us. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 04 2005 : 4:32:52 PM
This is a photo of the 'valley of death' of the Light Brigade. You may have to enlarge, but you can see the cannon balls just lying there. Taken within months of the battle, I just read on another site in Slate. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 09 2004 : 11:19:15 AM
by paragraph
1. We wouldn't know otherwise, I guess.
2. So. Now you're back for the Brits being under fire for 7.5 minutes, and the quote says so? Charge, fight, retreat: 7.5 minutes?
3. and 4. So were the Sioux and the Ug tribe of the upper Camelclap River. Don't fight in rain when the bow strings stretch. That's basic, not sophisticated.
In any case, the Russians were not sophisticated enough to make hay out of the LB debacle.
5. The Grand Army was composed of French and virtual slaves and conscripts fighting against their will often enough, and untrusted. Note: here you say one battle: Borodino. Once.
6. Proud civilian. Proud clerk? But what does this mean? Russia didn't participate in a winning battle against the French military without oodles of allies and outnumbering them by a ton.
7. Wait! Now it's twice!
8. They had infantry on three sides. Cavalry. Enemy dehorsed and wounded and disorganized. Bad shooting. Unable to take advantage of this. Unsophisticated. |
| wILD I |
Posted - November 09 2004 : 04:07:59 AM
Again, the solace found in alleged quotes from military greats.No DC just trying to point out that the loss of over 400 mounts was kinda critical to the LB.
2. You have? Great! Page number for the 7.5 minutes for them being "under fire", a request entering its third week.
Page 120 map 13 now go out and buy it.
3. We were, and the Tsar's Army wasn't remotely sophisticatedSophisticated as in the Russians were the Sioux were not.
5. Really? They themselves credited the weather alone.
Their leadership was sophisticated enough to realise that the weather like terrain and time is an element in warfare which can be used to defeat an opponent.
hey lost all the battles and retreated into Russia. They had Prussian Allies. English Alllies. France was alone,
The Grand Army comprised 1/2 million troops drawn from all over Europe and being a single army was an advantage.
Battles? I believe there was just one at Borodino and that something of a phyrric victory for the French
and in every fair fight Russia got handed its behind.
A fair fight? How civilian of you.
Twice, you say, Russia fought Napoleon?
At Leipzig did you not know this?
a better situation and they hit remarkably few British soldiers given their many options and ability to annihilate the LB
to the man.
No DC you see this is where once again you show your total lack of understanding of the battle.To have chased back down the valley after the remnants of the LB would have just repeated the blunder the LB made only in the other direction.You see the heavy brigade and the rest of the British and French armies were drawn up at that end of the valley.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 08 2004 : 10:44:15 AM
by paragraph
1. Again, the solace found in alleged quotes from military greats. I'm not familiar with this one, but we've already established you've fabricated them before. You're officially now reversing your initial position, which is that they were only under fire in toto for 7.5 minutes.
2. You have? Great! Page number for the 7.5 minutes for them being "under fire", a request entering its third week.
3. We were, and the Tsar's Army wasn't remotely sophisticated, as you originally posted. In the Great Patriotic War it is never described as "sophisticated", neither by the Germans nor the Allies. To this day, in fact.
4. This is called "evidence" that they weren't "sophisticated." And oddly, being able to read orders is handy. Literacy isn't trivial in 1850's. A few years later, a much bigger war in the United States featured armies immensely literate. Sophisticated armies they were.
5. Really? They themselves credited the weather alone. They lost all the battles and retreated into Russia. They had Prussian Allies. English Alllies. France was alone, and in every fair fight Russia got handed its behind. Twice, you say, Russia fought Napoleon?
6. I'm not a fetishist for gore. I can imagine. But the fact remains, they could not have asked for a better situation and they hit remarkably few British soldiers given their many options and ability to annihilate the LB to the man. |
| wILD I |
Posted - November 08 2004 : 08:29:22 AM
No Wild, you negate all the casualties obtained in their retreat and at the battery
Perhaps it was JEB Stewart who said to one of his officers who reported that he had so many men killed "How many horses were killed we can make more men but we can't make horses."
The brigade had nearly 400 of their mounts killed and injured in the charge.As a fighting force they were destroyed in those 7.5 minutes.The rest was just mopping up by the Russian Cossacks and Lancers.
Nice try, Wild. You haven't read it.
Now don't tell me DC but the classical reply to that is oh yes I have.
The opposition wasn't a sophisticated Army in WWII.We are discussing a cavalry charge in 1854.
They were illiterate,
I don't think their reading skills were called for that day.
Their officer corps were famous for their incompetence and corruption.
Sophistication is the father of corruption.And I think their fame came from defeating Napoleon twice over.
I'll have to look it up, but I believe most of the casualties were acquired on the way back.
Try getting your hands on "THE CHARGE" by Mark Adkin.It describes in great detail the havoc wrought by solid shot colliding with massed [MASSED NOT SCATTERED]ranks of cavalry.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 06 2004 : 4:39:59 PM
Actually hadn't noticed, given you keep responding and all. |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 06 2004 : 2:50:08 PM
There's really no point in arguing or defending any position, since you will just go off about Burmese mules and crying reenactors.
And I guess you haven't noticed, we do ignore you. But to do so, we had to leave the forum completely. You're like a virus, and the only way to get rid of you is by quarantine.
Enjoy AAO, everyone. Though there's a ceiling on doing so, and it keeps getting a little lower. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 06 2004 : 1:44:46 PM
Or, you know, just ignore that which bugs you like an adult. If you can’t argue or defend your position, then fabricate dramatic conversations, backchannel like schoolgirls, and be willing to act as the instruments of people who don’t dare post themselves.
You guys whine an awful lot; ironic, given the topic and the martial qualities allegedly revered.
|
| El Crab |
Posted - November 06 2004 : 07:32:24 AM
I don't know why you guys even bother anymore. And why the people who run this site allow one person, who seemingly loathes the subject and all its participants, to continue drawing the ire of everyone else is beyond me.
If this were a restaurant, the bitter, drunken lout would be pushed out the door by now. Then again, maybe the few who still post would leave with him. Too late now, the horse has already bolted. No sense in closing the barn door.
Apparently, a barn full of bull**** is better than no barn at all. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - November 05 2004 : 7:04:21 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3944699.stm |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 05 2004 : 6:16:55 PM
By paragraph.
Neither Gray nor I think anything beyond MTC is more than speculation. He says it and I agree. I've been consistent on Gray and I don't dis him.
No Wild, you negate all the casualties obtained in their retreat and at the battery if you seriously suggest that it took 7.5 minutes for them to attack, fight, and return on foot, as most did, I guess. They were under fire the entire time. Again, source, page number.
Nice try, Wild. You haven't read it.
Who were on foot and shot in the back and in the same 7.5 minutes? Amazing. Also, physically impossible.
The opposition wasn't a sophisticated Army in WWII. They were illiterate, speaking at least three separate languages. Their officer corps were famous for their incompetence and corruption. Who timed these attacks? What page? And the Brits cannot agree what the actual order was.
Which contradicts what you just said: "I said the LB was under fire for 7.5 minutes not that the charge took 7.5 minutes." Yet here it refers to the charge. But they were 'under fire' all the way back. You're counting just the artillery. As I recall, the Brits sent new cavalry units to cover their retreat. I'll have to look it up, but I believe most of the casualties were acquired on the way back.
I have read the posts, my assumptions are stated as such, as are my errors. I'm the only one who does. |
|
|
