| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 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]
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 30 2004 : 4:28:42 PM
|
I direct everyone to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Ukraine%20Light%20Brigade. This is the AP coverage of that which Wild calls to our attention. Although trivial in the specific, in aggregate the many mistakes and mistatements both in the article and Wild's post reflect well on many of my crabby complaints about LBH, and our history in general, through the years.
1. Wild puts bugle in the plural. According to the story there was one (1) bugle that might have been used that day. There was a grand total of 30 cavalrymen or re-eneactors. There were some spectators. No report of mass weeping.
2. Wild's romantic exaggerations pale beside the idiotic errors within the AP story itself. The capsul for the photograph suggests most of the Brigade was killed. The correct number in the text - 110 killed out of about 630 - is pretty small, all things considered, and rather reflects some pretty bad shooting by the Russians. The horses were slaughtered, of course, and there had to have been many casualties. Yet here, in 2004, you have journalists and historians confusing the word "casualty" - which means unavailable for further combat because of death, injury, capture, or missing by unknown circumstance - with death alone.
Also, there's the annoying fact the charge itself was successful, knocking the Russians off their guns and positions, and if followed up could have been a surprise victory for the British. But their command wasn't top notch, to say no more, because here we have the amusing, in hindsight, situation of the British trying to contend that an inadvertant tactical victory to no strategic end, ordered in error if at all, was a heroic and dramatic failure. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 11:01:37 AM
|
"Into he valley of Death rode the 600"
Or the 630. Or the 653.
OR 621.
It appears they really don't know exactly how many Brits (mainly the EM's )that made the charge that day. That's rather interesting--
And I found myself wondering how they would have fared had Reno been in command??? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 12:41:38 PM
|
They never know. You can't ever know.
The "600" is due solely to the poetic license of Tennyson, because "into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred something" doesn't scan. Yet, this has been treated as if there were military documents attesting to that exact number in the charge. That's a minor, but telling, example of how myth and fantasy become popular history or, in some cases, actual history. The Angels of Mons is another. The LBH is yet another.
I'm rather surprised the SOF subscriber community hasn't instigated a discussion of whether the correct sabre was used, and that if they had carried a - who knows? - Highland Claymore instead and ridden with the reins between the teeth, history would have been changed. Or whether Burmese mules survive cannister shot better and should have been chosen. Sorta blows the 3 to 1 attack theory to hell, and a bunch of other comforting but incorrect military maxims. Given the amount of artillery and numbers against them, the dead should have been much higher, don't you think? There have certainly been worse fiascos.
As for a Reno leading the charge, it's too bad he didn't. At some point, someone should have inquired "after they take the guns, then what?" Well, turns out there is no ability to steal them back to their lines or maintain the position against the enemy or destroy the guns while under attack by Russian cavalry, so they'd have to retreat.
A responsible officer would have inquired "...and the point therefore is....?" or "it's necessary to attack receiving fire from three sides because....?" That wouldn't be failure of command or disobedience. When the officers can't give a good answer (there wasn't one) they'd have to rethink it. This was little more than someone saying "I dare you to take those guns!" Due to the crappy Russian military, they did, could do nothing with them, had to retreat. All for nothing. Zippo.
There is the story of Nolan screwing up the message and/or Cardagan misleading the command, but the alternate stories don't make a lot of sense either. It was war, people were confused about what was happening, and people died to no real purpose. Thank God for Tennyson and a gullible public, or the Army would have had to hang someone after the inquiry. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 1:12:16 PM
|
I'm sure we are all very grateful for DC correction on the Bugles.However it is rather a pity he goes and spoils an excellent post with appalLing inaccuracy.He says
Also, there's the annoying fact the charge itself was successful, knocking the Russians off their guns and positions,3 Batteries engaged the LB.Only one was actually attacked.The battery was not captured and the LB was driven off by a counter attack.
He further goes on to state
The correct number in the text - 110 killed out of about 630 - is pretty small, all things considered, and rather reflects some pretty bad shooting by the Russians.
The LB was under fire for 7.5 minutes in which time they had 190 rounds fired at them.300 men were killed,wounded or missing and 24 officers were killed and wounder.Over 400 horses of the 668 that took part in the charge were killed.The brigade was operationaly destroyed.Better shooting than DC's post would indicate.
You can have the tears and bugles point DC but don't distort historical facts.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 1:29:00 PM
|
Further correction
This was little more than someone saying "I dare you to take those guns!" Due to the crappy Russian military, they did, could do nothing with them, had to retreat. All for nothing. Zippo.
The order was to prevent the Russians from carrying away the guns.In this they failed.
As regards the Russians being crappy, the artillery engaging the LB was better drilled than Grant's artillery was 10 years later. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 1:58:33 PM
|
Again, Wild, not true. You deliberately fabricate a position I don't hold by leaving out a sentence, which says "The horses were slaughtered, of course, and there had to have been many casualties."
Under fire for 7.5 minutes? Ludicrous. The Brigade charged well over a mile under fire, fought a skirmish at the guns, retreated in broken groups often without horses, and you claim it was over in 7.5 minutes? Not seven. Not eight. 7.5? Oh, you mean just the initial charge? Who timed it? Those handy military manuals again.
A battery is amorphous, and doesn't refer to number of guns, we know. Firing shot and cannister at closely packed horses doesn't take particular skill. Given the LB fought artillery fire from three sides, infantry and heavy Russian cavalry and lancers, and was totally outnumbered, that they survived at all is testimony to crappy shooting by the Russians (who actually broke and ran at the apex of the charge...). What did the Russians need to wipe them out God didn't give them that day? The brigade had lost 118 men killed and 127 wounded; 362 horses were killed. At least, according to here:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Charge%20of%20the%20Light%20Brigade
Also, from the same source, the LB faced 'fifty artillery pieces and around 20 battalions of infantry.' Even doubling the casualties above, it seems remarkably bad shooting.
The LB did everything that could have been expected. They took the position but could not hold it, nor could they be expected to. This charge was procedure with no point. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 2:45:58 PM
|
Been doing some quick research into the Light Brigade--must have found 7 different compilations of their casualties and I didn't get into all the sites.
Which isn't so strange when you consider nobody seems to know how many men they had to start with--
But I'm forced to conclude that given the apparent odds, terrain, etc they did seem to suffer fewer casualties than they might have, given all the circumstances.
I had earlier thought they had been virtually wiped out. But as wILD suggests, they were pretty much "operationally destroyed".
Of course charging the WRONG guns didn't help matters-- |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 7:53:15 PM
|
When I say, as I have several times on this board, that I am a world class, letter-sweater coward who was never in the military, Warlord apparently thinks I'm being crafty, because he keeps pointing out that he doesn't think I was in the military. The few here who cared have known that for the two years I've participated, because I told them early on.
Whether soldiers who rise per the Peter Principle to the level of their incompetence have greater insight into the military they serve than civilians who have worked with them for decades is a question you should ask the Vice-President. I'm glad you're proud of your service, but I'm proud I don't kowtow to uniform on sight and hope we never get to that Prussian point, which drove much of Europe our way and against which we fought several times. You know that, right?
In any case, you continually bring up your service as if that demands acquiescence to your recondite views or you just want to talk about yourself. This isn't about you (or me), isn't restricted to uniforms, and many of the most informed people on this forum's topic never served either.
You'll note my postings have hyperlinks and references. Would that Wild and others did. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 01 2004 : 12:23:46 PM
|
Under fire for 7.5 minutes? Ludicrous. The Brigade charged well over a mile under fire, fought a skirmish at the guns, retreated in broken groups often without horses, and you claim it was over in 7.5 minutes? Not seven. Not eight. 7.5? Oh, you mean just the initial charge? Who timed it? Those handy military manuals again.
This is a bit rich coming from a man who took me to task over a matter of 3 minutes.Rhetroic is all very well but when it is innocent of even a modicum of research or knowledge of the subject under discussion it amounts to nothing more than verbiage.
The brigade was never under fire from all three batteries at the one time.In fact only one battery engaged them over the first half mile.And it was only over the last few hundred hundred meters did they come within the field of fire of two of the batteries.
You have a problem with 7.5 minutes why? As regards the batteries engaging the shattered remnants retreating ,it would be a waste of ammunition.
Also, from the same source, the LB faced 'fifty artillery pieces
The Fedioukine battery had 10 guns and fired 70 rounds.
The Bojanov battery had 8 guns and fired 32 rounds.
The Obolensky battery had 8 guns and fired 88 rounds.
That's 26 guns not 50.All batteries would have had difficulty seeing the LB after the discharge of the first salvos because of the smoke.
The Obolensky battery [which was charged]was not supported by infantry and stood by their guns to the end.
26 guns manned by crappy Russian gunners destroyed 5 regiments of elite British cavalry.It does not read very well over breakfast.That sort of thing upset the Victorians.Thus the embellishments.
The real heros that day were the Turks but they are not as colourful as Lancers,huzzars and light dragoons.
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 01 2004 : 4:17:25 PM
|
Had the batteries which engaged the Light Brigade been involved in the earlier fighting that day? I was wondering because it took cast iron cannon at least a couple of rounds to warm-up enough to be fairly accurate which might go far in answering why the casualty rate was not even higher. I can't figure out the answer from the various Crimean War sites and hoped someone had more detailed knowledge.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 02 2004 : 1:45:09 PM
|
Sources, Wild. Sources.
THE CHARGE by MARK ADKIN [The real reason why the light brigade was lost]
Had the batteries which engaged the Light Brigade been involved in the earlier fighting that day? I was wondering because it took cast iron cannon at least a couple of rounds to warm-up enough to be fairly accurate which might go far in answering why the casualty rate was not even higher.
My understanding is that the batteries had not been in action for some time before the charge.However it was such a huge target that accuracy of a very high order was not required.What was required was good drill ,speed,and a steady nerve all of which the Russian gunners had in abundance. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 04 2004 : 11:47:58 AM
|
Wild, I made consistent fun of the precision of the nineteen minute/sixteen minute issue even before the error on my part.
Even in the remote chance that Russian military records are accurate (they weren't through WWII or in Afghanistan, as Putin noted), you say 'fire' but limit it to the artillery. What about all the Russian infantry and cavalry, which I read fought those Brits that made the attacked battery. Where do you get 7.5 minutes? You've managed to confuse the length of the battle (under fire) with the time of the initial charge (of course, an utter guess by the author...)interpsersed with utter nonsense (those welling eyes).
Help me out. Page numbers for your facts so we can be sure you haven't just just read the reviews on the Web, although what I've seen indicates you failed in that. I haven't read the book, but much of what you have posted seems to be incorrect. I see there that the charge lasted seven minutes, but you say the Brits were under fire for 7.5 minutes (source? page?), so apparently they immediately either retreated on foot over the ground in 30 seconds or the Russians ceased fire and exchanged pleasantries with the retreating Brits as they ambled back. Of course, the Adkin book review and everything else gives somewhat different info than you do, which is puzzling.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844137341/qid=1099584323/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_3_1/026-0217893-2252460
They were literally fish in a barrel, Wild. That they temporarily dehorsed hundreds and killed 150 (or whatever) isn't terribly impressive given the amount of time the Russians had to accomplish the task and that an entire brigade could have easily been cut off with Russian troops immediately available and annihilated. Most British casualties, I read, were acquired during the retreat when they were on foot.
Wild, you dingbat, my whole point is that all this prissy precision of facts and statistics and weapons 2.5% more lethal on rainy days and all of this crappola at Balaclava and LBH is the stigmata of something not entirely scientific. It's the substitution of detail that conceivably might be relevant for an honest analysis of what went wrong and why nobody hung for it. They're fine for indications and possible explanations but you simply, simply can NOT believe these century and half after the fact analyses as God's own truth. It's dangerous to accept it without cynical thought.
7.5% suggests surety, but what is that measuring? The first line leaving and arriving? The first line leaving, the last line arriving? That could be a minute right there. And I'm willing to bet whatever the actual stated time is, it's not first hand, and an assumption based on some military manual calculation of what horses cover certain distances at certain gaits, a personal favorite hereabouts. Which is to say, an utter and barely educated guess.
Of course, there is no proof what gaits were used for how long. We do know that those horses weren't charging full out for 7 minutes. This means that they were moving at slow gaits in tight units for prolonged minutes. Meat on the table. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 05 2004 : 06:49:37 AM
|
Wild, I made consistent fun of the precision of the nineteen minute/sixteen minute issue even before the error on my part. DC you can take every time Gray's research has come up with and in isolation throw doubt on it. but as an overall time framework nobody has come up with anything better.It has become noticable that as your theories are shown up as unfounded speculation your last recourse is to attack Gray.
Where do you get 7.5 minutes? You've managed to confuse the length of the battle (under fire) with the time of the initial charge (of course, an utter guess by the author...)interpsersed with utter nonsense (those welling eyes).
You must stop making assumptions and actually read the posts.I said the LB was under fire for 7.5 minutes not that the charge took 7.5 minutes.The initial part of the advance at a walk was not under fire.
Help me out. Page numbers for your facts so we can be sure you haven't just just read the reviews on the Web, although what I've seen indicates you failed in that.
Page 1 to 260
so apparently they immediately either retreated on foot over the ground in 30 seconds or the Russians ceased fire and exchanged pleasantries with the retreating Brits as they ambled back.
The battery was over run with the gunners killed/wounded scattered.The LB then came under attack from the Cossacks and Hussars but nowhere were these attacks pressed home with the Russians doing little more than harassing the stragglers
Wild, you dingbat, my whole point is that all this prissy precision of facts and statistics and weapons 2.5% more lethal on rainy days and all of this crappola at Balaclava and LBH is the stigmata of something not entirely scientific.
No DC that's where you are wrong.Balaclava was very different from the LBH.There were hundreds of survivors,thousands of witnesses and unlike the LBH the opposition were a sophisticated modern army .The action was very simple,a body of cavalry attacking a stationery artillery position.There is no LBH crappola required to piece together the Battle.
7.5% suggests surety, but what is that measuring
From the first salvo to the last salvo fired just as the LB charged home.
Of course, there is no proof what gaits were used for how long. We do know that those horses weren't charging full out for 7 minutes. This means that they were moving at slow gaits in tight units for prolonged minutes. Meat on the table.
Once again I urge you to read the posts and stop making assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on November 06 2004 1:45:21 PM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
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. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
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.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Charge of the Lght Brigade
