Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
With 200 dead horses and the use of trip wires I wouldnt say the stunts were ahead of their time :skull:
CBR
True... but the good news is I'm sure there was plenty of horsemeat on hand for the wrap party. Horseburgers, horseribs, horsekabobs... yummy.
Well regardless of what they did to the horses it was quite uncommon to see stuntmen being hurtled off their horses en masse and take rough tumbles like they did. Stunts aside the direction and camerawork for that sequence in the film really are exceptional. Those high speed dolly/rig shots with the camera running parallel to the horses are spectacular, especially the low angle ones where the rig is running fast enough to capture the action but not fast enough to keep pace with the horses. The only problem is that they filmed the charge going in the wrong direction. When filming actors or objects moving at high speeds it is better to have them going from frame left to frame right, it is more natural for the human eye to drift and focus on objects that way. However, when filming an impact or crash it is best to reverse the angle, thus accentuating the collision as the viewer has already become accustomed to action in one direction and the human eye doesn't quite focus as well on objects moving from right to left across its field of vision. Ok, enough technical chatter.
The casualties suffered by the Light Brigade during the charge were appalling. Historically speaking losses that exceed 10-15 percent are considered to be heavy. Cavalry losses of that nature are especially harsh because it was much harder and much more expensive to replace a single mounted trooper and mount than it was to replace a single infantryman. All those factors are the reason why the Light Brigade's charge is so famous (or rather infamous) and why it outshined the extraordinary effort made by the 'Thin Red Line'.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Oh, and as for the Thin Red Line- had it not been for the Turks, the Scots would have broken and fled. But half the men were Turks, and so they were able to hold.
I would debate the notion that half the men were Turks...
Quote:
And yet we give credit to a bunch of idiots charging down a gun battery; and the only reason for their success is because they were too numbskulled to realise something just might be amiss. (Plus the other stuff listed earlier.)
No, we remember it as a folly, not because it was successful.
Quote:
God **** the King.
King? why?
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Oh *bad word for poop* I'm in touble
(dad came up with that :) )
Yea, that what I heard also About the cannons being use for the Victoria Crosses..
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
I would debate the notion that half the men were Turks...
No, we remember it as a folly, not because it was successful.
King? why?
1. I don't have an exact source on hand, but archaeological evidence and what records can be proven to be accurate do definitely say that half the men were Turks.
2. I thought the British kinda played down that fact, preferring to remember it as a victory. I forget I am amongst historians.
3. Wasn't the monarch of Great Britain a King at the time?
Forget about it. I was just trying to rumple your feathers. ~D
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
1. I don't have an exact source on hand, but archaeological evidence and what records can be proven to be accurate do definitely say that half the men were Turks.
I knew that a portion of the men in the actual battle were Turks, but the "Thin Red Line" refers to the 93rd Highland Regiment under the command of Sir Colin Campbell. I understood it such that the Turks had fled when the Russian cavalry charged. Half the men in the "Thin Red Line" were definitely not Turks.
Quote:
2. I thought the British kinda played down that fact, preferring to remember it as a victory. I forget I am amongst historians.
No. If it was a victory, the battle would be nowhere near as famous. A lot of people even forget that the Light Brigade was actually successful and the battle was a victory.
Quote:
3. Wasn't the monarch of Great Britain a King at the time?
Queen Victoria, 1837-1901.
And I trust the word asterisked out began with an "s", ended with "e", which was preceded by a "v" and the remaining letter was "a".
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
I knew that a portion of the men in the actual battle were Turks, but the "Thin Red Line" refers to the 93rd Highland Regiment under the command of Sir Colin Campbell. I understood it such that the Turks had fled when the Russian cavalry charged. Half the men in the "Thin Red Line" were definitely not Turks.
Queen Victoria, 1837-1901.
And I trust the word asterisked out began with an "s", ended with "e", which was preceded by a "v" and the remaining letter was "a".
No. The historical evidence I spoke of CONFIRMED that half the line of Scots -- the line which you are insisting was almost entirely Scottish -- was, in fact, comprised of Turkish soldiers. And the Turks had already held out against 3 hours of an extremely grueling assault; these were not conscripts. They were highly disciplined soldiers. When they spotted the line of Scots forming up, they were quick to join the line.
And, hell- I thought Victoria wasn't queen until the late 1840's.
By the way... sorry to dissappoint you, but there was indeed an "f" in that word... although it seems a bit more inappropriate considering that the monarch in question was a sex-crazed queen. :laugh4:
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Zorba, you do know that just putting in asterisks doesn't change the the fact that you used it. Please desist. At least here, such comments doesn't fit the surroundings.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Zorba, you do know that just putting in asterisks doesn't change the the fact that you used it. Please desist. At least here, such comments doesn't fit the surroundings.
It was just a joke.
I'm not coming back again... you guys are mean. ~:mecry:
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
I knew that a portion of the men in the actual battle were Turks, but the "Thin Red Line" refers to the 93rd Highland Regiment under the command of Sir Colin Campbell. I understood it such that the Turks had fled when the Russian cavalry charged. Half the men in the "Thin Red Line" were definitely not Turks.
No. If it was a victory, the battle would be nowhere near as famous. A lot of people even forget that the Light Brigade was actually successful and the battle was a victory.
The battle of Balaclava was a draw. Both sides retianed their starting positions and guns when the say was over.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
The battle of Balaclava was a draw. Both sides retianed their starting positions and guns when the say was over.
No. The Russians failed in their objective of cutting the British supply lines, therefore British victory. Strategically anyway.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
It was just a joke.
I'm not coming back again... you guys are mean. ~:mecry:
Come on... Had I been mean you would haev been warned or given an alert.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
No. The historical evidence I spoke of CONFIRMED that half the line of Scots -- the line which you are insisting was almost entirely Scottish -- was, in fact, comprised of Turkish soldiers. And the Turks had already held out against 3 hours of an extremely grueling assault; these were not conscripts. They were highly disciplined soldiers. When they spotted the line of Scots forming up, they were quick to join the line.
And, hell- I thought Victoria wasn't queen until the late 1840's.
By the way... sorry to dissappoint you, but there was indeed an "f" in that word... although it seems a bit more inappropriate considering that the monarch in question was a sex-crazed queen. :laugh4:
I have searched google under "thin red line turks" and none of the sites talk about any Turkish units involved during the action of the Thin Red Line.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
No. The historical evidence I spoke of CONFIRMED that half the line of Scots -- the line which you are insisting was almost entirely Scottish -- was, in fact, comprised of Turkish soldiers. And the Turks had already held out against 3 hours of an extremely grueling assault; these were not conscripts. They were highly disciplined soldiers. When they spotted the line of Scots forming up, they were quick to join the line.
As King Henry V says, I spent a considerable portion of time searching for turks in the "Thin Red Line", and the rare mention about them is invariably of them fleeing. If you would be so kind as to point us in the direction of your historical evidence I would be very grateful.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
I tried to find something but in English or French sites, nothing.
I saw a documentary, I think it is called the Battlefield Archaeologist, or something like that, about this battle. The team went on the site and founded parts and evidence that in fact, the Turks, badly exposed and badly equipped resisted the Russian assault around three hours before to retreat. The British commander, failing to send reinforcement to them, just didn’t report their resistance in order to avoid blame for his lack of judgement. But, not only the retreated Turks offered a great resistance, but then, joined (or were joined, I don’t remember by the British Soldiers who will become the Thin Red Line). This is attested by the artefacts like bullets, canon balls and cases founded on the field, and other part of uniforms.
So, apparently, not only the Turks were denied of their bravery but were in fact blame for the General blunders…:sweatdrop:
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
So, apparently, not only the Turks were denied of their bravery but were in fact blame for the General blunders…
Well that makes this not the only battle, that happened more often.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
And, hell- I thought Victoria wasn't queen until the late 1840's.
Well, considering the Crimean War was fought in the 1850's, she still would have been Britain's reigning monarch at the time.
Ajax
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
Well, i can't add much factual information about this i'm afraid, but i can tell you this battle is pretty famous in NZ. I remember learning the poem in the OP back in primary school. Not sure if it was jsut something my teacher did or was curiculum, but i remember spending a bit of time learning the poem and the story behind it.
Re: Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava
My grandad was in the 17th/21st Lancers in the 1930s, and my grandma had a photo of him in the full Crimean War rig, on a beautiful horse with his lance. He looked great, but probably wouldn't have had much effect on the panzers that the Germans were busily arming themselves with at the time. In about 1936, IIRC, the govt took their horses off them and left them for two years without either horses or tanks. No wonder we weren't ready for WWII. Appeasing politicians! Grrr.
DEATH OR GLORY!!
(Regimental motto, under a Death's Head)
