Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava

Well I've been doing some looking around on the Internet about the Crimean War when I looked at this poem:

Quote:

---

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

---

Now does anyone have any more information about the Charge or the Battle of Balaclava?

I believe Saul David writes about it in his book Military Blunders

or just read this:
http://www.pinetreeweb.com/13th-balaclava2.htm

Well, at the Battle of Balaclava, the battlefield is a depression in the surrounding hills, with a ridge moving east to west, but ends before the other side of the depression.
The British had a supply line to their base running all the way to Sevestapol siege. To defend this position they build several forts at the crest of the ridge, and had several brigades posted nearby. One day (can't remember), a large Russian force attacks the hills with infantry, cavalry, and artillery. They capture the forts and begin taking the cannon away.
The British commander (d%*m i need to look the specifics up) orders the Light Brigade to "retrieve the guns" or some such order. However, the messenger points to the Russian batteries on the southern and eastern ends of the depression. Following orders, the Light Brigade charges into the guns, who line the southern end of the depression and ridge. They storm through the cannonfire, and get to the other side of the valley and break into the gunners, but are pushed back by Cossack riders.
This battle is also the spot where the Heavy Brigade charges UPHILL against a superior number of Cossack riders, and beats them.
This is also where Campbell's Highland Brigade forms the Thin Red Line and stopping a charge of Russian Hussars, instead of forming a square and being overwhelmed.

It's not well known, but Tennyson also wrote a poem about the charge of the heavy brigade in the morning of the battle:

http://home.att.net/~TennysonPoetry/chb.htm

seems like one tough battle... i also want more info. im interested

Osprey has a pretty neat book on it, IIRC. And you can bet your arse there's been a lot of ink spilled over the Light Brigade debacle, already quite soon after the fact since not a few folks understandably wanted heads to roll over such a blunder.

Anyway, by what I've understood of it it was really a matter of bad communications (plus bad personal relationships between officers). Basically, the Russian offensive had after hard fighting succeeded in capturing Turkish redoubts atop the ridge along that "Valley of Death". At least some of the cannon there were on loan from the Brits or something along those lines, and as number of captured guns was a matter of military pride and prestige the Brits wanted them back. So during the counter-attack phase (which included the genuinely impressive Charge of the Heavy Brigade, which saw said Brigade rout a much larger force of Russian cavalry in rather absurd sequence of events that really goes under the rubric "So Crazy It Worked") the Brit commander asked his ADC to bring the word to the Light Brigade to capture the ridgetop redoubts before the Russians could haul the prize cannons away, but apparently his wording could have been clearer. Anyway, the ADC brought the somewhat garbled order and personal enmities involving him and at least one of the Light's senior officers meant the dialogue was very curt and tense and clarifications weren't much asked after. The overall CO of the Light then told the actual commander (you know, the guy who rides in the front and yells "Charge!" at a suitable time) to go down the valley and charge the Russian guns set up at its end, or in any case that's how the commander interpreted it. Personality friction again, I understand. He of course thought the idea lunatic - the Russian forces in the valley vastly outnumbered his men, and there was Russian infantry and artillery all along the ridges at the sides of the valley - but stone-facedly went to carry out his order without further ado.

Apparently the ADC - who came along - at some point began to realize something was not quite going as it was supposed to and sought to halt the advance, but was killed by a fragment from a Russian shell before he could so on it went.

Oddly, the Light actually was able to fight its way through Russian cavalry squadrons sent to stop it and in spite of withering flanking fire from the ridges, as well as eventually salvoes from the Russian batteries they were bearing towards, and reach the guns although very much in tatters and many sub-units having either fragmented altogether along the way or having been stuck in skirmishes with Russians. Some even fought their way through the gun crews and reached the Russian cavalry formed up behind them. Those were apparently the same guys the Heavy Brigade had put to flight earlier in the day (the Light Brigade had been nearby in a position which would have allowed it to effectively pursue and potentially disperse the routing Russians - very much what light cavalry was for after all - but personal enmities, bad communications and some rigid adherence to orders lost the opportunity) and presumably rather demoralized, as the ragged remnants of the Light were actually able to push them back quite a distance.

Granted, the Russians were doubtless quite confused by the clearly suicidal and harebrained charge and thus their responses were duly somewhat bewildered and sluggish, but I understand the commander present wasn't the most illustrious specimen either.

Anyway, the Russians eventually gathered their wits enough to send in nearby Cossack squadrons to hit the engaget remnants of the Light in the flanks, which they did with gusto and soon had the Brits either on the run or hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded. Russian officers had to intervene to rescue their British colleagues about to get killed and pillaged by the elated Cossacks, this being a period when such odd chivalrious gestures were still de rigueur.

The Light was then chased back up the valley while under flanking fire from the ridges, although the close pursuit by the Cossacks forced the infantry and artillery to be careful with their shooting to avoid hitting their own troops. Some Brits also rallied into ad hoc squadrons that engaged and further hindered the pursuit. A nearby French cavalry squadron also assisted by clearing the northern ridge (the "cannon to the left of them") around the mouth of the valley of Russians for a while and thereby covering their retreat back to their own lines - the Heavy brigade and a few other units were still all properly drawn up back there IIRC, no doubt rather confused by the proceedings but in any case the Russians called off the pursuit once they got too close.

All things considered the Light actually got off with relatively light casualties - more than half the men who rode into the charge actually came back to their own lines IIRC, although most were wounded to greater or lesser degree and given the medical standards of the time in general and in the British army in particular many of them no doubt died of infections and other complications later. They'd lost most of their horses however and clearly were not even remotely in a fighting shape anymore. The commander reputedly survived through the whole incident without any wounds of consequence; he apparently rode stiff and stone-faced all the way to the Russian batteries at the end of the valley, his saber contemptuously at the slope (ie. held "at rest" against the shoulder) the whole time, turned around and rode all the way back to his commanding officer, dismounted and woodenly told him he had carried out his orders.

The Russians were rather impressed if also puzzled by the episode. Their reports of it apparently contain amazed commentary at the valour and courage of "these lunatic cavalrymen". A French observer watching the charge unfold from the sidelines - the same guy who led the French cavalry to clear the northern ridge of Russians IIRC - has gone down to history as having commented curtly "C'est glorieuse, mais ce n'est pas guerre"; "it is glorious, but it is not war".

Oh yeah, the Thin Red Line thing also comes from the Battle of Balaclava, from the Russian attack phase early in the day. The Highlanders atop a hill, a few ad hoc units of Turks driven from their positions by the Russian onslaught and then rallied, plus a nearby British artillery battery saw off a bunch of Russian light cavalry (hussars I think) advancing worrisomely towards a rather tactically vital part of the battlefield. The Russians veered off at the first musket salvo; small wonder, as it would have been pure suicide for light scouting, flanking and pursuit troops like them to try assailing such a strong position frontally and the Highlanders plus Turks present actually outnumbered them - not to forget the artillery support - so it's really not such a heroic incident AFAIK. Had the Russians tried to press on it'd near certainly have become their Charge of the Light Brigade...

I read about it,only alittle bit.... A Light Cavarly Briadge got their orders messed up, and charged a Heavy Russian unit, and rotued them,but the Light Briadge lost alot of guys..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

I read about it,only alittle bit.... A Light Cavarly Briadge got their orders messed up, and charged a Heavy Russian unit, and rotued them,but the Light Briadge lost alot of guys..

---

I saw some BBC documentry which made a case for the Officer sent with the new orders for the Light Brigade to advance did get his wording unclear and thus causing the confussion. Instead of going around the Russian guns from the flank and behind they advanced staight through their field of fire.

The THIN RED LINE is very special because the infantry stood in a THIN RED LINE instead of a doctrine dictated THIN RED BOX.

Well, they *were* atop a hill. And the Turks had their flanks covered.

C'mon, the Turks weren't what you could call Grade A, and they had already been defeated once. Charging cavalry is the last think a tired man wants to see!

I'm under the impression the Turks in question had been thrown out of their assorted redoubts and other field fortifications up the hills mainly by Russian infantry. Anyway, they were decent enough fighters especially on the defensive, and in this case their resolve was further stiffened by the solid British line, favourable ground and presence of artillery support. That anyone could see the Russian cavalry were neither particularly numerous nor powerful hardly hurt.

Not that this has anything to do with the formation the British adopted. A hollow square is a measure to prevent outflanking, since it has no flanks to begin with. On the downside only one quarter of the total firepower is available in any facing. The British were holding a line and blocking a route of approach, not tackling a full-blown cavalry assault; the Turks covered their flanks, and by forming into a firing line the British could bring their full firepower to bear. Had the Russians (who, recall, were also under constant if not terribly powerful artillery fire) tried to charge the Brits hey'd had to do so uphill against formed and ready infantry; a bad scenario by itself, and to it would be added any fire the Turks could add from the flanks. If they tried to go after either of the Turkish ad hoc formations they'd still get hit by volleys from not only the Turks in question but also the British commanding the high ground with good lines of fire.

And hussars weren't exactly shock troops when it came to that. By what I understand of period cavalry throwing them frontally at formed infantry was pretty much a measure of pure desperation nobody did unless they absolutely had to, as that was a good way to get your useful fast light cavalry killed.

Basically, the Turks and Brits were holding a rather strong position and the Russians didn't have even remotely the troops they'd have needed to take it, not counting possible military miracles and/or utter stupidity on the opposite side. As such the repulse of the Russians was hardly any major feat of military heroism; I'm guessing the propagandists jumped on it mainly because it was around the first good news of the day for the Allied side, seeing as how the Russians had until then been more or less proceeding according to their plan.
And the National Romanticists now never were very concerned with facts in the first place.

I'll just agree to disagree.

how many of the 673 were killed from what i read there were about 150-200 dead or wounded... for such a slaughter i dont think its that much. it is a lot of men of course but assuming that 100 died and 100 were wounded and of those 100 wounded another 50 died, the english lost minimal losses

We won. Scots did the best (The Thin Red Line).

There's an animated account of the battle (and others) here

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/s.../line_of_fire/

It quotes 195 out of 673 of men of the Light Brigade being fit for duty after the battle.

My Great, Great, Great, (Give or take a Great) Grandfather was in said Charge.

Weren't around half of the men in the Thin Red Line Turks? Given the bombardment they put up with earlier in the battle, I really think they're given too little credit.

mmm nice link m8

195 out of 673, that's pretty much, but there are enough battles in which similiar things happened. Still too many tho

well if you want slaughter search up gettysburgh... or Verdun... or even Berlin... Cannae...

Arnhem, Java Sea, Spionkop (That's how I know it), etc etc

On an aside you guys should check out the classic epic 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' starring Errol Flynn. It's your typical ahistorical, cheesy Hollyweird epic BUT it sports one of the best cavalry charges ever depicted on film. The direction, choreography and stunts are waaayyy ahead of their time, especially when you consider the film was made in 1936. And from what I can tell the costumes are spot on as well.

If you want to see clips of the charge from the film check out the Iron Maiden video 'The Trooper'. The band used footage from the movie for their video 'The Trooper'.

Here's a direct link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U1n9TNBgJU

Your right. I've seen the 1968 British produciton and it's charge has similar stunts. Also it has sureal animated bits. That are supposed to be editorials of the period come to life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The direction, choreography and stunts are waaayyy ahead of their time, especially when you consider the film was made in 1936.

---

With 200 dead horses and the use of trip wires I wouldnt say the stunts were ahead of their time :skull:


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius Clemens

There's an animated account of the battle (and others) here

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/s.../line_of_fire/

It quotes 195 out of 673 of men of the Light Brigade being fit for duty after the battle.

---

Very informative. :bow:

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

---

I was about to comment on the sick practice of wires fro felling the horses.
That is why the falls are so spectacular, it is actual horses going at the full gallop being dropped on their faces, with possible broken legs.

Nasty stuff that.

Of course you can't beat that for visuals until Braveheart, and it even had to hide the fact that there weren't enough trained horses (how many knights do you ever see at once?).

It's been 40 years since the last Light Brigade movie we need another one. Only this time CGI can make up for lack of trained horses and inhumane horse stunts. Get 40 trained horses dress up 20 as 11th Hussars and 20 as 13th Lancers and digi-clone them into the 673 man light brigade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

My Great, Great, Great, (Give or take a Great) Grandfather was in said Charge.

Weren't around half of the men in the Thin Red Line Turks? Given the bombardment they put up with earlier in the battle, I really think they're given too little credit.

---

They are given far too little credit. The Turks of Balaclava were able to hold against 3 hours of the worst onslaught of the battle, AFTER having to endure a massive bombardment phase. They faced the most determined enemies and the most overwhelming odds, and had it not been for them, Balaclava would have been a massive catastrophe.

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.

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.)








God **** the King.

On the reason why th Turks get so little credit is because the British Commander got lost on his way to the battle and wandered around for three hours. So rather than admit his mistake he said the fighting started three hours later than it did. The Turks had been fighting unsupported and unsupplied for three hours and fled. So according to the reports the Turks broke after a few minutes of combat. Which is incorrect.

Im not sure is this is true or not. The bronze taken from the captured Russian guns at Balaclava was used in the making of the victoria cross and still is. Is this true??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithradates

Im not sure is this is true or not. The bronze taken from the captured Russian guns at Balaclava was used in the making of the victoria cross and still is. Is this true??

---

I quote you the Wikipedia article on the subject...

"It is widely believed that all VCs are cast from the bronze cascabels of two cannon of Chinese origin that were captured from the Russians at the siege of Sevastopol, except during the First World War when metal from guns captured from the Chinese during the Boxer Rebellion was also used. However, a 2006 book on the VC's history by historian John Glanfield calls the traditional account into question, arguing that it is impossible that the metal used for VCs made before 1914 really does come from the Sevastopol guns. Also, the Sevastopol metal went missing between 1942 and 1945, when another source of metal was used to make five Second World War VCs.
The barrels of the cannon in question are stationed outside the Officers' Mess at the Royal Artillery Barracks at Woolwich. The remaining portion of the only remaining cascabel, weighing 358 oz (10 kg), is stored in a vault by 15 Regiment Royal Logistic Corps at Donnington, Telford. It can only be removed under armed guard.
It is estimated that approximately 80 to 85 more VCs could be cast from this source. A single company of jewellers, Hancocks of London, has been responsible for the production of every VC awarded since its inception."

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'.

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?

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..

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

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".

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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)