Charge of the Light Brigade: The Battle of Balaclava

[Watchman]

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

[Marshal Murat]

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!

[Watchman]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

I'll just agree to disagree.

[The Stranger]

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

[Duke Malcolm]

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

[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.