Talk:Charge of the Light Brigade

Request for info

I visited the site of the battle in 2003 and took a number of photos from the position overlooking the field where there is a memorial (if memory serves) and some military kit, a T34, a patrol boat etc. I made extensive notes at the time on the photos but now that I have changed computers, my explanations are missing. Would be grateful if some kind soul were prepared to help me orientate them, so I can see where the charge started etc etc. Any takers?? ir5ac@lycos.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir5ac (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley of the Shadow of Death image.

This comes from the Siege of Sevastopol, five months after the charge. The connection with this article is a bit tenuous: is it worth keeping here? --Old Moonraker 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --Old Moonraker 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Crept back in, removed again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fenton Photograph

The Fenton photograph of a very few of the "Charge" survivors was originally captioned something like "Survivors of The Charge of The Light Brigade after the battle." Plus the photo's own licensing page said it was taken in October 1854. Can't be. The charge took place then, but Mr. Fenton did not arrive and begin taking his famous photographs until March 8, 1855. He stayed until June 26, 1855. So the picture of some of the survivors had to have been taken several months after the actual batle. I changed the caption to reflect that. Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Link now to version of the image with better licensing information, higher resolution but without the color correction.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fenton13ltdragoons.jpg is now under consideration as a featured picture on Commons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calthorpe's quotation

This is copy/pasted from User talk:Old Moonraker to enable wider discussion.

Hi! i wouldn't strenuously object to adding "sic" back (i don't think linking it makes sense, i.e. "linking all words is silly" :-) )... but using it does seem to imply (rightly or wrongly) to most people that it was an error preserved in the transcription. I also doubt that you'll see a flood of "corrections"... look at, for example, Serjeant-at-Arms, where there's no "move war". Another solution might be to explicitly link "Serjeant" to Sergeant, like [[Sergeant|Serjeant]] which implies that it's meant to be spelled that way. Another point to consider is that a Chaucer quote won't have sic on it, on the other hand, i don't know how relevant that is. I don't know... like i said, i'm not going to get upset if you revert. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply on poster's talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!... do you have the source involved? I'm just wondering if "Serjeants" has a colon after it in the original, as all the other categories listed do. Did this somehow get lost? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Went back to the original (and in doing so found a typo in the page number) and found that it's a table, which I can't do on Wikipedia. Colon inserted, as suggested. URL attached to the footnote, to assist any editor who wants to try to use a table instead of text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? I left out the ellipses, but tried to get everything else. I'm not sure it's better at all. --Storkk (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As it's a quote, we should, according to MOS:QUOTE, try to "preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation". You have succeeded where I failed—thanks. The same guideline suggests that in blockquotes the quotation marks may be dispensed with: indeed as it stands the opening mark does look a bit incongruous.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the problem with the quotes, however because of the table, even using <blockquotes> it's not crystal clear that it's a quotation. I couldn't think of a solution to this. I'll be copy/pasting this discussion over to the article's talk page so that it's more open to other contributors. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying the quotation marks inside the block, pace the manual of style, which deprecates this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Some small information might be that it was quoted on the movie The Blind Side. I don't remember exact thing. It however was the favorite of the character Sean Tuohy.

I appreciate the work that went into collating this information, but the "media" section in this article has much too much trivia. Just because a work of film or fiction mentioned the Charge of the Light Brigade, does not mean we should include it in a list here. Better would be to link the Charge of the light Brigade from the appropriate article about those films or works. See also WP:TRIVIA. The only media works that should be listed here, should be those which received significant coverage in outside published sources, covering their link to the battle. Thanks, --Elonka 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but from a superficial glance this would take "Music" away altogether and reduce the other sub-sections to only a couple of entries each. IMO this is for the better, but might this cause a bit of an upset to editors where a casual reference in their favorite novel, or pet song, has gone? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think The Last of the Light Brigade by Rudyard Kipling should be mentioned somewhere in this page instead of just the external links. It is definitely directly related to both the event and the poem and should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaarin (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Done—good suggestion. Don't forget WP:BOLD (although as a new user you would have to wait a few days before doing this yourself). --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor has reverted the whole of this on the grounds that I used the perpetual present tense, as suggested in WP:BETTER. Seems a bit of a harsh judgement: reinstating. Apologies for the absence edit summary: pressed "save" when it should have been "preview" not once, but twice! My clumsy use of WP:TW to blame.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that referring in the present to the poor treatment of soldiers extended from the 19th century to the 21st. I didn't think that this was supposed to be a political article, per se. I didn't understand why the the present tense was being used at all, since the article discusses a historical event and a historical observation. Student7 (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please add this important source to the pages dealing with the Charge of the Light Brigade. The source is the edition of the Illustrated London News of 30th October 1875 which devoted its front page and five other pages to a full description of a dinner held by survivors of the "Charge" at the Alexandra Palace. The article in the Illustrated London News includes some very interesting and relevant recollections of what happened during the Charge by some of the survivors. There is a downloadable pdf version of the article on this site: www.julienco.com/balaclava.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfjulien (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good find. Might be worth trimming the verbatim account of Cardigan's speech in the Lords (possibly too long for WP:NPS) and substitute with something from the troopers' point of view. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect

Is there any reason that this page is protected? From what I see it was protected in July in response to vandalism and about a month later the protection was taken away and then after 6 days without any edits at all the protection was re added and it has been protected ever since. I feel that unless there is a specific reason that this page is still protected I feel it should be unprotected Sean0987 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) sean0987

There are a lot of pages that receive more than their share of vandalism from Middle Schoolers. This is one. Children are exposed to the Charge in the famous poem which is adequately covered and usually not the reason for their edits anyway - just simple vandalism. We are getting into fairly sophisticated knowledge here. I don't see that even a well-behaved middle schooler is really going to be able to contribute a whole lot at this point. I vote for protection.Student7 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that revealing note. I knew it existed on Wikipedia but I never heard it said with such clarity. The 'We' being the elitist types that think they 'know-it-all' and creating their own version of 'wikiality' so noted famously by Stephen Colbert. I particularly like the use of

We are getting into fairly sophisticated knowledge here.

Really? Then it must be pretty advanced stuff they are teaching middle-graders these days!! Or do you just not like the thoughts of strangers tinkering with your own version of the truth? Either way the clarity is all yours.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.107.49 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "know-it-all" editors: it was a continuing storm of vandalism from a determined concert party— see here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way I can apply to be allowed to edit this semi-protected page? I am the author of a book on the Crimean War that reveals new facts about the Charge not referred to in this article. There are also some old facts that I think should be included e.g. the fact that the Brigade routed ten times their number of Russian Cavalry. My book also expounds a theory that Lucan allowed the Charge under pressure from the participants, who were dying to Charge the Cossacks. I do not want to expound this theory at length but I think it is worth a mention if only because the editor of the Crimean War Research Society Journal (himself the author of a book about the Charge) has commented on it favourably. I have made some edits to the Florence Nightingale page but probably not enough to get me autoconfirmed. Is there some other way I can apply to be confirmed so that I can edit this semi-protected page? Hugh Small (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual way is to put the edit here, labelled with an {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Please see WP:RS and the policy regarding conflict of interest: when you yourself make such additions as this edit in Florence Nightingale—"Before the publication of a book by Hugh Small"—it may well apply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Moonraker and I have re-edited the Florence Nightingale page to remove my name from the text. I will submit some proposed amendments to the Charge page soon, as you suggest. Hugh Small (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The redoubts were on the left??

I don't understand it, why were the redoubts on the left? I watched the television programme Line of Fire on Australia's History Channel last night and thought the redoubts were on the right hand side of the cavalry. I mean, if we check the map in the article aren't the redoubts on the right hand side of the Light Brigade (the Light Brigade is initially on the left hand side of the map charging towards the right, and the redoubts are on the bottom of the map, so aren't the redoubts on the right hand side of the cavalry?)Ken l lee (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll cehck my sources again, but my understanding was that when the order was issued, the redoubts were actually to the left of the Light Brigade. I'm notsure the map shown in the article realtes to the same moment of time as when they actually received the order, once they began the charge proper, then yes the redoubts were on teh right. David Underdown (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, because I was only thinking about the position of the redoubts as the cavalry was carrying out the actual charge. Ken l lee (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, unless the cavalry had their backs to the Cossacks, the redoubts were on their right. Moioci (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kipling's poem "Last of the Light Brigade"

The N.Y. Times report cited does assert that Kipling's poem is based on an actual visit by the survivors to Tennyson's home.

The part about the charity generating 34 pounds for the veterans is true. However, I've been unable to find any outside evidence suggesting a visit by the troopers to Tennyson's home, nor have I found the poem that Kipling says Tennyson wrote to publicize the survivors' plight.

My strong impression is that Kipling's scenario is imaginary - what he wished would happen. Is there any evidence at all that it did?

PhD (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)PhD

A new ref for "imaginary", to balance the "NYT", which is retained. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to Representations in Media

{{editsemiprotected}}

The Charge of the Light Brigade is parodied in Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series of books. The main character Thursday Next was before joining the Special Operations group was an enlisted member of a light cavalry troop (commanded by her brother) who raided a valley not knowing that there was a battery of Russian Artillery (Since this attack occured in 1975 the cavalry ride in APCs rather than horses)

Thanks for bringing this up for consideration. WP:POPCULTURE attempts to distinguish between "trivial cruft, giv[ing] Wikipedia a bad reputation" and "impact in popular culture can be a quality part of a topic". Given the instruction "passing mentions in books...should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources" I'm inclined to decline, pending independent evidence of notability. Templated response awaits other views.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How many sources do you want. It's mentioned throughout "The Eyre Affair" and is also mentioned in "Lost in a Good Book", and if you have ever read the books it's an almost exact description of the battle (albeit with APCs rather than Horses.) Maybe you should read the book then you would see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.6 (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What Old Moonraker is asking for is a source other than the novels themselves that discusses this connection. It is very common for novels and other art/entertainment to contain references to historical events. Rather than making articles into catalogs of such allusions, it is preferable to focus on those that someone else already decided was significant. So if this comes up in reviews or other commentary on the Thursday Next books, it would make sense to include it. If it is just something that you noticed yourself that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, then it probably should not be included. (Note: I'm "linking out" the edit request template, since it is clear that multiple editors with confirmed accounts have seen the request.) --RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct Location

44°32'16"N 33°37'27"E

http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=44.5376935&lon=33.6227989&z=15&l=1&m=b&show=/8397525/Charge-of-the-Light-Brigade-The-Valley-of-Death Iomark04 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimapia isn't a reliable source as it's locations are user-generated. However, I've dropped these co-ordinates into Google Earth and the location corresponds with the contemporary maps in the article. The current co-ords shown there are definitely wrong. Go for it!--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As User:Iomark04 still awaits his/her autoconfirmation I've jumped in and done it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening summary should state directly where in the world it is e.g. Crimea, Ukraine. (I notice that some younger (<14) school kids where I teach, don't necessarily reason that the GPS co-ordinates under the image to the right of the page will lead them to this information) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.189.229 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point; it's the sort of thing where WP:OBVIOUS seems to apply. It might be difficult to insert without repeating ourselves, though: we already have Crimean War (but not Crimea) and Battle of Balaklava (but not Balaklava)—only Sevastopol seems left out. I would be inclined to leave it to the wikilinks to do the job. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Image duplication

This edit introduced a new image, a panorama of the valley today. It has more context and wider scope than the panorama immediately above it (at the time of posting) on the page. I was wondering if the older image is still needed? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The uploader of the more recent panorama has now added to the caption on Commons. The charge is from left-to-right, with Russian cross-fire from the Heights, centre, and the battery on the high ground, extreme right. Any WP:NOR problems if this goes into the caption here? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections: done. Thanks to User:Thetaylor82, who did all the work. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:William Simpson - Charge of the light cavalry brigade, 25th Oct. 1854, under Major General the Earl of Cardigan.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:William Simpson - Charge of the light cavalry brigade, 25th Oct. 1854, under Major General the Earl of Cardigan.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 25, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

On October 25, 1854, during the Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War, British cavalry units charged heavily fortified Russian opposition, an action known as the Charge of the Light Brigade. By mischance, they attacked the wrong target, as the orders were unclear, and as a result suffered great casualties. Alfred, Lord Tennyson's famous poem made the charge a symbol of warfare at both its most courageous and its most tragic.Artist: William Simpson; Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Did someone get the "blunder'd" parts backwards?

The Intro to this article currently says: "even "tho' the soldier knew / Some one had blunder'd".".

Is that backwards?

The poem on Wikipedia -- if it is correct -- says:

"

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'

Was there a man dismay'd?

Not tho' the soldiers knew

  Some one had blunder'd:

"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade_(poem)

"Not tho' ..."? The language of that seems ambiguous to me, not that I am an 1800s poetry scholar! LOL.

In any case, the Intro says "soldier", while the poem at the Wikipedia link above says "soldiers".

On the other hand, the External link http://www.ram.org/contrib/the_charge_of_the_light_brigade.html says "soldier" singular.

Unfortunately, the External link "Manuscript in Tennyson's handwriting Archive.org Link" is broken, apparently due to a redesigned, renamed Web site. Trying to go to http://etext.virginia.edu it goes somewhere else, and says, "Looking for the EText Center? The EText Center is now the Scholars' Lab".

Misty MH (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Misty MH (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice this link as it was next to another in the "External links" section: http://web.archive.org/web/20070513072721/http://etext.virginia.edu/britpo/tennyson/TenChar.html It shows the poem in handwritten form. There, it appears that the word is "soldier" singular. :) Wondering whether another form says "soldiers" plural, and if we can get a link to that. :)

Misty MH (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tennyson's manuscript : http://web.archive.org/web/20070407071840/http://etext.virginia.edu/britpo/tennyson/TenChar1.jpg seems like a definitive primary source. His handwriting is reasonably clear and the quote in the lead (which I added) conforms to it, so I don't think I blunder'd ... Straw Cat (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of concerns regarding the "Media representations" section in an otherwise good article.

"The 1936 version stars Errol Flynn and is completely historically inaccurate, turning the motive into a grudge match against an Indian ruler allied with the Russians.[22] The 1968 version, featuring David Hemmings (as Nolan) and Trevor Howard (as Cardigan), was much more factually accurate. It was produced during a time of public frustration over the Vietnam War, and in retrospect can be seen as a warning against military interventions in other lands, such as NATO's Kosovo War.[23]"

This sentence about the 1936 film doesn't read like a neutral Wikipedia entry, in my opinion.

The 1968 version was produced three decades before the Kosovo War. I think this is getting extremely off topic from the original article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsden4 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The off-topic policy says "just delete it". Be bold! --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, ok, thank you very much. I've been here 3 years, but only ever edit about twice a year. (talk • contribs) 8:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm travelling right now and I don't have access to the cited work, but AFAICR the point Connelly is making is one of critical commentary, and thus valid for inclusion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The comments about NATO in Kosovo transferred to The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968 film). --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013

Addition of possessive apostrophe.

In the section Background, can you change the text "However, the lay of the land around Lucan and the cavalry prevented them from seeing the Russians efforts to remove the guns from the redoubts and retreat." to "However, the lay of the land around Lucan and the cavalry prevented them from seeing the Russians' efforts to remove the guns from the redoubts and retreat."? 82.23.253.61 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Stfg (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"However, the lie of the land around Lucan and the cavalry prevented them from seeing the Russians efforts to remove the guns from the redoubts and retreat." Is correct. Not 'lay'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Survivor postscript should be dropped

The "Survivor postcript" section is largely bogus, and only included because it might seem quite "ironic", i.e. mildly amusing. It has been quite widely recycled in blogs etc, with Wikipedia cited as the authority. But since it has very little that is true in it, and quite a lot that is false, it ought to be dropped.

The postscript reads:

'Years after the battle, James Bosworth, a station-master at Northam, aged 70, was run over and killed by a railway engine.[26] In his younger days he was one of those who had fought at the Battle of Balaclava and survived.[26][27] The English Illustrated Magazine states that he "surviv[ed] 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' at Balaclava". His epitaph...referenced both his presence at the battle and Lord Tennyson's poem: Though shot and shell flew around fast/On Balaclava's plain,/Unscathed he passed, to fall at last/Run over by a train.''

A man called Bosworth was indeed a station-master in Northam (Southampton, England), and yes, he was killed by a train.

But his name was John not James, he did not ride in the Charge of the Light Brigade, and there is no such rhyme or epitaph on his headstone.

Detailed evidence, including photographs of the headstone that demonstrate there is no such facetious epitaph on the headstone, can be found at https://livesofthelightbrigade.wordpress.com/

Sorry if I come across as a pedant and a killjoy but I'm sure it's better to get things right.

James Bosworth issue

Ref the article 'Charge Of The Light Brigade', the story about 'James' (sic) Bosworth under the heading 'Survivor Postscript' is largely bogus and needs removing. Some of the specific problems with this content are as follows:

1. The subject's name was not James, it was John. Full name: John Hacker Bosworth, born c1812 at Ansty in Leicestershire. This information is from his army record, which is available on 'Findmypast', should you care to have a look at it.

2. John Hacker Bosworth's army record clearly shows that he served his entire career in the 12th Lancers, a regiment that was stationed in India at the time of the Battle Of Balaklava, 25 October 1854. He therefore absolutely did not take part in the Charge Of The Light Brigade, no matter what any other reference may claim to the contrary.

3. There is a slight possibility for confusion, because the 12th Lancers were indeed subsequently transferred from India to the Crimea to reinforce the depleted Light Brigade. This occurred however some months later in 1855, long after the Battle Of Balaklava and The Charge.

In light of the above, my request please is that you remove the 'James Bosworth' content from this article in its entirety. Thank you.

Irresponsible feotus (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

John Bosworth: Some Sources

A couple of sources below:

1. The Wikipedia article entitled '12th Royal Lancers' states under the heading 'Early Wars', in the penultimate paragraph, as follows: "In 1855, it [ie the regiment] reinforced The Light Cavalry Brigade in the Crimea AFTER the Charge Of The Light Brigade at the Battle Of Balaclava". (my capitalisation)

2. There is an article in 'Sheldrake's Aldershot And Sandhurst Military Gazette' dated 4 November 1882, accessible online via the British Newspaper Archive site, which gives a full account of John Hacker Bosworth's career in the 12th Lancers, and his subsequent unfortunate accidental death on the railway at Northam, under the heading 'Shocking Death Of A Station-Master'. In that article, it clearly states: "From the Cape he went to India, and thence to the Crimea (BUT HE WAS NOT IN THE BALACLAVA CHARGE, AS REPORTED)." (my capitalisation)

Irresponsible feotus (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Bogus 'Survivor Postscript' Content, Yet Again

Yes, I am once again requesting that the fictitious James (sic) Bosworth material be removed in its entirety from this article, and I'm at a loss to understand why this is proving so hard to achieve.

The Wikipedia article 'Edward James Boys' describes, inter alia, Mr Boys's lifelong efforts in researching members of the Light Brigade in the Crimea. The article states that the resulting archive: "... is widely regarded among many historians as being the most complete and authoritative record of the lives of men of the Light Brigade ... in existence." That archive is now being progressively released online, ref: www.chargeofthelightbrigade.com. This source is in fact quoted in the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' article as reference 14. The biography section of the EJ Boys archive site is currently still 'work in progress', however the index section is complete. If you refer to it, you will find that there was NO person by the name of 'Bosworth' in any of the five regiments that comprised the Light Brigade at the time of the Charge.

I would also draw your attention to the book 'Forgotten Heroes: The Charge Of The Light Brigade', by Roy Dutton, which is quoted as reference 5 in the Wikipedia 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' article. This source also makes it clear that there was NO person with the surname 'Bosworth' in any of the five Light Brigade regiments in the Crimea.

In an earlier post I have explained that the name of the man killed by a railway locomotive at Northam on 25 October 1882 was John (not James) Hacker Bosworth. I have referenced a contemporary newspaper article that confirms in words of one syllable that John Hacker Bosworth did NOT participate in the Charge Of The Light Brigade. The newspaper article makes it clear that he spent his entire army career in the 12th Lancers, a regiment that was in India at the time of the Charge. I have also referenced his military record, which is in the public domain, ref: www.findmypast.co.uk, and which confirms his service as entirely with the 12th Lancers.

In summary, there is clear evidence to show that no such person as James (or John) Bosworth took part in the Charge Of The Light Brigade, so can someone with the necessary authority please remove all reference to him at the earliest convenient opportunity.

Irresponsible feotus (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charge of the Light Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050816113615/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/britpo/tennyson/TenChar.html to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/britpo/tennyson/TenChar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

New Model Army song on The Charge

Dear Wikipedians, I think it is of interest to some readers that the charge of the light brigade received some coverage even in rock music culture. The British band New Model Army in their 1989 album 'Thunder and Consolation' published a song entitled 'The Charge' which is full of references to the historical event. Lyrics see [1]

Politologista (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Survivor Story Found (Thomas W Shaw)

Hello, I am not a military historian, merely an avid reader of historical newspapers. Thus my apologies for the scant facts in this article I found about an alleged "last survivor of the Charge". The first is quite plain fact, the second extra detail, but more prosaic. Unfortunately neither mention the unit he served with. For information, the usual occurrence with numerous papers is that the same original message is received and while often printed verbatim it is noticeable that some papers enhanced to make better reading, while other would precis to fill the space available.

1. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=HT19230224.2.16&srpos=1&e=12-02-1923-28-02-1923--en--20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-brigade-------1 SURVIVOR OF FAMOUS LIGHT BRIGADE DYING LONDON, Feb. 24—Thomas W. Shaw, who claims to be the last survivor of the famous Light (Brigade, is dying in a hospital here. Shaw took part in the famous charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava, which has been immortalized in song and story.

2. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SBS19230224.1.1&srpos=2&e=12-02-1923-28-02-1923--en--20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-brigade-------1 Survivor of Light Brigade Nearing Death (By Associated Press) LONDON', Ontario, Feb. 23. Thomas W. Shaw, who claims to be the last survivor of the famous Light Brigade, tonight was riding for the second time "into the jaws of death." But the venerable cavalryman 91 years old had not between his knees the proud charger which dashed upon the Russian battery at Balaklava In 1S54. Under him was a white sheeted hospital cot from which, tho doctors say, ho will never rise. After his charge with the glorious 600, Shaw felt upon his brow the soothing hand of Florence Nightingale a memory that was his most cherished possession. And tonight, upon his solitary ride into "the valley of death," tho soft fingers of the mighty band of daughters Nightingale gave the world were touching his brow but the old soldier did not feel them. His breath came in agonizing gasps. The end is near.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

There is a bit of missing information, which I would like to add in. AGiffen (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Held in the Manchester Central Library is a small pamphlet titled 'The last of the six hundred' which is an interview in approx 1890 with John Richardson, who was at Balaclava and he gives a thorough description of events and others in his military career spanning 12 years in various conflicts following Balaclava. He was noted to be the last man flogged (50 lashes) at Hulme Barracks for an offence which included suggesting the commander was a coward for not standing up to a Russian and not being part of any cavalry charge. The pamphlet is a tale to support the very poor life in the workhouse that John Richardson had and also many other survivors of the charge, which were listed as 24 in number in about 1890. There was a Crimea Fund, but this was relatively small and the men who survived saw very little of it. Lady Cardigan gave John Richardson £3.00 a a charitable gift on hearing his plight in poverty. You had to serve 24 years in the army to get a pension and he only servin 12 so did not qualify. Many felt that if we had lost this decisive battle, life in the UK and Europe would have been very different and all the men should have been treated as heroes, which they were not after a fairly short time afterwards. I can supply the reference to the pamphlet on request. 149.170.45.60 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018 can you loss the photo og the Scot Gray charge at Waterloo please

2.28.64.251 (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 13:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: section regarding "new" information of 2016

How can the info from 2016 regarding Nolan's part in the affair be regarded as 'new' when this exact narrative was already depicted in the film of 1968? 31.54.34.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Last surviving officer

In Peter Jenkins Unravelling The Mystery (about The Goldsmiths Company), vol 2 page 45: death of Captain PS Smith reported 15 February 1917 - last surviving officer who rode in the charge (no indication as to when he actually died). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

From [2] he was Lieutenant Percy Shawe Smith, of the 13th Light Dragoons. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Role of cavalry types

In the second and third paragraphs of the Background section reference is made to British light cavalry having a reconnaissance and skirmishing role, in contradistinction to the shock effect of heavy. The British cavalry article states that by the time the last Light Dragoon regiments had converted to Hussars (about 7 years later) the distinction between the branches had disappeared; the only difference being between those armed with lances, and the rest. Neither of these statements appear to have verifying citations.

The first claim makes perfect sense up to the early part of the 19th century, while the second is undoubtedly true for the last quarter onwards. Does anyone have any sources that show when that transition was made, more particularly what the state was during the Crimean War? I remember seeing some information relating to this, but I can't remember where it came from (book? magazine? TV programme?). Singing choc ice (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

Add citation for Cardigan's speech as quoted in the House of Commons:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1855/mar/29/case-of-the-earl-of-lucan Astrojrich (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--B dash (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Reading through this, I noticed how difficult it is to keep the different people straight. To assist in that, I suggest a few more links when a person is named who has not been named for some time. E.g. the line: "Cardigan survived the battle, although stories circulated that he was not actually present." At this point in the article, "Cardigan" hasn't been referenced for three pages. I had to go back and check, to remember who it was. I feel that a link at this point would be helpful. IllTryToBeReasonable (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Beneath the photo of the written order, this is the caption:

“The written order which lead to the Charge”

It should be “led” instead of “lead” 2605:E000:1600:1012:A8B1:CDA7:77D2:7239 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done WP:MINOR. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

'New information'

The 'New information' section shouldn't really be there, because the only new thing in it is a falsehood: it is claimed that Nolan failed to hand over the Fourth Order to Lucan and relayed the order verbally instead. Had Nolan in fact retained the infamous Fourth Order (the fourth issued to the cavalry that day), it would now be lost. Instead it's safe and snug in the National Army Museum, where I've seen it, because Lord Lucan carefully preserved it, believing that the order was foolish and that there would be future inquiries. (Nolan's cape is also in the NAM, but only because he'd lent it to his friend William Howard Russell of The Times a few nights before.) Woodham-Smith (The Reason Why, Penguin 1958, pp.232-234) criticises Lucan for not ordering a reconnaissance to find out the things he couldn't see from his position, but she says: 'He read the order "carefully", with the fussy deliberateness which maddened his staff, while Nolan quivered with impatience at his side. It seemed to Lord Lucan that the order was not only obscure but absurd: artillery was to be attacked by cavalry; infantry support was not mentioned; it was elementary that cavalry charging artillery in such circumstances must be annihilated. In his own account of these fatal moments Lucan says that he "hesitated and urged the uselessness of such an attack and the dangers attending it"; but Nolan, almost insane with impatience, cut him short and "in a most authoritative tone" repeated the final message he had been given on the heights: "Lord Raglan's orders are that the cavalry are to attack immediately."' Lucan 'turned angrily on Nolan. "Attack, sir? Attack what? What guns, sir?" The crucial moment had arrived. Nolan threw back his head and, "in a most disrespectful and significant manner", flung out his arm and, with a furious gesture, pointed, not to the Causeway Heights and the redoubts with the captured British guns, but to the end of the North Valley, where the Russian cavalry routed by the Heavy Brigade were now established with their guns in front of them. "There, my lord, is your enemy, there are your guns," he said, and with those words and that gesture the doom of the Light Brigade was sealed.'

Nolan's friend Russell gave a similar account in The Times of 14 November 1854, p.8. (I have a copy in front of me.) 'A braver soldier than Captain Nolan the army did not possess. He was known to all his arm of the service for his entire devotion to his profession... I had the pleasure of his acquaintance, and I know he entertained the most exalted opinions regarding the capabilities of the English horse soldier. Properly led, the British Hussars and Dragoons could in his mind break square, take batteries, ride over columns of infantry, and pierce any other cavalry in the world as if they were made of straw. He thought that they had not had the opportunity of doing all that was in their power, and that they had missed even such chances as they had offered to them -- that, in fact, they were in some measure disgraced. A matchless horseman and a first-rate swordsman, he held in contempt, I am afraid, even grape and canister. [The 'cluster munitions' fired by artillery at the time as well as solid roundshot.] He rode off with his orders to Lord Lucan. He is now dead and gone. God forbid I should cast a shade on the brightness of his honour, but I am bound to state what I am told occurred when he reached His Lordship... When Lord Lucan had received the order from Captain Nolan and read it, he asked, we are told, "Where are we to advance to?" Captain Nolan pointed with his finger to the line of the Russians and said, "There are the enemy, and there are the guns, sir, before them; it is your duty to take them," or words to that effect, according to the statements made since his death. Lord Lucan, with reluctance, gave the order to Lord Cardigan to advance upon the guns, conceiving that his orders compelled him to do so.' Lucan's account may be self-serving, but he was clear that he considered the order absurd, whereas Nolan's biographer (Hubert Moyse-Bartlett, Louis Edward Nolan and His Influence on the British Cavalry, Leo Cooper, 1971, ISBN 978-0850520729) unfortunately records that Nolan once drew a training diagram to show how light cavalry, because of its speed and dash, could even take a battery defended on three sides, as at Balaclava. This is broadly what Russell heard from Nolan, and it was of course nuts. Nolan may not ever have understood or even read the infamous Fourth Order he was carrying. He just thought the cavalry had been given their chance to shine in the way he believed they should. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have simply removed this section, because it is obviously incorrect, and cannot be allowed to remain. However, the section did contain facts (the words exchanged between Lucan and Nolan) which are well-attested (and certainly not "new information"), and which should be given somewhere in the article. I lack the necessary sources to make the positive edit needed; maybe you would be in a position to do this? JBritnell (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

'Armoured'

The article claims a couple of times that the Heavy Brigade were 'armoured'. They weren't, of course. They did not wear armoured plastrons like the ceremonial Household Cavalry nowadays, they just wore red coats. Nor were their horses armoured in any way. As many sources attest, there was by the 1850s no real difference between light and heavy cavalry except styles of dress, tactical assignments and the fact that some 'light' regiments carried lances. For reasons of pride, light cavalry colonels had for many years been recruiting bigger men and buying bigger horses, so a 'light' cavalry mount was as many hands high as a 'heavy' and the men were in proportion. There may have been a difference during the Napoleonic Wars, but not in the Crimea, except for the matter of the lances -- and I think there was only one lancer regiment in Cardigan's Light Brigade, the 17th. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"a tragic military action involving a Pyrrhic victory"

Late in the day though this comment may be, surely the adjectives 'tragic' and 'pyrrhic' are value judgements which have no place in an introductory passage, nor indeed in the main body of the article without a cited source. The term "victory" is also surely debatable. This opening passage would be better simplified to read simply "a military action." JF42 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed it. Definitely incorrect and NPOV. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"the Light Brigade, led by Lord Cardigan, was ordered by Lord Raglan"

This description and subsequent similar statements are misleading since on the 25th October 1854 there was no communication between Lord Raglan and the Light Brigade in the person of its commander, Lord Cardigan. Raglan's orders were delivered to Lord Lucan as commander of the cavalry division comprising both brigades of cavalry, as is clear in the order quoted:"Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly." The precise chain of command is key to the subsequent controversy. Moreover the reference to Lord Raglan ordering "a frontal assault against a Russian artillery battery" is entirely incorrect and contradicted by the subsequent reference to a miscommunication, rendering this passage contradictory and misleading. JF42 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory?

Was this really a pyrrhic victory as the article currently shows? Nothing at all was gained; it was a complete loss for the British. I kind of want to remove it from the lede. Thoughts? Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm being bold and changing it. At the very least it will start a conversation. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Other articles have Piedmontese/Sardinian officers in this battle as well

Would that be enough to warrant them being put in as belligerents? On the overall Crimean War page they are, and this is just about the time where they did enter the war YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)