1

Whatever Happened to the Light Brigade?: Veterans and Remembrance of the Battle of Balaclava

Bob Henson

2

Half a league, half a league,Half a league onward,

All in the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.

-Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1854

“The Charge of the Light Brigade”1

It was a bittersweet reunion. In October, 1875, twenty-one years to the day after their famous

action at Balaclava during the Crimean War, the survivors of the 1854 British Light Cavalry Brigade

gathered together at the Alexandra Palace to enjoy an evening of festivities. The Illustrated London

News covered the event in a spread on October 30, 1875 that included the remembrances of a number

of veterans from the charge. The paper presented the memories at length, noting only that they were

“better than any narratives compiled by writers not present on the field of Balaclava that day.”2 For

many veterans, the highlight of the evening was a recitation by William H. Pennington, a former

cavalry soldier who had turned to acting in the years following the war. He performed a dramatic

reading of Alfred Lord Tennyson's “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” which was received with

“enthusiastic applause.” Immediately after this reading, a toast was offered to “The Memory of the

Dead.” A similar toast would be given at subsequent reunion dinners for the next few decades. Given

those present, the selection of Tennyson's poem is hardly surprising; what requires examination is the

process by which Tennyson's brief poem came to stand symbolically for those who fell at Balaclava,

and the war in general.

In this case, a complicated, modern war involving five European Great Powers, and multiple

theaters, became distilled in the cultural memory of one country as the minor action of some seven

hundred or so men. These men were not particularly notable or influential by themselves; most were

1 Alfred Lord Tennyson, Tennyson's Poetry: A Norton Critical Edition, ed. Robert W. Hill Jr. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1971), 307. For the complete text, see Appendix A.

2 The Illustrated London News, October 30, 1875. No. 1890, Vol. LXVII.

3

financially stable, if not well off. The action they performed, an uncomplicated cavalry assault down a

flat valley, was not a stroke of military genius. Indeed, it was a mistake that it even happened, and its

relative success more suggestive of Russia's ineffective army than any innate British superiority. Yet,

by following orders that resulted in a casualty roll of two-thirds of their strength, the British Light

Cavalry Brigade evolved into a heroic unit that dominated the public memory of the war. How was this

accomplished, and by whom? What purpose did monopolizing the war thus have? What was

remembered about the war? What was forgotten? These questions, as they relate to the Crimean War,

remain largely unexplored by historians. My own work will begin to examine this issue in some small

way. I argue that remembering the charge of the Light Brigade as a heroic example of imperial duty

and bravery allowed veterans the chance to legitimize themselves in the eyes of a public who saw the

war as a bloody mistake. More practically, by changing public memory in this way, veterans were able

to aid their own financial well-being, and wring pensions out of an otherwise recalcitrant government.

Veterans and elites used two sources particularly for this process: William Russell's

contemporary war reporting from the Crimea, and Alfred Lord Tennyson's cultural monument to

Balaclava in “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” These two sources more than any other, and the latter

especially, would be ultimately define and consume the public memory of the war. Thus, it is my

contention that veterans and certain British elites used popular memory to secure otherwise

unobtainable military pensions, while simultaneously establish their own sense of imperial legitimacy.

The emerging field of memory and history is rapidly expanding, and it is important to be precise

when using the central terminology. Jay Winter and Emmanuel Sivan's lucid essay from their

collection War and Remembrance in the Twentieth Century defines collective remembrance as “a set of

acts which goes beyond the limits of the professional [historians].”3 With respect to the Crimean, this 3 Jay Winter and Emmanuel Sivan, “Setting the Framwork,” published in War and Remembrance in the Twentieth

Century. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.) p8. I am aware of the important work being done by historians in conjunction with neural physiologists to understand the actual biological process of memory, but including such an exploration would be well outside the scope of this study.

4

means that the process of collective remembrance of the war is based not on academic history, but

rather on the sum of artifacts dedicated to memorializing the war. Specifically, I argue that the artifacts

in this instance consist almost solely of William Russell's dispatches from The Times and Tennyson's

“The Charge of the Light Brigade.” These two works became the focus for that collective

remembrance, and were used to grant imperial legitimacy.

Memory scholars T.G. Ashplant, Graham Dawson, and Michael Roper engage the issue of

collective memory influencing politics in an essay entitled “The Politics of War Memory and

Commemoration: Contexts, Structures, and Dynamics.” They describe the basic process of collective

memory as it relates to politics: for them, memory is “a practice bound up with rituals of national

identification, and a key element ...for binding citizens into a collective national identity.”4 In the

Crimean context, this is the process by which veterans of a bloody mistake evolved into dutiful

imperial subjects, and became proud defenders of empire. This process then was translated into

financial and political influence toward the close of the century, to protect veterans from poverty. It is

the interplay between these two ideas that will inform the majority of this brief exploration of the

Crimean War.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"Charge for the guns!" he said:

Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.

As with many topics of a military focus, the bulk of Crimean War historiography is based

around an analysis of high politics and (more recently) diplomatic maneuvering. Political and military

elites are determined to be the key players, with lower ranks merely acting out their orders. The merit

of this type of analysis is chiefly the foundational role it plays in understanding the war. Basic events

4 T.G. Ashplant, Graham Dawson, and Michael Roper, “The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration: Contexts, Structures, and Dynamics,” published in The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration. (London: Routledge, 2000) p7.

5

and movements are useful insofar as establishing the ways in which the war unfolded, allowing other

methodological approaches the freedom to make analyses and draw conclusions. Operational histories

do an effective job at laying out the basic machinations of the war.

The primary text for the British perspective of the Crimean War remains A. W. Kinglake's

magisterial eight-volume work The Invasion of the Crimea: Its Origin and an Account of its Progress

Down to the Death of Lord Raglan. Published from 1863 to 1887, his book was the first history written

of the war, and still plays a prominent role in modern historiography. Kinglake was the first to offer

many of the suggestions that later historians would restate: that Britain allowed incompetent leaders

into the field, and that France and Russia went to war over the keys to a church. He also was the first

to cement the idea that “our curious old English institutions were inapt for the conduct of war.”5 This

idea would become one of the very commonest tropes of historical writing about the war. His sources

consisted of the personal papers of Lord Raglan, the Commander-in-Chief of the British until 1855, as

well as official military dispatches and reports. Despite a tendency to not fully cite these sources,

Kinglake has had a resounding influence both at the time and is still cited in recent works. Veterans

from the Light Brigade especially tended to look highly upon his work.6 Historians today still seem to

be reacting to his ideas in new or different methodologies.

A more recent work that focuses on the political and diplomatic wranglings of the war, Trevor

Royle's Crimea is an excellent political analysis of the major events of the war. It is a good general

history, with a strong narrative thread connecting throughout the work. He begins by examining the

diplomatic situation surrounding the Eastern Question, which concerned the decline of the Ottoman

Empire, and what the Great Powers of Europe should do with its holdings. Royle tends to ignore

social, cultural, and economic contexts, stating that his research and training were not sufficient to fully

5 Alexander Kinglake, The Invasion of the Crimea Vol. 7. (Forgotten Books: 2010), 67.6 A publishing boom of veteran memoirs followed the release of Kinglake's series, with a great deal of the survivors of the

Charge of the Light Brigade praising his accuracy and thoroughness.

6

explore them. Despite this failing, he has mined a long list of resources both primary and secondary in

an attempt to update a modern exploration of the events of the war, and the underlying ideas behind

them. His seemingly broad approach however masks a very Anglo-centric focus: much of the war is

told from the British perspective, with knowledge of Russian and French forces limited primarily to

actions, instead of thoughts or writings. He only lists a few foreign sources in his bibliography, which

are all French. While he similarly downplays the after-effects of the war and issues about its

remembrance, Royle's work remains a good political history of the war, without really raising any new

questions or issues.

The most important cultural analysis of the war to date is Robert Edgerton's 1999 work Death

or Glory: The Legacy of the Crimean War. This is the largest study of the cultural attitudes and daily

routines of soldiers in recent scholarship, and seems to be the cornerstone of cultural analysis for the

war.7 Edgerton questions whether culture plays a role in the ways that soldiers experience the war,

which is very close to my own questions about military culture in the war. His broad approach

attempts to analyze all five major cultures that participated in the war: British, French, Russian, Turk,

and Sardinian. His use of personal letters and recollections is a method greatly needed to improve the

historiography of the war in general. Edgerton concludes with the argument that the war was in fact so

brutal and dehumanizing that, whatever the culture, all those personally involved in the conflict

exhibited the same or similar survival and coping methods, such as taking pride in one's unit, religious

devotion, off-duty frivolity, or a simple deadening of the senses. While his methodology is exceedingly

broad, his conclusions are unique: few scholars have noted the effect of the increased levels of stress

and brutality resulting from early forms of trench warfare. In this way, his study anticipates a good

deal of literature on the First World War, and its cultural effect on soldiers and civilians, which makes it

7 Tellingly, Edgerton's title is taken from the motto of the 17th Lancers, a British light cavalry regiment who rode in the first line of the charge of the Light Brigade, suggesting already that the cultural memory (at least in Britain) of the war coalesced around the charge.

7

an exceedingly useful work.

Thomas Rommel's essay entitled “Lines Suggested by the War in the Crimea” deals with the

two most famous cultural touchstones of the war: Tennyson's “Charge of the Light Brigade” and the

persona of Florence Nightingale. He views the “Charge of the Light Brigade” as a justification of

British arrogance and inability to communicate their experiences and control the war. This idea is a

common theme in the historiography. By turning the focus of the Battle of Balaclava away from the

tactical losses and ineptitude, and praising instead the discipline of the British cavalry, Rommel argues

that Tennyson provided a convenient rationalization of a great military blunder. He also pays attention

to Tennyson's geographical position when he wrote the poem in December of 1854, on the Isle of

Wight. Rommel's ideas about how the war was idealized from a distance via poetry and the glossing of

atrocity and violence have been most illuminating for a cultural study. He also examines Nightingale

as an idealized individual, the only such person studied or remembered as a single individual in cultural

remembrance of the war.

The most recent cultural study of the war to be published is Stefanie Markovits' The Crimean

War in the British Imagination in 2009. A professor of literature by training, Markovits has written an

effective historical exploration of the memory of the war. She devotes a good deal of writing to the

cultural discourse during the war, going so far as to refer to the conflict as a “media war.”8 The

difference between the Crimean and earlier wars, she states, is that this war was “experienced through

cultural documentation...as events were transpiring.”9 To that end, she focuses on the charge of the

Light Brigade (per Tennyson's interpretation) and Florence Nightingale, much as Rommel has done.

Her focus on the memory after the war is the most important aspect of her book, and the one that needs

more historical study.

8 Stefanie Markovits, The Crimean War in the British Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 3. 9 Markovits, Imagination, 3.

8

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"Was there a man dismay'd?Not tho' the soldier knewSomeone had blunder'd.

The war lasted from 1854 until 1856, and the primarily disputed issue was the Eastern Question,

or what should be done about the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Russia wanted a warm-water naval base

on the Black Sea to allow for military operations in the Mediterranean. The sea was more or less

controlled by the Royal Navy, and Great Britain had a strong desire to maintain the status quo.

Relations between Paris and St. Petersberg were already frosty, due to Napoleon III's diplomatic victory

in gaining the keys to the Church of the Nativity in Palestine over the demands of the Russian

Orthodox Church. When the Russians occupied Turkish land on the Danube River in July 1853, an

Anglo-French coalition demanded the withdrawal of tsarist troops. The Ottomans declared war, and

the Russians quickly dealt them several military defeats, which necessitated the intervention of British

and French forces. Those two powers declared war in early 1854.

Over the next two years, the allied countries would focus their efforts on the Crimean peninsula,

on the northern coast of the Black Sea. The Russians had occupied the naval port city of Sevastopol,

and entrenched the fort there for a protracted siege. British and French forces sailed across the

Mediterranean, to land on the peninsula, and capture the city.10 They succeeded in capturing the

southern portion of the city at terrible cost in material and blood for all parties. The Russians sued for

peace in the summer of 1856, and would demilitarize the Black Sea as a result. The British and French

forces, along with their allies the Ottoman Turks and eventually the Kingdom of Sardinia, would

emerge victoriously, though with little concrete gains to show for it. The war would not be

remembered for its successes; rather, the English in particular would focus on one relatively minor

10 The term “British” is largely problematic in the nineteenth century. I do not mean to suggest here that nationally identifying language is used by primary accounts. Indeed, military units consisted of English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish men without intermingling. The term “British forces” then is used largely stylistically, when it would be unwieldy to refer to men of each region individually.

9

incident in which the Russians attempted to dislodge their forces from their supply lines. This small

action would become an enormously significant cultural artifact in Victorian England.

The Battle of Balaclava was a Russian attempt to flank British supply and communication lines,

to force a withdrawal of British forces.11 By September of 1854, the Allied forces under Lord Raglan

had drawn up siege trenches in front of the main strategic goal of the war: the port of Sevastopol.

British forces occupied the center of the Allied formation, a semi-circle surrounding the southern half

of the city. Logistical lines ran to the south, through a rocky series of valleys and ridges, to the port

city of Balaclava. Russian forces, under General Lipandi, saw an opportunity to flank the British

position, and sever those lines. With relatively few forces guarding their southern flank, the British had

Figure 1: Map of Crimean Theater12

left themselves vulnerable to rear encirclement. On October 25, 1854, the Russians made their move in

11 For a far more thorough account of the war in general, and Balaclava in particular, see Trevor Royle, Crimea: The Great Crimean War, 1854-1856. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

12 Charles Alexandre Fay, Théâtre des Opérations, 1867.

10

the early hours of the morning.

The battle began by artillery bombardment, as the Russian army bombarded gun emplacements

on the southernmost ridge, known as the causeway. To the north of this ridge were a sharply inclined

valley and an opposing ridge, known as the Fedioukine Heights. Regiments of Turkish troops defended

a number of redoubts on both ridges, which were the initial targets of Russian artillery gunners.

Lipandi began moving his cavalry forces into position. 400 mounted Russians charged down the

valley, and wheeled south to climb up to the causeway. Had they broken the British lines, they could

have ridden through to the city itself. However, a few Turkish troops and the 93rd Highlanders regiment

held their line, preventing the Russian cavalry from breaking through, and driving them back through

the valley. This action would be remembered as the “thin red line” of Victorian imperialism, and

become an important cultural touchstone in its own right.13

Lipandi deployed a second force of Russian cavalry to charge the causeway from the east,

intending to overrun the Turkish defenders in their artillery redoubts. Despite resistance from the

Turks, the Russians were able to capture the emplacements, and began dismantling the guns to remove

them behind the lines. Russian infantry also began moving westward along the causeway, threatening

the remaining redoubts, as well as setting up an artillery battery in the valley itself, now that it was no

longer covered by Allied guns.

13 Royle, Crimea, 268.

11

Figure 2: Map of the Battle of Balaclava14

Military culture considered losing guns to an enemy a great embarrassment, quite aside from

the logistical problem it presented, and Lord Raglan ordered his own cavalry to counterattack. The

Heavy Brigade, five units of English, Scottish, and Irish cavalry, was ordered to charge the Russian

infantry. If they could break the Russian lines, this would allow British forces to recapture the Turkish

gun emplacements.

Indeed, the Charge of the Heavy Brigade was the high point of British cavalry encounters for

the day, and they clove through the Russian lines with an ease that surprised even their own soldiers.

With their success, Raglan began planning on attacking the remaining Russians, who had control of the

Fedioukine Heights, the valley below, and the eastern-most gun emplacements on the causeway. This

action became the chief memory of the war itself. Raglan dispatched an aide-de-camp, a gallant and

impatient officer named Captain Lewis Nolan. Raglan's instructions were for the Light Brigade to ride

14 Royle, Crimea, 267.

12

down the causeway, and recover the redoubt guns at the east end. Galloping off with the order, he

reported to Lord Lucan, commander of British Cavalry.

The tactical problems with the subsequent events are myriad. Typically, both artillery support

and infantry reserves were used to maximize the effectiveness of cavalry; otherwise, they were left with

only the initial shock of combat, as the repulse of the Russian cavalry by the 93rd had shown earlier.15

The British 4th Foot Division was slow to take their positions on the flank of the causeway. This left

the Russians unchallenged on the heights there, and able to consolidate their positions. No artillery was

dispatched to assist the Light Brigade. Thus, they had neither infantry nor artillery cover.

Second, and most importantly, the order to charge became hopelessly muddled as it traveled

through the chain of command. Lord Raglan gave a written order to Captain Nolan. According to

Russell's account, the order read “Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front –

follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns...Immediate.”16 This polite order

instructed the cavalry commander, Lord Lucan, to send the Light Brigade along the causeway height,

and recover the Turkish guns that had been overrun by the Russians.

Nolan immediately reported to Lucan, who had drawn up the Light Brigade. When Lucan

asked Nolan to clarify which guns Raglan wanted captured, the occupied Turkish guns, or the new

Russian battery being erected in the valley, Nolan responded vaguely. Already dismissive of Raglan's

lethargic tactics, Nolan believed that speed was the strongest asset possessed by cavalry, and

impatiently waved his arm in a general westward direction, and responded “There are your guns!”17 In

written accounts, there exists no more mention of the heights by any officer after this exchange. Nolan

was either confused or overzealous, and imprecisely gave the Light Brigade its target. With only

Raglan's vaguely-worded order and Nolan's hand-waving as a guide, Lucan assumed that the orders 15 Nicolas Bently, ed. Russell's Despatches from the Crimea. 1966. Article originally printed in The Times, November 14,

1854. (Reprint, Annapolis: Panther, 2008), 126-128.16 Bently, Despatches, 126-128.17 Royle, Crimea, 273.

13

were to charge the Russian guns in the valley, not on the causeway.

Lucan rode to Lord Cardigan, the commanding officer of the Light Brigade, to give the order

directly. Both men seem to have understood the problem: by charging down the valley to the Russian

battery, the Light Brigade would have to ride for over a mile while under fire from the Russians on both

heights, and in the valley itself. Cardigan ordered the charge. Nolan, for unclear reasons, took the

lead, and was the first casualty. The horrendous scream he let loose before falling from his saddle was

recorded by nearly every journal and letter.

In an action that took less than twenty-five minutes, the Light Brigade would lose more than

two-thirds of its strength. They galloped toward the Russian gun battery, into what Tennyson would

refer as the “valley of Death.” They seem to have surprised the Russians, who nonetheless rallied.

Under fire from three directions, the Light Brigade successfully reached the battery they supposed to be

their target, and overran it with sabers drawn. They began to fall back when they realized the mass of

Russian troops (some 12,000, according to reports) who had taken position at the other end of the

valley. Their northern flank was somewhat relieved by a swift interception of French Chasseurs

d'Afrique, an Algerian unit of cavalry that hastily attacked the Russians on the Fedioukine Heights. A

small force of Russian cavalry swept from the south, down the causeway and threatened to cut off the

retreat, which might have resulted in the complete destruction of the brigade, but the British forces cut

their way through, and returned to their starting position.

In less than a half an hour, Raglan wasted two-thirds of his light cavalry. Despite the strong

showing by the rest of British forces in the battle, especially the 93rd and Heavy Brigade, there were no

further attacks for the rest of the day. The Battle of Balaclava was a costly British victory: the strategic

supply and logistic lines through the city were maintained against Russian offensives; casualties were

far higher on the Russian side than the British in terms of absolute numbers. Nonetheless, the battle

was a devastating blow to Allied morale. The destruction of the Light Brigade as an effective unit was

14

a costly price for the removal of one Russian battery. Indeed, the Russians would begin a new assault

the next day, at Inkerman, with a full attack taking place on the historic 5th of November. Balaclava,

however, would mark an important cultural event for the British Army and Empire.

Figure 3: The Valley of Death18

Theirs not to make reply,Theirs not to reason why,Theirs but to do and die:Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.

Through the coming efforts of The Times' war correspondent William Russell, and Britain's Poet

Laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson, the charge of the Light Brigade became the central focus of the day,

and ultimately, of the war as a whole. The story of the poem is deeply intertwined with the Battle of

18 Roger Fenton, Valley of the Shadow of Death, 1855. Salted paper print from glass negative. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.

15

Balaclava, and the reception in England of the loss of the Light Brigade. Losses from the attack were

harsh, if not necessarily devastating: out of the roughly 700 that participated, 156 were killed outright,

and a further 122 wounded, for 278 total casualties.19 The brigade lost almost 500 horses however,

rendering it effectively out of the war until replacements could be purchased.20 The loss of these

horses is of chief importance to the perception of the war: when William Russell, The Times'

correspondent in the Crimea, observed the battle and spoke to the survivors, he estimated less than 200

soldiers remained.21 The discrepancy results from men who were not harmed themselves, but who lost

their horses to Russian fire, forcing them to walk or run back. This made it seem as though losses were

much worse than eventual observations would prove. Nonetheless, the idea that the Brigade was

almost completely destroyed per Russell's report would take immediate hold in the British

consciousness.22

William Russell, often referred to as the first modern war correspondent, was the chief reporter

for the London-based Times. It is through his eyes that most British civilians experienced the war, and

he did his best to observe the events firsthand or speak to witnesses as quickly as he could. His

description of the war was published on November 13, 1854, only two weeks after the events. The

charge of the Light Brigade and its carnage immediately caught the public attention. In Russell's

words, “some hideous blunder” had destroyed the British light cavalry, and the immense popularity of

his reports ensured that this idea became firmly rooted in British consciousness.23 When British Poet

Laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson read the article soon after its publication, he would immortalize the

19 Somerset John Gough Calthorpe, Letters from Headquarters; or The Realities of the War in the Crimea; by an Officer on the Staff. (London: John Murray, 1858), 132.

20 Royle, Crimea, 270.21 Bently, Despatches, 119.22 It is likely that this issue also speaks to a larger trend in nineteenth century military thought: the end of the cavalry era.

For a thousand years, wealthy aristocrats had defined themselves as sitting quite literally above the common soldier. Agincourt had suggested that armored cavalry could be brought down by a single ranged attack; Balaclava likely cemented this concept. The loss of this visible prestige is a concept with long-term implications. Divorcing cavalry from direct combat operations took decades longer, and the cultural impact of mounted romanticism remains prevalent in our own time.

23 Bently, Despatches,119.

16

“blunder” as the pinnacle of Victorian honor and courage.

Tennyson became Poet Laureate in 1850, and was a very popular architect of Victorian

sensibilities. According to his biography, written by his son Hallam in 1897, he followed the war with

“great excitement” from his house at Farringford, in Southampton, just south of London.24 He hoped

the war would refocus Britain on imperial strength and honor, and turn away from what he perceived as

a continuing lust for economic expansion. His excitement towards the war became tempered with

sadness on October 10, 1854. He was notified that his neighbor and friend, Colonel Hood, had been

killed at the Battle of Alma, the first battle of the war.25 It is likely this loss colored his view of the war,

but Tennyson seems to have remained supportive of the conflict in general.

By December 5, 1854, just a few weeks after the publication of Russell's article, Tennyson had

finished his poem. He had read Russell's piece, and been captured by the line “some hideous blunder.”

On December 2, 1854, he set the poem down more or less completely in the span of a few minutes.26

Tennyson used this phrase, written in dactylic meter, as the metrical basis for his own poem, and

created a fascinating and direct link between the events, the observation, the description, and the

reception of the battle.27 Russell's depiction became Tennyson's key idea for his poem, which in turn

became a central focus of memorializing the entire war. In a further twist, Tennyson consciously used

the wording “six hundred” soldiers for metrical purposes, instead of the actual count, which was closer

to seven hundred.28 Tennyson's artistic license left nearly one hundred soldiers forgotten.

Tennyson's wife Emily mailed the letter on December 6 to John Forster, then the literary editor

24 Hallam Lord Tennyson, Alfred Lord Tennyson: A Memoir by his Son (London: Macmillian & Co., 1897), 380.25 The battle occurred as Allied forces attempted to ford the river Alma, which separated their landing zone from the city of

Sevastopol, the primary objective of the war. Ironically, the Light Brigade (the only cavalry forces that participated) requested the freedom to pursue the retreating Russian forces, but Lord Raglan was unwilling to risk their safety for dubious military gain.

26 Hallam Tennyson, Memoir, 380.27 Tennyson, Poetry, 307.28 Alfred Lord Tennyson, The Letters of Alfred Lord Tennyson, Volume II: 1851-1870, ed. Cecil Y. Lang and Edgar F.

Shannon Jr., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 102.

17

of the London Examiner.29 The letter requests the poem be published in the paper.30 Emily remarked

on the news of the battle, wishing she could bring “warm clothing and nourishing food” to the soldiers,

as the logistical difficulties were by now well known in London. She also expressed her desire to bring

“death and destruction to the enemy.”31

Immediately recognizing the value in the poem, Forster had it published on December 9, 1854.

According to his reply to Tennyson, he acted out of a desire to help memorialize the soldiers at

Balaclava, calling the poem a “noble ballad,” and referring to Tennyson as the only remaining “muse of

fire”32 that might do justice to the troops.33 His letter reflected an obsequious literary editor interacting

with the Poet Laureate, but indicates that he (and likely Tennyson himself) was conscious of the act of

mythmaking, and his role in it.

The poem was then published on December 9, 1854. The reception was almost universally

positive. Tennyson seems to have supported the war generally, and his voice, through the “Charge of

the Light Brigade,” would come to symbolize the conflict itself.34 While the poem was especially well-

received in London, Tennyson seems to have struck a chord with the soldiers and veterans of the action

themselves. By August of 1855, despite the war dragging out long past all estimations, the soldiers had

already incorporated Tennyson's lyrics into their own memories of the war. In a letter dated August 3,

1854, Benedict Chapman, a lawyer and friend of Tennyson, wrote to him to make a request.35 An

unnamed acquaintance of Chapman was a chaplain with the British Army in Crimea. He wrote to

29 I have been unable to find much information about The Examiner itself. It was a London newspaper that ran in the mid-nineteenth century, but seems to have ceased publishing in the 1870s. Its records have been digitally archived, but as yet I have been unable to gain access to them. The paper's most notable literary accomplishment seems to be the publication of Tennyson and Dickens manuscripts.

30 Tennyson , Letters, 102.31 Tennyson, Letters, 102.32 From Shakespeare's Henry V, which focuses greatly on the Battle of Agincourt, fought on October 25, 1415, four

hundred, forty-nine years to the day before Balaclava.33 Tennyson , Letters, 102.34 See Edgerton, Death or Glory: The Legacy of the Crimean War (Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.) He suggests that

Tennyson viewed the war as an opportunity to turn away from the greedy pursuit of profit, and reclaim the heroic virtues of Britain's (perceived) past. This ideal is clearly seen throughout Tennyson's Charge.

35 Tennyson , Letters, 236n.

18

Tennyson to request additional copies of the poem be published and sent to the troops: “half are singing

it, and all want to have it in black and white.”36 With the further assistance of his wife's aunt Jane Lady

Franklin,37 Tennyson had 2,000 more copies printed in pamphlet form, and distributed to the troops.38

The poem had captured the imagination of civilians and soldiers both involved in and absent from the

Battle of Balaclava in a remarkably short time. Initially, the poem's phrase “Someone had blunder'd”

would be the focal point of perception; only as time progressed, however, would the charge come to be

remembered for its discipline and fearlessness.

Cannon to right of them,Cannon to left of them,Cannon in front of themVolley'd and thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell,Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,Into the mouth of HellRode the six hundred.

The primary way that both veterans and civilians seemed to experience the battle was as a

profound military blunder. While the battle started promisingly enough, the destruction of the Light

Brigade immediately became the focus of the entire day. Officers, enlisted men, and observers

recognized that a mistake must have been made at some point in the day, to waste so many men and

horses. As an entirely volunteer army, it was especially problematic for officers and veterans to explain

how and why the incident occurred. After the battle, Lord Lucan was ultimately sacked from command

36 Tennyson , Letters, 117. 37 Jane Lady Franklin was a somewhat enigmatic figure of the nineteenth century. Married to an Australian explorer, she

commissioned a number of expeditions to ascertain the fate of her husband after his disappearance. She was ultimately given a commendation from the Royal Geological Society for her expeditions, the first such award given to a woman. She appears to have taken a somewhat protective view of British soldiers in general, and encouraged Tennyson to publish 1,000 more pamphlets for soldiers. See Jane Griffin Franklin and Willingham Franklin Rawnsley, The Life, Diaries, and Correspondence of Jane Lady Franklin, 1792-1875 (Oxford: E. McDonald Ltd., 1923).

38 Hallam Tennyson, Memoir, 382.

19

and sent back to England. Cardigan also returned to London, complaining of health problems from the

poor conditions, but later came back to the Crimea,. Nolan had the good fortune to have been shot in

the chest during the charge, sparing him from later courts-martial. Nonetheless, no one figure ever

captured the imagination of the public as directly responsible. Despite this, it seemed inconceivable

that such an action was a result of the normal course of war, and thus there must be a responsible party.

Lieutenant Colonel George Dallas published his own memoirs after the war, collected mostly

from letters sent to his family in England. He was deployed as an officer with the 4th Foot Division, an

infantry unit that had not seen much action at Balaclava.39 Then-Captain Dallas' sparse writings from

October 27 indicate that only days after the battle, he and others recognized that the “cavalry massacre”

would shock readers in London.40 While declining to offer comment on whom he held responsible,

Dallas remarked that “we have only rumors, and no place is so full of rumors, false and true (and

generally the former,) as an army camp.” Despite his gentlemanly discretion, he nonetheless saw the

action as requiring a responsible party, and suggests that this attitude was widespread among the troops.

Sgt. Timothy Gowing seemed to agree, although he lacked Dallas' unwillingness to decline

naming names. His unit was tasked with ferrying supplies to the field, and assisting wounded men. As

such, he was able to both watch the charge itself, and met with the small band of survivors that were

left after the engagement. He openly criticized the decision to send the Light Brigade down the valley,

prefacing his memoirs of that day by beginning “Now we come to where someone had blundered.”41 In

Gowing's analysis, written in his memoirs in 1902, the chief culprit was Lord Lucan, the Lt. General in

charge of British cavalry, for it was him, “and no one else, that ordered the charge.” Even viewed from 39 Ironically, the actions of the 4th Foot directly contributed to the destruction of the Light Brigade, as they were slow to

deploy into formation, and were thus unable to act as a screen for the cavalry. In a further irony, on the one year anniversary of the battle, Dallas dined with an American observer (whom he suspected of being a spy) sent from Washington, General George McClellan, who would later become an infamously over-cautious commander of his own army.

40 George Dallas, Eyewitness in the Crimea: The Crimean War Letters of Lieutenant Colonel George Frederick Dallas. (London: Greenhill, 2001), 41. Letter dated October 27, 1854

41 Timothy Gowing, A Soldier's Experience, or A Voice from the Ranks: Showing the Cost of War in Blood and Treasure. (New York: Privately Printed, 1901), 62.

20

the ranks, the charge of the Light Brigade was seen to be a great military error, and many of those

involved maintained their theories and beliefs about who was to blame.

Even while the war was progressing, conflicts of opinion raged as to the culpability of certain

figures. The young Captain Nolan especially seems to have been a focal point of debate. It was he

who gave the order to charge to Lord Lucan, and who famously waved in the general area of the

supposed guns as a target for the brigade. His rash and high-profile actions before the charge gave him

a prominent role in the minds of veterans. His subsequent death served to cement his role as a

participant in the “blunder,” and a number of soldiers and officers rallied around his defense. He had

perished at the outset, which saved him from official post-action recriminations, although lacking the

ability to refute charges left him vulnerable to criticism.

It was clear to a number of observers, especially Lieutenant General Charles Windham, K.C.B.,

who was present with the 4th Foot, that Nolan's “conduct was inexcusable.”42 Written the night after the

battle, Windham's diary singles Nolan out for brashly riding out for his own glory. “His whole object

appears to have been to have a charge at the Russians at any cost; but he could not have chosen a worse

time.” It seems that Windham did not blame Nolan for his excitement at the prospect of battle: the next

day he would criticize the French general Bosquet for moving his troops too slowly, and missing “the

fun.”43 Rather, Windham blamed Nolan's poor sense of timing, as he led the charge well after the

Russians had time to entrench their positions.

The most common defense of Nolan was the rigid command structure of the army that left little

initiative to junior officers, and required immediate action when ordered. Royal regulations gave great

authority to aides-de-camp such as Nolan, and any hesitance on his part could well have been met with

42 Charles Windham. The Crimean Diary and Letters of Lieut-General Sir Charles Ash Windham, K.C.B. With observations upon his services during the Indian Mutiny and an introduction by Sir William Howard Russell. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1897). 44. Letter dated October 25, 1854.

43 Windham, Diary, 47. Letter dated October 26, 1854.

21

a court-martial.44 This defense, used in a number of writings, would also apply to Lucan, who was

ultimately removed from command. As the ultimate origin of the author, Lord Raglan was almost as

common a target for blame as his subordinates. In any event, despite a multiplicity of perspectives,

arguments, and evidence, it seems clear that one of the chief methods that British soldiers and civilians

used to make sense of the battle was by attempting to ascertain who was to blame. This would fit into

another common theme of perception: that the war had been poorly managed from the outset, and that

the loss of the Light Brigade was only one more incident of military incompetence.

The difficulties faced by the British army had already been popularized by Russell's articles in

the Times. The chief problems were a lack of logistical arrangements to provide needed supplies in the

field, and a general lack of competent officers. Complaining of bureaucratic mismanagement and

incompetence, Lt. General Windham lamented before the battle that “We have no Wellington here.”45

From its initial landings, the British army was beset by logistical difficulties that, by October, had

become clear to the civilian population in London. Soldiers and civilians alike saw Balaclava as the

ultimate result of British military blundering.

Similarly clear to those participating in the battle was the fact that cavalry troops required an

extra level of logistical support that was simply not being met. The horses that they depended on

lacked basic food and shelter necessities, which had a profound effect on unit morale and cohesion. In

a letter dated January of 1855, shortly after the action at Balaclava, a soldier in the 13th Light Dragoons,

Henry Gregory, wrote to his sister to tell of the battle. “Thank God I escaped that dreadful massacre,”

he remarked. Later, he complained that even cavalry soldiers did not have basic food and water

requirements. Speaking directly to the problem faced by the Light and Heavy Brigades during the war

though, he asserted that “the horses are eating the tails off each other.”46 This (probable) exaggeration 44 Thomas Hutchford, A Vindication of Maj. General the Earl of Lucan, from Lord Raglan's Reflections on his Conduct in

the Action at Balaclava. (London: Taylor and Francis, 1855), 15.45 Hutchford, Vindication, 41. Letter dated October 22, 1854.46 Henry Gregory, Letter dated January 12, 1855, to his sister. National Army Museum (NAM) AFPS 68088/1.

22

aside, soldiers indeed worried about their horses, as they were central to the cavalry's effective

operation. Supplies however were not the only area of logistics in which the British found themselves

lacking.

Many reports and accounts remember the war as a medical nightmare for the army and limited

medical personnel dispatched abroad. Inadequate hospital care and medical transportation for wounded

men allowed untold numbers to die who might have otherwise recovered. Florence Nightingale's later

efforts at Scutari (the main British hospital for casualties) aside, the Crimean War affirmed the need for

medical care in the modern army. A London-based current events magazine, The Spectator, noted for its

glowing praise of imperial Britain, published a number of critical articles on the conduct of the war.

The first editorial published after Balaclava, on November 11, 1854, was chiefly focused on the

horrendous medical conditions of the army camps. The paper complained that “disease, far more than

battle... [has killed] 14,000 men, leaving 16,000 to do the work of 30,000.”47 From both a military and

practical perspective, Balaclava was seen as at best a Pyrrhic victory for the British army abroad.

That army was being led by a group of men who for the most part lacked military experience

and effectiveness. As the last war in which British men could purchase commissions, the Crimean War

would mark a turning point for officer candidates. Buying officer ranks was a common practice,

however, and allowed young aristocratic men the opportunity to lead armies in the field without

bothering with tedious years of training or education, with predictable results. Officers were often

accused of being dandies who showed little interest in the ways of warfare, preferring to lead lives of

leisure even in the field. Cardigan was especially mocked by his troops for his habit of retiring each

night to his private yacht, where his French chef prepared his meals.48 This was common knowledge

among members of the Light Brigade, and explains Cardigan's lateness to the opening hours of

47 "Untitled Article [Our Loss of Valuable Troops...]." The Spectator, November 11, 1854. http://pao.chadwyck.com/marketing/index.jsp (accessed January 4, 2010).

48 Consider as well that the war had started only six years after 1848, a year fraught with class tensions and conflicts.

23

Balaclava. Such knowledge made discipline and respect for the man difficult for the cavalry soldiers.

Lord Raglan, the commander of British forces was another common target for criticism by

veterans. The Crimean War was his first opportunity to personally lead an army in the field, despite his

relatively extensive experience in warfare. He had operated as the Duke of Wellington's personal aide-

de-camp for previous decades, which gave him a somewhat skewed perspective of warfare.49 He

tended to get bogged down in details, and generally adopted what he considered a civilized and polite

tone when ordering movements. Such politesse may have been appreciated in London social circles;

rank and file troopers saw it as a distinct shortage of confidence and presence. This lack of

forthrightness was a common perception of soldiers, and would be criticized in later remembrance.

Generally speaking, the difficulties of an incompetent officer corps would become a common

trope of later cultural remembrances: later novels and poems often contained a scene in which a rank

and file trooper was required to heroically save an officer at the point of death. Such officers frequently

found themselves cut off from the main Light Brigade charge, at which point a lowly soldier would

dramatically ride up, pull the hapless officer onto his horse, and ride away before the Russians could

recover themselves.50 At any rate, the issue of military incompetence was a chief avenue for perception

during the war itself.

As ensuing decades went on, however, military veterans began to attempt to take control of the

ways they were being remembered by their countrymen. Recalling only the rampant disease,

incompetent officers, and general military ineffectiveness proved unsuccessful at gaining glory and

recognition. As such, as early as the 1850s efforts were undertaken to craft a new narrative: not that of

49 Indeed, an unsubstantiated claim by a popular British book on the war was that Raglan had picked up an awkward habit from Wellington: namely, he took to referring to his enemy as “the French” no matter which particular enemy was being referenced. One can only imagine the diplomatic friction this may have caused with the actual French general Canrobert.

50 See Escott Lynn, Blair of Balaclava, (London: W. and R. Chambers, LTD, 1911). This juvenile literature involved the common trope of inserting a young boy into historical events. So common was the idea of incompetent officers that Jack Blair, the titular (and fictional) main character would be able to rescue no less than two lieutenants in the action lasting less than twenty-five minutes.

24

a weak military force that was hopelessly behind the times in terms of modern warfare, but of a dutiful,

disciplined British soldier who could stand proudly as a paragon of imperial virtue. Veterans and

authors alike began to assert this myth of imperial power to compensate for the lack of that power that

was obvious during the war.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,Flash'd as they turn'd in air,Sabring the gunners there,Charging an army, whileAll the world wonder'd:

Immediately following the charge of the Light Brigade on October 25, 1854, a French general

(reports conflict as to either General Bosquet or Canrobert himself) was famously said to have

described the action as splendid, but said “this is not war.”51 What then was it? The charge was

reinterpreted to become a testament to British military discipline and strength, not the wasteful

slaughter that many veterans had believed it. The devotion to duty in the face of overwhelming odds

and deadly ignorance would become the chief cultural memory of the battle in general and of the

charge of the Light Brigade in particular.

In the 1850s, this shift was already beginning to occur. As early as 1856 while the war was

winding down after the pseudo-victory of the allied Anglo-French, cultural works began laying the

groundwork for a more optimistic memory to take root in British consciousness. Military parade

marches and songs were popular creations during and immediately after the war. Many commemorated

specific battles or actions, and of course Balaclava and the Light Brigade dominated as popular themes.

Tennyson's words were put to music in 1856 by C.A. Macirone, helping establish the poem further as a

cultural memory. The piano music was a triumphal march, emphasizing the martial and imperial

51 James Gibson, Memoirs of the Brave. (London: The London Stamp Exchange Ltd., 1889), 25.

25

language over more despondent topics.52 The dedication of the piece makes use of a quote from

Shakespeare's Henry V, and consciously links Balaclava to the Battle of Agincourt, in which Henry's

band of brothers defeated a superior French foe on October 25, 1415, four-hundred, and thirty-nine

years earlier. Itself a proud moment of English military superiority, the goal of such a link was to

justify the battle as typical of English spirit and determination.

That spirit encouraged many other marches to be written. Many celebrated the Battle of

Inkermann, fought shortly after Balaclava on another day already dear to English cultural memory:

November 5, 1854.53 That battle was a set-piece infantry battle, and one in which the British in general

fared very well. Ballads and marches commemorating Inkermann and other battles often involved the

dedication “To the Memory of the Dead.”54 Such was a common remembrance, and would be used in

later decades as a chief toast in banquets for Light Brigade veterans.

Novels especially rose in popularity throughout the century, and the Crimean War would serve

as fertile ground for military authors. The war lent itself easily to tales of swashbuckling adventure and

excitement. Novels such as Pride of the Mess: A Navel Novel of the Crimean War, written in 1856,

were published cheaply to appeal to the widest possible audience.55 This work emphasized in particular

the valor and heroism of the Royal Navy and its sailors; they are responsible for guarding the supply

routes to Balaclava and the army, and are upstanding young men in most respects. The publication of

such works had begun the long cultural project of redefining the war in favor of its imperial successes.

The process would not be easy.

The 1860s would continue the justification and memorialization of the war's heroic

interpretation, although the process would not be a simple tale of progression. Rather, differing

52 Alfred Lord Tennyson (lyrics) and C.A. Macirone (music), The Balaclava Charge. (London: Hutchinng and Romer, 1856).

53 Guy Fawkes Day, in which the Catholic Guy Fawkes was prevented from blowing up the Houses of Parliament by the Protestant rulers of England.

54 Anon., The Battle of Inkermann Ballad, (London: Arther Hall, Virtue, and Co., 1856).55 Anon., Pride of the Mess: A Navel Novel of the Crimean War. (London: G. Routledge and Co., 1856).

26

perspectives still jockeyed for position, and the collective memory of the war was far from decided. In

any event, the decade would continue the flood of cultural material published that promoted it as an

expression of imperial power. Poems were especially popular after Tennyson's work, and many

veterans and aspiring poets styled themselves after the poet laureate's writing. Colonel H. D.

O'Halloran, writing at the turn of the decade, published a poem by the name of “The Charge of 'The Six

Hundred' at Balaclava,” getting as far as his title before having to reference Tennyson's poem.

O'Halloran's work is typical of most of the post-war poetry written, especially by veterans: it was very

similar to Tennyson's work, and quoted him in a number of lines. O'Halloran's work has the distinction

of referencing the common perception of British soldiers at the time, and refuting it. When the charge

began, O'Halloran's Russian laugh mockingly, but “Duty to country, Duty to our Queen/ Asserts its

sway, and makes each heart serene.”56 Here, British men are able to forcibly change the way they are

perceived through their valor and duty to their queen in the face of danger; this is the goal of the post-

war cultural memory.

This was also reflected in the arena of childhood education. While schooling remained sporadic

and local, and without central control, teaching history in schools was becoming more widespread in

England, and much of it revolved around creating the proper respect for British culture and politics.

Books written for children then offer a unique insight into what was valued by educators and parents.

These sources thus became engraved on the minds of Victorians who read them as children. One of the

first books written with a juvenile audience was The Children of the Great King: A Tale of the Crimean

War. The book primarily focuses on the religious aspects of the war, and portrays the British as

rescuing the Ottomans from the Orthodox Russians, “though foreigners and of an adverse faith.”57 The

book similarly exalts the British ability to uphold their duty over emotions that drove them to remain 56 O'Halloran, The Charge of 'The Six Hundred' at Balaclava. c.1858. NAM AFPS 7412156/1.57 M. H. M., The Children of the Great King: A Tale of the Crimean War. (Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter and Co., 1865), 6.

For a more complete discussion of Victorian educational issues and philosophy, see Carolyn Steedman, Childhood, Culture, and Class in Britain: Margaret McMillan, 1860-1931, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990).

27

safely at home. This is a very similar theme to Tennyson's “Theirs not to reason why,” and children

were expected to learn the proper respect for veterans.

This is not to suggest that the 1860s represented a cultural conquest of sorts for veterans. Much

of the public still saw the war as a thorough mistake. This is most clearly seen in the creation and

reception of the Crimean Guards Memorial in London.58 The United Kingdom National Inventory of

War Memorials lists 343 dedications to the Crimean War, and the Guards Memorial was one of the

earliest. Commissioned and begun in 1859, the project was beset with difficulties from the outset. A

scaffold was constructed, but remained empty for over twelve months, sparking Parliamentary

complaints aimed at the Chief Commissioner of Works William F. Cowper. John Bell, a renowned

sculptor responsible for (among other works) the Wellington Memorial in Guildhall, was selected to

create the statue, indicating the amount of respect the responsible committee wanted to show. The site

selected was only a few hundred feet away from Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square, itself an

important cultural artifact. The female figure that was to top the memorial was named “Honour,” and

she would be looking down on sculpted representations of infantry guards, while cannons captured in

the siege at Sebastopol would be placed in the rear. The statue was meant to be a proud symbol of the

heroism and honor with which British troops had conducted themselves.

When the statue was unveiled in 1861, the Victorian magazine the Art Journal remarked dryly

that it “looked best in a fog.”59 Cynically greeted by members of the art community and the public at

large, the memorial failed to have the desired effect. The statue at the top was quickly dubbed the

“Quoit Player,” as the laurels she held in each hand resembled the discs of a popular game.60

Moreover, as historian Maya Jasanoff has noted, captured trophies (in this case, two cannons seized

from the Russians at Sebastopol) were most enthusiastically used not to display imperial power, but 58 UK National Inventory of War Memorials #11608.59 The Art Journal, 1861, 158.60 In 1919, after the closing of the First World War, the figure would officially be renamed to Victory, suggesting that honor

alone was insufficient for victory in an total war. The appellation “The Quoit Player” seems to have stuck in any case.

28

rather to compensate for the embarrassing failure to obtain that power.61 Similar to gates captured in

the atrociously bloody Afghan War, the guns at Sebastopol served as a reminder of the difficulties faced

and the drawn-out battle of attrition that saw a devastated British army slog its way to victory.

The rapid rise of the memorial also suggests further complication. Often, wars that are viewed

as unsuccessful or ineffective require the swiftest memorializing.62 Without more concrete gains, such

as territory or visible achievements, the English public remained skeptical of the war's value. The

quick construction of a monument to the Crimean veterans suggests that the public still saw the war as

a costly mistake. Clearly, establishing the war as a watershed of imperial might remained a daunting

cultural task.

The 1870s were the first decade in which the heroic myths of the Crimean War truly took hold

of the British public imagination. These years allowed veterans to sell their stories to a receptive

public. Stories told now resonated with heroic themes and imagery, and cemented the ways in which

the war was remembered. The year 1875 was particularly important, as it would see the creation of the

Balaclava Commemoration Society in London, and the first reunion dinner for twenty years. The

decade would also show a culture willing to accept the most optimistic interpretation of what would

come to be symbolic of the war as a whole: the charge of the Light Brigade.

The charge had always played a large role in perception of the war as a whole. Tennyson's

stirring language and widespread popularity ensured that large numbers of English men and women

read about it in the Times from William Russell. The five units that participated in the charge were

quickly becoming the most important memories of the war after twenty years. The small numbers of

British men that stood against some ten-thousand Russians captured the imagination. Their strong

showing in the face of great odds was a far more palatable incident to remember than the myriad

61 Maya Jasanoff, Edge of Empire: Lives, Culture, and Conquest in the East, 1750-1850. (New York:Vintage, 2005), 313.62 In the United States, for example, the Vietnam War Memorial was build long before any similar structure for the Second World War.

29

examples of military incompetence (including the break down in the chain of command that allowed

the charge to happen in the first place.)

As time passed, the charge of the Light Brigade became more closely associated with the entire

war, and thus steeped in British valor and imperial glory. As the Spectator would later articulate in

1875, “it is a trick of the British people to forget...deeds of derring-do.”63 That article, published almost

twenty-one years to the day after the battle, was a retrospective of the battle designed to educate the

minds of young Britons who were not yet born during the war. Even a mere twenty-one years later, the

magazine argued that the “separate acts of daring, or devotion, or inspiration” must be remembered by

all British subjects. It elevated the charge of the Light Brigade to the sublime, proclaiming that the six-

hundred rode out “cheerfully to imminent death, not as a forlorn hope, not maddened by any novel or

spirit-stirring excitement, but in the ordinary course of their military duty.” Hardly criticizing the

charge as a communications mishap, tactical blunder, or largely ineffective waste of good cavalry, the

Spectator chose instead to recall the glory of trained British troops doing their duty to the last.

Cultural writings had continued the glorification of the cavalry charge. New novels and

memoirs were popular pieces to be published. These maintained the tradition of allowing Tennyson's

language to stand in for actual memories or historical accounts. One of the Six Hundred: A Novel

published in 1876 is typical of this practice. Again, the author cannot get past the title without having

to quote from the former poet laureate. The novel's passages are rife with quotes from the poem typical

of fictional writing, such as “half a league, half a league onward...”64 The main character, Newton

Norcliff, part of a lancer unit, rides in the charge, and distinguishes himself by his bravery and courage.

The novel is unremarkable for literary ability, but demonstrates the themes of remembrance embraced

by veterans: the noble sacrifice. When dedicating the piece, James Grant, the author, made specific

63 "The Balaclava Commemoration," The Spectator, October 30, 1875. http://pao.chadwyck.com/marketing/index.jsp (accessed January 4, 2010).

64 James Grant, One of the Six Hundred, (Nottingham: Books Ltd., 1876), 3.

30

mention of several London newspapers friendly to veterans: The London Journal, Punch, noted for its

political cartoons lampooning Victorian society, and The Illustrated London News.

The Illustrated London News would play a key role in the 1870s by publishing a six page write

up of the first annual dinner of the newly-formed Balaclava Commemoration Society. Limited to

veterans of the battle (most of whom were from the Light Brigade, although members of the 93rd

Highlanders and the Heavy Brigade were invited) the club was begun in 1875 with the express and

singular purpose of hosting an annual dinner on or around October 25.65 Taking its cues from the first

anniversary dinner held in 1855 while the army was still fighting, the society aimed to gather a large

number of veterans together to discuss their experiences. Alexandra Palace was chosen as a fitting

venue, and separate invitations went out to officers and enlisted soldiers. The dinner would prove to be

an elaborate affair, and the included (and excluded) events and memories would tell much about what

veterans were remembering and emphasizing.66

The program for the dinner is a wealth of cultural significance. Surviving largely intact, it

outlines the plan for the evening's festivities, which read like an imperial litany of excessive

glorification. The dinner was to open with a reading of William Russell's exciting account from the

Times that first told the British public about the battle.67 By not only including but opening the program

with Russell suggests that he was held in higher esteem than any other of the various depictions of the

battle. Following the reading, a full eight poems written by both veterans and civilians were published

completely. Of these, every one is focused entirely on the charge of the Light Brigade. Tennyson

allusions abound: the poems are full of references to his poem, including one that used the poet

65 Anon., Rules of the Balaclava Commemoration Society, (London: George Latham, 1877).66 Not that everyone was happy about the path that memories were taking. A number of officers present in the Heavy

Brigade refused to participate in the dinner, citing its exclusion of anything that was not focused on the Light Brigade. A separate dinner was held for the officers later in the evening, and a number of grievances were aired here that made it into the ILN article.

67 Anon., Fete in Commemoration of the Balaclava Charge, Monday, October 25, 1875 at Alexandra Palace. NAM AFPS 641155/2, 1-2.

31

laureate's description of his own poem “Written on reading the news of the Battle.”68

E. H. Pember's poetic contribution to the program was creatively titled “The Charge of the Light

Brigade,” and seems to have been reprinted after its original writing in 1854. As early as that, the poem

contains references to “the duty so nobly obeyed,” and hoped that England would not “forget her six

hundred centaur sons/ who charged in the Light Brigade.”69 The publishing here suggests that Pember

was at least familiar with Tennyson's work: the number 600 is used, as in Tennyson's work, and the

hope that the veterans of the charge would be remembered is a similar constant. Choosing the poem to

be published in the program (when many others of “more or less merit are for want of space necessarily

omitted,”) suggests that the Society shared the fear of being forgotten, and used Pember's words to

further establish the long memory of the Light Brigade.

Interestingly, two of the poems were focused on the death of Major Fiennes Cornwallis, who

rode in the charge with the 4th Light Dragoons. He died in 1867, some years before the dinner, but

seems to have had a profound impact on the men under his command. “A genial, kindly, modest

Englishman/ and also a brave soldier. One who rode/ the ever-famous charge at Balaclava.”70 These

glowing obituaries may suggest that disdain for the officers involved was limited to civilians or writers;

in any case, they again use Tennyson's images to memorialize one of their own.

Music was also a prominent part of the reunion. At noon, guests were treated to a performance

on the great organ of pieces by Bach, Mendelssohn, and others. At one o'clock, a military band played

a marching piece titled “The Light Brigade,” by one Robert Wheatley.71 Wheatley also served as the

conductor for the performance, and played a number of other songs wrapped up in imperial language:

Valse's “Albertha,” and the overture “Crown Diamonds.” By justifying the Light Brigade in similar

company, Wheatley elevated it to an imperial symbol.68 Fete, “Balaklava,” by George R. Hedley. 69 Fete, “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” by E. H. Pember, 1854.70 Fete, “In Memoriam” by T. B. G., April 23, 1867.71 Fete, 14.

32

More concrete was the unveiling of the Balaclava Trophy later in the afternoon. This seemed to

have been an imposing commemorative piece. Relics and items that served in the charge were

arranged on the base of the trophy; the names of officers in the charge were inscribed above. Flags of

the allied powers were arrayed, and “the whole surmounted by a colossal figure of 'Honour.'”72 While

photographs do not seem to have survived, the description closely matches a scaled-down version of

the Guards Memorial. Along with the trophy, a “Museum of Relics” was displayed which consisted of

Russian military equipment captured, including helmets, rifles, swords and uniforms. The only

surviving quadruped veteran of the war was also present; Col. Kent's Arab charger had survived the

war, and been deployed to India for twelve years before returning to England. The horse was the oldest

in British service, and the most well-traveled in the world. The Earl of Cardigan's horse had not been

so lucky, although the now-widowed Countess of Cardigan was good enough to lend at least the stuffed

head of his charger for the display. Kent also lent several Russian drums captured in the Battle of

Alma, some weeks before Balaclava. This trophy collecting and displaying suggests another attempt to

justify an action that actually revealed the limits of imperial power, rather than their pinnacle.

The highlight of the evening was to become a tradition of the Society: a dramatic recitation of

Alfred Lord Tennyson's the “Charge of the Light Brigade” itself. Some discrepancy exists about the

performer: the program for the evening lists one Mrs. Stirling, while the later Illustrated London News

write-up listed W. H. Pennington as the reader. Pennington had participated in the charge as a young

man, and gone on to a career in acting back in London. In later years, he would commonly be asked to

recite the poem at dinners, and it seems likely that a change from the written program occurred. In any

event, the reading of the poem was a highlight for all those present, and its centrality conveys the

importance it held to the proceedings.

At dinner, no less than eight toasts were scheduled in the program, allowing veterans the chance

72 Fete, 15.

33

to drink to the Queen, the Prince of Wales, and the British flag before delving into specific

remembrances. The next toast was to “the survivors of the six hundred,” and involved the band of the

8th Hussars playing a “new patriotic song and chorus.”73 The theme was of course the Light Brigade,

and it was sung that “from Britain's mem'ry ne'er will fade/ the glories of 'The Light Brigade.'”74 This

led into the next toast that was a common theme in such gatherings: “The Memory of the Dead.” This

somber toast had been given at the first anniversary dinner, and would be given at all subsequent

dinners into the 1890s. Guests proceeded to drink to the allies of Britain in the war, the hosts that gave

the dinner, and “The Soldiers of the Pen,” which referred to the war correspondents that sent news back

to Britain.75 The drive for respectful and heroic memories was very much on display at the lavish

dinner.

An Illustrated London News article that ran on October 30, 1875 emphasized similar themes.

Devoting a full six pages and numerous illustrations to the event, the paper sought to give a voice to the

veterans who attended. To that end, it published a great number of recollections that all spoke to

themes of duty and diligence. Few of those asked asserted that they were heroic in any way, but

instead emphasized that they were doing their jobs. One former-sergeant John Buckton of the 11th

Hussars simply remarked “The Russians shot at us from the right and left of the valley...and they did

the same on the way back.”76 Another soldier recalled the day as the first time in his life he had

sampled “a drink called 'vodka.'”77 The rounds of toasts were described by the paper, although the

three after “The Memory of the Dead” were left out of the final article. The article also published a

letter from the aging poet laureate himself, who was unable to attend. He noted that he had donated

some small amount to the Society, in order that they may continue to host annual dinners, and

73 Fete, 25. The 8th Hussars had charged in the third line of the battle, and were the only regiment that participated that remained in England.

74 Fete75 Fete76 The Illustrated London News, October 30, 1875. No. 1890, Vol. LXVII.77 The Illustrated London News, October 30, 1875. No. 1890, Vol. LXVII.

34

continued to praise the efforts of the Light Brigade, calling the ordeal “a Blunder for which England

should be proud.”78 Throughout the article however, a subplot simmered that would consume the next

few years of the war's remembrance.

Economic woes had become a significant issue among veterans of both the Crimean War and

the 1857 Indian Rebellion. Members of both groups had in many cases signed up for the duration of

the conflict, and thus been discharged before they had sufficient years to earn a military pension.

While it was easier for disabled veterans to earn a pension, it was still a complicated affair, and many

veterans of the Light Brigade had survived with minimal wounds, simply because anything more

significant would have resulted in death. The quest to secure economic security for those men who had

volunteered to go to the Crimea would dominate the next two decades of the memory debate, and

would draw heavily on the heroic themes and tropes that acted as a foundation for imperial glory.

Reunion dinners would continue on through the 1880s as lavish spectacles that were heavily

publicized and included many symbols of Victorian imperialism. The year 1883 in particular had a

program that was steeped in Egyptian iconography and symbols, tying the war into the quest for

imperial expansion and control. William Pennington, the actor noted above, maintained a number of

scrapbooks dedicated to these dinners, as well as other public events surrounding the Light Brigade.

He pasted a number of poems dedicated to Balaclava and the charge, and seems to have genuinely been

proud of his participation in it.79 He also had the honor to write a number of dedications for various

works to Queen Victoria, many of which involve such phrases as “The Six Hundred,” “The Valley of

Death,” and “When will their glory fade?”80 The connection here to Tennyson need not be belabored.

What is significant is the near complete take-over of popular memory by a cultural representation of

78 The Illustrated London News, October 30, 1875. No. 1890, Vol. LXVII.79 William Pennington, Left of Six Hundred. (London: Waterlow and Sons, 1887). This printed collection is a scrapbook of

materials collected by Pennington, and includes various clippings, poems, photographs, and some of his own commentary.

80 Pennington, Left. 8.

35

what was in reality one small piece of a larger battle. It is this method of remembrance that would fuel

the pension debates of the 1890s, and ultimately be wielded by veterans and political elites to secure

economic assistance for veterans of the war.

Plunged in the battery-smokeRight thro' the line they broke;

Cossack and RussianReel'd from the sabre stroke

Shatter'd and sunder'd.Then they rode back, but not

Not the six hundred.

The 1890s would ultimately see the concern for veterans' well-being erupt into a campaign for

public assistance. In essence, the British Army from the 1850s required at least ten years of service

from cavalry officers. Since many of those in the Light Brigade had signed up for the war itself, they

failed to qualify for any assistance after the war. Public concern for veterans' welfare was stoked by a

number of sources, both cultural and political. A commonly perceived scenario involved veterans

being reduced to destitution and forced into workhouses or poorhouses.81 Cavalry officers were usually

the subjects of these depictions, adding another layer of unacceptability to the problem: cavalry officers

were traditionally more wealthy men, and should have been especially insulated from the lower classes.

Instead, they feared for the loss of their way of life.

That way of life seemed to be in danger as a result of the British economy in the later decades

of the century. While data are significantly difficult to confirm and analyze, a number of economic

historians have concluded that the British economy slowed greatly in the 1880s and 1890s.82 It is

uncertain if there was a full depression, or if industrial output simply slowed relative to earlier and later 81 The ILN article above contained a number of references from veterans to themselves or former colleagues who received

no government assistance, and were thus forced into poverty. Actual numbers here are irrelevant; rather, the point is that veterans and other cultural architects crafted a story about noble soldiers forced to live without help.

82 See Michael Bell and David Sunderland, An Economic History of London, 1800-1914 (London: Routledge, 2001) and Derek H. Aldcroft and Harry W. Richardson, The British Economy, 1870-1939 (London: MacMillan and Co., 1969.)

36

decades, but in any event the two decades saw a British economy less robust than it had previously

been. Likely, this played into fears held by both the public and government officials, and led to a

concern for the well-being of those veterans unable to take care of themselves.

Local veterans' associations had been present for a number of years, many dedicated

specifically to financial assistance for members. These were generally small, private affairs dedicated

to specific groups of veterans; most Crimean War groups were also included in with veterans of the

Indian Rebellion of 1857, for convenience. This also worked to assist those who served in the Crimea

as the quelling of the Indian Rebellion was greeted with no small amount of imperial justification.

Being lumped in with the heroic re-conquerors of India only improved the situation of Crimean

veterans.

As late as 1907, one group in particular, the Bristol Crimean War and Indian Rebellion Veterans'

Association was almost completely focused on helping “the most necessitous cases.”83 The stated rules

of the organization listed first the goal to “rescue from the work-house and pauper's grave any

soldier.”84 Understood was the fact that the soldier needed to be a contributing member of the society,

which charged only a few pounds per year for membership. The benefits of those few pounds allowed

veterans to participate in the events scheduled: often they made appearances in community events such

as tea and garden parties, parades, and had a large presence in public for Empire Day. These events

helped to encourage the popular pride in Crimean veterans that would assist them in gaining public

support.

Much of that support seems to have derived from an article in The Daily Telegraph that detailed

the workhouses to which so many veterans were subjected. Printed in the 1907 Bristol Veterans'

Association rulebook was the poem “Cry of the Veteran,” which was based on the author's reading of

83 Anon., Bristol Crimean War and Indian Rebellion Veterans Association Rulebook (CWIRVAR), (Bristol: Henry Hill, 1907.)

84 Bristol CWIRVAR.

37

the article. In it, the titular veteran bemoans his loss, and asks for the simple remembrance by the

public of those who sacrificed years for the empire.85 As a cultural artifact, it is significant for the

effort it makes to remind the public of the glory that Crimean veterans once possessed. It would not be

unique.

More popular works were also in high demand, and a number of books and poems from the

period suggest that popular opinion was both driving and responding to the interest in the war. A large

number of books were written and published in the last decade of the nineteenth century, and many

works of both fiction and nonfiction acted to aid veterans in the pension battle. An anonymous

pamphlet titled A Short Sketch of the 17th Lancers and Life of Sgt-Maj. J.I. Nunnerley appeared in 1892,

and is significant for its inclusions. Tennyson's “The Charge of the Light Brigade” appeared in full in

the preface. The short pamphlet was a brief historical account of the Lancers who rode in the first line

of the charge, and one specific sergeant-major with them. The account of the battle is simplistic if

technically correct, and seems to have been written with a specific purpose in mind. Fascinatingly, the

back cover of the pamphlet contains an advertisement for “J. I. Nunnerley's Ready-Made Clothes for

Men, Boys, and Youths.”86 It would seem that former-Sergeant-Major Nunnerley traded on his

participation in the famous charge in order to peddle his “ready-made clothes.”

Other works contained similar dual messages. Thomas Morley's 1899 work The Cause of the

Charge at Balaclava makes a number of interesting assumptions and assertions. In it, Morley asserts

that the “phrase 'someone had blunder'd' is familiar to everyone.”87 This suggests that Tennyson,

Russell, and the Light Brigade had passed into the realm of cultural memory, and remained there for

decades. Morley perceived the words as common cultural touchstones throughout England. He

seemed to have been very self-conscious of the ways in which memory was crafted, and taken care to 85 Bristol CWIRVAR.86 Anon., A Short Sketch of the 17th Lancers and Life of Sgt-Major J.I. Nunnerley, Sgt.-Maj. of the 'Death or Glory Boys,' and One of the 'Six Hundred' (Ormskirk: W.A. Guest, 1892).87 Thomas Morley, The Cause of the Charge at Balaclava, (Nottingham: Privately Published, 1899), 13.

38

have the proper effect on his audience. His introduction specifically mentioned the battle over

pensions. He also wrote with another purpose: to restore the “pride in the army” that was being eroded

while Britain engaged in another bloody war in South Africa.88 That war would test the limits of the

public's faith in the English fighting man in the same way that the Crimea had fifty-five years earlier.

Morley used the Light Brigade to charge to the rescue of the public's opinion of the army.

One of the few works to deal with any aspect of the war other than the Light Brigade was a

short book titled At the Front. Anonymously written and published at least twice (first in 1893, and

later during the height of World War One in 1915) the book was an account of the 93rd Highlanders, the

“thin red line” that held off the Russian cavalry. It was distinctive for its offhand racism when referring

to the local Crimeans as a “primitive, simple race” and dim view of the fighting abilities of the

Ottoman Turks.89 Continuing the trope of common soldiers rescuing or aiding their incompetent

officers, it contains a brief anecdote about one officer who was too drunk to even stand up during the

Russian attack. The common themes of heroic soldier and incompetent officer were still key ideas.

But the memory of the Light Brigade would be crystallized by one more important work that would

draw together the ideas of the Light Brigade, noble sacrifice, and financial compensation.

One final significant writer felt the need to wade into the pension debate in a direct way. A

pillar of Victorian imperialism, Rudyard Kipling published a scathing poem in 1891 for the veterans of

the Light Brigade, and a call to the English people to support them. Kipling's “The Last of the Light

Brigade” describes a ragged group of veterans appealing to the English people. “They asked for a little

money to keep the wolf from the door;/ And the thirty million English sent twenty pounds and more!”90

Kipling describes the soldiers as also lacking neither “service nor trade,” suggesting that their military

service was too short to grant a pension, but was long enough to keep them from learning a

88 Morley, Cause,13.89 Anon., At the Front, (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 1893), 71.90 Rudyard Kipling, The Verse of Rudyard Kipling, (New York: Anchor Books, 1940), 200.

39

professional trade. In the poem, the veterans hatch a scheme: “An old Troop-Sergeant muttered, 'Let us

go to the man who writes/ The things on Balaclava the kiddies at school recites.”91 The ragged veterans

visit Alfred Lord Tennyson to ask for his help in their plight: “You wrote how we were heroes once, sir.

Please, write we are starving now.”92 The poem also references the fear of the workhouse, and the

general state of poverty in which many veterans found themselves. The fact that so influential a figure

as Rudyard Kipling felt the need to write such a poem suggests that whatever the reality, veterans

perceived themselves as figures abandoned by the public and government. Kipling ends with an

admonishment to the English who remain indifferent to the situation: “Our children's children are

lisping to 'honour the charge they made--'/ And we leave to the streets and the workhouse the charge of

the Light Brigade.”93 These lines neatly sum up the state of war memory in 1891: Tennyson still

remained central to the public imagination, but the memory of the war was used to gain financial

assistance for veterans from the government. But who in the government was working for such a

result? The answer seems surprisingly limited: one MP from Dundee, Scotland stands out as the key

Parliamentary figure of the debates, and was a popular figure for book dedications: Sir John Leng.

Leng was a liberal Member of Parliament from 1889 to 1906. His main contribution for

veterans was championing the cause of pensions in Parliament, and arguing for special money to be put

aside to pay them. He achieved great popularity among veterans for these efforts, and a number of

books bear dedications to him, including At the Front, the account of the 93rd Highlanders explored

above. Similarly, a newspaper clipping from The Aberdeen Journal from circa 1897 called “A

Neglected Hero” was publicly dedicated to him. The article was a human interest piece focusing on

several veterans who had fallen on hard times. Unsurprisingly, much of the article's writing is couched

in such predictable phrases as “honour the charge they made.” Tennyson's influence aside, the article

91 Kipling, The Verse, 200.92 Kipling, The Verse, 201.93 Kipling, The Verse, 201.

40

quotes one Sergeant R. Frazer as saying that only “one or two of those [veterans] who had been in the

work house have been granted pensions.”94 The article was clearly published with an eye toward

helping the situation, and its dedication to John Leng affirms that he had become the focal point for

Parliamentary debate over the issue.

The course of pension reform is possible to tentatively establish via Parliamentary debates, of

which records are consistent. It is less easy to determine the actual effect such efforts had on the

veteran community. For the purposes here, it is sufficient to establish that members of Parliament were

thinking about this issue. In any event, in 1891, no official government fund existed for even sick or

disable veterans. The most common way of funding such endeavors had been through prize money

from the capture of goods and territory. By that year though, only ₤14 of the ₤103,147 captured in the

war had been distributed to rank and file soldiers.95 Strict limits were enforced; at the time, twenty-one

years of service were required of a soldier before he could draw a pension from the government. One

case in particular stands out to impress this point: John Wren was unable to be awarded a military

pension, despite his extensive service of exactly twenty years, one-hundred seventy-eight days.

Specifically mentioned by Leng on the Parliament floor, this example illustrates the difficulties faced

by veterans hoping for assistance.

By 1892, Leng's efforts had secured a verbal promise from the Secretary of State for War: 100

pensions per year would be paid for disabled veterans who had fourteen years of experience. This was

the first step toward aiding those who had served in Crimea. Difficulties remained, in that to receive

the pensions, veterans had to fill out a form with 22 “elaborate” questions completely, have it signed

with a magistrate's approval, have that paper authenticated by either a clergyman or military officer,

then obtain a certificate from either the clergyman or a police officer, stating that the veteran was in

94 Pennington, Left. “A Neglected Hero” Aberdeen Journal, c.1897.95 Sir John Leng, "Army Prize Money” In London. Legislative Assembly. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard).23rd

Parliament. Vol. CCCLI, 1891.

41

“destitute circumstances” and that the aid would go toward helping relieve the poor rate.96 Obviously,

this process was far from straightforward, and was designed to prevent fraudulent applications from

receiving funds. The unintended consequence was that it was highly difficult to wade through the

bureaucratic requirements, and thus it was limited to those veterans who had the time and energy to

deal with the process.

The next few years would see a gradual increase in the amount of money marked for pensions.

In 1893, the language on the forms was changed from “destitute circumstances” to “in necessitous

circumstances” to alleviate feelings of shame or judgment.97 ₤5,000 was delegated that year by Leng

for new pensions, and that amount was increased to ₤10,000 the following summer. Leng also argued

for the swift rolling-over of deceased veterans' pensions to new veterans, to help the most men

possible. By 1895, Leng secured promises of pensions from the Secretary of State for War for all

veterans who were disabled, or simply over the age of sixty-five. This important victory would be a

watershed moment for Crimean veterans.98 By 1904, the new Balaclava Light Brigade Charge

Survivor's Relief Fund would be a major supporter of those veterans who rode in the charge; Queen

Victoria herself had been a sponsor. The specificity of the fund is worth noting: of the roughly 30,000

English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish men who sailed to the Crimean peninsula, financial compensation

was crafted primarily for Tennyson's “Six Hundred.”

Cannon to right of them,Cannon to left of them,Cannon behind them

Volley'd and thunder'd;96 Sir John Leng, "Pensions to Crimean and Indian Mutiny Veterans” In London. Legislative Assembly. Parliamentary

Debates (Hansard).24th Parliament. Vol. III, 1892.97 Sir John Leng, "Compassionate Allowances” In London. Legislative Assembly. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). 25th

Parliament. Vol. X, 1893.98 Ironically, it would also lead to a small debate in 1898 in Parliament, as middle-class concerns about public morality

were applied to the issue. In essence, social critics were worried that government pensions were being spent on alcohol instead of food, and measures were proposed to curtail this perceived problem. No concrete changes to the program seem to have passed however.

42

Storm'd at with shot and shell,While horse and hero fell,

They that had fought so wellCame thro' the jaws of DeathBack from the mouth of Hell,

All that was left of them,Left of six hundred.

The enduring cultural legacy of the Crimean War and the Battle of Balaclava specifically, is

notable for its purging of history. As the twentieth-century progressed, writers showed less interest in

the actual events of the battle. The charge of the Heavy Brigade (despite a halfhearted attempt by

Tennyson in the 1890s to write a poem similar to his more famous work) was largely ignored, and the

infantry actions of the 93rd Highlanders remained limited to the 'thin red line.' In 1901, a military music

program at the famous Crystal Palace only referenced the war once: the bugle that sounded the charge

was blown before a piece unrelated to the war.99 The popularity of Tennyson's poem had consumed

public memory.

That poem had a long, enduring legacy into the twentieth century. It was, and remains, a

popular choice for memorization by young children, and had become so by the 1890s.100 Pennington's

scrapbooks chose to reproduce it in full, and his newspaper clippings exhibit almost as much language

lifted from the poem as not. His own writing is notable for its link between Balaclava and

Shakespeare's Henry V, and the Battle of Agincourt.101 Shakespeare's “happy few” and Tennyson's “Six

Hundred” rode into English mythology, hand in gauntleted hand.

The aspects of the myth that remained central were the ideas of bad officers, good soldiers, and

99 Anon., Program for “The Great Naval and Military Concert at the Crystal Palace,” July 6th, 1901. This is an interesting topic for debate on its own terms. According to most veteran accounts, no actual bugle was blown to sound the charge; rather, the horses slowly built up speed to a full gallop following the lead of the officers. Two bugles were often claimed to have sounded the nonexistent charge, and both have been sold at auction several times for impressive amounts. One of the bugles now resides in the National Army Museum in Chelsea, and is labeled as having been carried into battle by a trumpeter, but not actually sounded.

100 Anon., A Short Sketch of the 17th Lancers.101 Pennington, Left, 60.

43

imperial glory, similar to later tropes concerning World War One.102 Later British culture would

confirm and reify these ideas as the realities of the war. Further veteran memoirs, such as James

Lamb's (13th Light Dragoons) The Charge of the Light Brigade: By One of the Six Hundred does not

even try to avoid referencing Tennyson even in the title.103 Books for children also confirmed the

values of duty and honor that had become common place. Blair of Balaclava, a fascinating juvenile

novel published in 1911, on the eve of the First World War, is a remarkable book for combining the

various tropes into a paragon of military memory. In order to “Pay tribute to soldiers and show how

they won for themselves in the hearts of the British public a warm place,” the book chronicles the

adventures of young Jack Blair.104 With an introduction written by one of the last surviving members of

the Light Brigade, Sergeant James Mustard, the book promoted itself as a legitimate history. Author

Escott Lynn tells the tale of a young English boy who joins the Army and has wondrous hijinks abroad,

before being involved in the charge at Balaclava. While describing Jack's various adventures in the

war, the author cannot help but quote from Tennyson. In the chapter “Into the Jaws of Hell” alone,

Lynn references “a frightful blunder,” going “straight for the mouths of the guns,” and “'Forward!

Forward!' they cried!”105 The book also uses the common idea of soldiers rescuing their commanding

officers, with young Jack saving no less than two lieutenants on the battlefield. Lynn goes out of his

way to emphasize Jack's heroism in the face of overwhelming danger, and thus reflect that heroism

back to the common British soldier.

When can their glory fade?O the wild charge they made!

All the world wondered.

102 The film “The Charge of the Light Brigade” was released in 1968, and crystallized the popular mythology behind the war. A strange mixture of 1960s British pop-art and Victorian imperialism, the film portrays the officers as bungling, the soldiers as heroic, and the enemies as barbaric. The souvenir program for the film's release is covered in Tennyson quotes: “Theirs not to reason why...” graces the title page. The movie displays the chief points of the myth that had solidified into the popular cultural memory.103 James Lamb, “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” Strand Magazine, Vol 2, July-December, 1891, 348.104 Lynn, Blair, viii.105 Lynn, Blair, 234-239.

44

Honor the charge they made,Honor the Light Brigade,

Noble six hundred.

Veterans and their memories remain a field ripe for investigation. Historians Nicoletta Gullace

and Deborah Cohen have investigated the impact that veterans and memory had on English society and

culture during and after the First World War. Gullace's work suggests that women made great gains for

themselves by capitalizing on the new definition of patriotism required by a modern total war. Cohen

argues that English veterans remained loyal to their government following the war, despite a sense of

abandonment, and a lack of pecuniary recompense.106 Going back earlier into the British Empire

allows the historian to begin to trace the evolution of veteran affairs. The Crimean serves as a useful

starting point: it was the largest conflict the empire had fought since the Napoleonic Wars. The war

was the first to involve fighting via trenches, and was also the first instance of the British and French

fighting on the same side of an armed conflict. The ways that soldiers remembered this experience had

lasting influences on the society to which he returned.

It is that soldier that is the point of this study. The ways that he thought, and wrote, and

remembered what he saw through the next decades of his life both informed and were informed by

larger issues of collective memory and culture. The Crimean War was not a successful war for Britain;

despite a technical victory in the Treaty of Paris, the war exposed the severe dilapidation that affected

the army. Only forty years earlier it had (with its allies) defeated Napoleon at Waterloo; by 1856 it

struggled to keep more than fifty percent of its forces from dying of cholera. The Battle of Balaclava

captured the imagination of veterans and civilians alike because it allowed for two psychological needs:

it addressed the fact that a horrendous mistake had been made, and it justified the subsequent actions as

106 See Nicoletta Gullache, The Blood of Our Sons: Men, Women, and the Renegotiation of British Citizenship during the Great War, (New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2002), and Deborah Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany, 1914-1939, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).

45

examples of a heroic sense of duty shared by all British soldiers. This idea was transmitted from

Crimea to London via Russell's article in The Times and Tennyson's poem some weeks later. As time

passed, veterans began using the ideas present in these two works more than any other source.

Eventually, they eclipsed even the memory of those who participated: the language from memoirs and

recollections of veterans later in the century proves this. The new memory that emerged, consisting of

heroic British soldiers achieving immortal and imperial glory, would be used by veterans to help

acquire financial aid from a government reticent to grant it. More than that though, recasting the

charge of the Light Brigade as a heroic act, and allowing it to stand for the war as a whole in collective

memory, allowed veterans and civilians alike a sense of pride in the British army that had performed so

poorly, and blundered so often.

46

Appendix A – The Charge of the Light Brigade

Half a league, half a league, Cannon to right of them, Half a league onward, Cannon to left of them,

All in the valley of Death Cannon behind them Rode the six hundred. Volley'd and thunder'd;

"Forward, the Light Brigade! Storm'd at with shot and shell,"Charge for the guns!" he said: While horse and hero fell,Into the valley of Death They that had fought so well Rode the six hundred. Came thro' the jaws of Death

"Forward, the Light Brigade!" Back from the mouth of Hell,Was there a man dismay'd? All that was left of them,Not tho' the soldier knew Left of six hundred. Someone had blunder'd:

Theirs not to make reply, When can their glory fade?Theirs not to reason why, O the wild charge they made!Theirs but to do and die: All the world wondered.Into the valley of Death Honor the charge they made, Rode the six hundred. Honor the Light Brigade,

Noble six hundred.107

Cannon to right of them, -Alfred Lord TennysonCannon to left of them, “The Charge of the Light Brigade”Cannon in front of them

Volley'd and thunder'd;Storm'd at with shot and shell,Boldly they rode and well,Into the jaws of Death,Into the mouth of Hell

107 Alfred Lord Tennyson, “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” from Poems of Alfred Tennyson. (Boston: J.E. Tilton and Co., 1870).

47

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-smokeRight thro' the line they broke;Cossack and RussianReel'd from the sabre stroke Shatter'd and sunder'd.Then they rode back, but not Not the six hundred.