Talk:Battle of Balaclava

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
April 22, 2017 WikiProject peer review Reviewed

/Archive 1


I am currently rewriting this article, but I have only just begun. If anyone else is in the process of upgrading/expanding/improving this article please let me know. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re above discussion. I think the Charge of the Heavy Brigade article should be re-directed to the Balaclava article. It doesn't make sense having its own page. I understand having an article describing the origins of the 'Thin Red Line' - it is in common usage today - but if we are to keep the Thin Red Line article, the Infobox should be removed as User Kenmore suggests. As stated above it is not a separate battle, let's not imply that it is - if we were to split every battle article into its component parts, where would we be? Any comments Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Separate articles on the the Thin Red Line and Charge of the Light Brigade makes sense due to the large amount of literature on both articles, but the Charge of the Heavy Brigade article is much too small to have its own page. Tristan benedict (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I have redirected the Charge of the Heavy Brigade article to this one. The 'Thin Red Line' article could not justify its existence in military terms - it was a minor action that lasted 8 minutes, and was part of the battle of Balaclava. The Battle of Waterloo hasn't been atomized, I can't see why Balaclava should be. The TRL article, however, seems primarily concerned with the origins of the term and its cultural influences, so no need for a redirect (although I have removed the military infobox). I agree with your point about the Light Brigade article. Its fame, or infamy, attracts a great deal of attention (however unwarranted) resulting in a plethora of literature and analysis on the subject. Far too much to include in this artcle. Without doubt it should have its own page. Thanks Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This article should, I believe, be renamed Battle of Balaklava - the modern spelling. Does anyone object to this change? Rebel Redcoat (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Continuing the monologue. For now I have kept the original spelling - I hope to get support for a change soon. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to changing the spelling, although the old spelling of Balaclava is the common spelling in most British-En history books so i believe it would have to be a redirect, or something like that. Is Balaklava the present world wide spelling? If so i think go ahead and change. The article is looking good though. I've checked a bit of the grammar and spelling. Tristan benedict (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How Many Guns Did The Russians Capture?[edit]

It's a great article, but I wish it stated how many field guns the Russians captured from the Turkish redoubts. Those guns were carted away to Sevastopol, and were regarded by the Russian garrison as important trophies of victory.Kenmore (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. There were 7 guns taken away at some stage (Brighton 297).Rebel Redcoat (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
OK added to the article. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What Really Were Russian Objectives at Balaklava?[edit]

I don't think any historians really know for certain. If I'm not mistaken, there is no documentation from the Russian side establishing that Liprandi's objective was to go any further than to establish the Russian army on the heights around Balaklava, or to test the Allied defenses. Viewed from this perspective, the Russian attack was a limited success. It could be seen as a dry run for a much bigger planned offensive that was to take place later (at Inkerman).

Liprandi wrote in his post-battle summary that his intention was merely to launch a feint against the Allied defenses, which is why he stopped his offensive after the cavalry skirmishes below the heights. Royle, of course, claims that Liprandi was actually trying to save face when he wrote his summary of the battle. According to Royle, Liprandi was forced to cut his losses and didn't want to make the battle sound like a Russian defeat.

But then again, Liprandi had 25,000 troops on the heights after taking the redoubts. Had he wanted to, Liprandi could easily have launched these troops on a frontal assault against Allied defenses after the cavalry skirmishes took place. Liprandi had a vast advantage in numbers. This fact alone would seem to substantiate Liprandi's claim that the battle was meant to be a Russian feint.

I've read that the Inkerman attack took place shortly after Balaklava because the Russians felt so emboldened by the the results of October 25th. Eyewitnesses on the Allied side report that, in the hours after the battle, rousing cheers could be heard emanating from Sevastopol, as the captured Allied cannon were paraded through the town. This suggests a sense of victory on the Russian side.

It's interesting how different authors treat the battle as a victory for one side or another. Numerous British authors regard Balaklava as a British military defeat because the heights were lost and the Light Brigade was rebuffed with serious loss. On the other hand, the Russian historian Tarle calls Balaklava a Russian defeat; he calls it a repulsed Russian attack.

For whatever my view is worth, I say the battle was a draw. Kenmore (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have asked the most pertinent question - what was the Russian objective? Older British historians were sure it was Balaklava itself - as were the British commanders at the battle. Russian historians deny this, hence questions of victory or defeat become moot. I shall add (time permitting) a section discussing these issues at the end of the article. Kenmore, if you can add a Russian perspective to this (using Russian historians, not British), that will be beneficial. Redcoat

"On the other hand, the Russian historian Tarle calls Balaklava a Russian defeat; he calls it a repulsed Russian attack".

Excuse me but Tarle calls this battle anything but a defeat for the Russians.

That was a victory which wasn't "finished" by the Russians. Howewer, that certainly wasn't a victory for the allies. It is possible to talk about the Russian defeat at Balaclava only in the day when the town was occupied, but not about the battle in 25th of October

Where did you read that Tarle calls this battle "the Russian defeat"? P.s. I'm Russian, sorry about grammar.-- (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem about the grammar. As for Tarle, it's been a few years since I read his book, but I thought I remember him calling Balaklava a Russian defeat, which surprised me. I will check my sources and report back to you shortly. Kenmore (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


As User:Y points out, there is inconsistency within the article between "Balaklava" and "Balaclava". As the article's title is "Balaclava", that's the one I've gone with. Furthermore "Googlehits", albeit a crude method, supports "Balaclava" roughly 1.1m to 347,000.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So Little Information On Turks[edit]

Considering the majority of casualties are Ottoman forces, why is there almost no mention of the Turkish in this article? When someone reads it, they would think it was only the British who fought this war. It needs a serious rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Added minor extension to Turkish role on Canrobert hill. What other actions need to go in, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just read the version on Turkish Wikipedia (tr:Balaklava_Muharebesi) and it has no more than here.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Cavalryatbalaklava2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cavalryatbalaklava2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 25, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Balaclava
The 6th (Inniskilling) Dragoons and 5th Dragoon Guards engage the Russians in this lithograph of the "Charge of the Heavy Brigade", a short engagement during the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War. Russian cavalry had attacked the British camp, but in roughly ten minutes of fighting, they suffered 40 to 50 killed and more than 200 wounded and were forced to retreat.Artist: William Simpson; Restoration: NativeForeigner

Collateral casualties[edit]

In researching the genealogy of a family I discovered from Board of Trade records of deaths at sea that an ancestor of that family had served on a ship as a ship carpenter and had perished along with the rest of the crew in a shipwreck at Balaclava. Other entries showed seamen who had "drowned at Balaklava", died of "Cholera at Balaklava" or were "Shipwrecked at Balaklava". This set me thinking about what I have called collateral casualties of the battle (and in a wider sense, all such military and naval engagements) and also set me wondering whether anyone had written accounts of the logistics of these engagements and the losses sustained by those engaged in transporting troops and equipment to areas of conflict. I suspect that his ship was one of many that the Royal Navy had called into service (commandeered) in order to transport troops to the area and it made me appreciate that this was not just a twentieth century phenomenon, as in WWII, when passenger ships were called into service and used as troop ships and hospital ships. We learn about all these famous battles in history but never actually think about the logistics side of these things. Has anybody written about this, especially with regard to this battle?

Lucan's Error.[edit]

If Lucan had read Raglan's order in a "Seydlitz" way or just employed "common sense", the attack charge would have never taken place.

f this is the correct wording of Raglan's order : "'10:45. Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front — follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns — Troop Horse Artillery may accompany – French cavalry is on your left. R Airey. Immediate'".

Is it clear that Raglan wants to prevent own guns, which were caputured earllier, to be carried away by the enemy. There is no sense to charge head-on to prevent the eney to re-deploy it own guns. -- (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)