The Thin Red Line

[Nervous Jock]

"I can only partially agree with your comments-- historians who bothered to read the Turkish (and French, and Italian, and Russian, etc.) accounts of the Crimean War have been aware of these contributions for more than a century." It would have been nice if they could have informed the public of their awareness at some point over the last 100 years.

Of course, I am a great fan of the 93rd (and the 91st too of course !) and am proud of General Sir Colin Campbell, Major Ainslie, Captain Leith Hay and the boys, but I think the Turks have had a rough deal in history re-tellings - "The Sick Man of Europe" etc. Yet their soldiers courageously resisted alone the Russians in Bulgaria and later fought hard in the Crimea with little recognition.

The History Channel has tried to redress the balance to some degree and it has opened my eyes to reconsider them, not as worthless allies in need of rescue, who ran at the first shot and were only useful as mules to carry supllies, wounded British and French soldiers and equipment over the mud to and from the trenches above Sevastapol, but as hardy soldiers who endured that difficult war. They were scapegoats for Western ambition and pride.

If they were so bad as was generally accepted, they certainly had a change of heart by WW1, where they proved a hard, deadly foe.

Of course, the 93rd's went on to even greater fame during the Indian Mutiny, bagging 6 VC's before breakfast at the 2nd Relief of Lucknow. Sans Peur

PS I find that fragment of hard tartan very interesting. In studio photos of the 1840's/1860's, hard tartan kilts often looked shiny and the sett was washed out and "unreadable".

Indeed, few appreciate the input of Johnny Turk that day

[sydnie7]

In 1970 I bought an excellent book called “The Thin Red Line” by John Selby . . .

Sadly I no longer have it, or “Having Been A Soldier” by Lt Col Colin Mitchell. . ..

FYI, both books you cite are available from various sellers at www.alibris.com (one of the most dangerous sites I visit LOL).

[Swmbo]

"Of course, I am a great fan of the 93rd (and the 91st too of course !) and am proud of General Sir Colin Campbell, Major Ainslie, Captain Leith Hay and the boys, but I think the Turks have had a rough deal in history re-tellings - "The Sick Man of Europe" etc. Yet their soldiers courageously resisted alone the Russians in Bulgaria and later fought hard in the Crimea with little recognition."

Do you have further information re Major Ainslie? My grandfather was a Major J Ainslie (fought in Boer War and Ist WW, his brother Charles was a Major in RE). I suspect this Major Ainslie might be his uncle, but a first name would be helpful.

[Swmbo]

"I can only partially agree with your comments-- historians who bothered to read the Turkish (and French, and Italian, and Russian, etc.) accounts of the Crimean War have been aware of these contributions for more than a century." It would have been nice if they could have informed the public of their awareness at some point over the last 100 years.

Of course, I am a great fan of the 93rd (and the 91st too of course !) and am proud of General Sir Colin Campbell, Major Ainslie, Captain Leith Hay and the boys, but I think the Turks have had a rough deal in history re-tellings - "The Sick Man of Europe" etc. Yet their soldiers courageously resisted alone the Russians in Bulgaria and later fought hard in the Crimea with little recognition.

The History Channel has tried to redress the balance to some degree and it has opened my eyes to reconsider them, not as worthless allies in need of rescue, who ran at the first shot and were only useful as mules to carry supllies, wounded British and French soldiers and equipment over the mud to and from the trenches above Sevastapol, but as hardy soldiers who endured that difficult war. They were scapegoats for Western ambition and pride.

If they were so bad as was generally accepted, they certainly had a change of heart by WW1, where they proved a hard, deadly foe.

Of course, the 93rd's went on to even greater fame during the Indian Mutiny, bagging 6 VC's before breakfast at the 2nd Relief of Lucknow. Sans Peur

PS I find that fragment of hard tartan very interesting. In studio photos of the 1840's/1860's, hard tartan kilts often looked shiny and the sett was washed out and "unreadable".

[Swmbo]

Please do you have any further information on Major Ainslie? My grandfather was a Major J Ainslie (fought in Boer War and 1st WW, his brother Charles was in the RE). I suspect this may be his uncle, but a first name would be helpful.

[londonpiper]

oops! sorry about the double post - please can someone delete one. (Swmbo using Londonpiper's computer, I'm having an argument with mine!)

[A Hay]

Thanks to all who have posted on this thread. I was hoping to generate some discussion of the topic and gather more information on the unit and it's background and you have provided that!

Tom

[Lachlan09]

I'm not sure where you got this bit of information, unless it was from Tony Richardson's grossly inaccurate portrayal of Mrs. Duberley in his 1968 film, Charge of the Light Brigade. While Richardson's film is visually stunning (especially the battle sequences) it is truly appalling in it's lack of historical accuracy. About the only thing the film gets right is the fact that there was a Crimean War. The portrayal of the relationship between Mrs. Duberly and Lord Cardigan has no basis in fact, what so ever.

You're right. It's been about 20 years since I last read The Thin Red Line by John Selby and I’ve obviously got mixed up with the film in that respect. For sure Selby is a good historian not given to flights of fancy, so I’ve got completely mixed up somewhere, so apologies to him. The film was disappointing indeed and with my special interest in the Argylls, where I noticed that kilted soldiers in Sergei Bonderachuk's "Waterloo" were depicted as the 92nd (with a slight whiff of the 79th in the "squares" battle scene), in “The Charge of the Light Brigade”, they were all shown as 93rd, not a 42nd or 79th in sight, even in the Alma scenes. I understand John Mollo was beside himself in frustration at times in how they butchered the accuracy of some of his historical uniforms for cost and “big-screen visuals” reasons.

Also, that film comes from the "British Acting Luvvies Anti-War" school of film production prevalent in late '60's Britain at the time of "Oh What A Lovely War !", A-Bomb protests, Vietnam protests etc etc etc. Sympathetic or factual portrayal of military history was not in their "coffee-table socialist" agenda, luvvie.

Forgive me for my error, I’m 56, I’m getting old and my mind is becoming feeble. To recall Pete Townshend’s Mod credo, to which I subscribed when I was young “Hope I die before I get old”. But I didn’t - and now I’m a late-middle-aged crumbling curmudgeon.