The Thin Red Line

[MrShoe]

What a GREAT print.

[Scotland Forever]

Great Job on taking a piece of history home with you. I went with a "Argylls & Sutherland" tshirt instead in honor of my uncle who served in the Argylls.

Here's some photos I took when I was Home in August '09:

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Excellent. My dad has this print up in his office now. We used to have it in the den when I was a little kid. I actually for a long time never asked the history about it... but it had guns, and I was only interested in swords.
I would like to get some great Scottish historical battle prints for my own home in the future. Are there any that even come close to this quality and artistry available?

I have an original colour print from 1898 that depicts Sergeant Ewart capturing the French colours during the charge of the Scots Greys at the Battle of Waterloo, June 18th, 1815. The print is based on the painting by WH Sullivan. Last year I had the print scanned and reduced slightly in size (over all it now measures 25x18, with an image size of 23x16.5). I donated a copy to the silent auction of the Saint Andrew's Society of Washington DC, where it fetched over $200...

You can see the image at: www.military-art.com/dhm004.htm

I have four more prints and, if anyone is interested, one could be yours for $50 plus postage. One gone--only three left!

[Mael Coluim]

Well done! I'll pick one up when I visit, sometime in the future.

[Lachlan09]

While we honour the 93rd at Balaklava, let’s honour too the Royal Marines and Turkish troops who stood their ground in line beside them. In particular, it is time to repair the reputation of the Turkish troops, who suffered from a bad press at that time to cover bad British generalship. The attitude prevailed for a long time after, until Gallipoli showed the Turks not to be cowards after all. For example, at Balaklava, the true sacrifices made by Turkish troops in defending their gun positions (which in turn led to the misguided Charge of the Light Brigade etc) is only now being pieced together and recognized by forensic historians.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

While we honour the 93rd at Balaklava, let’s honour too the Royal Marines and Turkish troops who stood their ground in line beside them. In particular, it is time to repair the reputation of the Turkish troops, who suffered from a bad press at that time to cover bad British generalship. The attitude prevailed for a long time after, until Gallipoli showed the Turks not to be cowards after all. For example, at Balaklava, the true sacrifices made by Turkish troops in defending their gun positions (which in turn led to the misguided Charge of the Light Brigade etc) is only now being pieced together and recognized by forensic historians.

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. The problem seems to be that English speakers rarely, if ever, bother to read something in a "foreign" language, and thus end up with a rather skewed view of historical events.

[Lachlan09]

"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".

[Lachlan09]

In 1970 I bought an excellent book called “The Thin Red Line” by John Selby published in hardback by Hamish Hamilton. It told the story of the 93rd’s involvement in the war, from embarkation in England, via Turkey to Kalamita Bay and through the war to its conclusion, interwoven with the bigger picture from British, French, Sardianian, Turkish and Russian perspectives. It is full of detailed “small” stories, like the 93rd’s first casualties of the war, a couple of soldiers who got drunk on local hooch in Turkey and drowned crossing a burn in spate. Surgeon Munro figures largely in the book. So do the Duberlys, the husband being an officer of Lord Cardigan’s (Cardigan fancied Fanny Duberly), the heavy and Light Brigade charges (the British heavies in their thin red coatees trying to hack through the thick overcoats of the Russian cavalrymen) and of course, the Light Brigade charge, with an eyewitness account by Corporal Wightman of the 17th Light Dragoons (Lancers).

Sadly I no longer have it, or “Having Been A Soldier” by Lt Col Colin Mitchell (1968) in which kept a “Save The Argylls” car sticker I got in 1968 when I signed the petition with all my family. During my separation/divorce from my Scottish wife in the mid 1990’s, all my book collection had to be sold expediently in its entirety to a book buyer/house emptier (including my numerous American Civil War, First and Second World War book collections), so the money side was less than profitable and my books were gone ! Luckily, my parents still had in their house my militaria collection of French Foreign Legion uniforms and hats, so my ex’s poisonous family couldn’t get their grubby paws on that ! I now have my Legion collection with me in Oman.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

In 1970 I bought an excellent book called “The Thin Red Line” by John Selby published in hardback by Hamish Hamilton... Surgeon Munro figures largely in the book. So do the Duberlys, the husband being an officer of Lord Cardigan’s (Cardigan fancied Fanny Duberly)...

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.

The historical Fanny Duberly seems to have been a woman married to a rather boring husband (accurately portrayed in the film by Peter Bowles) and who was immensely popular with the troops due to her nursing abilities as well as for courage under fire. She was widely respected by the officers who were acquainted with her, and that included Lord Cardigan-- who, despite undeniable faults, really did his best to be a first class soldier. Whether or not he succeeded in that endeavor is up for debate.

[macwilkin]

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.

The historical Fanny Duberly seems to have been a woman married to a rather boring husband (accurately portrayed in the film by Peter Bowles) and who was immensely popular with the troops due to her nursing abilities as well as for courage under fire. She was widely respected by the officers who were acquainted with her, and that included Lord Cardigan-- who, despite undeniable faults, really did his best to be a first class soldier. Whether or not he succeeded in that endeavor is up for debate.

As I remember, the late George MacDonald Fraser was quite critical of the film and the portrayal of Fanny Duberly in his book The Hollywood History of the World.

T.