Quote Originally Posted by Lachlan09 View Post
"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".