HALF A LEAGUE, HALF A LEAGUE ONWARD...

THE HISTORY Channel recently had a special debunking the jaundiced jingoistic viw of the Charge of the Light Brigade, that the real heroes were the Turkish Infantry who bore the brunt of the fighting at Balaklava. It is strange how history one by one disavows the traditional views we have had of the Battle of the Little Big Horn . When I was child there was a large painting of Custers last stand, I can remember seeing the naked bodies of the soldiers with blue veins showing through their skin as they had been cruelly murdered and then mutilated by ""the Savages"" then along came little big man, and I found that I myself am part Indian!!and tennyson mislead us when he told us that""... into the valley of death rode the six hundred"". they charged the wrong guns, and they werent all killed... and on and on it goes...

 

I'm not sure I get your point. History is full of examples where one person's view differs from another. A prime example is the Bible.

What is history? A fable we can agree upon.

:smok:

 

Ask two historians a question and you will get three different answers!

I would agree, though, that our view of historic events changes all the time - mostly depending on the socio-political state of our own country.

For example, the Victorians had very definate views about history, almost all of which we now know (or believe) to be absolute rubbish.

Custer was portrayed as a brave soldier fighting to protect the poor settlers from the savage barbaric indian - now he is seen (quite rightly) as a bloodthirsty simpleton.

 

Gregg I want you to know that I am showing great restraint not to comment on any Bible comments but of course you are right. My study of ww2 History and civil war (acw) and ww1 are almost a religious experience for me. and being a ww2 reenactor is almost like acting a bit part in the Passion.

 

Nice work in restraining yourself, Kreigspfarrer. Thank you for doing so. It keeps the place peaceful.

Custer was actually the worst of his class in intelligence and tactical skill. He made the position of commander by showing courage (idiocy?) and endurance (definitely idiocy). :grin:

 

I do know that, after taking command of the Michigan Brigade (cavalry), Custer was not 100% popular with his men, mainly because they suffered a lot of casualties while he led them. What made him tolerable in their eyes was the fact that whenever he ordered one of those reckless charges, he was *always* well out in front, leading them. But Custer was by no stretch of the imagination an intellectual soldier, and his reliance on what was known as "Custer's Luck" finally caught up to him at Little Bighorn.

 

I did see that documentary. It was good, and the Turkish troops should get the credit they deserve, but I think they went too far in downplaying (or perhaps denigrating would be a better word) what the Light Brigade went through. The program said that less than 200 of the British were killed in the charge; this is indeed true, however, the narration failed to mention how many of the British soldiers were *wounded*, which would be a much higher number. The Light Brigade suffered something over 60% casualties at Balaklava, and it was not the fault of the troopers that they were led by incompetent officers at the higher levels. And it was definitely not the fault of the men of the Light Brigade that the contributions of the Turkish soldiers has been so long overlooked. I strongly feel that the points made by the documentary could have been made in a better manner.

 

I consistently have problems with revisionist history ALWAYS having to portray the Western world as evil and lecherous and the rest of the world as peace loving and sensitive. It almost always seems that the truth is never that clear.
Before I get anyone worked up, this is not a defense of colonialism or a justification for the irradication of aboriginals.

 

I agree with that.

 

True, we weren't really any worse that anyone else, but we had the technology to beat everyone else, so we did.
:cry:

 

Not an evil bunch, just a greedy bunch then. It's not that we are all evil, but Europeans definitely did some things that can't be made right or even argued in favour of. Consider the Conquistadores.

 

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely...

 

Very true, however I have to echo the sentiments of canambridge. I'm all in favour of revisiting and reanalysing history, that's what keeps it healthy and alive and aids greatly in debunking propaganda myths that are accepted as true at the time, but there seems to be creeping in an attitude that the west must somehow be wrong by default and to blame for everything.

Yes, we attacked, destroyed, colonised, enslaved and built empires. We did so on the basis of greater wealth, better organisation and better technology. So did the Romans, so did the Egyptians, so did the Chinese. Other nations did equally well on the basis of more aggressive and/or more numerous warriors. Those nations that were conquered for the most part were not of course peaceloving utopian paradises, they simply fought from a disadvantage in one aspect or another and lost as a result.

That's just mankind. It's what we do, it's what we've done for thousands of years and what we'll probably do for thousands of years more.

 

*Applause* Nice post SimonR!

 

Hear, hear!!!

 

Hey Corp, another classic reply! :grin:

 

Well, of course it is, Roel; this is me, remember? My posts are *always* classics! :wink:

 

You are the classic Corp! :grin:

 

On the anti racism conference in Durban(South Africa) some years ago, african countries wanted the western countries to recognize slavery and slave trade as crimes against humanity(which it definately was), but forgot to ask the same from the arab countries that did absolutely the same.

 

After the passing of Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, British captains who were caught continuing the trade were fined £100 for every slave found on board. However, this law did not stop the British slave trade. If slave-ships were in danger of being captured by the British navy, captains often reduced the fines they had to pay by ordering the slaves to be thrown into the sea.

Some people involved in the anti-slave trade campaign argued that the only way to end the suffering of the slaves was to make slavery illegal. A new Anti-Slavery Society was formed in 1823. Members included Thomas Clarkson, Henry Brougham, William Wilberforce, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease and Anne Knight).

Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.