How far do the sources suggest that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade at Balaclava?
Having analysed all three sources it can be said that the sources disagree to a considerable extent that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade. Source one strongly disagrees with the suggestion of his blame, however this is to be expected as the provenance states it is extracted from Captain Nolan’s obituary, meaning it shall be in favour of the man as it is not likely the writer would disrespect the dead. Due to this fact I believe the source is one sided. “The blame was hastily attached to Captain Nolan” is reflected in an initial inspection of the source but after facts becoming public regarding the charge it is shown Nolan was vindicated of blame as he was only carrying out orders. This belief he is not to blame is also reflected through the writer’s use of terminology. “We are aware” and “It is alleged”, gives off the strong impression that the writer of the source wants us to believe differently. At the end of the source it reads of Nolan’s “excess of enthusiasm”, cross referencing with source 2 where it says that Lord Lucan was influenced by the “eager spirit of Captain Nolan”, showing us that he may have been forceful towards an attack however not realising the outcome that will unfold due to lack of his organisation. This also calls into the question of his suitability for the role.
Source two, although also mostly disagreeing with the suggestion Captain Nolan is too blame like source one, upon analysis does not dispute Nolan may have been at fault in the charge due to the nature of his role. On the other hand, the blame is mainly placed upon Lord Lucan within this source. The writer comments “A commanding officer is supposed to possess sufficient self-command”, showing us that the writer believes he should, not matter the enthusiasm of Nolan, should not have been influenced by him and possess certain discretionary powers as Nolan was merely aiding the transfer of written commands. I infer from this information that the British military and Calvary during this period were still heavily influenced by the needs to stay under the commands of higher ranking officers and did not think about situations independently. This is also portrayed through source ones statement of Nolan’s tactics and how they differed from the military’s. This source is written by a survivor of the Charge of the Light Brigade therefore it is most likely the source is reliable, as he did not link and communicate with Captain Nolan due to his rankings, giving him no reason to defend him. Furthermore, the source was anonymously published so the exaggeration for profit or self-gain is unlikely. On the other hand, the anonymous nature of the source also makes it more unreliable as we are unable to know who exactly this man was and whether he was a friend or foe of Nolan’s. Both source one and source twos time of publishing were similar, in November 1854, making the reliability stronger as it was not long after events but long enough to have weighed up the facts of the confusion between the commanders of the Light Brigade.
On the other hand source three is from a much later time, 1881 to be exact, and disagrees with the previous two sources to quite some extent, placing the blame on Nolan. Although this text was from a much later date than previous sources it is not necessarily unreliable. This source is an extract from General Lord George Paget’s Crimean Journals and therefore the reasoning for late publication could be due to the fact he could now have freedom of speech and not be scared of higher ranker officers disagreeing with his judgment, as he is now a General (higher ranking than Nolan’s position when alive). Alike to source two the text comes from a participant of the light brigade, so the varying views are somewhat unexpected. In contrast to the previous two sources, this places the blame heavily on Nolan and states Raglan had nominated Nolan to deliver this order and therefore the blame should be placed upon him. Furthermore, his character is described as “ill-suited”, which although is similar to previous remarks in source two about his enthusiastic behaviour, this is used in a much different manner to emphasise his failure and inability to carry out his role. This almost contradicts the previous statement of him being appointed to deliver orders, as if he did not have the ability to correctly carry out his position he would not have been ordered by Raglan to do so. On the other hand, source three does corroborate with source two in a sense implying that although ill-suited, he was not the person leading the charge, and from this it could be said once again he cannot be fully blamed. Leading on from this, it also addresses the “no friendly feeling between Nolan, Lucan and Cardigan”, implying there may have been a potential problem and disputes between the trio which attributed to the charge happening. Due to the nature of him being second in command, it can also be said this comment was placed within the Crimean Journals as a way to cover up any military mistakes made by higher ranking officers. Overall however, the feel of this text is much more suggestive that due to the characteristics of Captain Nolan’s character it is high likely that he played a large part in this military disaster.
In conclusion, all three sources disagree with one another to some considerable extent, both source one and two seem to disagree with the statement that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade at Balaclava whereas source three is mainly in agreement with Nolan’s faults. However, it can be said that not one singular source fully dismisses the blame or fully agrees with it, as all mention of his headstrong characteristics which may have caused issues but also bring up varying other arguments against his blame. Overall, it could be seen that the sources just emphasise that it is not clearly known who was to blame for the events but how it was such a military mistake.