Captain Nolan Was To Blame Essay
How far do the sources suggest that Capitan Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade and Balaclava?
All three sources agree on several points; however they also differentiate a lot. All sources agree on the character of Nolan. According to the sources Nolan was ‘enthusiastic’, ‘an eager spirit’ and ‘head strong and brave’ even though they never directly blame Nolan or like source 1 strive to defend his reputation. This could be good and bad as being enthusiastic about war could have caused Nolan to act rashly or make decisions based on the coveted glory of bloodshed. Similarly being head strong and brave can often also suggest that he was stubborn but also that he jumped into situations without thinking them through therefore the sources could be interpreted entirely differently, laying more blame on Nolan than we initially read.
Sources 3 blames Nolan more than the other two as it says ‘he was ill suited to deliver Raglans orders for the charge’. This shows us that despite critising the cavalry, he was still intent on delivering the order. On the other hand source 2 seems to focus more on Lucan, saying that he should not have been so easily influenced by Nolan, we can infer that this could mean Nolan was a distraction on the battle field, thereby being partially to blame.
Both sources 1 and 2 agree that …show more content…
Nolan was falsely accused in the first place, and we can infer from knowledge outside the sources that this was probably due to convenience of his death. Source c however doesn’t mention the misplaced fault at all.
Sources 1 and 3 are critical of the tactics used. We can see this as source 1 tells us Nolan was opposed to the tactics used that ‘he could never have suggested it…’ whereas source 3 also says that as Nolan was ‘critical of the cavalry’ he was ‘ill suited’ to deliver the order. From this we could infer Nolan had some sort of responsibility as he still carried through the orders given to him despite disagreeing with them, overlooking the fact that he didn’t have much say in the matter.
Source 3 blames the unfriendly relationship between Nolan, Cardigan and Lucan by saying ‘there was no friendly feeling between Nolan, Lucan and Cardigan’ this in contrast to the other 2 sources is the only one to have pointed out such relationship to begin with and is therefore the only source to have offered an explanation on the subject of why Nolan was wrongly accused in the first place.
Just from looking at the context of the sources we can see evidence that Nolan was partially to blame for the charge of the light brigade. However the reliability of the sources could tell a different story.
Source 1 is an extract from Captain Nolan’s obituary.
From this piece of information, we can gather that the reliability of the source is probably low as it is listing Captain Nolan’s attributes. This source is biased as it is painting a certain picture of Captain Nolan that could be exaggerated in order to show him in a better light. The informants of the source also haven’t been listed, making it unclear whether it was first hand evidence or word of mouth. Despite source 1 being possibly ill informed and unreliable it was published very soon after the battle. This source doesn’t blame Nolan at all for the events at the
battle.
Source 2 is an extract of one of the father’s letters of one of the survivors of the light brigade. This source again, was fairly recent after the battle. However it is second hand information making it less reliable than if it were eye witness account. As it was written by the father of one of the survivors, and is targeting the poor leadership of Lucan this account may be trying to get rid of Lucan, as he put his son in more danger than necessary. Because of this inference we can see that emotions probably influenced this source making it more biased. This source even though focusing on Lucan suggests that Nolan may be partly to blame for the goings on of the battle.
Source 3 was an eye witness account from the second in command, making it more reliable than the other 2 sources. It was written quite a time after the battle, possibly making it less controversial but also giving the writer time to review the evidence and draw various conclusions from it. It could also have been written so long after the battle in order to keep his reputation within the army as if it would have been published straight away, it would have repercussions on his reputation and rank within the army ans society as well. However the evidence is retrospective therefore making the chance of complete accuracy slim. This source blames the hostile relationship between Cardigan, Lucan and Nolan.
Overall the sources all vary on the conclusion of Nolan’s responsibility of the on goings of the battle but they seem to tip in Nolan’s favour as he is never fully outright blamed or said to be liable for the events. Therefore we can deduce that captain Nolan was only slightly to be blamed as the sources suggest that the blame was shared between Nolan, Cardigan and Lucan
All three sources agree on several points; however they also differentiate a lot. All sources agree on the character of Nolan. According to the sources Nolan was ‘enthusiastic’, ‘an eager spirit’ and ‘head strong and brave’ even though they never directly blame Nolan or like source 1 strive to defend his reputation. This could be good and bad as being enthusiastic about war could have caused Nolan to act rashly or make decisions based on the coveted glory of bloodshed. Similarly being head strong and brave can often also suggest that he was stubborn but also that he jumped into situations without thinking them through therefore the sources could be interpreted entirely differently, laying more blame on Nolan than we initially read.
Sources 3 blames Nolan more than the other two as it says ‘he was ill suited to deliver Raglans orders for the charge’. This shows us that despite critising the cavalry, he was still intent on delivering the order. On the other hand source 2 seems to focus more on Lucan, saying that he should not have been so easily influenced by Nolan, we can infer that this could mean Nolan was a distraction on the battle field, thereby being partially to blame.
Both sources 1 and 2 agree that …show more content…
Nolan was falsely accused in the first place, and we can infer from knowledge outside the sources that this was probably due to convenience of his death. Source c however doesn’t mention the misplaced fault at all.
Sources 1 and 3 are critical of the tactics used. We can see this as source 1 tells us Nolan was opposed to the tactics used that ‘he could never have suggested it…’ whereas source 3 also says that as Nolan was ‘critical of the cavalry’ he was ‘ill suited’ to deliver the order. From this we could infer Nolan had some sort of responsibility as he still carried through the orders given to him despite disagreeing with them, overlooking the fact that he didn’t have much say in the matter.
Source 3 blames the unfriendly relationship between Nolan, Cardigan and Lucan by saying ‘there was no friendly feeling between Nolan, Lucan and Cardigan’ this in contrast to the other 2 sources is the only one to have pointed out such relationship to begin with and is therefore the only source to have offered an explanation on the subject of why Nolan was wrongly accused in the first place.
Just from looking at the context of the sources we can see evidence that Nolan was partially to blame for the charge of the light brigade. However the reliability of the sources could tell a different story.
Source 1 is an extract from Captain Nolan’s obituary.
From this piece of information, we can gather that the reliability of the source is probably low as it is listing Captain Nolan’s attributes. This source is biased as it is painting a certain picture of Captain Nolan that could be exaggerated in order to show him in a better light. The informants of the source also haven’t been listed, making it unclear whether it was first hand evidence or word of mouth. Despite source 1 being possibly ill informed and unreliable it was published very soon after the battle. This source doesn’t blame Nolan at all for the events at the
battle.
Source 2 is an extract of one of the father’s letters of one of the survivors of the light brigade. This source again, was fairly recent after the battle. However it is second hand information making it less reliable than if it were eye witness account. As it was written by the father of one of the survivors, and is targeting the poor leadership of Lucan this account may be trying to get rid of Lucan, as he put his son in more danger than necessary. Because of this inference we can see that emotions probably influenced this source making it more biased. This source even though focusing on Lucan suggests that Nolan may be partly to blame for the goings on of the battle.
Source 3 was an eye witness account from the second in command, making it more reliable than the other 2 sources. It was written quite a time after the battle, possibly making it less controversial but also giving the writer time to review the evidence and draw various conclusions from it. It could also have been written so long after the battle in order to keep his reputation within the army as if it would have been published straight away, it would have repercussions on his reputation and rank within the army ans society as well. However the evidence is retrospective therefore making the chance of complete accuracy slim. This source blames the hostile relationship between Cardigan, Lucan and Nolan.
Overall the sources all vary on the conclusion of Nolan’s responsibility of the on goings of the battle but they seem to tip in Nolan’s favour as he is never fully outright blamed or said to be liable for the events. Therefore we can deduce that captain Nolan was only slightly to be blamed as the sources suggest that the blame was shared between Nolan, Cardigan and Lucan