# Into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred... **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 9, 2004, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284 "2004-03-09T09:19:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Buran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Buran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buran)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/21 "2004-03-11T01:24:23Z")
For a horrendous Allied casualty rate, the British Bomber Command in the Second World War suffered 50% losses. Which makes Churchills refusal to recognise their sacrifice in the V-Day speech even more despicable. (he thanked all the other services) ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/22 "2004-03-11T11:21:59Z")
> [@Bromley](#): > > I don’t know if that’s true. It might be true as a % of total population, but it doesn’t seem to have been true as a % of total mobilised forces. > > Australia 64% > Canada 39% > Great Britain 44% > New Zealand 66% > South Africa 13% > > French Empire 75% > Germany 54% > Russia 55% > USA 8% > > [Cite](http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm) > > Of course, different places give different figures. Still that seems to be the right sort of percentage casualties. The Aus & NZ ones are so high, I would guess, not because we spent them more freely but because they were involved at Gallipoli. I doubt anyone thought that that would be an easy duty, but I don’t think that they thought it would be any worse than the Western Front. > > . I doubt that the ANZAC casualties were so high because of Gallipoli. There were far larger French, English and of course Turkish forces there. It is a misconception that it was mainly ANZAC forces at the landing (and I’m not certain that you were trying to convey that). Gallipoli was horrendous, as was the western (and Eastern) front. ---
**Author:** ![Bromley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Bromley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bromley)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/23 "2004-03-11T12:32:58Z")
> [@notquitekarpov](#): > > One should not conclude from the above that say 66% of New Zealanders involved were casualties - there is going to be a lot of soldiers who appear more than once in the wounded column having returned to service after each wound. Good point and one that I missed. The death:mobilisation % are: Australia 18% Canada 11% Great Britain 13% New Zealand 16% South Africa 5% French Empire 18% Germany 16% Russia 14% USA 3% That means that the deaths still sort the countries into roughly the same order as before, although the French % drops rapidly: 1. French Empire French Empire 2. New Zealand Australia 3. Australia New Zealand 4. Russia Germany 5. Germany Russia 6. Great Britain Great Britain 7. Canada Canada 8. South Africa South Africa 9. USA USA (How the hell do I get tabs to display correctly? Apologies for the display problems here.) > [@Cicero](#): > > I doubt that the ANZAC casualties were so high because of Gallipoli. There were far larger French, English and of course Turkish forces there. It is a misconception that it was mainly ANZAC forces at the landing (and I’m not certain that you were trying to convey that). Actually, I was. Thanks for setting me straight. If we stick to deaths, it seems that Australia lost 7.5k-8k men at Gallipoli and NZ ~2.5k (out of total Allied deaths of 50k-60k). I couldn’t find relative troop commintments, but it seems that there were far more British and French troops there than ANZACs. So, looking just at deaths:mobilisation to avoid the wounded double-count problem, why were Australian and NZ deaths so relatively high compared to Britain and Canada? If the British were sending the colonials into the tough spots, you’d expect higher Canadian losses. Also, why were SA losses so low? Were they mobilised and then largely used for African garrison duties? ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/24 "2004-03-11T13:30:24Z")
I think you may have hit on the answer in your thinking about South African garrison duties. I seem to recall that the ANZAC’s did not have conscription and thus were volunteers. Now who is going to volunteer and then stay home on garrison duty - I suspect they would have been down for overseas service. And on arrival in Europe they were volunteers, and elite, so were the British going to use them on garrison duty in Europe. No. It looks like there will be an inbuild bias that they are going to be at the front more than the average British soldier. Great Britain kept large numbers of troops on home service, in part to control industrial and potential social unrest in the latter part of the War, plus of course the troops keeping Ireland down after the 1916 Rebellion. Plus if I am right in para one, there will be proportionally higher numbers of Brits doing duty like transport officers, supply, drivers etc. It all depends on what proportion are exposed to danger rather than the degree of danger I suspect. Just a theory but if you are looking at deaths versus total number mobilised I think you can expect some statistical bias to always creep in. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/25 "2004-03-11T16:35:36Z")
_“Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, with a hey-nonnie nonnie, and a hot-cha-cha!”_ P. G. Wodehouse sorry, couldn’t resist. ---
**Author:** ![Rue\_DeDay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/41988e/32.png) [@Rue\_DeDay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rue_DeDay)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/26 "2004-03-11T20:09:03Z")
I recently read _The Hinge Factor: How Chance and Stupidity Have Changed History_ by Erik Durschmied. It had a chapter about the Charge of the Light Brigade. Pretty much what **notquitekarpov** posted. It also covered other military encounters. Pretty good reading if you can stomach it. (Not overly graphic, just unreal, some of the carnage.) ---
**Author:** ![CBCD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@CBCD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBCD)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/27 "2004-03-12T02:38:11Z")
There is an excellent book on the Charge of the Light Brigade, written by Cecil Woodham-Smith. Informative, well-written, and interesting. And out of print, but you can find used copies an Amazon. The Reason Why: The Story of the Fatal Charge of the Light Brigade (Classic Military History) . She also wrote a brilliant account of the Irish potatoe famine, titled The Great Hunger She’s a teriffic writer. Both books are history writing at its best. Boo yah! ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/28 "2004-03-12T05:42:54Z")
> [@notquitekarpov](#): > > I generally hate people that cry “cite!” but from where exactly do you get this theory? It goes against so much of what I know about the Crimean War, and against about 19th century grand tactics generally, that I am pretty suprised by your post and would be interested in any supportive evidence. FWIW I saw a documentary supporting **notquitekarpov** ’s post. Nolan basically had a bee in his bonnet that cavalry could charge guns successfully, and saw the ambiguous order as a chance to prove it - they left open whether it was deliberate misinterpretation or a genuine misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/29 "2004-03-12T06:56:51Z")
Regarding the South African troops, the Boer War hadn’t been that long before and I think it is fair to say that there may have been mixed views about commitment to the cause of the British Empire- given that Germany had supported the Boers. In any case there needed to be a strong garrison presence due to unrest at home (in RSA). The Canadians had an excellent reputation as troops (deservedly) and were used often as storm troops- much the same as the Australians. Why the difference in the casualty figures? Who knows- it was wholesale slaughter. Regarding re-enlisting- one of my great uncles fought at Gallipoli, was injured severely enough to be repatriated out and returned to Australia. After the losses in the Somme campaign he re-enlisted and went back to join his brother in France. By the time he arrived in France the brother was dead. The brother who re-enlisted died in the last battle his battalion fought before the armistice. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/30 "2004-03-12T07:33:23Z")
> [@legion](#): > > The 1 in 3 casualties suffered during the charge at Balaclava pale into insignificance when one looks at the casualties of Britain, France and Germany during WW1. > > As a percentage of their **entire populations** they suffered 8%, 11% and 9% respectively! > > [cite](http://www.richthofen.com/ww1sum/) Except these numbers are “killed or wounded,” not just killed. Still, incredible. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/31 "2024-10-25T15:08:01Z")
Bumped. This is cool. Hear a bugle played at both Waterloo and for the Charge of the Light Brigade, recorded 1890: [Trumpeter Landfrey's Charge of the Light Brigade : Trumpeter Landfrey : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/EDIS-SWDPC-01-04) ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/32 "2024-10-25T17:28:18Z")
I wonder, too - the Crimean War was about the same time as the American Civil War. Both inflicted massive casualties due to the evolution of military technology that had not really been tested in pitched battles between matched forces much before that time. (And a similar debacle in WWI when the technology advanced even further). Tactics evolved up to the Napoleonic wars were less effective against greater numbers of powerful guns and more deadly accurate fire. However, the old saying is that generals are always ready to fight the previous war. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/33 "2024-10-25T17:40:59Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > There is a book which deals with this scenario quite succinctly- it’s called The Psychology of Military Incompetence by Norman Dixon. Yes, although the account has been greatly romanticized throughout history, it was horrible military strategy. It was basically mass suicide. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/34 "2024-10-25T17:46:12Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > it was horrible military strategy. It was basically mass suicide. Not if the Light Brigade had gone up the correct valley as was strategized. ---
**Author:** ![Banksiaman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banksiaman/32/3334_2.png) [@Banksiaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banksiaman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/35 "2024-10-25T20:32:16Z")
> [@Bromley](#): > > So, looking just at deaths:mobilisation to avoid the wounded double-count problem, why were Australian and NZ deaths so relatively high compared to Britain and Canada? If the British were sending the colonials into the tough spots, you’d expect higher Canadian losses. Also, why were SA losses so low? Were they mobilised and then largely used for African garrison duties? Australian combatants were part of the Australian Imperial Force, which was essentially at that stage all volunteer frontline forces, with significant logistical support only coming later. Constitutionally and legally it was distinct from the Australian Army, which was not allowed to serve beyond Australia. Part of the high casualty profile of the Australians and New Zealanders was because of that skew towards having most of its troops as infantry and cavalry, rather than supply column. That changed as the war dragged on. ---
**Author:** ![fedman1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@fedman1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fedman1)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2024, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/36 "2024-10-26T16:54:39Z")
as an aside, read _Flashman at the Charge_ is a 1973 novel by George MacDonald Fraser which is fairly accurate if humorous ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2024, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/37 "2024-10-27T00:48:50Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > The English had sufficient ships to provide these but by sheer incompetence did not. The harbour was mined. The Russians were early adopters of the new invention: the British had rejected the idea. Because the harbour was mined, the British had to land supplies miles down the coast. Back at home, people didn’t understand what the problem was. At the front, soldiers only saw the failure of supply. “The harbour was mined” was an idea outside their general conception. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/38 "2024-10-28T00:55:43Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > I wonder, too - the Crimean War was about the same time as the American Civil War. Both inflicted massive casualties due to the evolution of military technology that had not really been tested in pitched battles between matched forces much before that time. Pickett’s Charge (ordered by Lee) was arguably as foolish as the Charge of the Light Brigade. At that point in the Civil War, there was evidence of the futility of frontal assaults against strong defensive positions, especially when defenders had ample weaponry like grapeshot and cannons. A more modern semi-equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade was in the Battle off Samar in 1944, when U.S. destroyers charged a far superior Japanese force that included battleships and cruisers, suffering serious losses but helping to save the rest of the American fleet. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/39 "2024-10-28T03:01:20Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Pickett’s Charge (ordered by Lee) was arguably as foolish… I wonder too about the logic of “going over the top” in the trenches of WWI. It seems the logic was “send 1,000 men and 100 will get through to kill the other side.” Analytical thinking by the generals who did not have to participate themselves. And… 100 did not get through, but the generals had to show, “we tried”. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2024, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284/40 "2024-10-28T03:03:44Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Pickett’s Charge (ordered by Lee) was arguably as foolish as the Charge of the Light Brigade. At that point in the Civil War, there was evidence of the futility of frontal assaults against strong defensive positions, especially when defenders had ample weaponry like grapeshot and cannons. The theory was that artillery would soften up the line, but they unknowingly were overshooting the line. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-valley-of-death-rode-the-six-hundred/233284.md?page=3)