History essay plan help

Could you please help me structure an answer to this question.

To what extent do you agree that the Battle of Balaclava demonstrated that the British Army's capabilities were let down by failings in its command structure?

Section 1 - charge of the Light Bridage
I would discuss the failures in the battle and the communication problems such as Raglan's original order.

Section 2- lack of supplies
dicuss how the lack of supplies contribued to the British Army's failures and how it was not really the commanders fault



thats all i have for now. I think i need one more section plus i am not sure if these ideas are correct.

Too tired to do it for you, but the way i would so it is.

1. Watch these videos- the sounds is awful on line of fiore and you might find a better copy via other means...

They will give you an understanding of the battle.- watch iit even though the sound is rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhaTkcKqtB0&list=PLG1GywtOS9ENSnPLF0Cyv4W5F-VzFyeHe&index=8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b73IaK2zQk8

2. You are asked to what extent. So that means you need to understand what happened- see above you also need to understand what the command structure is and how that let them down.

3. For a large part the British won the first two encounters
. the Thin Red Line and the charge of the heavy brigade both v superior Russian numbers. Thats a goo reason it wasnt trioops, nor was it necessarily comman in these two instances. they had good leaders.

4. What you can say is that command failures let to the charge of the Light brigade being a disaster.
i) Poor tech- so limited ability to recall.
ii) Ambiguous orders.- poor inter officer communication.
iii) unprofessional and feuding officers.
iv) Following orders without question.
v) Captain Nicol
bo) Poor inexperienced leaders.

5. then you can return to your essay plan.

Intro that mentions the Battle of balaclava and maybe the outcome.
Methodology of investigation the outcome and in particular the extent it was down to command structure.

I would then point out there were three encounters and the first two the British won. convincingly. To that extent command structure ha not let them down.

That said the charge of the light brigade showed up everything that was weak. Explain what happened and then go through the reasons why poor command structue mean that confusions and misunderstandings led them to bluner into action where a good command structure could have avoided it.

You can then do an evaluation of the question and address two issues. yes iit was no it wasnt or somewhere inbteween.
Was the batttle as a whole a disaster?
Were the communications that went wrong for he CLB down to weak command structure or bad luck?
Were such problems unique to the British?

Thats where my essay would take me. the key is to id the command structure understand and how its meant to work,b how it worked on the day and why.

Too tired to do it for you, but the way i would so it is.

1. Watch these videos- the sounds is awful on line of fiore and you might find a better copy via other means...

They will give you an understanding of the battle.- watch iit even though the sound is rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhaTkcKqtB0&list=PLG1GywtOS9ENSnPLF0Cyv4W5F-VzFyeHe&index=8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b73IaK2zQk8

2. You are asked to what extent. So that means you need to understand what happened- see above you also need to understand what the command structure is and how that let them down.

3. For a large part the British won the first two encounters
. the Thin Red Line and the charge of the heavy brigade both v superior Russian numbers. Thats a goo reason it wasnt trioops, nor was it necessarily comman in these two instances. they had good leaders.

4. What you can say is that command failures let to the charge of the Light brigade being a disaster.
i) Poor tech- so limited ability to recall.
ii) Ambiguous orders.- poor inter officer communication.
iii) unprofessional and feuding officers.
iv) Following orders without question.
v) Captain Nicol
bo) Poor inexperienced leaders.

5. then you can return to your essay plan.

Intro that mentions the Battle of balaclava and maybe the outcome.
Methodology of investigation the outcome and in particular the extent it was down to command structure.

I would then point out there were three encounters and the first two the British won. convincingly. To that extent command structure ha not let them down.

That said the charge of the light brigade showed up everything that was weak. Explain what happened and then go through the reasons why poor command structue mean that confusions and misunderstandings led them to bluner into action where a good command structure could have avoided it.

You can then do an evaluation of the question and address two issues. yes iit was no it wasnt or somewhere inbteween.
Was the batttle as a whole a disaster?
Were the communications that went wrong for he CLB down to weak command structure or bad luck?
Were such problems unique to the British?

Thats where my essay would take me. the key is to id the command structure understand and how its meant to work,b how it worked on the day and why.

You're far kinder than I am! 😀

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thank you

Stupid you mean. There was an essay in there somewhere. Its annoying because I cant recall the events exactly and dnt feel like spending an hour rewatching the link, but I am along the right lines and a bit of research and I could write a good essay on it.
When I'm responding at 1am, then I can be all over the place.
I looked at some youtube videos and their explanation of the battle was actually wrong. the command structure had just as much to do with the personalities and in-feuding as anything else and one **** up after another being the problem. Its a shame that all a lot of people remember is CLB, whne in fact the Thin Red Line and Charge of the Heavies were British successes.

It could be quite an interesting essay.

Indeed it could. He originally posted the same question under another name and I tried to prod him into thinking for himself, but to no avail.

i dont think i did

This was the thread to which I was referring: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5169108

Same question, different people?

i guess so.

Indeed it could. He originally posted the same question under another name and I tried to prod him into thinking for himself, but to no avail.

I remember the other thread. At least he made an attempt of sorts to show where he was rather than just expecting the full answer. You could write it in several ways. I never know which way I want to go till I have done the research. Its ok to talk about the CLB, but the interesting thing here I believe are the personalities who contributed to the **** up. and you could write quite a tight essay showing that youd done the research, understood what command structure was and thereby deliver a superior answer.

I find the History ones easier to explain than the Law ones because I find its more about knowing what the right questions are to ask and they revolve around common sense.I was hoping to show how you might analyse , research and write an answer that addresses the question.

I was always taught to answer the question as the #1 rule.

The thing I find odd about the question is that it focuses on command structure. Not command failings, which would be an alternative question. To me, command structure is a very narrow, technical issue.

Posted from TSR Mobile