However the way it does document this blame is in a very astute manner, as the source uses phrases such as hastily attached and it was alleged. This shows that the editor of The Illustrated London News was a supporter of Nolan and possibly wasn’t a great supporter of the higher command in the British army. Similarly source 2 appears to deflect the blame off Captain Nolan but in this source we are given a clear idea of who is thought to be at fault for the failings of the Charge of the Light Brigade. The source is clear about whom it feels is responsible as it clear as day states “Lucan was to blame”, it backs this up by saying as a senior officer Lucan should not have been influenced by Nolan’s eager spirit. Source 2 offers very little evidence to say that the disaster wasn’t Captain Nolan’s fault other than blaming Lucan for acting according to the captain’s enthusiasm.
How far do sources 2 and 3 challenge the view given in source 1 that the officers commanding the British Army in the Crimean War were unfit for the position? Explain your answer, using the evidence of sources 1, 2 and 3. Sources 2 and 3 present a substantial challenge to Sir Garnet Wolseley’s criticism of the British army officers in source 1. Source 3 says that the staff at Headquarters have ‘been very unfairly criticised’ and source 2 mentions how ‘Lord Cardigan, as a general, is open to criticism, but it should be a generous and sympathetic criticism’ so both sources clearly show how the officers are wronged. In contrast, source 1 states how the officers ‘were uneducated as soldiers’ which is a proof to the reason of criticism.
But to what extent should all the blame be put on Lord Raglan (commander in chief)? Historians may argue that Lord Raglan was greatly to blame for the fault of the charge of the Light Brigade. They may put across arguments for him playing a large extent for the military blunder. For example, he was the commander in chief therefore had the greatest power of authority making decisions and commands for others below his status. They may also argue that he had a better perspective of the “valley of death” than Lucan and Cardigan.
He continually defends the people against the accusations of fickleness and unpredictability; stating that the custodianship of public freedom is safer in the hands of the plebeians than that of the upper class. Machiavelli states that the people are “wiser and more constant than a prince” . Therefore it is intriguing to read the contrast presented in ‘The Prince’ where we hear little of such convictions. In this work Machiavelli states that the common people are preoccupied with only one thing- their own self-interest. He says that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, and eager to gain.
THESIS Disrespecting a Non-Commissioned Officer is a touchy and /or sensitive subject. What may appear to one person as disrespect may not appear to another person as being so. Disrespecting a Non-Commissioned Officer Opening paragraph here In the NCO Creed it says “I know my soldiers and will always place their needs above my own”. I bring this up for the fact that Non Commissioned Officers should know about their soldiers and understand that soldier’s reactions may not always seem as they appear. A soldier’s suggestion may be because it is the best for them.
To me this means to have the feeling of being achieved in something done by oneself. (The selfless pride) It is doing things that are selfless. To me this means to do things without thought. There is pride in serving the military because they protect the people, they protect our rights, and they give us our freedom that is ours. First there is pride in protecting our people.
It contains three principles, and they are as follows: 1. Don’t Criticize, condemn or complain. Under this principle the author told so much stories to identify the what, how and why of the act of criticism. Although we are mostly tempted to see view ourselves that we are more righteous than others, and we have better opinions about different stuff. That all won’t matter when you break someone’s pride, there is no joy of breaking others by all means.
To be morally courageous is to have the confidence to speak what you believe in or think regardless of the consequences or people's thoughts. Although it is a vital quality, many people lack this fundamental in effectuating change. Robert F. Kennedy says, "Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change."
He needs discipline and intends to make soldiers out of these “bunch of incompetents” and doesn’t need the “non-starters” joining up. He is obviously concerned about training a competent army and feels it is his duty and responsibility as a major to do so, a quality that must be somewhat admired. ENDING: SUM UP WHAT YOU HAVE SAID Our first meeting with Glendinning is brief, but in that we see a character that is not there to be liked, but to be almost admired for his devotion to duty. It remains to be seen as to whether
From the characters impressive introduction, it is clear that this man is the most valued and honorable traveler among the group. This perfect gentleman holds a love of ideals that are often not displayed by people. First and foremost, he believes in the ideals of chivalry, and always stays true to its principles. He also feels that one should be honest, truthful and faithful, which many people are not all of these ideals. The knight thinks one should only do what is right, and what will gain him honor and reputation.