A History of the Coldstream Guards, from 1815 to 1895Ross, J. (John)
History
A History of the Coldstream Guards, from 1815 to 1895
Ross, J. (John)
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901; Great Britain. Army. Coldstream Guards
While the battle was going on, the garrison of Sevastopol kept up so
poor a demonstration, that we were able to denude our camps of men, and
push them to Inkerman. Besides the men on duty in the trenches, the
greater part of the Third Division watched the fortress, and they were
subjected to no further inconvenience than that which the fire from the
place, intensified on this day, entailed. About 9.30, however, the enemy
made a sortie against Forey’s siege corps, under General Timofeyeff,
with 5000 men and 12 guns. The blow, though it met with some success at
first, failed, and the Russians were pursued by our gallant allies back
under the shelter of the fortress. Thus little was done by the garrison
to assist Dannenberg, and that little was of trifling value.
Gortchakoff’s operations during the day were still less effective. He
made a few feints, fired upon the Sapuné Ridge, and, it is said, did
lose 15 men. He thereby gave the companies on piquet (among them, Nos. 6
and 7 companies of the Coldstream) the opportunity of engaging him with
distant volleys, without apparently causing much, if any, loss to our
side. In short, he did nothing, when by attacking Bosquet, he would have
prevented that General from advancing to our assistance at Inkerman. His
orders were “to support the general attack, to draw the Allied forces
upon himself, and to try and seize one of the ascents to the Sapuné
Ridge.” Mr. Kinglake, however, tells us that these written orders were
explained away by “oral communications” into something different,[285]
and makes us believe that there is a mystery which has never been
explained, hanging over the operations of this Russian Commander, who
held so much power in his hands on that day. What we do know is that
Dannenberg, in spite of his overwhelming numbers, was unable to secure a
footing on the Kitspur, that this was due to the manner in which it was
defended by our scanty forces, and that in this defence the Household
Brigade played a glorious part, and suffered much in consequence.
-----
Footnote 285:
Kinglake, v. 59 (note), 69.
-----
The losses were very great on both sides: those of the enemy, who moved
in heavy columns, being more than those of the Allies, though
relatively, in proportion to numbers at the seat of war, he suffered
less than we did. The Russians had 10,729 killed, wounded, and
prisoners, including 256 Officers. The English 2357 of all ranks, of
whom 130 were Officers (or 39 Officers, and 558 men killed, and 91
Officers and 1669 men wounded). The French 929, among them 49 Officers
(or 13 Officers and 130 men killed, and 36 Officers and 750 men
wounded).[286] The Brigade lost nearly half its effective strength,
viz., out of a total of 1334:—
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account