Quirks

Previously I noted that the fate of the Light Brigade was decided by the vantage points of the key participants. In fact checking that post, I began rereading Terry Brighton's immensely detailed account of the charge in Hell Riders (Henry Holt, 2004). In addition to noting the differences between what Lord Raglan, the army commander, and what Lords Lucan and Cardigan (the cavalry commanders) could perceive, he notes that Raglan probably did not see what he thought he saw (p. 103).

A staff officer pointed to one of the distant redoubts (small fortifications) the Russians had earlier captured from the Turks. He told Raglan that the Russians were removing captured guns. Brighton notes three things in connection with this. First, it is doubtful that anyone could have seen this without a telescope, so what the officer and his general probably saw was a movement of some vehicles. (The Russians deny they were removing guns.) Second, the loss of an artillery piece was a great dishonor, a signal of defeat. Third, Raglan had been the protege of the great Wellington (having in fact lost his arm at Waterloo as Wellington's aide) and the Iron Duke had never lost a gun. Brighton suggests that the idea of losing the guns mortified Raglan as little else could.

I raise this, because it points to the kind of small quirks that sometime decide events. Sometimes, they are relatively mild in their effects. One thinks of Patton's belief that he was the reincarnation of various soldiers throughout history, possibly including Hannibal. That certainly contributed to the kind of confidence that is important in a general, in much the same way as Napoleon's sense of destiny. Of course that sort of confidence is often disastrous for the common soldier. Field Marshal Douglas Haig, commander of the British forces on the Western Front during most of the First World War, believed that God was with him and guiding him, despite the fact that his armies were suffering appalling casualties as he threw them repeatedly against the German trenches.

On other occasions, the quirks are more curious in their effects. U.S. Grant notes repeatedly in his memoirs that he had an aversion (we would probably call it a phobia) to retracing his steps. From the time he was a boy, he would do almost anything he could not to return the same way he had come. This shows up over-and-over in his campaigns. It may be what led him to try so many different approaches to capturing Vicksburg in 1863. It was also one of the keys to his success in pinning down Robert E. Lee in 1864, albeit at a horrendous cost in dead and wounded. Because he would never retreat the way he had come, he constantly changed his front, never allowing Lee to recover his balance, as previous Union commanders had.

It is always important to get into the heads of the participants of any event whenever one can. Too often, we cannot do this, particularly as we move backwards in history, so it is vital to try to understand their general world view, but when we can probe more deeply or personally, we often find motives and understandings that surprise us and illuminate things in unexpected ways.