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
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?
Sources 2 and 3 both agree with each other as they are giving a similar impression that the officers commanding the British Army were being unfairly criticised throughout the Crimean War. Source 2 was part of a judges summing case supporting the Earl of Cardigan who had commanded the Light Brigade at Balaclava. The source states that any criticism of Cardigan should be ‘generous and sympathetic’ and gives the impression that he was a courageous officer as the judge stated ‘not one that should seek to cast a stain upon his courage and his personal honour as an officer’. Source 3 supports Source 2 as it suggests that the staff were being ‘unfairly criticised’ and that there is ‘no staff officer to whom I would object’. As Source 2 states that Cardigan has ‘courage and personal honour’ this is similar in Source 3 as he describes the Army with a high ‘sense of duty’.