How far do the sources suggest that Captain Nolan was to blame for the disastrous charge by the Light Brigade at Balaclava?

Source 2 shows some support towards source 1 as it also challenges the statement at hand since it states that Nolan’s role and position “was that of merely aid-de-camp”, he did not have the power to make such decisions and order them to the soldiers. Like Source 1 it puts the blame on somebody else as it suggests “If, as it is said, Lord Lucan was influenced by the eager spirit of Captain Nolan, then Lucan was to blame”, while suggesting this it does show some  doubt with the use of the word “if”. This source supports source 1’s comment that he was “enthusiastic” corroborating with Source 2’s comment that he had and “eager spirit”.  Source 2 further comments that Lord Lucan should possess “sufficient self-command” as a commanding officer, further agreeing with Source 1. The source is an extract of a letter written by the father of one of the survivors of the charge of the light brigade, which was published in the Examiner Newspaper from the time, which can be said to be some of its values as it has a credible Source of information as the Fathers son was actually there to witness the events, and it was from the time published in a reliable newspaper. The purpose of the letter seems to be to relieve Captain Nolan’s blame and put the blame on Lord Lucan.  However the Source has some limitations, since the father was not there his actual knowledge of the true events can be questioned, why was it not the son writing? Was he still in the Crimea? We don’t really know, and there is emotional attachment involved, since his son was put at risk, his opinions may be slightly skewed, also the son would not have been privy to conversations between the commanders so how would he know who was truly to blame?

Source 3 indirectly defends Nolan stating that he was a “brave cavalry officer” but also criticises him for being “headstrong” and “critical of the cavalry and hence he was “ill-suited to Deliver Raglan’s order for the Charge”, showing that this Source supports both Source 1 and Source 2. The source is an extract from the ‘Crimean Journals’ written by General Lord George Paget , a first-hand account on the events of the war which was produced to inform. This highlights its values since it was a first-hand account from a fellow Lord whom fought at all battles in Crimea, and was awarded the KCB.  His journals were first for private circulation, and then published by son in 1881 a year after his death. The Source tells us about Nolan’s personality “headstrong” shows he has his own set of opinions on cavalry, similar to Source 1. However there is some uncertainty limiting the usefulness of this source as Paget mentions that there “might have been friendly views exchanged on the delivery of the order” and as he was the second in command he may be covering up someone’s mistakes.

To conclude having evaluated all the sources it is clear that Source 1 and 2 strongly disagree with the statement and support the relieving of the blame from Nolan’s name however Source 3  agrees and suggests that he was “ill-suited” which is slightly supported by Source 2. However it can be seen that from the sources, that Captain Nolan was to blame to a limited extent as source 1 states that it could not have been him due to his published theories on tactics and source 2 defends him in saying that it was not his role to make such decisions, that was up to the higher ranking. And although Source 3 does agree to the statement when it mentions that he was ill-suited, this corroborates with Source 2 in a sense implying that he wasn’t the person to be leading this charge.