Cracker (of a question).
Most typically of the British, our committees, and cost cutting of the Defence Budget during peacetime, not only had the Cavalry been been reduced in strength since Waterloo from 22,000 to 10,600 (of which 3000 in service in India), but much more insidiously, due to rationale of the duties required to be performed, all cavalry had to be able to perform all the duties expected of cavalry in general, be they Light , or Heavy.
Gone were the days of scouting , warding off * unwelcome attention, foraging and skirmishing for the "Lights". Same applied for holding back the "Heavies" for the decisive charge or fatal blow. All cavalry had to really be "multipurpose" ie equal to "the charge and duties of outpost".
Major General George McClennan (of acw fame) noted that little difference could be distinguished in British Cavalry regiments other than regiments that had recently returned from India, and that applied to the type of mounts. Given that, dress was certainly different, but that's about it as to differences.
* Note that on the march to besiege Sevastopal from Calamitia Bay, the Russians tried to entice the Allies into a trap. Light Cavalry were dispatched (along with RHA) and there was a skirmish on the River Bulganak (first encounter of the campaign). Lights performing the duty envisaged for them
The most interesting parts of the Crimean Campaign for me certainly centres on the cavalry actions. Scarlett's command of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava is inconsistent. Given the audacious exploit of the Heavy Brigade in routing a vastly superior Russian force (having been caught in column) and charging uphill with 850 v's 2000+ Russians - well that's typical" cavalry commanders for you. (go on the Scots Greys and Inneskillens).Having succeded in this affray, both Light and Heavy Cavalry Brigades set off down the Valley of Death together
Having already gone through the Russian crossfire, the heavy brigade pulled up, suffering more casualties than during the morning engagement with Rhysov's cavalry.
IT IS HERE THAT YOU MAY PARTICULARLY WANT TO TAKE NOTE. The Light brigade were ahead of the Heavy Brigade, even after setting off together. Why, was it because of the type of mounts they were on, or the discipline applied to differing arms of the Cavalry, holding back etc for the final punch. Why did the "Light's" outpace the "Heavies"
Alas, the Light Brigade pushed home, taking the casualties from frontal fire of the Russian guns. BUT, having taken out the guns, the same fate would not have befell the Heavy Brigade - who were lagging behind the Lights. In my opinion, had the Heavy Brigade continued, they would have been in the right place at the right time to support the Light Brigade just as 2000 Russian Cavalry descended on the Light Brigade. That to me is the the main reason why the Light Brigade suffered such. Certainly the guns and crossfire were major factors, but lack of support proved crucial in what was a glorious failure, as opposed to a glorious success. (Try telling that to Scarlett, or the 600 - actually 673).
In short Sir, I suspect little differnce in operational capacity. In differences as to flair and elan, well, I leave that to you for your considered opinion.
On the "reading up" may I humbly suggest "a Most desperate undertaking" by Alistair Massie, and specifically on the question of cavalry, "Into the Valley of Death" by John + Boris Mollo. The latter book is quite superb deaing solely with British Cavalry, accoutrements, tactics and organisation for the Crimean War (coloured plates by Bryan Fosten have a certain wow factor, albeit with the exception of the Scots Greys, most of the horses are palomino's or bays. Indeed, it helped me form the opinions garnered above.
As usual for me, a bit long winded, but a pleasure to disclose my opinions, and I trust, of some assistance.
Thinredline
"There is no retreat from here, men," Campbell told them as he rode down the line, "you must die where you stand."
. "The Reason Why', good book about the Charge of the Light Brigade.
