rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:13 am

We have discussed this issue so many times. But is there any real evidence to suggest that Pulleine handed Melvill the Colours or is it pure speculation.

It�s a simple question Fact or Fiction. Did any person/s submitted eye witness accounts of this event taking place?

The famous painting of Melvill and Coghill lying next to each other clutching the colours was glamorised we know that did not happen.

I�m not looking for argument or to be accused of dis-crediting the 24th

Just a reasonable answer to my question.

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:52 am

Peter

The only source for the act of Pulleine actually having handed the Queen's Colour to Melvill and asking him to "take it to a place of safety" is from the brief note in the Kaffrarian Watchman, subsequently picked up by the press in Natal, claiming to have seen a letter from "a gentleman whose word can be relied upon" (or similar) who apparently described the scene. The quote is so well known that I won't look up the exact words now.

It would seem that most strands of the subsequent story emanate from this single unattributed source, which was quoting second hand from an anonymous eyewitness (or correspondent or acquaintance of an eye witness). Although it can, of course, easily be argued that this source is not nearly reliable enough, there are arguments on both sides as to its value. Unattributed sources were not at all uncommon in the S African (or, indeed, British) press of the day, especially during that rumour-filled period following Isandlwana. So it may be a perfectly true account - or it may be a plant, reflecting exactly what many would like to have believed, and were therefore keen to propagate for obvious reasons.

Whether Glyn or Symons relied on this for their subsequent reports and accounts, or had worked things out for themselves by the enquiries which they made, who knows? The story was certainly added to and hardened - I refrain from saying embellished - by their contributions, which became (more or less) the official accounts, albeit necessarily incomplete. You probably know the details of these. Considering all the possibilities and calculating what may have happened, Mike provides a version of the possible scene in his HCMDB, based upon the understood positions of individuals at various times, known movements and likely military decisions. No-one will ever know but there seems no reason at all why Pulleine may not have given the order, and a similar order (or decision by someone) seems very likely for at least one other Colour, given the location and circumstances of the subsequent discovery of some of its component parts.

Of course, had Pulleine not given this order, it is perfectly possible that Melvill and another officer both made the decision(s) themselves at the appropriate stage of the battle. In my view, even if Pulleine did not give this order, the actual details of the action are altered very little, in that Melvill made the decision instead, and the result was the same.

I have always thought it sad that Melvill died believing he had failed to save the Colour, whereas in fact his action had accomplished the exact opposite - he had (a) saved it from falling into the hands of the enemy and had (b) unknowingly done enough to ensure its eventual recovery and return to the regiment.

Peter

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:28 am

Peter E. So far we have. As you state

1 Kaffrarian Watchman, (No Comment)

2 A gentleman whose word can be relied upon (No doubt based on those that knew him)

3 An anonymous eyewitness (or correspondent or acquaintance of an eye witness). (Hear-say)

4) Colonel Glyn, (Who was not at Isandhlwana)

Not much of a case to suggest the event was true.

Peter E Writes

�So it may be a perfectly true account - or it may be a plant, reflecting exactly what many would like to have believed, and were therefore keen to propagate for obvious reasons.

Peter E Writes

Of course, had Pulleine not given this order, it is perfectly possible that Melvill and another officer both made the decision(s) themselves at the appropriate stage of the battle.

Your last two statements would be more acceptable and nearer the truth.

Peter just out of interest: What is your personal opinion of this account with the colours?

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:34 pm

Dear Peter H,

It is not clear why you are asking this question? I detect an element of mischief making - I may be wrong. Perhaps, it is because you can ask it uninhibited and from the comfort of an easy chair in front of your PC miles away from the realities of war.

The incident is recorded in the regimental records and in Historical Records of the 24th (1892) � page 268 - co-edited by Col Penn Symons who as a young, but experienced Captain was charged by Col Glyn to record events on 22 January. Penn Symons did consult many of the survivors and key players in the days after the battle. His hand-written report survives in the Regimental Archives.

I am currently looking at events in the Great War � also involving 2-24th now 2nd South Wales Borderers. It is fairly clear that on the dates of high activity less information has been recorded � lost �the fog of war� as they often say. The key dates, such as 25 April 1915, 1 July 1916, 23 April 1917, 20 November 1917, and 11 April 1918 are naturally the focus of interest for many family historians � what trench was he in?, how did my grandfather die?. The casualties suffered by the 2nd Battalion on each of those dates were significant as they were at Isandlwana on 22 January 1879. History depends then someone witnessing the event and surviving to accurately record what was witnessed. Not always possible when hundreds around you are being killed for their country and their comrades. The war diaries on these dates lack essential detail required by modern researcher.

I am comforted by the Daily Telegraph on Friday 19th September which published a fine tribute (a full half-page obituary) to WO2 �Gaz� O�Donnell, George Medal who only aged 40 was killed in Afghanistan, leaving four children. It was a truly poignant reminder that our soldiers are continuing to lay their lives on the line. It restored my faith in modern society - tragic though this event was for his family.

I promise you, Peter, that most visitors to Lancashire Landing at Gallipoli, Beaumont Hamel on the Somme, and at the Buffalo River at Fugitives� Drift do not leave without shedding a tear or two of respect.

PS

Only one Colour - the Sovereign's Colour 1/24th. It was French artist de Neuville who entitled his painting 'Saving the Queen's Colours'. Now almost all guides to the battlefield incorrectly refer to 'Colours' in the plural. Perhaps you should visit Brecon Cathredral are see the Colour and remember the sacrifices made.

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:35 pm

Do you know it becoming impossible to post anything on this forum? It seems no matter what I post there is always someone ready to make an accusation that I�m as you put it mischief making.

I call it fact finding.

Official Records of the 24th were generated by a person who was not there.

Witness accounts from the survivors who in reality would not say anything detrimental considering the rest of the column stood and fought to the end, and they had got away.

And if the facts and evidence had been accurate at that time and this event did take place. Why did it take so long to award Melvill his VC?

Maybe my problem is that I don�t always believe what the books say.

Regards

Harman P.

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:56 pm

Glynn's orderly officer what was his name ?

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:35 pm

I am sorry but this has to be said.
I have to agree with Major Everett, Mr Harman is deliberately protagonistic in my opinion.
The majority of his posts are inflamatory and either defamotary or close to it. It is no coincidence that both Col Snook and now Major Everett have taken umbrage with him.

In my opinion, (and yes, everyone has got one) Mr Harman is using this site solely to provoke a response from some of the AZW experts. This is not what the forum is for. Some of Mr Harmans threads have been nothing short of asinine. He is obviously sitting in the dark somewhere taking gratuitous pleasure from this. Fine, but the majority of us wish this forum to remain a centre for intellectual exchange on the AZW and not a talk shop for all the nonsense that he spouts.

Personally, I would much rather read the expert comments of Col Snook, Major Everett, Messrys Locke, Quantrill, Smith, etc etc than the purile postings of Mr Harman.

Alan I am sorry, moderate me if you wish. But this has to be said. We are in danger of losing some of our best experts because of the ill feeling continously caused by Mr Harman.

Regards
PRS

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:58 pm

Peter H

My opinion of this account (i.e. Pulleine's claimed order) with the Colour? I've already said: "no-one will ever know but there seems no reason at all why Pulleine may not have given the order." I wasn't there - I don't know. 50-50. Perhaps 60-40. Or 70-30. But at least 50-50. See several far more detailed discussions on this in previous threads.

However, ruminating on whether or not Pulleine may have given the order is irrelevant. It can't be established for certain - but it most certainly can't be gainsaid, either. It doesn't matter either way. If such an order were never given, than so much more credit to Melvill for taking upon himself the awful burden of risking his life to save it, and never relinquishing this dangerous duty at any time in that hazardous race for Natal. Who could have blamed him if, at any moment in that journey, he let it fall, freed his hands and simply dashed for safety. He didn't - he turned up at the river still encumbered and somehow still alive. A raging torrent, a heavy Colour case and bullets and spears still to dodge. Drop it at last and swim or ride for the far bank? No - he knew his duty, as did any number of other officers who would clearly have done the same thing. The army's military annals are littered with similar examples. One fact overrides all - he turned up at the river, still carrying that Colour case. Almost unbelievable but a proven fact.

Why did it take so long to award him his VC? For goodness sake, Peter, he was dead! As you know, I'm sure, dead men didn't get VCs! But the famous and moving account in the London Gazette said that Her Majesty would have bestowed one if he had survived. When the rules finally changed, after the Queen's death more than 20-odd years later, the way was open for people like Melvill, Coghill & Freddie Roberts et al to be honoured posthumously.

No-one blames you for not always believing what the books say - a nice, cautious, healthy, objectivity is to be welcomed - but an official report had already led to a citation in the LG, and it doesn't get better than that. You ask me what I think. In my humble opinion, no VC was ever earned more deservedly than that by Melvill on 22 January 1879.

Peter

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:28 pm

With some of the sensitivity about, I almost hate to get involved in the crossfire, but... I sense more than a little political motivation behind Melvill's award for carrying the colours to safety, as this act, regardless of orders or not, doesn't appear to fit within the intent of the award (as I understand it) Any reasonable "unattached" man was headed or soon to be headed that way anyway and although the colours were an additional burden, was his ride out of the camp above and beyond that normally expected? There's no question in my mind that Coghill, who died because he turned back from sure salvation to rescue either Melvill, the colours, or both does qualify. Coghill: probability of safety by staying or possibility of death by going(his choice)/ Melvill (if he actually even had a choice and wasn't obeying orders) possibility of safety by going or probability of death by staying. My logic makes sense in my mind, but I'm not sure I'm imparting it coherently.

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:29 pm

Hello everybody,if Mr Harman is mischief making..so what..i myself see his torrents of post and wonder what this guy finds to do with the remaining couple of hours in his day lol. surely we all are bigger than this..and i congratulate the serious contributers who consistantly uphold the ethos of this forum..so what did happen to the 2nds colours.private colection maybe?.regards to all..L.J.Knight..

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:53 pm

I hasten to add that my thoughts above are in no way intended to sully the memory of a courageous and competent officer. As the award was made years after his death, he obviously can't be implicated in acting with some self serving agenda. My discomfit is with the behavior of others regarding Melvill and his death, not Melvill's actions.

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:17 pm

Let me make a comment on this thread, only because Mr. Harman and I have had some disagreements on previous posts, leading to the rather forceful defense of the honor of the 24th by COL Snook on one of them.

I apparently offended Mr. Harman with the same sort of comment made here by others, and he wanted the thread stopped. Thinking possibly I had overstepped a boundary, I apologized profusely, more than necessary in my opinion, but to bring some closure to any dispute. I was hoping we wouldn't need to go through it again. Mr. Harman "searches for the facts" with buckshot rather than a bullet (meaning he goes off in all directions), but one cannot dispute the fact that he engenders a lot of discussion.

Peter H.:

The colour(s), for any Napoleonic/Victorian age soldier (even US Civil War combatants) were of the utmost reverence and worthy of loss of life to save. The colours were representative of the honor of the unit, of the greatest importance to those who derived their honor from the regiment.

Since we have no direct evidence whether Melvill was ordered to save the colour or took it upon himself to do so, then we should honor the act itself and the soldier who performed it. Even if not ordered, he would have felt compelled to carry the colour to safety, just for the honor of the regiment. Loss of the colour to the enemy was a great tragedy in the eyes of the Victorian soldier.

So, ordered or not, does it matter? Let's respect the act, considered worthy of a VC in the eyes of the Army after the posthumous award was authorized.

Bill

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:29 pm

HARMAN wrote:

Glynn's orderly officer what was his name ?

Perhaps, would a little "please", "thank you" or a little politeness in your request be too much?

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:05 am

Who was 'Glynn'?

John Y.

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:29 am

Sawubona

Have you been to Fugitive's Drift?