rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:58 pm

There is probably a good explanation but where was the 1st Battalion 24th Foot and the 2nd Battalion 24th Foot.
Were they completely annihilated or to ill or wounded to take part in any of the wars below.
Was there any under lying reasons as to why they took no further part or did they.

If I have missed off anyregiments below let me know.

The Battle of Gingindlovu

Royal Artillery
3rd Regiment, the Buffs:.
57th Regiment:
3rd Battalion, 60th Rifles
91st Highlanders:
99th Regiment:

The Battle of Khambula

Royal Artillery, 11th Battery, 7th Brigade.
1st Battalion of the 13th Light Infantry
90th Perthshire Light Infantry:
Mounted Infantry
Frontier Light Horse under Lieutenant Colonel Buller
Boer Commando
Native Contingent of Swazis

The Battle of Ulundi

Royal Artillery:
17th Lancers:
1st Battalion, 13th Light Infantry:
2nd Battalion, 21st Royal Scots Fusiliers,
58th Regiment:
80th Regiment
90th (Perthshire) Regiment:
94th Regiment:

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:19 am

You have obviously put in considerable research in the preparation of this posting and have many reference documents to hand. Then why impress the forum by coming up with your own assessment of what happened.

Don't forgot the award of a VC and DCM to members of the 24th at Khambula.

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:26 am

Martin , sorry but i can't understand the second sentence of your answer , is it a question ?

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:43 am

Peter

As you know, the 24th formed part of the central (No 3) invasion column. Khambula was fought by No 4 column well to the north, and Gingindlovu in the area of the line of advance of No 1 column, well to the south-east in the coastal corridor, although reinforcements from Ceylon & England played a major part in that engagement. By the time of these two battles, the No 3 column had withdrawn from Zululand and was to be found, variously, at Helpmekaar, Fort Melvill & R/Drift, not to mention in hospitals at Ladysmith & Dundee, while awaiting the arrangements for the move to the area around Landman's Drift, Koppie Allein etc.etc., pending the second invasion, which involved the 2nd Div & Flying Column as well as the 1st Div. Some of the new drafts arriving to replenish the 24th had been taken from other regiments in GB and these included men who were virtually new recruits. During the second invasion, no major engagement occurred until Ulundi anyway (although Buller's foray of 3rd July could well have turned out very badly).

For Ulundi, Chelmsford left about 600 men on the right bank that morning to garrison the laager, this force including five 1/24 companies. Had the camp been attacked that day they certainly would have seen action, but no attack materialised. With regard to Khambula & Gingindlovu, the 24th was no more "absent" from these battles than were the Buffs or the 90th from Isandlwana.

Peter

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:42 am

Peter Thanks for your reply.

Last night I was reading about the forgotten Zulu Wars and noticed that there was no mention of the 24th so I asked the question.

I have not done any research or have documents to hand as suggested.

And to be honest I cannot see how my question would have impressed the forum.

Most of my reading on the Zulu Wars has been connected to Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift.

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:10 pm

"Forgotten" Zulu wars? What Zulu wars have we forgotten?
Damian

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:30 pm

I'd still like to know what Zulu Wars you keep referring to as well?

I have asked before but got no reply.

Thanks in anticipation,

John Y.

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:38 pm

Damian that was the name of the web-page I was reading.
(The forgotten Zulu Wars)

John Young (Battles)

Well at Least Chelmsford listened to advice after Isandhlwana and every encampment had wagons carefully positioned to create an unbroken laager wall.
Troops were instructed to dig sections of trench around the laager.
Every camp was made fully defensible in case of attack.

And he had a good man scouting across the Nyezane River.

See common sense applied. It�s just a pity the first mistake cost lives.

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:54 pm

Peter,

By 'a good man' you're not referring to John Dunn are you?

Ask certain Zulus to this very day if Dunn was a good man? There are those, including the one who was in Worthing the other day, who would rebuke you, and tell you in no uncertain terms that he was a profiteering traitor who betrayed those who had given him succour.

John Y.

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:18 pm

I suppose he must have reflected on what choices he had open to him.
After all it was the British who put him in that position.
I would have thought he was quite happy with his life before we turn up.

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:22 am

I share your thoughts on that point, Peter. He must have had a difficult decision to make and, realizing the inevitable outcome of the war, made the best of a very bad situation. A self-serving profiteer he may have been, but what I've read about him suggests that he never pretended otherwise. His attitude towards his "own people" as well as the Zulus in general appears to have been genuinely sympathetic. "You're killing my children!" (paraphrased because it's to late to look up the actual quote) says it all to me.

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:14 am

Gentlemen,
John is quite right, that both during and following the AZW, the Zulu nation felt betrayed by Dunn's actions that were perceived to be of self-interest.
In mitigation, as Peter mentions, what were the alternatives open to Dunn? In his autobiography,"John Dunn Cetywayo and the Three Generals" (reprinted in 2006 by Arthur Konigkramer, Ron Lock and myself) this is what Dunn has to say:
" Lord Chelmsford and Commodore Sullivan came up to the Tugela, and so I crossed that river[ prior to the commencement of war] and requested an interview with them, which was granted. In course of the conversation Lord Chelmsford asked me what course - in the present aspect of affairs - I intended to take? I told him that my intention was to remain neutral.
To this he answered, ' I cannot allow you to do that. You must either take one side or other - join us or take the consequences.'
I told him I had no quarrel with the Zulus,and did not like taking up arms against them, but begged him to advise me what to do. After considering for a while, he said,'Take my advice Mr. Dunn and cross to this side of the river with all your people, and bring as many more with you as you can. We will give you room to locate them, and will feed them free of expense to you; and after the war is over I promise to see you reinstated in your possessions.'
For this advice I thanked him and promised to act on it."
So the die was cast and one can understand Dunn's predicament. The rest is history.
As an aside it is intriguing to see Chelmsford's attitude towards the Zulu. This has to be a primary cause of the Isandlwana defeat.
Dunn continues:
" Lord Chelmsford said he was afraid that he would not get the Zulus to fight. But from my experience, I knew that if the fighting die was once cast, Cetywayo would concentrate his forces, and risking everything on one great battle, fall upon the column that he thought would give him the most trouble, so I advised Lord Chelmsford to divide his forces into two strong columns, so that either would be strong enough to cope with the whole Zulu army. Lord Chelmsford laughed at the idea, and said, ' The only thing I am afraid of is that I won't get Cetywayo to fight.'
I said ' Well, my Lord, supposing you get to his kraal, and he won't fight, what will you do?'
His answer was,'I must drive him into a corner and make him fight.'
I asked the above question, as I had begged Cetywayo not to fight, even if the English army invaded his kraal. I felt sure that no real grounds for war - beyond an unreasonable dread of the public of the Zulus - existed, hence my advice to Cetywayo."
Hopefully the above reflects a balanced account of Dunn's actions and the pressure that was brought upon him by Chelmsford. What it does emphasise is Chelmsford's arrogance. Had he taken Dunn's advice this forum may not exist!

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:45 am

Yes, self-serving, certainly. It came to a point at which he realised which way the wind was blowing. After all, it is difficult to see what loyalty he owed to Natal or the Crown by 1879, whereas in practice he owed a great deal to Cetshwayo and was deeply in his debt. Quite apart from re-crossing the river, a simple act of self preservation, his providing of intelligence to the invasion forces put him way beyond the pale with his benefactor, whose opinions of him during the post-war interviews were probably unprintable, as the printed version turned out to be pretty strong! Not surprisingly, his reputation in Zululand after 1879 was even worse than it had been in Natal before 1879. "Good man" can only be interpreted as a reliable spy for one side, rather than in the usual sense.

It is interesting to compare his choice with that of the Zulu who had resided in Natal during the period Dunn had lived in Zululand. These Zulu stuck to their original (river-crossing) decision - obviously fear and loathing came into it more than it did with Dunn's case, as well as (presumably) confidence in victory for the British forces - but if these Zulu had vacillated in the manner of Dunn, the invasion force would have been much smaller. It is easy to forget that the central column which invaded Zululand, for example, was comprised of a majority of Zulu, with the balance made up of a minority of British soldiers and colonists. No doubt these Zulu would have had many more doubts had they known in advance how poorly they'd be led and organised.

However, if Dunn had showed continued allegiance to his new sovereign, no doubt he would have been labelled a traitor in Natal and GB just as vociferously as he eventually was by Cetshwayo. "As you make your bed, so you must lie in it" clearly didn't apply - or appeal! - to Dunn.

Peter

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:03 pm

Dunn's dilemma was the same dilemma that has plagued the so called "colored" community in SA for a long time. Where did his loyalities lie? On the Eastern Cape Frontier a large part of the colonial forces were made up by men of color. These men fought against the Xhosa. Yet the racial prejudice of the settlers increasingly isolated them from white society. This was exacerbated in the 20 th century when Dr Verwoed went to great lenghts to remove the colored voters from the electoral roll. Dunn was accepted by the Zulus but not accepted by polite settler society. Yet when the chips were down he went over to the side of Chelsford.

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:45 pm

Would Dunn have had the knowledge to train the Zulu army how to use the British Martini-Henry (sight adjustment) and Cannons?

I was just thinking it was a good job he join Chelmsford