rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Zulu atrocities against the drummer boys?

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:16 pm

Peter,

I can't argue with you on that one to be honest, you are of course correct and I should have made myself clear. It was incorrect to label these battles as 'mere skirmishes', I was just hinting at Isandlwana being on a grander scale than any other Zulu battle. With the amount of bodies at their disposal I assume that a massive amount of mutilation and other activities took place, far more than in any other campaign or battle.

Glenn

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:21 am

Just to further confuse the issue here's a quote from Maj. Marter of the QDG that I posted in a query from 19 Feb 05 in the old forum :

"On arrival there was the camp, the oxen inspanned in the wagons, the horses at their picket line, the Officers Mess and their baggage, the Quartermaster's Stores and supplies, and officers and men lying about in their uniforms-dead-but singularly lifelike, as from the state of the climate the bodies had only dried. Many were recognizable. They had not been mutilated. Birds and beasts did not seem to have molested them, and the Zulus had removed nothing but arms and ammunition, and part of the canvas of tents."

From- http://www.qdg.org.uk/pages/South-Africa-1879-116.php

[And no Martin I still haven't got round to querying Clive Morris of the QDG museum, I'm afraid it slipped my mind until the subject was broached again and as I'm now back on the road it will have to wait further.]

MAB

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:59 am

Hi Michael

I am unsure what to make of that personally, it goes against most accounts of the field after the battle. Does anyone consider it possible that Marter was 'playing down' the horror for reasons of morale or peace of mind? Certainly, the Zulus taking 'nothing but arms and ammunition' doesn't ring true somehow.

Glenn

Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:49 pm

This must have been a kind attempt to reassure the people back home that their loved ones had not received too much in the way of mutilation.
I am sure in the back of my mind that someone referred to the sky over Isandlwana being black with Vultures soon after the battle. You can bet that they did not arrive just to be spectators !

Graham

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:11 am

Hi Glenn,

I'm not sure what to make of it either, as I am reluctant to press the QDG for further elucidation while I'm on the road working 13 hour night shifts 7 days a week and was hoping some one here could shed some light without my imagination going into overtime as well! (I'm also confused as to the above site being 'Queen's' as opposed to 'King's' designation with 'King's' being the appellation in 1879 even though the reigning Monarch in both cases is female and the designation was originally awarded by a male.) I would be inclined to think as you and Graham suggest that the reference was an attempt to 'play down' the percieved horror but Marter didn't go to Isandlwana until May when most of the 'mutilation' accounts would already seem to have set in back home and in reading the above account Maj. Marter doesn't seem to be pulling any punches. He makes a point that I hadn't put much thought to - "The main Zulu army had been beaten by the forces under Lord Chelmsford, but had not been followed up, the British troops retiring immediately after the battle, as if they had met with a reverse." That statement seems a bit bold when applied to a Lt.General by a Major. Granted much of the account is a series of complaints that the KDG was split up and posted on escort duty so perhaps his agenda was to somewhat minimize Isandlwana and Ulundi in favour of his capture of Cetshwayo as 'paid in full' for the campaign. (Admittedly that's a bit of a stretch even for my imagination!)

As Graham points out there were plenty of native carrion-eaters there as well as 'gone feral' former pet dogs commented upon (and slain) but given the literally thousands of corpses left on the field and placed in dongas and storage pits perhaps not all the victims were subjected to devouring. One should also remember the incredible amount of dead livestock which could have been the food of choice for the scavengers as animals would have been a more familiar food source.Nor were all the corpses stripped, Col. Durnford, Lts. Melvill and Coghill springing readily to mind (although the latter were on the Natal side) and a comment made by a correspondent (not sure if it was Nogs) that the part of the Fugitive's Trail visible from the camp was traced with clumps of red tuniced bodies. We seem to be left with no clear picture of the aftermath.

I agree with Dawn and Glenn that the acquisition of muti played a large role in the the accusations of mutilation but as I understand it muti, at the time, was usually acquired, while on the battlefield, only from those who had shown great courage when facing their deaths thus would seem to indicate that the lads in question went down hard and greatly impressed the Zulus with their courage. However, since the accusations were not pursued after the war I guess we'll never know.

Best

Michael

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:28 am

Hi Michael

Yes, I think you're probably right in what you say concerning Marter. I am unsure on dates etc but would it be possible that both Makin and Marter were at Isandlwana at the same time? If so, their accounts could not be more different! Of course, certain bodies remained untouched and recognisable but in the mainstream, I am sure that the field resembled an abatoir. The story of the young lads seems to remain as foggy as ever. When I last compiled my paper on the subject, I omitted some key points and evidence that I have read and dsicussed since. When I have a moments respite from my A level work, I shall complete a re-write and post it on the Pot Pourri Section. I would like to see what you all think.

Cheers

Glenn

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:25 pm

It was suggested that Trpr Fred. Symons of the Natal Carbineers recorded seeing the drummer boys. This didn't ring a bell with me so I've gone through his account and can confirm that he makes no such mention.

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:20 pm

Hi Julian

It was I who mentioned Symons. I'm almost 100% sure that it was he who mentioned seeing men, not Drummer boys, bound with Valise straps, suggesting in his view that these poor men had been tortured to death. It was certainly one of the Volunteers if not Symons. My books aren't handy at present so feel free to correct etc.

Glenn

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Sorry to enter this so late but I have been busy elsewhere for the last week or so. I did indeed write a paper on this very topic but since it was published in a British journal (Soldiers of the Queen, No. 116, March 2004). it would, I think, be inappropriate to publish it in the Pot Pourri section, as I am sure you will understand.

The paper dealt with two matters: the misdescription by Morris et al of 'Drummer boys', which should really be broken into two separate groups, Drummers and Boys; and the question of the fates of the various boys.

I have found further material on this topic since I wrote the paper, The Boys in the Band, but nothing which has changed my mind that the matter was subject to gross exaggeration at the time and does not seem to have gone beyond the normal opening of the body and multiple stab wounds post mortem.

KIS

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:57 pm

diagralex wrote:

This must have been a kind attempt to reassure the people back home that their loved ones had not received too much in the way of mutilation.
I am sure in the back of my mind that someone referred to the sky over Isandlwana being black with Vultures soon after the battle. You can bet that they did not arrive just to be spectators !

Graham

Sounds like it... or perhaps in that particular sector the warriors were too busy to do more than take arms and accoutrements - maybe they were busy pursuing the fugitives? But about the birds going on a 'fast'? Errr... don't know about that one.

So it could be both for 'medicinal' purposes to either hex the enemy or gain his power (as with some cannibalistic rituals) or as a means of insult. Again it is something that the 'civilized' attribute to barbarians. No doubt Edward I's court was saying something similar about the barbaric Scots that flayed Hugh de Cressingham and made him into a coinpurse or the American colonists about the 'red injuns' who would torture and mutilate their prisoners (I was reading this book on the Pontiac War, The Conquerors, which described American Indian methods of torture pretty graphically, from the scalping to chopping the genitals to cutting out the heart and eating it and somewhere along the way turning him into an archery target).

from an article on the Philippine-American war, shortly after this period wrote:

To counter the bad press back in America, General Otis stated that insurgents tortured American prisoners in �fiendish fashion�, some of whom were buried alive, or worse, up their necks in anthills to be slowly devoured. Others were CASTRATED, had the removed parts STUFFED INTO THEIR MOUTHS, and were then left to suffocate or bleed to death.... American newspaper headlines announced the �Murder and Rapine� by the �Fiendish Filipinos.� General �Fighting Joe� Wheeler insisted that it was the Filipinos who had mutilated their own dead, murdered women and children, and burned down villages, solely to discredit American soldiers.

Each war naturally produces its share of atrocities, but what is incredible is that people are always shocked that they happen, that the enemy is not 'following the rules' in some way.

I'm not sure what it is about this whole genital stuffing trend, though it's almost obviously meant as an insult - depriving a man of his 'manhood' then raping him with it?

from an article on the Philippine-American war, shortly after this period wrote:

Other attrocities included those by General Vincente Lukban, the Filipino commander who masterminded the surprise attack in the Balangiga Massacre, that killed over fifty American Soldiers. Media reports stated that many of the bodies were mutilated.

I am drawing these parallels just to show that it's not uncommon. In their case, Balangiga was an ambush by local guerrillas of an American company not unlike perhaps Ntombe. They were armed with machetes (bolos) at best and naturally their wounds would be as grievous as can be expected from a close quarter edged weapon fight. The local guerrillas included underground Filipino soldiers and locals, both of which were forced to work under guard on some local infrastructure projects, apparently under a good amount of duress. Not to forget that they were an occupying power which had invaded their land, taken what they pleased and turned them into little more than slaves. So there was a good amount of resentment. Under those circumstances mutilation, whether in battle or after was all but inevitable.

Then again, it's lurid details (which is mainly why I mentioned Cawnpore) that stir the blood for war.

Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:18 pm

I know of several instances of correspondence in which soldiers attempted to `soften the blow� after Isandlwana. For instance, in an undated letter published in Y Genedl Gymreig, 24.4.79, one Daniel Jones of Llanllechid (? 25B/53 Pte D Jones 2nd bn; 25B/1067 Corp D Jones 2nd bn; or perhaps enlisted under an assumed name) who seems to have been out with Chelmsford on the 22nd, wrote:

[...] tra yr oeddym allan ymosododd tua 25,000 o honynt ar ein gwersyll ... cymerodd y gelyn feddiant o�r holl wersyll, cymerasant yr oll o�n hystorfeydd, &c., ... [o]nd dychwelasom a meddianasom y gwersyll drachefn, gan gysgu ar y llanerch drwy y nos. Claddasom ein meirw, ac ymdeithiasom yn ol am Natal ...

[...] while we were out, about 25,000 of them attacked our camp ... the enemy took possession of the entire camp, they took all our stores, &c., ... [b]ut we returned and retook the camp, spending the night out in the open. We buried our dead, and [then] marched back towards Natal ...

I can only assume that the reason for the untruth was the very deep rooted cultural and religious anxiety, evident particularly in places like rural Wales, regarding the eternal destiny of those who remained unburied.

On the mutilation issue, 1259 Pte Charles Lewis wrote to his foster father, James Rowley in Ferndale (also undated, printed in Y Gwladgarwr, 4.4.79):

[...] Ar doriad dydd edrychasom o gylch y wersyllfa ac yno canfyddem ein cydfilwyr anwyl oll wedi eu hacio i fyny. Yr oedd eu hymysgaroedd wedi eu tynu allan a�u gwthio i�w geneuau. Golygfa ddychrynllyd ydoedd ...

[...] At daybreak we looked around the camp and there we were able to make out our dear fellow soldiers [who had] all [been] hacked up. Their guts had been pulled out and stuffed in their mouths. It was a terrifying scene ...

However, I'm wondering whether this account isn't a little problematic; I had an idea that the troops with Chelmsford marched out of Isandlwana before `daybreak' (please correct me), and if so you have to ask how much of the camp could they actually have seen - probably enough, at least, to gain an impression. Although what Charles Lewis writes literally means `guts' or `viscera', the Welsh word ymysgaroedd (= innards) is imprecise, and it's not impossible that he was referring obliquely to genitalia: 19th century Welsh frequently employs euphemisms of this kind. Admittedly, what he says does not specifically mention the boys, but I have come across an account in a Welsh letter which I don't have with me just now but which tells of their mutilation in similarly veiled terms.

Paul

Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:54 am

carnivalesque... the book is called An Intimate History of Killing by Joanna Bourke and it is all about the psycho-social side of warfare. It focuses mainly on the two world wars and vietnam but things like this are rooted in the human psyche and I believe are echoed in other wars in history. Anyway, there's a chapter there on taking 'trophies' or leaving 'calling cards'. Sometimes the dead are 'greeted' (like that scene in GALLIPOLI with the Diggers shaking hands with the corpse) or even 'posed' for photographs or 'invited' to dinner. Its a way of coming to terms with death and mortality, inserting the element of fun into otherwise gruesome proceedings.

Similarly there is the tradition of taking trophies which goes from Celts or Maoris beheading their foes to Native Americans taking scalps, to WW1 Doughboys taking pickelhaubes, to snipers in Vietnam collecting ears or (guess what) penises. Again it is something that indicates manhood, physical proof that one is a real 'bad-ass' killer, with all the attendant benefits.

For torture, there are elements of criminal executions, particularly during the medieval period, where the executioner disembowels the condemned then offers them a glass of wine, knowing full well that there is no place for it to go. Again, it is fun at the expense of the victim, a sense of power and superiority.

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:40 pm

In a letter to his parents printed in a local newspaper March 29th 1879.

all our men that fell and especially the little bandboys were cut to pieces by the Zulus.

Earlier on in the letter he said there were 5 bandboys.

I know that John Jobbins was a Rorke's Drift defender and that he had probably heard these stories around a campfire but given the date of the battle and the date of the publication in a newspaper of the letter then this is as contemporary a report of extra atrocities against the bandboys as you are likely to get.[/b]

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:58 pm

Alekudemus

You seem anxious upon maintaining the myth of the so-called drummer boys. It is a matter of regret that I cannot post my paper on the matter on this site but let me say a couple of things about the subject.

1. The ranks of Drummer and Boy were quite separate and distinct. Drummers were adults, that is, aged over 18 years. Boys were under 18 and should have been no less than 15, although there were some exceptions.

2. There were only four Boys at Isandlwana: In the 1/24th, Boy Harrington was attested only three months before Isandlwana and could therefore have been as young as 14; there is no information about Boy Richards because he is not on the Medal Roll but he was on the Pay List. In the 2/24th, Boy McEwan was 15 and Boy Gordon was 16. The above information can be found in Norman Holme's The Noble 24th (and well worth its cost).

3. Lord Chelmsford led his men from Isandlwana to Rorke's Drift at daybreak on 23rd January. He had given orders that no-one was to visit the battlefield during the night and although some officers did so, the rankers could not have witnessed anything like the things discussed. Charles Norris-Newman also visited but he found nothing untoward. If a newspaperman could not ferret out such a story, then it did not happen.

4. I am still sure that, apart from one or two incidents of the taking of muti, there was no torture or maltreatment of the dead other than the opening of the body and multiple stab wounds after death, carried out by other Zulus anxious to 'wash their spears'. There is no primary evidence that the Boys were treated any diferently from the rest of those killed.
KIS

Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:23 pm

Hi Keith.
I was not "Maintaining the myth" as you put it but merely adding another titbit to the thread. No -one had mentioned Jobbins letter (Which the original I believe is held in Brecon). In it Jobbins says "There was left in camp, 5 companies of the 1st/24th of our picket ...five little band boys and our new bandmaster just come up to our regiment."

As I said in my first post it was probably heard around a campfire but this report was published in the Hereford and Monmouthshire Times on March 29th 1879.

I daresay you are far more informed than myself on the subject but I nonetheless think that this was worth posting.