rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:24 pm

Apologies if this has been raised previously but a search didn't throw up an answer . Were Zulu prisoners taken generally throughout the war or was it simply the case that they would never surrender ? Also how were the Zulu wounded treated - was quarter given or were they "finished off" with a bayonet ? Thanks . Mark

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 2:40 pm

There were occasions of Zulus being taken prisoner, usually to obtain information, but such as Rorke's Drift it wasn't really the case, as the next morning wounded were finished off, basically due to the fact, the defenders were unsure whether more attacks would come and didn't have the facilities to hold the prisoners or men to guard them.

During routs, Zulus were pursued relentlessly, so as not to allow them to regroup, either in numbers or morale.

British prisoners were rarely taken by the Zulus, although some were maybe held for a short time, before the war started, perhaps having ventured across the Buffalo river, but tended to be treated well and released unharmed.

Hopefully, others will supply better replies.

Coll

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 3:31 pm

I seem to recall a book which addresses this question specifically-possibly "Like Lions They Fought"? Anyway, the gist is that at the beginning of the war, perhaps after the attack on Shirayo's kraal preceding Isandlwana, Zulu prisoners were fed and released as proof of the tolerant and humane way that Europeans in general and the British in particular wage war. That was per Chelmsfor's specific orders. That attitude changed abruptly with the British introduction to "impi embuvo" ("Red War") at Isandlwana and the consequent spirit of vengeance and recognition of the totality of Zulu warfare. It seems Zulu prisoners were still taken however when such was in the British interests (as when messages were to be taken to the King or information was sought), when The Public in the form of journalists was watching, or when rather more chivalrous officer's were present. To my knowledge, this ruthless attitude was directed only towards combatants and noncombatants were unharmed though not particularly coddled.

Although Ceteswayo requested an occasional British prisoner be taken as an intermediary, I've only read of one European taken alive, Granier (?), who was subsequently released or escaped, depending on who told the story.

My understanding is that the typical Zulu warrior couldn't imagine being taken prisoner as a result of his own cultural bias and the typical British soldier was only too happy to comply with this bias whenever he had the opportunity.

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:22 am

Extract from 'The Times,' c. 18/6/1879

ZULUS IN OUR HOSPITALS
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

Sir, With reference to the statements made in the House of Commons last night that Zulus were not received into and treated in our hospitals, I beg to append an extract from a letter I have just received from a medical officer now serving at the front. He says: - "We have several wounded Zulus now in our field hospital, mostly bad cases; they scowl at us when their wounds are dressed, but are men of splendid physique and bear pain well."...

...Your truly,
Surgeon Major

Extract from 'The Times,' c. 9th September 1879

ZULU PRISONERS IN MILITARY HOSPITALS

Sir, In answer to a statement recently made as to the non-reception of Zulu prisoners in hospitals, permit me to state that as far as General Wood's column is concerned wounded prisoners were frequently patients in the Field Hospital, and at the Base Hospital, Utrecht, a building hired by me, with General Wood's sanction for the treatment of natives was constantly occupied by wounded Zulus and attended to by our staff. The prisoners themselves wondered at this kindness and frequently told us that had our wounded fallen into their hands they would have assegaied them without mercy.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charles M'D Cuffe, Surgeon Major
Camp in Zululand, Aug. 7

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:35 am

And, have a look in Ian Knight's "Companion to the AZW" - he does look at the question of Zulu prisoners and also in detail at the Grandier Story.

The Companion is an excellent place to initially look up the answers to those questions on minutae that regularly come up on this site

Bill

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 12:40 pm

As for some background on prisoners of war, I'll note that in August 1864
a few nations attended the "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field" in Geneva. With the document, certain procedures and rights were noted to protect wounded combatants in battle. Interestingly, Britain nor the US were not of the original signatories. I would tend to think though that they had some "unofficial" guidelines that they adhered to when dealing with POWs during war.

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 3:13 pm

Although not directly related to the treatment of POW's, it's a significant gauge of the attitude of "civilized" nations towards benighted heathen foes that such murderous ammunition as "Dum-Dums" and Webley "Manstoppers" (.455 MK. III) were deemed acceptable for use only against non-Christians until the very beginning of the 20th Century, at which time they were banned by the Geneva Conventions entirely in a abrupt attack of humane sensibility. It's my understanding that this distinction was actually mandated from The Hague. Anyone?

It would follow (to me anyway) that any of the early "guidelines" regarding the treatment of POW's were understood to only apply to those who could voice their objections in a newspaper.

Wood's treatment of POW's was probably influenced by his goal of promoting the defection of Zulus outside of Ceteswayo's direct control, Uhamu and his retainers in particular. Possibly his attitude was the exception?

Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:08 pm

Interesting Saw...leads me to wonder if the missionaries and religious organizations in Natal had anything to say on this topic during the war.

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:47 am

Rich

The most controversial story about despatching Zulu prisoners occurred when a letter written home from Pte John Snook after the Battle of Khambula was published in the North Devon Herald, in which he mentioned 500 Zulus begging for mercy about eight miles from the camp on 30th March being killed.

Once that part of his letter had been published and picked up by those who objected, letters to The Times, protests by the Aborigines Protection Society and very awkward questions in Parliament followed. However, much of the letter, as published, was clearly misunderstood and although Snook knew what he'd seen (or, more accurately, had heard from his exultant comrades in the cavalry), his own vague language and a mistake over the exact date allowed Wood and Wolseley to close ranks and defeat the protest campaign via the War Office and the press.

In August, Wolseley quoted Wood in denying that any of his force had been out of the camp on the 30th, as they were all busy burying 785 Zulu in the immediate vicinity, as well as giving succour to wounded prisoners - so it was all patently a lie with no foundation and a clear attempt at a slur on the military. However, it is not difficult to see that Snook's mistake with the date (he should have said the 29th) let Wood completely off the hook. The letter had merely attempted to describe the pursuit in which no quarter had been given to the Zulu fugitives from Khambula and that several hundred had been finished off by the pursuing cavalry several miles from the camp immediately after the battle on the 29th. But his attempt at passing on what has since been clearly established as fact was garbled by his ambiguous language, or poor editing, or both - a routine occurrence in all 1879 press comment emanating from letters from the front.

So the ABS, Parliament and no doubt the churches (I've seen comment and letters on this from clergymen in the press of 1879) were stymied by Wood, who clearly saw that his chance of getting out of the fix caused by the campaign depended entirely on focusing on Snook's error with the date - but without drawing attention to the actual error, only pointing out in detail what his men had been doing on the 30th itself! Wood - who, like Chelmsford, had much blood on his hands as a direct result of his own military incompetence - could clearly have taught Chelmsford a thing or two about covering his back!

Peter

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:10 pm

Peter...Thanks for that fine researched exposition. I take it the The Times did not follow up with investigation no doubt due to the time and geographical distance considerations or perhaps figuring tremendous pressure by Wood and the army. Also, do you know if Pte Snook was the only one to comment with writing home on the incident? I'd suspect that for some soldiers killiing with no quarter could be a significant and traumatic experience and perhaps at a future time it would need to be say expiated with others even though it was done under orders.

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:18 pm

The two letters which refer to the situation :-

To the Aborigines Protection Society.
From the Central Department War office June 9th 1879.

Sir,
I am directed by the secretary of State for War, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th Inst. containing an extract from the North Devon Herald of the 29th Ult. in which it is asserted that after the battle of Kambula Hill, a number of Zulus were killed by British forces, and to acquaint you that the General officer commanding Her Majesty's forces in Natal has been called upon to enquire into the circumstances and to report whether there is any truth in the statement in question.

War Office August 28th 1879

Brigadier-General Evelyn Wood states that there is not a shadow of truth in it. The whole of the infantry were employed all day on the 30th, except when at Divine service, in burying 785 dead Zulus close to camp. I believe no Zulus have been killed by white men except in action. For the sake of the British soldier, I trust that the statement of Brigadier-General Wood may be circulated wherever Private Snook's assertion has been made public.

G.J. Wolseley General

As Peter said, the wording is carefully used. "The whole of the Infantry.. ....employed all day on the 30th, burying 785 dead Zulus " (No mention made of the cavalry) and no mention of the previous day's actions.
With the power of Wolseley and Wood, Poor old Private Snook had no chance with his claim, but it is interesting that no other soldier present made any comment about the affair.

Graham

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:32 pm

Graham/Rich

It's an interesting case, isn't it? I've never really thought of Snook's letter as an attempt at whistle-blowing, but only as an example of vicarious bragging about the performance of the cavalry during the pursuit. Given the graphic accounts which describe the considerable slaughter during that operation, in which a total of several (or perhaps many) hundred exhausted fugitives had been despatched certainly doesn't appear to be an over-estimate at all (and "eight miles" was also claimed in one of these as well), Snook's account appears simply to relate what he had heard from the exultant troopers and colonists who, on their return to camp, were boasting of the huge number killed. Some of these men were quite happy to put these descriptions down on paper afterwards.

We don't know if Snook ever thought his family would submit his letter to the local paper, although that was, of course, a traditional thing to do, but he wasn't the only soldier writing from Zululand to be embarrassed by his family sending his letter to the papers. Snook mentioned "we [by which he must mean the cavalry troopers and irregulars, not he and his infantry comrades] found about 500 wounded, most of them mortally, and begging us for mercy's sake not to kill them; but they got no chance after what they had done to our comrades at Isandlwana." Flowery language picked up from the lurid accounts of the pursuers, of course, but not that inaccurate. The Zulu were exhausted and in full flight, many were wounded, no doubt some mortally, and certainly had no chance. But the protesters appear to have taken his letter to mean that the British somehow came across a large body of helpless, wounded enemy miles from a battlefield, who were put to death. The result was the same as far as the Zulu were concerned, but Snook doesn't put it into the context of the ruthless pursuit.

If, in fact, he was not mistaken about the date, it is just possible that he was referring to the single patrol which was sent out on the 30th. Wood said this patrol "saw no Zulus, and I passing over the ground covered by the patrol two days later did not see a body ... and as I rewarded Wood's Irregulars for every live Zulu brought in, I had many saved. Few, I believe, were killed." Perhaps it is just possible that this patrol had found many wounded who couldn't get any further away (the previous day's lengthy pursuit being cut short only because of evening mist and exhaustion from the slaughtering & riding) and had finished these stragglers off as well? As usual, the writer's ambiguous language doesn't help. (Well, ambiguous to us because of what we know from other sources). The justification for the slaughter having been the circumstances at Isandlwana was repeated many times by soldiers in their correspondence during the AZW, which is why I don't see this as a whistle-blowing exercise, even thought the ABS campaigners used it as if it had been.

Peter

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:05 am

It also appears strange that when the Zulus broke at Ulundi and were pursued by the British cavalry, who killed them until exhaustion slowed them to a halt, it was the expected conduct. Nobody then complained about the tactics, indeed the charge was looked upon as the culminating point of the victory.
To clear the battlefield and drive the enemy away so they could not regroup, was the expected response to any army employing a cavalry arm.

It must have been the case that Private Snook's comments were misunderstood by some at the time that they were published, and embarrassing questions were asked. An interesting case certainly.

Graham