Isandlwana Drummer Boy's (Mentioned by)

warrior3. Atrocities did take place at Isandlwana, there is documented evidence to support this, the issue in question is the Drummer Boys, of which there is no documented evidence apart from letters written by private soldiers. If you read Interview with Mehlokazulu Kasihayo (Click on link below) He mentions some of these, like the cutting off of a soldier’s head. What the other members are trying to establish is (Did the incident with the drummer boys take place.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt, but no ememy's going to admit it. My point is, you don't need documented evidence. Horrible stuff like this happens in wartime.

Great !! so now we have the possibility that it did happen. Can I ask who the well known Zulu War Historian is.

Hi All

What we need to do is define the word BOY in 1879 in the British Army.

We know that 16 / 17 years old persons were killed, do we call them boys?

Where do we draw the line from boy to man back in 1879 ?

Graves doe's this help..

Quote :

"In 1795, three experimental regiments were formed "to relieve parishes of boys between the ages of 10 and 16, who were allowed to enlist on condition of the parishes paying their expenses to the recruiting depot".
There were a thousand boys assigned to each regiment, and some served in the Cape and India. All this came to light because of a newspaper item which prompted a War Office investigation WO 32/6881 code 26A, Enlistment of boys under 16 years into Boy Regiments to supplement recruitment; copies of original orders 1797, 1801-1805. In December 1797, seven regiments presumably on the strength of the experiment, were authorised to enlist boys under 16. Pay seems to have been 8d per day, with lower stoppages for stays in hospital than ordinary soldiers. By 1801, there were only two boy regiments, the 32 and 65, presumably the recruits were not replaced as they grew older. However, the failure of the Treaty of Amiens and the resumption of hostilities with France meant an increase in recruitment. Most regiments gained a second battalion, and these were allowed to recruit a "certain number" of boys. The exact status of these boy soldiers is unclear as to whether they were considered combatants or not. However, by the time of the 1876 investigation, and the Taylor Committee on Boy Soldiers of the same year WO 32/6899, the status of Boy Soldiers had become more clearly defined. Boys were enlisted, from the age of fourteen, as musicians, drummers, tailors, shoemakers, artificers or clerks. Their numbers were restricted too - 1% of the regimental strength was to be boy musicians, and 1/2% tailors and shoemakers; drummers were considered separately from musicians and were not part of the regiment's strength.
However, their terms of service had not really been settled; but by 1911 three different committee reports had touched on the matter, and forced a review:
Field-Marshall Sir Evelyn Wood's Committee on the reduction of charges for pensions of warrant officers raised the issue whether boy service should count towards a pension.
Field Marshal Lord Kitchener's Committee on the Organisation and Administration of the Corps of Royal Engineers recommended a substantial overall increase in the number of boy soldiers.
Major-General Crutchley's Committee on Army Tradesmen naturally touched on tradeboys.
The result was Colonel Strachey's Committee on Boy enlistment which with related papers, can be found in WO 32/6896, dates covered, 1911-1913. In November 1911 there were 3,826 boys serving in the British Army, of which 2,984 were musicians. Strachey found that this number was too small and made general recommendations with regard to service and conditions which were largely accepted and regularised the boys' conditions. On 1 December 1912, there were 31 boys enlisted into the Royal Irish Regiment, 11 musicians and 4 tailors at home and in the colonies and 16 unspecified in India WO 32/6897.
Other files relating to boy soldiers in the WO 32 series concern the period post-1945 and are about the recruitment of boys for general service, and the question of lowering the age of full enlistment to 17.1/2 or 17:WO 32/11561 WO 32/12971 WO 32/13474"

What exactly was the roll of the Drummer Boy in 1879.

The Roll of the Drummer Boys originally was to communicate orders by drum, the drumbeat being more easily heard in battle than voice commands. Not sure what it was in 1879.


"Norman Holmes & Julian Whybra do mention 'Boys' in their various works." Has anyone got these resources...

Quote :

"The exact status of these boy soldiers is unclear as to whether they were considered combatants or not. However, by the time of the 1876 investigation, and the Taylor Committee on Boy Soldiers of the same year WO 32/6899, the status of Boy Soldiers had become more clearly defined. Boys were enlisted, from the age of fourteen, as musicians, drummers, tailors, shoemakers, artificers or clerks. Their numbers were restricted too - 1% of the regimental strength was to be boy musicians, and 1/2% tailors and shoemakers; drummers were considered separately from musicians and were not part of the regiment's strength."

More Questions than answers now

Thomas J. Harrington - Attested 15th October 1878 (No age when attested, I have no record)

Robert Richards - His name does not appear in the Medal Roll, but he is named in Pay List as ‘killed on 22nd January 1879’. There is no trace of his effects having been claimed. It is presumed that he was entitled to the Medal and Clasp dated 1879. His regimental service number was 25B/265 (I do not hold any other information)

Daniel Gordon - He attested at Chatham, Kent on 6th December 1877, aged 13 years (Could he have been 13 years and 11 months old to enlist)

Joseph S. McEwan - attested Dover 20th April 1877 age 14 (16 years of age when Killed)

James Gurney - He attested at Chatham, Kent on 20th December 1877, aged 15 years (17 years old when Killed)

So thanks to the "well known Zulu War Historian." We have come back to the being of the original question. I wish we had won at Isandlwana !!!!

CTSG

" these statements are only from Soldiers holding the rank of private/ Troopers. No officers it didn’t happen "

To base opinion, not on what certain people have reported but on what certain other peolple have NOT reported, strikes me as very strange locic to say the least.

CTSG

Quote :

I wish we had won at Isandlwana !!!!

We would have if Chelmsford hadn't divided his forces, fortified Isandlwana and followed his own standing orders.
(Just winding you up)

It doe's seem we are back at the beginning. The mysteries of Isandlwana.

" these statements are only from Soldiers holding the rank of private/ Troopers. No officers it didn’t happen "

These soldiers were a lot closer to the carnage of iSandlwana than we on this forum will ever be - we can't dismiss their testimony based on their Rank.

If Chelmsfors had reported "hooks" it would be believed without question; but Chelmsford was prone to the odd bit of creativity, porkie and unreliabilty wasn't he?

Quote :

Chelmsfors had reported "hooks" it would be believed without question; but Chelmsford was prone to the odd bit of creativity, porkie and unreliabilty wasn't he?

If you say so !!!

Hi All

After spending many hours on this subject of the word BOY and looking at many attestation papers of those who took part in the Zulu War of 1879, these are my findings.

I am unable to find anyone enlisting in the British Army under the age of 14 years old. In saying that, the Army could not enlist anyone under the age of 14.
Many have enlisted at the age of 14 years and 0 months. Now I do not believe that they were all 14 years of age. Some have must of been younger. At this time, I am unable to prove that anyone was under the age of 14.

The next issue I have was the use of the word BOY as a rank, when did this person become a Private as a rank. The best example I have found was 698 Charles Eden, 91st Regiment.

As you can see from the image below, he enlisted on 6th June 1876 aged 14 years 0 Months.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now have a look at his ranks and age at that ranks

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

His rank is listed as a Boy at the age of 14
His rank is listed as a Lad at the age of 15
His rank is listed as a Private at the age of 17

Now the interesting thing to note is his rank when he was 15 years of age. He was known as a Lad During the Zulu War even as a 16 year old, his rank did not change until the 2nd June 1879 when he became a Private.

Hi All.
Another who is topical at the minute ! .

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

cheers 90th.

ps. Bit expensive , you can find them cheaper !.

I know what follows has no direct relevance to the 'drummer boy controversy', but it is relevant to warrior3's comments about the brutality of war, particularly as it applies to the Zulus. I refer to the massacre of Voortrekkers (aka Dutch, Boers, Afrikaners) and their servants by the Zulus in 1838. While visiting the Zulu king, Dingaan, at his capital, 66 Voortrekkers, including their leader, Piet Retief, and 30 servants, were set upon and killed. Before the Voortrekkers who had been left behind in the vicinity of Weenen in Natal could be warned of the Retief party's fate, they were attacked by a large Zulu impi. Along the Blaauwkrantz (Bloukrans) River near Weenen, 282 Voortrekkers, mainly women and children, and 252 servants were massacred. The treachery and brutality of these attacks probably did much to colour the attitude of European settlers towards the indigenous inhabitants of South Africa, particularly the Zulus. The latter in turn had their view of the European settlers influenced by their decisive defeat by the Voortrekkers at the Battle of Blood River later in 1838.

This mutual antipathy, which continues amongst certain people to this day, was still relatively fresh in 1879, when the Zulus again had an opportunity of confronting the intruders in their land. That the Zulus committed atrocities in 1838 and 1879 is beyond dispute, although the details of their actions may well be.

The historical key to these conflicts, and all other ones, before and since, is who gets to write the history (i.e. usually the victors). The Zulus were then at the disadvantage of being both defeated and illiterate.

Nevertheless, as I wrote in an earlier post, if I read about Zulu brutality in a conflict situation, both military and criminal, I believe it.

Brett

Hi All

Just out of interest, have a look at Drummer 2381 James Keefe, 2nd 24th. (Who took part in the Zulu War of 1879)

Enlisted at age 14 years 10 months as a Boy.
Attained the age of 15 years, became a Lad
Attained the age of 17 years and became a Private, then appointed as a Drummer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Would the have needed the parents consent, "Enlisted at age 14 years 10 months as a Boy." or were these boys son's of serving soldiers or unfortunate orphans.

Drummer boys ‘gutted like sheep’
"One story that circulated widely in the horrific aftermath of the battle was thatLord Chelmsford’s men, returning to the devastated camp on the night of the 22nd, had seen ‘young drummer boys’ of the 24th Regiment hung up
on a butcher’s scaffold and ‘gutted like sheep’While it need not be doubted that, in the fury of the attack, theZulus would have killed boys as well as men – they had taken the Queen’s shilling, after all, and their chances with it – this horror story does not stand up to close scrutiny.

‘Boy’ was a rank in the British Army at the time, applied to lads not yet 18, many of whom were the sons of men serving in the regiment. Drummers were seldom Boys – among their other duties was administering floggings as punishment – and of 12 Drummers killed at Isandlwana, the youngest was 18 and the oldest in his 30s. Five Boys were killed at Isandlwana, most of them in the 24th’s band, and the youngest was 16 – not quite the innocent lads immortalised in sentimental paintings of the time.

Even the contemporary regimental history of the 24th admitted ‘no single case of torture was proved against [the Zulus]’. But, in the fraught atmosphere that prevailed when Lord Chelmsford’s command returned to the camp that night, such horror stories spread like wild fire and were readily believed –although, as one officer pointed out, ‘it was impossible for those who told these yarns to distinguish anything in the night, it being exceptionally dark’".

As stated before by other members>

Hi Mr Greaves

Now that is a very good question, to which I do not know the answer, hopefully someone might know on here.

Gent's came across this (Not Zulu war era, but wonder if it did apply back then)

ONNAUGHT TELEGRAPH, April 22nd 1916:-

A SOLDIER UNDER AGE.

"Mr. Doris asked the Under Secretary of State for War, if he was aware that Private Thomas Moran, No. 6521, 3rd Battalion, Connaught Rangers, enlisted at Westport on the 27th July, 1915, when he was only 17 years, 1 week, without the consent of his widowed mother, Catherine Moran, and that Mrs. Moran has made several unsuccessful applications for the discharge of her only son on the grounds that he is not of military age: and if he will state whether, if Moran cannot be discharged, he will be withdrawn from military service and placed at other necessary work until he attains the age of 19. Mr. Tenant ? I would take the liberty of referring the Honourable member to the previous answer I gave on this subject to a question put to me by the Honourable member for Blackburn on the 2nd November, 1915.

The following is the reply to Mr. Snowden referred to: -

Mr. Tenant ? The minimum age at which men are authorized to be taken for service with the Colours is at present nineteen, and no man is accepted for direct enlistment unless he gives his age on attestation as nineteen or over. Strict orders have been given to recruiting officers that unless a recruit evidently has the physique equivalent to his declared age he will not be enlisted without an examination of his birth certificate. If a recruit enlists who has declared his age to be over nineteen, but, who is actually below the age, the War Office do not consider that to be sufficient cause itself for discharging him from the Army.

Under existing arrangements, a soldier who is actually below nineteen may be sent abroad provided his physique is considered by the medical authorities to be that of a man of eighteen and a half. If his physique is below that of a man of eighteen and a half he is retained for training and Service at home until he reaches the required standard.
In practise, however, the War Office always allow a lad who is under seventeen be discharged provided application is made to his Commanding Officer, whilst he is serving at home. In the case of all soldiers serving Overseas, the question of discharge or return to his country rests with the Commanding-in-Chief, who retains only those considered fit for service abroad."

Here are some photo's of the attestation and records papers for 1977 William Thake, 88th Regiment of Foot/ 1st Battalion, The Connaught Rangers.

He mustered in 15th December 1873 at the age of 14, 4 1/2 feet tall with a listed trade of musician so he was a drummer boy literally. He rose through the ranks eventually reaching Canteen Sergeant in 1888. His overseas service included India and South Africa (Zulu War, South Africa Medal with 1877-8-9 clasp) and earned the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. He was discharged for medical reasons (hepatitis) on 5 April 1894 with over 21 years of service under his belt.

The 1901 census lists Thake living in Stepney, Middlesex, England with his wife Amy (who is also listed in his papers as with the regiment) and two children - Cyril and Muriel. His occupation is listed as an Inspector of Customs.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi All

Just for anyone interested. This comes from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Side Drum 1st Battalion 24th Regiment recovered from the battlefield of Isandhlwana, 1879

Several ood points all round there.

There is a school of thought that those who returned to camp on the night of the 22nd did indeed see small bodies hanging from butchers meat hooks - these small bodies could have been lamb carcasses about to be butchered legitmately by the cooks when the attack commenced - esilty mistaken for young lads, at night, in such a highly charged atmosphere.

Zulu stripping and disembowelling of their enemies was a culturally motivated act in order to free the spirit of the dead enemy and should not be mistaken for "brutality" or "torture" as it was by the public and settlers of the time. (It is an act of respect to the dead enemy). Let us not criticise them for that.

Brutality however, in hand to hand fighting is completely believable and highly precedented throughout history. Look how the English behaved in the final stages at Agincourt, or how the Roman army behaved in the final defeat of the Iceni in ancient Britain.

Hanging from meat hooks, as reported by witnesses who were there - who are we to disbelieve them? Certain London gangsters hung their opponents from meat hooks - to do so in the heat of a brutal battle is not beyond the limits of my imagination at least.

It is not unprecedented for army officers/ncos to sanitise and play down the suffering and circumstances of their mens' deaths in action to relatives and press at home.

Here's a question. Why is there only mention of seeing the boys on hooks. Why is there no mention of someone removing them from the hooks and burying them which would have been the proper thing to do. There is no record of young boys being at Isandlwana and no mention of this incident by officers. The house of Lords only make reference to the drummer boys through a letter from a Soldier. At the end of the day the drummer boys issue is based on hearsay evidence not factual. British properganda in 1879 at it's best.

Mr G - see my final point above.

There are all sorts of reasons for this and and they are mainly honourable.

Nice image Ray!

sas1
Surely your source cited for Lord Elcho's remarks should be HL not HC? Yes?
Admin
You've duplicated two of your drummer boy accounts: Samuel Jones 45th Regt and Sam Jones NMR are one and the same person (NMR) and the same account.

Anyone interested in pursuing the topic of the Boys and torture might like to read the third essay by Frederic Bomy and myself in Studies in the Zulu War vol V. It contains quite literally an overwhelming body of evidence relating to this subject.

Hi Julian,

Bravo , firstly, commendation to you and Frederic for the publication of a slice of real history. The evidence  on mutilations etc is overwhelming, but common knowledge to most  Natalians , particularly to those with roots going back to the AZW.
Frederic is also to be highly commended for his super sleuthing, he must throw his net wider and find more answers to other vexing unanswered questions vis-à-vis  Isandlwana. 
What I find curious however  is that some historians , both armchair amateurs and  some of the more prominent , steadfastly  disbelieve all of this. Maybe there  is egg  on their faces as they have already painted themselves into a corner , or acknowledge at least inwardly, with some guilt, that they did not do their research on the subject nearly thoroughly enough.
Keep up the good work JW, we look forward to the outcome of  more  research of this standard.



regards




barry

Thank you for the compliment Barry. And thank you for the invaluable assistance given.
There will definitely be more to come.

Bonsoir Barry,
Thank you very much for your encouragement. Indeed, there is still a lot of fascinating "dark corner" to explore. I join Julian in thanking you for your help -Much appreciated-.
Frédéric

Quite a few members have plenty of knowledge of the contents within soldiers letters. I ask that you read them again, as I believe you have missed a vital point stated in one or two of them.
That is, that it is stated in letters, that it was getting dark as they assaulted towards the camp, and haven't stated that it was dark, so they would have seen the devastation.

Also the ex or serving members of the forum will know that this was a planned assault to take back their camp. They would have assaulted up and over the camp clearing any remaining Zulu stragglers out, as also mentioned in letters. They would not have stopped as soon as they entered the camp, they would have went through it, clearing it.

I think the Zulu were capable of these accusations.

Once the camp was cleared they say they slept amongst the dead, but probably slept on the out skirts.

Can I respectfully refer you to the Essay The Wrecked Camp at Isandhlwana in Studies in the Zulu War vol. IV (Writtle, 2017) pp. 45-91, which looked at precisely what was visible at dusk on the 22nd and dawn on the 23rd and the evidence as given in letters from the rearguard (E coy and the NMP) who left the camp area well after dawn.
The next volume (V), (Writtle, 2018) in the essay on Granger (pp. 74-78) looked these same letters with regard to what was seen of the Boys.

Thank Julian.

Not just that, I think the officers and the government of the day was attempting to be politically correct, in stating that no such thing occured. Not to further heap more misery on the families of the deceased.

Also in letters soldiers have stated coming across dead friends, naming them and the sight they witnessed.

Perhaps 'politically correct' is not quite the right phrase. Certainly it wanted not cause pain to relatives (although, goodness knows, soldiers' letters would have been enough to do that) and it would also not want to put in the public domain the nature of war against uncivilized opponents, and the direction in which the local colonial government policy had taken them. The public, then as now, would be quick to look for someone to point the finger at without necessarily going into all the details surrounding the whys and wherefores.

Completely agree Julian

I agree that they surely were uncivilised back then, and out of the many of thousands of Zulus, many would have been from little remote villages having probably never visited a city or witnessed modern living.
I would also imaging violent brutal clashes with neighboring villages and tribes. Because let's admit it, they were tribesmen back then.

To be honest I should think most European colonists had never visited a city either!
The nearest one which might warrant that name might have been Cairo!!