Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records

I was that day at a place called Rorke’s Drift, some twelve miles from the other camp. About 5,000 of them attacked us on the same day. We had two hours’ notice of their coming. We converted mealie and oat sacks in a kind of fort. There were only 96 of us able to fight in this place. However, the hand of God being with us, and these sacks forming a wall, so as we could kill them as they were trying to rush in. We were able to hold our position until nine a.m. on the 23rd, when the column came to our assistance. We killed 900 of the Zulus, and lost 13 on our side and 10 wounded. There were only six of our regiment at this place; we happened to be there on escort....impi..c'mmonnn!

Impi

Your responses suggest that you have no concept of what took place in Zululand in 1879. I suspect you probably never been to RD, Helpmakaar or Isandlwana.

David Jenkins was a local lad from Brecon. He had just lost over 500 fellow soldiers from his battalion including his best mates. He was writing home to reassure his family and to give them and other locals some news - there was no Sky news reporter doing it for him - yes, many of the soldiers (all of whom left school at the age 12) found it difficult to compose letters - that was the reason why they often got the seniors to help him - that is why there is a similarity of text. Remember this letters were written in the open, sitting on a rock. These guys did a tremendous job for Queen and Country under difficult conditions in an era when PTS was not recognised. When did you hand-write a letter home?

Then you hide behind the image of Henry Hook - Only 1361 awards of VC have ever been made. Why do you think you are worthy to be linked with such illustrious company?

Fellow soldiers! How many times was he found guilty of desertion? Kenny there's is no point debating this with you. You think he was there, so no point you adding to to this. Its clean cut, there is nothing apart from letters to his family and newspaper articals. Nothing from the Military aspect.

Nothing from the Military aspect....apart from the fact that
he was a soldier..and was there     

Gents, I'm leaving this topic un-locked. There's no point in locking it down, because it just continues within other topics. Any requests by PM to locked it down for whatever reason, will be ignored. Forum rules still apply!   

I know it's not the same topic, before I'm reminded I'm off topic!

Carlos just out of interest. No doubt you have seen the David Jenkins topic, and the reasons some felt it correct to add him to the roll call of Rorkes Drift defenders. In your opinion do you think he should have been added.

Do you refer to the soldier of the company B of the 2º Battalion of the 24º Regiment nº295? In the list elaborated by Chard, 3 of February of 1879, and the one elaborated later by the sergeant Bourne, in none of two appears. That you evidence is there then so that he appears? The list of the XX century is very far from the events of 1879. Personally, although it is something that I have not studied in depth, my general impression is that no. In all ways, in all the related with the Zulu War of 1879, are convinced that every year that passes new surprises they happen. Jenkins belongs maybe one to them. It would be a pain to remove him merit to who one hit how many shots in the one that is for me, after of Waterloo, the most famous battle in the red coats: Rorke´s Drift.

Personally, although it is something that I have not studied in depth, my general impression is that no

Bonsoir Mister Carlos Roca,

Just one question: Have YOU read " Studies in thé zulu war" vol. 2 by Mister Julian Whybra?
There is a meticulous essay on the subject.
Cheers.
Frédéric

Hola Sr. González, por favor estudie el tema en detalle, para que usted
para ser capaz de darnos su opinión considerada .. esto se ha convertido en un tóxico
Debate, y creo que el miembro que le hizo la pregunta estaba siendo
una persona mischevious opertunistic .. gracias! xhosa2000

Translated!

"Hello Mr. Gonzalez, please review the topic in detail, for you to be able to give us your considered opinion .. This has become a toxic Debate, and I think the member will hiz"

  

I see 295 Jenkins has come up, out of the blue, on the other forum. Is this a coincidence, a plant or what? Very intriguing. Tin hats on boys, it's time to start again !

Steve

Hi Steve
I also read that and it appears it's the first post on this subject on the ' other ' forum !!!! , I laughed , and thought to myself
in answering Alan's question in my mind , join this forum , then read the 24 pages and 4,500 or so posts regarding the very question he posed !! . LOL. He'll need a Tin Hat I'd expect !. LOL.
90th

Hi Gary me old wombat.

So, it's kicked off over 'at the other place', well, if impi is also a member 'over there', then they can expect a very long campaign to prove that David was indeed a defender at RD.

Yes, get your tin hats and body armour ready lads, your gonna need em.

KABOOM!!!! Off we go.   

I have just got in and saw the above..c'mon
guys fill me in! ' the other place..alan ' yeah
i know where that is!.. where is the question
re Jenkins? i do dim very well..  

Xhosa

Another one of those Saturday nights eh? Look at the Genealogy category.

Steve

     Another one of those Saturday nights eh?..
i wish! funny thing about getting older, appetites do seem
to get smaller in some aspects..my heavy drinking down the
pub is but a fading memory, i still have a drop on family
occasions, birthdays ect. did i mention i have 365 children!

Yes i have seen it, but i cant see more than the usual four
or more responses..no passion you see! impi would wreak
havoc on there. Les      

Sunday lunch is apparently imminent.    but a
quick check on the other place confirms that an
awakening has taken place! i thought it funny that
alan would post as a new question!.

Still it's good to see, simular to us, there are those, who need more evidence, some accept, others don't care.

But I did notice that someone stated, "Martin Everett is still researching"    wasn't he the chap who claimed to have had enought evidence.

CTSG
It is not just a question of more evidence, it is a question of actually reading it once provided, and being able to understand its import. Martin like me is still looking for anything extra to lend additional weight to the mass of existing evidence. After I published, I was still finding more.

Julian Whybra wrote:

CTSG
It is not just a question of more evidence, it is a question of actually reading it once provided, and being able to understand its import.  Martin like me is still looking for anything extra to lend additional weight to the mass of existing evidence.  After I published, I was still finding more.

So you feel the existing evidence is not adequate enough to show he was at RD. can't see the point in the continued searching. Should you have not held back on the publication until you and Martin had all the evidence! However if you discover further information how will that affect the already purchased publication? Will there be a cost to Purchase the new information?

On another forum (Rorke's Drift forum / Topic David Jenkins / Sun Feb 09 2014),  Peter EWART has written:

"History is written by historians. If anyone has the "final say" (and in many aspects of historical research there is no final say, even if it sometimes seems the final say has finally been "said"!) it is the historians.

In the case of Rorke's Drift, the final say will be had by genuine experts on the Defence who have tackled the known primary sources in an acceptably rigorous manner; who have endeavoured to scour relevant collections for new material and who have presented their findings in such a way as to convince other historians of equal calibre. Trained historians (it doesn't matter whether they are writing academic or popular works, as long as their scholarship is sound) will dominate the field but even they will recognise the value of the expertise of specialist amateurs in that narrow field. Conversely, there are several published authors of the Rorke's Drift story whom I certainly would not place in the category of "expert." And some good RD authors would, I suspect, readily admit anyway that they would not presume to judge whether Jenkins was there or not, simply because they don't know and are not too worried one way or the other, as it is of no consequence to them or to the overall story.

Among those one might rely upon for good work on the specific Jenkins question or its background, the names of, say, Lee Stevenson, Ian Knight, Kris Wheatley & Julian Whybra would come immediately to mind. They have given the primary sources relevant to this topic many years of study. They may agree or they may differ on certain points. On Jenkins, Ian may have moved on from his position outlined in Nothing Remains but to Fight over 20 years ago as and when newer material has come to light; Lee will also have considered carefully the developments over the years, before & after publication of Rorke's Drift by Those Who Were There. Julian has outlined his position only recently in his Studies in the AZW (2).

Matters such as the Jenkins question and similar topics change, and change again. Although there is no "official" roll - very few battles, if any (as distinct from, say, campaigns) spawned an "official" roll - the historians will consider, among the sources they use, the relative values of the Chard Roll, Bourne Roll, Cantwell Roll & the rolls published in the Natal Mercury, The Times, The Standard or regimental publications, as well as every other relevant source he/she locates. The regiment (or, more specifically, the custodians of its archives: Earle, Egerton, Everett, Cainan etc) will assist the historian in his/her research by making available the sources in their custody when requested by the historian, and the archivist & librarian worldwide will do similarly. Then the historian - his/her researches as complete as he/she can acceptably make them - will decide and publish, and the custodians of the regiment's traditions - or websites such as this - will, of necessity, consider those findings very carefully and, usually, be guided by them.

I recall some well informed debates about the Jenkins topic on this forum some years ago - 2006 and 2013 among other times, it turns out after a quick look. I think the question had already been put to bed in 2005 to everyone's satisfaction, and only a basic misunderstanding at the NAM last year and, as a consequence, in the popular media gave it any artificial life again, the debate being by then pretty moribund and the attempt to resurrect it rather spurious as far as I could see.

The latest & recent published offering on the matter suggests to me a rigorous approach as comprehensive as one could hope for. It is again put to us that Jenkins was - indubitably - there. If I am to question seriously these findings, I will have to examine every single primary source the author has consulted. If I am still not convinced, I must demonstrate where & how the author has misunderstood, misrepresented or misconstrued, and/or produce "new" primary sources from my hat to show how they countermand what has been published.

Even with an open mind, the argument placed before us by Julian Whybra looks pretty convincing to me. However, if a trained historian or a specialist expert with years of experience of the relevant sources places alternative findings before the public, then I'll read their offering too. I wouldn't really be interested in the views of those who haven't done the work, unless they themselves have discovered important new material which demands our attention, and I can't really see that there is any genuine debate on the matter these days. Would I think again if Lee, Kris or Ian were to differ very strongly? Yep. Anyone else? Nope!

Still, it's a free country, as they say (or used to)."

Excellent ymob, yes i ageed with PE there!
and no cricket ref in sight. which trust! is
quite remarkable    he would be a most
welcome addition to this place! not even a
question of loyalty..i have seen a few people
thrive on the main three forums. in partiality
seems to be key!

CTSG
Please don't twist my posts to put a slant on them that isn't there. You are not Goebbels. If you'd read the evidence, you'd know full well that the case for Jenkins's presence was rock solid otherwise I would not have presented it.
One can never predict when additional things will turn up out of the blue, and they will continue to do so. What I did find extra I posted on this forum a month or so back if you'd bothered to read it.
I can't understand how someone who purports to be interested in an historical subject can have such little understanding of the nature of history.
ymob
Thank you for posting Peter Ewart's view - what he describes is the sensible approach that historians take.

Who is Peter Ewart? What you posted a month ago was common knowledge.

As I've written before, you don't read others' posts, or you don't understand them.

Ive been doing a little more follow up on the signature/ handwriting issue. Ive managed to get a sample of Lady Butlers hand ( no thanks to anyone connected to the museum who didn't even bother responding to my enquiries ).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is it feasible that Jenkins took his bible ( sent of to him therefore not annotated ) along to show Lady Butler and asked to to fill in the details?

Cheers

Springbok
No, I don't think that's a possibility as the timing won't allow for it.
However, I suggest you look at the distinct letter 'k' in 'shock' and 'think' in her letter and then the same 'k' on the Jenkins sketch.  It is the same.  It is utterly different to the 'k' on the bible.
Ergo, Butler, who wrote the above letter, did annotate the Jenkins sketch.

Yes I believe your right. But some times its fun to poke your toe into the ants nest. Besides I needed to prove it to myself.

Yup, sometimes you have to go down roads in order to make sure they're cul-de-sacs in order to get back on the right road. But that's all right, because along the way you might learn something new you might not have come across if you'd never gone down there...if you follow my meaning.

What this small exercise did in actuality is prove that the writing on the sketch was indeed Lady Butler ( that doubt was expressed earlier in this debate ).


Regards

Yes it does. But do you really think that anyone else will take the slightest notice of it?

I just find it odd that only Jenkins name appears in the sketches. Not even a VC winner. Yet we know from Butler. She included all the VC winners. I also think that it would be impossible for anyone to claim to recognise a person in a painting, which only
shows a small section of a face to be a relation.

That evidence should be null and void.

There is nothing 'odd' about using David Jenkins as a model for the painting. Jenkins was in Gosport with 1/24th - easily available - when Lady Butler did her preliminary sketches. Defenders from B Company 2/24th were still overseas.

Thanks not what I referring to ? Jenkins may very well have been used as a model. Others were. But that doesn't mean he took part in the defence of RD.

I'm talking about recognising a person as a relative!

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

Over time anyone could have written Jenkins on that sketch. There is never going to be conclusive evidence that David Jenkins was at RD. He didn't help himself by sending a letter home, giving the impression he had escaped from Isandlwana. He never pushed the fact he was at RD apart from a few newspaper articals, but we have seen many of them in the past from those claiming to have been at RD based on stories past down through the regiments. David Jenkins was fortunate in that there was another Jenkins at RD.
We have two accounts that contradict each other in that one says he was unable to move, the other saying while making his escape he was dragged through a wall and killed. Another unfortunate is that there is no offical listings of Jenkings being at RD on any of the so called offical rolls, that Gentalman is fact. Those who base him there on Whybra's publication, are at liberty to do so. The Historical records remain the same. Jenkins can only be added to the "possibly was there" roll hanging in the museum. I have no intention of reading JW's publication because whatever is written, makes no differents. The Historical records show that David Jenkins did not take part in the defence of Rorkes drift.

PS I bet Mr Ree's does not have any photo's of David Jenkins as a younger man that shows him in army uniform. He only has the one of David in his older years.? How could he possibly identify a soldier in a painting as David Jenkins?

Impi
Regrettably the evidence you are using (and using inaccurately, as it happens) is way out of date and your reasoning (I say 'reasoning' out of politeness because it is not based on any evidence) will therefore be null and void to forum members.

Only some some members Julian. The J.W. Band Wagon! But you know, and I know it makes no difference what those members think. It's does not alter the fact, that David Jenkins cannot be added to the roll of defenders at RD. On your made up roll perhaps, but that's as far as it go's until you supply fracture evidence. So I suggest you and Mr Everett keeps searching and do things correctly. Show your evidence to the descending regiment, then show they have accepted David Jenkins on the roll of defenders. Don't just write was already been written, then expect the credit for doing so!

Everybody that counts have accepted, therefor,
and ergo..you dont!. surely you must see that..

Admin, can we not have an opinion. Or do we have to agreed with someone else's opinon?

Dave. My post was referring to personal attacks, not opinions!

impi

"fracture evidence" - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'fracture' evidence. Do you? Have you gone surgical on us?

When you write that I (and Martin Everett) should "do things correctly" and write "show your evidence to the descending [I think you mean descendant] regiment, then show they have accepted David Jenkins on the roll of defenders", I must ask you to elaborate on a number of points and answer four questions:

1. Where have you got "correctly" from? Or does "correctly" mean the way impi would have things done. You have no academic background so in fact you have absolutely no idea how things are done "correctly" or indeed "incorrectly". You are simply misleading other members (and deluding yourself). The Peter Ewart remarks quoted by ymob above describes admirably the way historical development proceeds. Perhaps this has changed...so can you enlighten us as to where exactly does it state that what you require is the "correct" way of doing things?

2. Who exactly in the regiment are we supposed to show evidence to? Explain please, be precise, and state their academic qualifications for being taken seriously as a validating authority?

3. You write "show they have accepted". Who are "they"? You write in the plural so presumably you must have someone persons in mind. Share this information please.

4. You write that Jenkins might then be added to "the roll of defenders". What roll are you referring to and where is it housed? Perhaps you are not aware that there is NO such roll, unless of course you have discovered same and are keeping it to yourself.

I'm sorry but you and I both know that you won't be able to provide answers to any of these questions because you simply have no idea in practical terms what you're talking about.

Read my previous posts. Sounds like your panicking!  

"You have no academic background so in fact you have absolutely no idea how things are done "correctly" or indeed "incorrectly"."

Does this refer just to Impi ? If it implies that to be able to carry out proper research one must have an "acedemic background" then i for one take offence .

Ah yes the world of academia. Those three years I spent in the 4th form were the happiest of my life.   

Cheers

The skool wot i went to was gud two .

'sniff' wicked 'sniff'

That's me out of the game too having had no formal education beyond the age of sixteen.

John Y.

Year more than me, I was in the Army at 15. AAS Chepstow.   

impi
Your response is simply a ploy to cover the fact that you are unable to answer the questions I asked. No-one is fooled.

Gary et al
I wrote:
"1. Where have you got "correctly" from? Or does "correctly" mean the way impi would have things done. You have no academic background so in fact you have absolutely no idea how things are done "correctly" or indeed "incorrectly"."
I was not saying that if one has no academic background, one cannot research or write about such things. Anyone who knows me, knows the greatest respect I have for John Young, et al who are modest enough to call themselves amateurs where it comes to research - though they tend to have developed investigative skills through other routes.
I was on the other hand saying that impi has no idea what 'correctly' means in terms of academic proof and why.