Kambula and Beada sergeants in Native Horse Dunbar laagering

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
London Daily Chronicle - Friday 13 February 1880

Why did Beada receive the DSM. anyone know?

Julian,

By Beada as in the newspaper - I take it you mean Troop Sergeant-Major Learda?

Troop Sergeant-Major Learda was awarded The Silver Medal for Distinguished Conduct in the Field  -  more commonly referred to as the Distinguished Conduct Medal - for his actions during the Battle of Khambula, Saturday, 29th March 1879.  Learda assisted Lieutenant E. S. Browne, 1st/24th Regiment attached to No. 1 Squadron, Mounted Infantry in rescuing Lieutenant-Colonel J. C. Russell, 12th (Prince of Wales’ Royal) Lancers.

Browne’s Victoria Cross citation reads as follows:
For his gallant conduct on the 29th March 1879 when the Mounted Infantry were being driven in by the enemy at Inhlobana [sic should read Khambula] in galloping back and twice assisting on his horse (under heavy fire and within a few yards of the enemy) one of the mounted, who must otherwise have fallen into the enemy’s hands.

Troop Sergeant-Major Learda’s submission for the D.C.M. was dated 18th September 1879.  Erroneously, the late Terry Sole records that Troop Sergeant-Major Learda’s award relates to the reconnaissance of 3rd July 1879, in his detailed work For God, Queen & Colony.

By-the-way the DSM, as you have it, the Distinguished Service Medal was formerly only awarded to non-commissioned ranks of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, between 1914 and 1993.

JY

Yup of course, a simple printing mistake. Beada for Learda.

Thanks John. Just wondering perhaps this :-
"Erroneously, the late Terry Sole records that Troop Sergeant-Major Learda’s award relates to the reconnaissance of 3rd July 1879, in his detailed work For God, Queen & Colony."

could have been put forward like this without mentioning Terry's work

"Erroneously, some publications show that Troop Sergeant-Major Learda’s award relates to the reconnaissance of 3rd July 1879,which is not the case."

Kate

Kate,

No I don’t think so, if subsequent researchers, including myself, rely on Terry’s work - who I assisted by the way - is not better that they were aware that it is a mistaken conclusion.  Hence my comment draws attention to the error, rather than have it perpetuated.

If someone were to make an erroneous comment about a certain Captain of the 14th (King’s) Hussars in any past, current or future publication, would you not feel the need to address the matter?

Is not better to address matters that way?  Or would you rather have published Zulu War authors misdirect their readership with what becomes accepted as fact?

I, for one, accept criticisms and pencil them in to my publications for future reference, or potential republication.  That Terry Sole, or any other Zulu War author for that matter, has passed does exclude them from criticism?  Are we to be precluded from challenging the texts of Coupland, Morris, Furneaux and alike who have gone before?

Just my thoughts.

JY

Standing on the shoulders of giants can sometimes be painful for the giant but it doesn't mean that s/he is no longer a giant.

Morning John
Fair points you put forward but ones that I feel I have to disagree with.
I won't reply in too much depth as I don't want this to go off topic.

I agree myths and incorrect facts should not be perpetuated, but its how we attempt to challange or change them that matters.

So, using the above example, if someone was seriously researching Troop Sergeant-Major Learda using the same sources  that you have used above (perhaps even reading this thread) they too would discover the truth  and realise that Sole was wrong.
If they then produced a publication about him they could put forward the true facts with supporting footnotes without specifically mentioning Sole's errors.
The end result would be the same. The true facts would be out there.

As you have mentioned Mr G., if someone came across new information about Alan I would be over the moon. If they published it in their own work or contacted me privately either by pm or e-mail I would correct my notes accordingly.
However I would have to question their motives if they named me and then 'Rifle and Spear with the Zulu' in a publication, open forum or social media when putting forward this new material because what they are  effectively saying is
"Kate is wrong and I am right" What is achieved by doing this?

All publications contain errors, (mine included) sometimes because of printing/publishing issues, or new information coming to light after publication or author error.
But to name individual authors on an open forum or in a publication when correcting such errors is not, in my opinion, the right (or nice) way of doing it.

And it is not a practice used in academic circles. If you look at the works of some of the big names in this field such as Professor John Laband or Ian Knight, they produce their many fine works without naming/correcting individual authors.

Anyway back to Kambula and Learda
Kate

Kate,

I am so glad that as a non-academic that I am not constrained by such niceties.

JY

Try reading the works of John Terraine, John Pollock, Anne Applebaum, Robin Neillands, David Reynolds, Ranulph Fiennes, Gordon Corrigan, Robinson & Gallagher, etc., etc.