Coghill and Melvill issue

free1954 wrote:

Pascal MAHE wrote:

By taking the flag, they just wanted to save their skins with an excuse to go and put the flag away from the Zulus

how can you presume sir to know the hearts and minds of men who fought and died years before your grandfathers were born.
perhaps sir you shouldn't judge all warriors by French standards

the point i was trying to make regarding the saving of the colours is....is it not true that the colours are to be unfolded and used on a battlefield as a rallying point for men in the confusion of battle and when things are not going well....( some one on here with far more knowledge then my self may correct me..and as a newbi to this site i must admit that there are many who have grear knowledge of this battle)...

You Should not judge all warriors by French standards???  free1954 ,you are not american /  for nothing, you !  The French have never suffered a colonial disaster in the XIX century!

You do not know the depths of the human soul! :DSee, that the general who replaced LC stated on some of the fighters on the 22/23 January 1879

With your reasoning, why not by American standards? , I can safely say that if the 24 th was an American regiment of this time, there were 58.57% of survivors ( only for the 24 th to Isandhlwana ,not to mention other body of troops in this battle) , as on the Little Big Horn

Yes lamplight52 it's true That the colors are to be unfolded and was used as a battlefield for men rallying points in the confusion of battle and when to things are not going well ... But it is certainly not what Coghill and Melvill have wanted to do!   

Bonjour,
En fait, je suis d'accord avec Pascal à ce sujet.

This is good Gary and this is often reciprocal of what you write in general on this forum ... free1954 knows nothing about the history of France, luckily for him he did not spit on my Brittany ...

Pascal MAHE wrote:

This is good Gary and this is often reciprocal of what you write in general on this forum ... free1954 knows nothing about the history of France, luckily for him he did not spit on my Brittany ...

perhaps I should have said modern French standards. and I meant no insult to anyone. only that the men of that time lived by different standard of honor than today.
and you sir I think you only say the things you do on this forum to try to get under someones skin and cause trouble.
looks like you succeeded with me.

Pascal, j'ai été surpris de me trouver d'accord avec vous. peut-être que je suis malade?   

free 1954 , yes he does and he knows he does . he has done it to me , hence his remark when i said i agreed with him on this (rare) occasion .

The fact he signs Pascal the rascal should tell you something .......  

But not reassure you, there are many who are, but they are struggling to admit  

The fact that I sign Pascal the  , means that with me, you need to read between the lines  

It was the thought of some, back in 1879.

"I am sorry that both of these officers were not killed with their men at Isandlwana instead of where they were. I don't like the idea of officers escaping on horseback when their men on foot are killed. Heroes have been made of men like Melvill and Coghill, who, taking advantage of their having horses, bolted from the scene of the action to save their lives, it is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their lives by bolting or of those who, shut up in buildings at Rorke's Drift, could not bolt, and fought like rats for their lives which they could not otherwise save"

I do not like the idea of escaping officers on horseback When Their men on foot are killed.

Yes me too, these guys were the opposite of Durnford, they simply dishonored ...

Unfortunately, if they had survived and if they brought a flag, they were entitled to their weight in VC! It would have been a shame more in this war.

Pascal MAHE wrote:

I do not like the idea of escaping officers on horseback When Their men on foot are killed.

Yes me too, these guys were the opposite of Durnford, they simply dishonored ...

Unfortunately, if they had survived and if they brought a flag, they were entitled to their weight in VC! It would have been a shame more in this war.

god forbid that i would seek or want these vcs rescinded...of course its not what this is about...it just seems very wrong indeed that so much criticism should be thrown at durnford..when here was a guy who give up his horse, tried to rally his men, and died on the battlefield.

Yes durnford..this hero was a guy who give up his horse, tried to rally his men, and died on the battlefield.

Coghill and Melville would have done the same  

NotFree1954:D  Perhaps I Should Have said modern standard French    Modern French standards, but under what circumstances   Where and when

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Yes durnford..this hero was a guy who give up his horse, tried to rally his men, and died on the battlefield.

Coghill and Melville would have done the same  

yes i agree...melvill and coghill would of done the same...er if there had been there instead of having had to swim that awful:D water to the natal side of the bank..many miles away from the battle.. 

Pascal

Coghill had nothing to do with the colours leaving the field, he met Melvil whilst on the run.



Cheers

DrummerBoy 16 wrote:

Pascal

Coghill had nothing to do with the colours leaving the field, he met Melvil whilst on the run.



Cheers

yes...0n a time scale...would be interesting to know..who left the battlefield at what time..or at what stage of the battle.

lamplight52 It is precisely because they have not wanted to make especially as Durnford, they favorite dipping, it seemed to them less risky ... 

Ah yes that's right DrummerBoy 16 I forgot, Coghill has not even the excuse of the flag  

DrummerBoy 16 wrote:

Pascal

Coghill had nothing to do with the colours leaving the field, he met Melvil whilst on the run.

Cheers

You got that right!!!!

And I have this one:"Coghill has not even the excuse of the flag "

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Ah yes that's right DrummerBoy 16 I forgot, Coghill has not even the excuse of the flag   

could some one remind me about the contemporary reports on who was seen first..coghill or melvill

A private of the 24th i think was riding with Melvil when Coghill rode up and reported to Melvil and Col. Pulleine had
been shot.

DrummerBoy 16 wrote:

A private of the 24th i think was riding with Melvil when Coghill rode up and reported to Melvil and Col. Pulleine had
been shot.

i was under the impression that coghill was seen ahead of melvi....did i not read somewhere that dorion-smith seen them both.

Higginson, Wilson, Smith-Dorrien, Bickley all saw them at diffrent times leaving the field.



Cheers

Coghill told Curling, Pulliene had been shot. And yes Coghill reached the river first. That's why he went back into to the river to help Melvill. he left before Melvill.

What we need to remember is Coghill wasnt actually in charge of any troops , from memory he was a staff officer who had no command , he also had badly wrenched his knee and was incapacitated to the effect he couldnt walk , thats why he wasnt with LC , he was rested back at the camp . I for one cant blame him for going , he wasnt able to function at 100 % and to stay would've been foolish , discretion is the better part of valour ! , I'm sure some of you have probably heard it over the years . Coghill could've left Melvill and the colours, BUT, he decided to go back and help him . If he was lacking in intestinal fortitude as Pascal seems to keep implying , he wouldnt have gone back to help ! .
90th

90th wrote:

What we need to remember is Coghill wasnt actually in charge of any troops , from memory he was a staff officer who had no command , he also had badly wrenched his knee and was incapacitated to the effect he couldn't walk , thats why he wasn't with LC , he was rested back at the camp . I for one cant blame him for going , he wasn't able to function at 100 % and to stay would've been foolish , discretion is the better part of valour ! , I'm sure some of you have probably heard it over the years . Coghill could've left Melvill and the colours,  BUT,  he decided to go back and help him . If he was lacking in intestinal fortitude as Pascal seems to keep implying , he wouldnt have gone back to help ! .
90th

i take the points you are making in defence of coghill, and there are good ones....i do not know how badly his knee was injured
however it did not stop him from riding those miles over tough terrain to the river!...as an officer staff officer or not..he was in a influential and respected position, and with that comes some responsibilities when called upon...when all said and done i cannot blame him for leaving battlefield...but i do and will question his awarding of his vc!..however once awarded it cannot and in my humble opinion never be rescinded...the history of the vc in 1879 was still a young award..that coupled with the class system,and old school boy network and the influence that brings all contributed in coghill and melvill being awarded such a high honour...but there were braver men and officers who died that day on the battlefields of isandlwana. durnford being one of them.

Coghill was a staff officer Have you Had No command, big deal, as the officer he was to remain among the poor soldiers of the 24 th.


He aussi HAD His badly wrenched knee and was incapacitated to the effect he couldn't walk, big deal, he was on horseback, and there certainly have been poor most severely wounded soldiers from 24 th, who fought.


Discretion is the better hand of valor! Melvill and Coghill could've left the colors, purpose, he Decided to go back and help him, he wouldnt Have gone back to help Melvill! Big deal, the circumstances were not the same and finally, all of Isandhlwana died for lack of discretion.

Pascal .
Coghill DID NOT HAVE TO REMAIN on the field , as I said if he was the coward you seem to be making him out to be , he wouldnt have bothered going back into the water to put himself into danger again , when attempting to save the spent Melvill . He could only ride NOT WALk or RUN . His knee was obviously badly injured as he was supposed to be out with LC but was ordered to stay and rest in the camp . Pascal you have your own thoughts on this matter , obviously , but dont try and force your thoughts down other peoples throats ! .  
Lamplight .
Coghill was badly injured , if it was ok he would've been out with LC. Melvill & Coghill didnt get their VC's , till , from memory 1905 or 1907 , as there were no Posthumous awards till this time , I think m ore so 1907 than 1905 .
Cheers 90th.

Marsupial

I would never force anyone to think like me in some areas, since I do not care to be alone in thinking this or this, I'm just saying what I think and they are a necessarily who agree with me, , but it shall look at that themselves  

Loose or not? The question is not, I just compare the different reactions of different officers.

There are those who the hell out and others who remains on site.


This is normal, if Coghill wanted to help Melvill the circumstances are pushed because he saw in danger close to him !

but in my opinion, he and Melvill, should have remained on the battlefield as some officers, simply because they were officers ,even if they had no command of troops, they would still have found soldiers, ready to obey ...

Cheers

PTR

Pascal

How do you know that Melvil wasn't ordered to save the colours by Pulliene ?

Both men within miniutes risked their lives to save the other, Coghill going back under heavy fire to try and
help Melvil, and Melvil for assisting Coghill up the hill and not leaving him so he could escape.



Cheers

How Do You Know That Was not Melvil ordered to save the colors by Pulliene? And you know of course  

Pascal MAHE wrote:

How Do You Know That Was not Melvil ordered to save the colors by Pulliene? And you know of course  

why save the colours !....why did melvill not unfold the colours so the men could rally too...apparently the colours were never uncased..i think going back into the water to help a fellow officer is difficulties is not in itself an act of such bravery that merited a vc..i do not think that coghill was a coward!..or indeed melvill....it may well of been on his mind that there would be an awful lot of awkward questions going to be asked if he did not!...regarding durnford...his bravery is can not be questioned,...being an officer..staff officer or not..was then a privileged position...and with it goes responsibilities whether he has command of troops or not...going back into the water to give assistance to a fellow officer surely is not going beyond the call of duty...being fired upon in a battle is something a soldier surely expects!..i am not will not call either of them cowards that a very emotive strong word to use...how do we know how ourselves would of performed reacted under such stress...but i do question them being awarded the v.c....but as i've said in previous quotes...it had as much to do with the times, class,and old school network

I do not know about the bravery of these officers or whether it warranted a VC. But it is a long held tradition in the British Army that the colours must be saved. This is an extract from the Regimental Handbook of the Duke of Lancaster"s Regiment.

"The Colours embody the spirit of the Regiment. They symbolise service to Queen and Country and depict the
principal honours and distinctions earned by our predecessors. The Colours are consecrated before they are handed
over to the safe keeping of the Regiment and for that reason they must always be treated with the greatest
respect and accorded the highest honours.
Colours have been carried by the Regiment since its formation in 1680 and originally had a tactical purpose as the
Regiment's rallying point in battle when soldiers fought in close formation. Defence of the Colours was of the
utmost importance and the selected officers and NCOs who formed the Colour Party occupied a post of the greatest
honour and danger. At Waterloo it is recorded that ‘14 sergeants and officers in proportion’ fell while guarding
the Colours of the 40th Foot, which were shot almost to pieces, and at Inkerman both Colour Ensigns of the
63rd were killed. The last occasion when the Colours were carried in action by the Regiment was at the Battle
of Ahmad Khel in Afghanistan, 1880, where the 59th fought in traditional close order to defeat charging
waves of fanatical tribesmen and twenty picked men were detailed to defend the Colours."

Yes they are a rallying point but above all they must be saved. At Isandlhwana they would undoubtedly have been lost if not for this action.

Just remember all the fuss whenever France lost one of its Eagles !

Steve

rusteze wrote:

I do not know about the bravery of these officers or whether it warranted a VC. But it is a long held tradition in the British Army that the colours must be saved. This is an extract from the Regimental Handbook of the Duke of Lancaster"s Regiment.

"The Colours embody the spirit of the Regiment. They symbolise service to Queen and Country and depict the
principal honours and distinctions earned by our predecessors. The Colours are consecrated before they are handed
over to the safe keeping of the Regiment and for that reason they must always be treated with the greatest
respect and accorded the highest honours.
Colours have been carried by the Regiment since its formation in 1680 and originally had a tactical purpose as the
Regiment's rallying point in battle when soldiers fought in close formation. Defence of the Colours was of the
utmost importance and the selected officers and NCOs who formed the Colour Party occupied a post of the greatest
honour and danger. At Waterloo it is recorded that ‘14 sergeants and officers in proportion’ fell while guarding
the Colours of the 40th Foot, which were shot almost to pieces, and at Inkerman both Colour Ensigns of the
63rd were killed. The last occasion when the Colours were carried in action by the Regiment was at the Battle
of Ahmad Khel in Afghanistan, 1880, where the 59th fought in traditional close order to defeat charging
waves of fanatical tribesmen and twenty picked men were detailed to defend the Colours."



Yes they are a rallying point but above all they must be saved. At Isandlhwana they would undoubtedly have been lost if not for this action.

Just remember all the fuss whenever France lost one of its Eagles !

Steve

not sure the zulu would of giving a flying f... about the flag...at isandlwana there were never unfolded..no rallying point for men...but i do take your point and understand it...

In any way, we do not care, the reputation of  Coghill and Melvill is made but who ordered Melvill, "to take the flag and leave the battlefield"?

Just remember all the fuss whenever will France lost one of icts Eagles!
??

Who cares because the Bonaparte was never considered legitimate rulers of France, except by chauvinistic and ignorant ... So the Eagles are only Napoleonic /Bonapartist flags ...

Cheers

PTR

Alez les Grognards !!! Vive l'Empereur !!!

Congratulations rusteze, you write French well, only one spelling mistake, there are two "l" to "Allez".

I'm really cursed, I'm still may have fallen on a Bonapartist Anglo-Saxon  

Merci Pascal. Votre Anglais et beaucoup mieux de mon Francais. J'habite Farnborough, le dernier lieu de repos de Napoleon III, Eugenie et Louis. Votre famille preferee.

Steve

How awful pity stops that, it makes me like a necklace of garlic on a vampire or a necklace of saucisson on a Muslim ... Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

Pascal MAHE wrote:

NotFree1954:D  Perhaps I Should Have said modern standard French    Modern French standards, but under what circumstances   Where and when

I only meant how can a person who was raised when and where you were presume to know the minds of 19th century Englishmen. men who were raised with DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY. instilled in them.
I was raised to believe that these were brave men who died with their face to the enemy and their rifles in hand and nothing you can say will change that.
and I meant no insult to you.
unless of course you're looking to pick a fight with me.

Any way the reputation of Melvill and Coghill is made ​​and it is not great ..."I am sorry that both of these officers were not killed with their men at Isandlwana instead of where they were. I don't like the idea of officers escaping on horseback when their men on foot are killed. Heroes have been made of men like Melvill and Coghill, who, taking advantage of their having horses, bolted from the scene of the action to save their lives, it is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their lives by bolting or of those who, shut up in buildings at Rorke's Drift, could not bolt, and fought like rats for their lives which they could not otherwise save"

This is saying, right?

Cheers

PTR

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Any way the reputation of Melvill and Coghill is made ​​and it is not great ..."I am sorry that both of these officers were not killed with their men at Isandlwana instead of where they were. I don't like the idea of officers escaping on horseback when their men on foot are killed. Heroes have been made of men like Melvill and Coghill, who, taking advantage of their having horses, bolted from the scene of the action to save their lives, it is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their lives by bolting or of those who, shut up in buildings at Rorke's Drift, could not bolt, and fought like rats for their lives which they could not otherwise save"

This is saying, right?

Cheers

PTR

i still feel there is a question mark regarding coghill entering the water to give assistance to melvil...it seems melvill had almost reached the natal side of the river bank when he was unhorsed...operantly being unhorsed as he was attempting to leave the river...which if true...then coghill would not have had to go that far back into the water....does anybody have any thoughts on this.

there must be eyewitnesses !

Cheers

PTR

Pascal MAHE wrote:

there must be eyewitnesses !

Cheers

PTR

well the eye witness accounts i have read..seem to confirm that melvill was unhorsed as he was trying to scramble up the natal side of the river bank...which if correct..would surely mean coghill would not of had to go that far back into the water to give him assistance..

Hi all,

Just an observation but it has been mentioned several times on this thread that Melvill didn't have far to go back to 'rescue' Coghill.

This may be so but I think a point more relevant is that of the pursuing zulus who were only 25 yards away. For me it's not the fact that Melvill was quite close to Coghill, it's the fact that the zulus were so close to them and yet he still went back - or more importantly, put himself in further danger of being killed by doing so. There is 'going back' and then there's 'staying put' to help. It would of been much easier and safer for Melvill to continue his escape, instead he voluntarily subjected himself to zulu gunfire to remain behind.

If you had the choice to continue on, away from people taking shots at you OR go back a 'smal'l distance and put yourself in the direct line of fire for 'X' amount of time... What would you do.


As for the V.C or no V.C - I have splinters on my arse  



Neil

Coghill, obvisouly did act in a courageous manner, but going to the assistance of another officer.

Question? 

Would the same have applied, if it was two Soldiers of a lower rank. Would we think they deserved the VC. Or are we just being negitive based on the fact that Coghill and Melvill were both officers, who should have remained on the battlefield to give guildence to the men.