Isandlwana Drummer Boy's (Mentioned by)

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on the grounds that he is not of military age: and if he will state whether, if Moran cannot be discharged, he will be withdrawn from military service and placed at other necessary work until he attains the age of 19.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!!