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

Posts : 3362 Join date : 2009-03-03 Location : Devon

Hi Springbok

Quote :: I dont know if you would agree but it seems that there are only mentions when there is cause, ie your man was wounded so the form specifically asks for the place it occured.

Very good question.

Now look at Sgt. Edward Wilson's Service Record. We see Rorkes Drift written on the front but it is the only mention in this Service record.

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

HI Graves
Sgnt Edward Wilson was 1/24th in fact in charge of the Escort party. The RD written on the top, in pencil, looks as though it would have been added much later, possibly by a researcher.
But this one is stranger in that Im sure Edward Wilson was commended for his actions, and that by Chard. If so it should have been recorded more formally. Comes back to my thoughts on the 1/24th not being recorded. A confirmation would be Roy, he was the only 1/24th to get a medal. Do you think you can locate his records. Ive been struggling.

Cheers

Posts : 3362 Join date : 2009-03-03 Location : Devon

Hi Springbok

Quote :: A confirmation would be Roy, he was the only 1/24th to get a medal. Do you think you can locate his records.

Your command Sir

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

Salute

Thanks Graves, as always pretty damn good. agree

That really does confirm that the only mentions made are due to special circumstances.
Roys record at times reads in a similar vein to Jenkins, AWOL, Desertion, drunkenness and of course the obligatry 'Social Disease'.

Another theory quashed. :p;: :p;:

Cheers Mate

Posts : 3362 Join date : 2009-03-03 Location : Devon

Hi All

Just to tie up a loose end. This is what is written on Robert Tongue's Record of Service down the side.

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

As you can see it states "Chest 35 Vacination Marks None"

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

No Mention of Rorke's Drift.

Vacation = Vacination?

agree

Posts : 3362 Join date : 2009-03-03 Location : Devon

Quote :: Vacation = Vacination?

OOPS !!! :p;:

impi wrote:: Sprinkbok. Your making a fool of yourself.. : Service papers man, look at the service papers..

Hummmmm? Probably the right thing to say now would be : 'The yoke is on you! Salute

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Not really. Roys papers confirm his presence at Rorke Drift along with Roll calls.

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:56 pm

Some great detective work done by 1879graves (perhaps you should re-title yourself Poirot). :p;:

So there we have it, proof that not all RD defenders had this action listed on their paperwork unless there were 'special circumstances'.

It is all falling into place now.

David Jenkins (295), is ordered to the rear (RD), with the escort party. They are at RD when the battle of iSandlwana is being fought. The reserve zulu's decide to wipe out RD, and during the battle David Jenkins warns Chard about a zulu bullet heading his way, the zulu's keep attacking but cannot overcome the defences and decide to retire. During the battle the other Jenkins (James 841), is incapacitated in the hospital and is killed in there. Afterwards, Chard is given the wrong number for David Jenkins, he lists him as 1083 instead of 295 (most likely given this wrong number by Sgt Wilson), as 1083 W Jenkins was KIA at iSandlwana.

Earlier researchers have then looked at Chards roll and noticed the two Pte Jenkins on the list, but have assumed that he must have been mistaken because 1083 Jenkins was KIA at iSandlwana, and have then assumed that there was only one Pte Jenkins at RD, and that he was Pte Jenkins 841 who was killed in the hospital, and have therefor dismissed the idea that David Jenkins 295 was at RD.

In later years, other and more thoruogh researchers have delved more deeply into this, and as a result have found that David Jenkins 295 was indeed at RD, but due to an error made in the numbers, he has been thought of by many as not being there.

David Jenkins was always on the Chard roll, it was his number that was wrong, and now, thanks to good researchers like Kris and Julian, this error can at long last be corrected.

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Yawn!!!!!!!!!

Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-06-01

Hi all, been following this and many other discussions for several days now, fascinating stuff; I have learned so much already.

Just a few observations from what I have learned already.

Roy and the rest of the prisoner escort party are included on Chard's original RD roll, along with 2 Jenkins'.

On Clery's roll, which was taken several days after the 22nd and by his own admission, liable to be inaccurate, he has the exact same 2 Jenkins' as appear on the RD roll by Chard. Obviously, these 2 guys couldn't have been in both places at once, so Clery is most likekly to be the one who is mistaken.

A few years later, Lt Moore? (the adjutant of the SWB) in 1881, or later, subsequently listed the names of the men in the prisoner escort party in the regimental ledger. This man was part of the 24th Warks during the Zulu campaign.
Surely, as regimental adjutant, Lt Moore must have made one or two enquiries during the years between 22/1/1879 and when he made his entry into the ledger. He would have spoken to the RD defenders and others who were there.
Surely, this entry is the regiment's attempt to latterly update and correct the errors of Chard and Clery and put the record straight? What possible motive could the adjutant, Lt Moore, of the 24th have had, for entering false names and information?
If he has entered the names of the men at RD, who were in the prisoner escort party, he must have been pretty sure that they were there, from conversations with the soldiers who were at RD etc.Maybe he even took statements?
I guess we will never know for 100% certainty in a few cases, if men were at RD or not.
In the case of David Jenkins, due to Adjutant Moore's updating of the facts in July 1881 or later, possibly after some enquiries by Moore were made, with due care and time on his side, not in a rush to get a list of names out, as Clery had to in the immediate aftermath, we have to accept that David Jenkins was with Roy and the rest of the escort party, either at RD or at PMB, or in the "rear" somewhere.
We either accept that David Jenkins was at RD with the prisoner party and include him in the RD roll with the other party members, of which he was a part, or we have to remove the names of ALL the men in the prisoner party from the Rorkes Drift list.
I am not sure either way, but it surely has to be all the prisoner party out, or all the prisoner party in.
An obvious line of research for a pro historian would be to dig out the Adjt, Lt Moore's papers. He MUST have known more than we do! He was able to speak to the men who'd have been there! Maybe he even wrote down the details of those conversations somewhere and we have yet to discover them.
If I had to come off the fence, I would go with an officer of the Queen, who was there at the time and trust Lt Moore's word and competency to accurately keep up the regimental ledger.
D Jenkins, Roy, the prisoner party escort were according to Moore, present at RD. That is good enough for me.
None of us were there. Moore was.
And surely, he would have known.

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:22 pm

Hello kopie and welcome aboard.

Yes, you are correct, the escort men including David Jenkins were at RD.

If you read my previous post (bottom of previous page), you will hopefully understand how the error regarding David Jenkins arose, it was a simple case of Chard listing the wrong number on his roll.

Enjoy the site and join in anytime.

Cheers.

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Quote :: An obvious line of research for a pro historian would be to dig out the Adjt, Lt Moore's papers.

Kopie, welcome to the forum, and thanks for bringing the topic back to normality!

Martin have you been in your time machine, again bringing back another one of your what if's :p;:

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

I can't believe that no one at RD took the names of the soldiers ASAP after the battle. To see who survived. And those soldiers were more than capable of stating their names and numbers.

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:24 pm

24th.

I wish that I had a time machine mate, I would go back in time and live in the Britain that was once the envy of the world.

It's not a what if, look at the evidence, it is all there, a mistake with a mans number has led many to believe that David Jenkins was not at RD, but who else could the other Jenkins on Chard's roll have been?

Last edited by littlehand on Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted the whole investigation below. It fairly apparent how mistakes were made.

The Roll of Rorke’s Drift Defenders
The Sources Investigated
Norman Holme.

"     The defenders of Rorke’s Drift were comparatively few in number, and, furthermore, the garrison mainly consisted of soldiers belonging to one company of a particular regiment. On the basis of these facts, the accurate identification of the individual men present during the action on 22nd/23rd January, 1879 would appear to be a relatively simple task; however, such is not the case.
     In order to establish the basis of this investigation it is necessary to refer to my initial researches, the results of which appeared in published form in 1971. The work had been undertaken throughout the period 1964-1971 and was based on the then known rolls of Rorke’s Drift defenders attributed to Lieutenant Chard and Colour Sergeant Bourne respectively. It was considered that the two documents represented the only authoritative sources of information, despite the fact that the lists failed to agree in a number of instances. In addition to the inaccuracies contained in both rolls, the fact that two such lists existed represented an anomaly. Neither roll was considered as being totally accurate, and in view of the conflicting information contained in each, a complete investigation was undertaken in respect of the men belonging to the 24th Regiment who were named in both rolls. Various documentary sources were again utilised in this work, which resulted in several names being amended and others removed from the rolls. The information obtained as a result of this evaluation represented a combination of the original lists by Chard and Bourne.
     The original rolls of Rorke’s Drift defenders were accepted with reservation in respect of a number of factors. I did not, for example, consider that Lieutenant Chard had personally undertaken the compilation of the roll bearing his name; however, the fact that he had apparently signed the document tended to impart a degree of authority. The roll is dated ‘3rd February, 1879’ and although this date may not be correct, it may be assumed that the document was compiled prior to the award of decorations for gallantry since the roll does not contain notes of these instances. The general acceptance of the origin and authenticity of this roll is clearly not without justification, and had there been no other source of comparison, the then contents would doubtless never have been disputed. A most important point relates to the fact that a large copy of the roll is mounted in a frame and displayed in the Regimental Museum of the 24th Foot. I was, of course, fully aware of this as a result of my visits to the Museum, and I had examined the document on several occasions. A facsimile of the roll was reproduced in The South Wales Borderers, 24th Foot, 1689-1937 by C.T. Atkinson (published in 1937), to which I had permanent access. Having verified that the reproduction exactly equated with the roll in the Regimental Museum, it then became a matter of convenience to utilise the facsimile for the purpose of research. I considered it somewhat unusual for Atkinson to have included the roll in his book without making reference to it within the text of the work, Historical Records of the 24th Regiment by Paton, Glennie and Penn Symons (published in 1892) which contains a list of casualties at Isandlwana, yet Chard’s roll of defenders of Rorke’s Drift is neither included nor is it mentioned. It was impossible to account for the omission of the important roll, particularly in view of the fact that it had been in existence since 1879, and presumably would have been available to the authors of the book.

     Similar problems exist in respect of the roll compiled by Frank Bourne. This document is dated ‘4th July 1910’ and contains a footnote to the effect: ‘By Special Request, and in order to preserve a record of those who took part in the Defence, this Roll was prepared by Major F. Bourne (Late Colour Sergeant ‘B’ Company) from the Regimental Pay List for January, 1879, kindly placed at his disposal by the Public Record Office’. As the former senior non-commissioned officer of ‘B’ Company, Bourne was eminently qualified to compile such a roll as he must necessarily have known many of the soldiers on a personal basis. In view of this knowledge, I considered it unusual that he had not been called upon to provide information, at least in respect of his own company, for inclusion in Chard’s roll. It is evident that Bourne cannot have been consulted in this matter, otherwise he would surely not have undertaken to compile a second list of defenders as this would have represented a contradiction to information previously submitted by himself. Bourne’s knowledge of at least some of his men is confirmed by his reference to 1524 Private Joseph Bromwich as ‘Bromatch’, which was undoubtedly the pronunciation used by the man himself when giving his name, as is verified by his service papers. Similarly, Bourne was aware when others were not, that 922 Private George Edwards had enlisted under an alias, his true name being Orchard. After a lapse of so many years it was thought unreasonable to assume that Bourne would have remembered each and every man belonging to ‘B’ Company. The pay list, which should have encompassed several months prior to January, 1879, could only have provided him with slight assistance when preparing the roll. Bourne’s list of defenders is far less comprehensive than that attributed to Chard, and this was thought to have been a contributing factor which caused Atkinson to include the latter roll in his book. Obviously the roll compiled by Bourne could not have been included in 'Historical Records of the 24th Regiment' since this publication pre-dated the roll by some eighteen years. It proved impossible to determine the source of the ‘Special Request’ which prompted Bourne to prepare his list, and it was conjectured that the request may have been made as the result of dissatisfaction with the accuracy of the Chard roll.

     On completion of my initial research, the above anomalies represented little more than a series of interesting problems. I made only a brief mention of these factors in my previous work, since any elaboration would have posed a number of questions for which I was unable to provide satisfactory answers. Having resolved to undertake further investigations regarding these matters, I commenced by endeavouring to establish the whereabouts of Chard’s original roll. Preliminary investigations involved a re-examination of the Chard roll contained ion the Regimental Museum. It was clearly necessary to establish the date on which the document had come into the possession of the Museum, and also the original source from which the roll had been acquired. The Regimental Accession Books, kindly placed at my disposal by Major Egerton, eventually yielded the following information in respect of the year 1935: ‘Roll of all ranks, in manuscript, who were at Rorke’s Drift (original and duplicate), from Mrs. Cantwell, 1935’. The hitherto unheard of duplicate of the roll was permanently displayed in the Officers Mess, and was obtained from there on my behalf. On examination, the roll proved to be an exact duplicate of the one exhibited in the Museum, and it was understandably due to this fact that the copy was seldom referred to. The wooden frame in which the duplicate roll was contained bore a silver plaque on which was inscribed ‘Presented by Mrs. Cantwell, widow of Bombardier Cantwell, R.A. - 1935’. The fact that the document had been presented during that year, although no precise month was indicated, offered two possible solutions as to why C.T. Atkinson had included the roll in his book but failed to refer to it in the text. At the time in question the work must have been nearing completion and it would have been difficult for Atkinson to have inserted retrospective comments appropriate to the roll. Appropriately, being aware of the source of the roll, Atkinson may well have decided to refrain from attempting an explanation of the matter. Having formulated two possible solutions in respect of this problem, I was then confronted with the question of Cantwell being involved in the matter.

     It is an undeniable fact that Bombardier (Wheeler) John Cantwell, R.A., was present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift, since he was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal in respect of the action. He was given as ‘Wounded’ in Chard’s roll, but there is no evidence to support this statement.

     John Cantwell was born at St. James’s, Dublin, and was, by trade, a servant. He enlisted in the 9th Foot on 6th November, 1868 at the age of twenty-three years six months. Cantwell transferred to the Royal Artillery on 1st April, 1872, joining N Battery, 5th Brigade, R.A., on 1st July 1877. Having served for a time at St. Helena, he arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on 9th January 1878 and subsequently took part in the advance into Zululand. Promoted to the rank of Bombardier Wheeler on 29th July, 1878, he reverted to the rank of Gunner on 21st January 1879, and was discharged at Woolwich on 19th July, 1889 as being ‘Medically unfit for further service’. His intended place of residence was 8 Loop Street, Pietermaritzburg, Natal, South Africa.

     The Rorke’s Drift roll of defenders, apparently authenticated by Lieutenant Chard and correctly addressed to Colonel Glyn, was regarded by many to be an official document. The discovery that Cantwell, or, to be more accurate, his widow, Caroline Margaret Cantwell, had been instrumental in providing the Regimental Museum with a copy of the roll, posed an extremely difficult problem. I resolved, however, to pursue the matter and began by attempting to establish the whereabouts of Chard’s original roll. Being in possession of copies of all the official correspondence relating to the Zulu War, I was fully aware that no written request had been made for the submission of a list of those present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift. Logic dictated that the Public Record Office was the obvious depository for such a document, and accordingly I engaged three professional researchers, each working independently, to undertake the necessary work on my behalf. After a lengthy interval of time, I was assured that the roll was not to be found within the Public Record Office. Having established this fact, a further series of investigations were carried out at the former Colonial Office, the Regimental Museum of the Royal Engineers, the War Office Library, the National Army Museum and the Royal Archives, but without success. A copy of the roll of Defenders of Rorke’s Drift was finally located in the British Museum Library, but this transpired to be Bourne’s Roll, a fact which I considered to be of some significance; nothing was known of Chard’s roll. Lieutenant-Colonel W.W.M. Chard and the late Mrs. D. Phillips, who possessed living memories of J.R.M. Chard, kindly responded to my request and searched through the papers formerly belonging to their forebear. There was neither trace nor mention of the Rorke’s Drift roll.

     As a result of these protracted investigations, it was plainly evident that Chard’s roll was totally unknown, and in consequence of this fact, I again scrutinised the roll contained in the Regimental Museum. After some time, I was eventually able to formulate a number of conclusions regarding this document. To my untrained eye, the manuscript appeared to consist of two distinctive styles of handwriting. With three notable exceptions, the names of the garrison seemed to have been written in a conventional hand. A more ornate method of writing was employed in the heading and sub-headings of the roll and also in respect of the names of ‘Lieutenant J.R.M. Chard (In Command)’, ‘Lieutenant Bromhead (Com’d B Comp) and ‘Bomb. J. Cantwell’. These three names, and no others, were made more distinctive by being underlined. In addition, it was also noted that the seventh name of the roll referred to ‘Private Robson', R.E., who was Chard’s batman. In his letter to Queen Victoria, Chard mentions Robson on two occasions, in both instances referring to him as ‘Driver’. If Chard had, in fact, signed the roll, it is strange that he had not amended Robson’s rank to that of Driver, or more conventionally Sapper, since the title had been in use from the time of the Crimean War. A number of documents which are known to have been written by Chard reveal that the rank of Sapper was correctly applied in all instances.

     It had become increasingly evident to me that the roll and duplicate copy in the possession of the Regimental Museum represented the only examples of Chard’s original list of Rorke’s Drift defenders. The number and significance of the various anomalies associated with the document had engendered my suspicions regarding not only the source, but also the authenticity of the roll. In view of the documents having originated from the Cantwell family, it became a matter of necessity to confirm whether or not Lieutenant Chard had approved and signed the roll. Mr. Derek Davis, a Forensic Handwriting Expert, generously agreed to undertake an analysis of the roll in conjunction with a comparison of various samples of handwriting. An authenticated sample of Chard’s handwriting, which included his signature, together with a photocopy of the Rorke’s Drift roll, were submitted for examination. I considered the possibility that Lieutenant Bromhead may have been responsible for compiling the roll, and, accordingly, an authenticated sample of his handwriting was also submitted. In view of my previous comments regarding Colour Sergeant Bourne, I did not consider it necessary to include an example of his writing. I did not, unfortunately, possess an authenticated sample of Bombardier Cantwell’s handwriting. Precise information and specific instructions regarding the work were submitted as follows:

‘Written instructions to examine photostat copies of historical documents relating to the defence of Rorke’s Drift. To compare the handwriting on these documents and offer opinions as to authorship’.

In due course, Mr. Davis produced a comprehensive report in which he stated

‘The handwriting in each document was examined and notes made of the personal handwriting habits, tendencies and formations found. Examination of all notes allowed opinions to be formed as to specific authorship of the documents. In my considered opinion, one person wrote the whole of the Roll, including the headings and the signature of Lieutenant Chard. This includes the names which visually appear to be a different writing. The only clue that I can offer as to the production of the roll is that it is possible that a man from the 2/24th Regiment produced it - due to the use of first names in that regiment. The only name that shows as carefully written is that of Private Michael Kiley, although this may be coincidence. The numbers of the men are mentioned in the 1st and 2nd/24th Regiment but omitted from others’.

     As a result of the conclusions contained in the report, it is obvious that Lieutenant Chard did not sign the document, neither did Lieutenant Bromhead contribute to any part of the roll. My attention was then given to the right-hand portion of the document which contains a return enumerating the strength and composition of the garrison, together with notes referring to those killed, wounded and died of wounds. This information, with the figures slightly amended, was reproduced in Lieutenant Chard’s dispatch dated 12th February, 1879, which was correctly addressed to ‘Colonel Glyn, C.B.’ It was evident that this was the only part of the roll of defenders which had been transmitted to higher authority. Assuming that Chard had ordered that the information be obtained for inclusion in his dispatch, then the person undertaking the task would presumably have first compiled a list of names sub-divided into regiments and corps, etc. It would then have become a comparatively simple matter to extract the required information which could then be presented in numerical form. The evidence for this is contained in the fact that each name appearing in the roll is numbered sequentially from ‘1’ to ‘141’, which represents the figure given as the total strength of the garrison. It is a matter of conjecture as to the identity of the man who actually compiled the roll of Rorke’s Drift defenders. Whoever this person was, he for some unknown reason provided Cantwell with a high degree of prominence in the roll, perhaps in the knowledge that once having been used for its intended purpose, the document then became no longer of use. It is equally impossible to determine the sources from which the roll was compiled; as previously stated, Colour Sergeant Bourne was obviously not consulted in respect of men belonging to B Company. It is my personal opinion that the degree of authority attributed to ‘Lieutenant Chard’s’ roll of Rorke’s Drift defenders is not substantiated by the evidence, as described in the foregoing.

     The list of defenders compiled by Major Bourne was totally unrelated to the ‘Chard’ roll and therefore represented an independent means of verifying a portion of the information contained in the latter document. I considered the individuals named in both rolls as having been present at the action; however, the numerous instances of names appearing in one roll but not in the other constituted a number of anomalies. During the course of my investigations a fortunate coincidence revealed the whereabouts of Mrs. Mary. F. Whitby, youngest daughter of Lieutenant-Colonel Frank Bourne, formerly Colour Sergeant of ‘B’ Company 2/24th Regiment. Major Egerton kindly provided me with the necessary assistance in communicating with Mrs. Whitby, and as a result I was able to obtain from her a considerable amount of valuable and hitherto unknown information.

     The most important single aspect of this information concerned the fact that Frank Bourne had amended his personal copy of the roll previously compiled by himself, these amendments having been undertaken after the publication of Atkinson’s book containing the ‘Chard’ roll. An examination of the amended roll revealed that the work was in Bourne’s own handwriting, as confirmed by his daughter, and that each name had been examined and duly marked. In addition, Bourne had added most but not all the names previously omitted from his original roll, and his failure to include certain individuals from the ‘Chard’ roll disclosed his obvious lack of agreement regarding their presence at the action.

     Of equal significance was the fact that Bourne had not deleted one single name from his original roll, and there are indications that, in part, this may well have been justified. For example, the ‘Chard’ roll fails to include 1005 Private John Smith who was undeniably present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift as he was slightly wounded in the battle, a fact which is confirmed by his service papers. In view of the amendments undertaken by Bourne, I considered that there now existed a closer relationship between his amended roll and the ‘Chard’ roll, and this provided a far greater degree of confirmation in respect of the majority of individuals named in both documents. I was obviously aware that the names contained in Bourne’s amended roll, together with those which he had not included from the ‘Chard’ roll of defenders, represented ‘B’ Company as being above average company strength. At least four men, and there may well have been others belonging to ‘B’ Company, were killed at Isandlwana. Two men who served in ‘B’ Company at the defence of Rorke’s Drift had items of equipment lost, and in one case later recovered at Isandlwana. It is not unusual to discover items of field service equipment at one camp whilst the owners of the material were elsewhere, and this may indicate that the men concerned were by chance present at Rorke’s Drift at the time of the Zulu attack. Inter-company transfers were not at all uncommon and at the time in question ‘B’ Company appears to have been a somewhat fragmented unit. It is possible that this may have been the principal factor which contributed to the omissions and errors contained in Bourne’s original roll. The importance of the amendments undertaken by Lieutenant-Colonel Bourne is contained in the fact that the ‘Chard’ roll had finally been examined by a known and extremely well qualified authority.

During the final stage of the investigation, I learned of the existence of yet another roll of Rorke’s Drift
defenders. F.W. David Jackson, author of ‘Isandlwana, 1879: the sources re-examined', (Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 1965), kindly informed me that a roll, signed by Major Dunbar, had appeared in The Natal Colonist for 15th January, 1880. Having obtained a photostat of the newspaper, I discovered that the roll had been specially prepared in connection with the ‘Presentation of an Address by the Mayor of Durban’, a copy of which had been presented to each individual soldier. This roll of defenders was clearly based on the ‘Chard’ roll and I concluded that the unknown compiler of the ‘Chard’ roll was possibly present with the battalion, or, alternatively, he had provided the information for Dunbar. Major Dunbar, who was then commanding the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, had signed the list of defenders which related exclusively to the survivors of ‘B’ Company. No mention was made of men belonging to the 1st Battalion 24th Regiment and those men who had served in other regiments and corps, both Imperial and Colonial, were similarly excluded. The honour conferred upon the garrison by the people of Durban was somewhat unfairly reserved for members of ‘B’ Company.

     After assessing the four rolls of defenders and taking into consideration not only their contents but also the evidence regarding the source of each document, I saw no reason to amend my former evaluation of those present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift. This evaluation was based on a provisional acceptance of all the names appearing in the various rolls, research then being undertaken in each individual case. Very few soldiers’ papers refer specifically to the defence of Rorke’s Drift and therefore alternative documentary sources were consulted. These included the relevant pay and credits (muster) rolls, medal, casualty and effects rolls, together with reports, official and otherwise, and various documents and narratives relating to the battle. The results of this work indicated that a number of individuals named in one or more of the original rolls were not present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift and in consequence their names were excluded from my roll. In certain instances, where entries in service papers were obviously confused, there must remain an element of doubt as to whether or not the individual was present at the action, and notes appropriate to these cases have been included in this work. The following details relate to those soldiers who, as a result of my own researches, are considered as not having been present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift.

      2-24/981 Private Charles Bromwich, ‘B’ Company, 2/24th Foot. Charles Bromwich was born at St. Nicholas’s, Warwick, and was by trade a labourer. He served in the 2nd Warwickshire Militia (No. 3926) from 11th October, 1858 until attesting for the 24th Regiment at Plymouth on 22nd March, 1859; he was then aged 18 years. Bromwich re-engaged at Preston on 20th August, 1869 and subsequently served at Mauritius, the East Indies and South Africa, arriving there on 10th March, 1878. The pay roll for the period 1st October, 1878 - 31st March, 1879 clearly states that he was sent ‘To the General Depot at Pietermaritzburg on 31st October, 1878’. His pay, via the Service Companies of the 24th Regiment, ceased with effect from this date and there is no record of him returning to his company during the period concerned. Bromwich was sent to Cape Town and subsequently transferred to the 91st Highlanders (595) on 30th November, 1879. On 19th May 1880 he was attached to the Royal Welch Fusiliers (58B/2739) for the purpose of discharge. Charles Bromwich was discharged from the army on 9th June 1880, his intended place of residence being given as 12, Brook Street, Warwick. 981 Private Charles Bromwich is named in the ‘Chard’ roll as having been present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift; his name also appears in Dunbar’s list, but, this is hardly surprising as the list was based on the ‘Chard’ roll. Bourne omits 981 Charles Bromwich from his roll, but names 1524 Private Joseph Bromwich as being present at the action. In the light of the evidence provided by the pay roll, this would seem to be correct.

     1402 Private W. Buck, 2420 Private P. Caine and 1060 Private T. Williams, all of whom served in ‘B’ Company, were sent to the General Depot at Pietermaritzburg on 31/10/1878. Their pay, via the Service Companies of the 24th Regiment, ceased with effect from this date and there is no record of them returning to their company during the period concerned. These men are named in Bourne’s original roll, but do not appear in the ‘Chard’ roll, and in consequence, neither are they given in Dunbar’s list. 1374 Private J. Williams appears in Bourne’s original roll as serving in ‘B’ Company at the defence of Rorke’s Drift. The pay roll confirms that this man was sentenced to 112 days imprisonment, being confined on 1/10/1878, tried on 9/10/1878, and sent to prison on 13/10/1878. He was transferred to the General Depot prison on 1/11/1878 and released on 1/1/1879, shortly after which he deserted from the regiment. He could not, therefore, have been present at the action on 22nd January, 1879. 1083 Private Watkin Jenkins (1st Battalion) is given in the ‘Chard’ roll as a survivor of the action at Rorke’s Drift. This man was frequently mis-named as ‘Matthew Jenkins’ and Bourne, in his rolls, lists him as ‘M. Jenkins - killed in action’. He was in fact killed at Isandlwana and not Rorke’s Drift and it would appear that Bourne has confused him with 841 Private James Jenkins, who was killed at the latter battle. It is not unreasonable to assume that had the ‘Chard’ roll been correct, then 1083 Jenkins would have been included in Dunbar’s list, which he was not. 25B/953 Private Frederick Evans (Mounted Infantry), ‘H’ Company. At the time of my original research it proved impossible to identify this individual, who was one of ten soldiers named Evans then serving in the 2nd Battalion. He is named in the ‘Chard’ roll and also in Bourne’s amended roll but no mention is made of his service number or the initial of his first name. Fortunately the list signed by Major Dunbar includes a ‘Frederick Evans’ and it therefore became possible to establish the correct identity of this man. Evans is mentioned in a number of statements written by men present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift. Corporal Lyons and Private Waters refer to him, and a letter by Private Hitch (page 136 The Red Soldier by Frank Emery) contains the following: “The first news I had of what had happened at Isandlwana was when one of the mounted infantry, named Evans, came galloping up to the mission house, and said that a part of the camp across the river had been destroyed by the Zulus, that two guns had been taken as well as all the ammunition, and that the enemy were advancing in force to attack Rorke’s Drift’’. Evans himself, in a letter written in Welsh to his wife, then living at Tonypandy, South Wales, mentions that he ‘was at Rorke’s Drift’ but does not elaborate further on the action. It is unusual that a soldier who had not only survived the annihilation of his comrades at Isandlwana, but had also ridden to warn the garrison at Rorke’s Drift and then remained to assist in the defence, should make so brief a mention of his experiences. In his letter to Queen Victoria, Lieutenant Chard states, ‘A letter describing what had happened (at Isandlwana) had been sent by Bromhead, by two men of the Mounted Infantry, who had arrived fugitives from Isandlwana, to the Officer Commanding at Helpmakaar.’ Chard continues, ‘Several fugitives from the Camp arrived, and tried to impress upon us the madness of an attempt to defend the place. They proved the truth of their belief in what they said, by leaving us to our fate, and in the state of mind they were in, I think our little garrison was as well without them. As far as I know, but one of the fugitives remained with us - Lieutenant Adendorff whom I have before mentioned.’ Despite the fact that Evans was one of the men who carried the news of Isandlwana to Rorke’s Drift, as confirmed by the three eye-witnesses, there is no mention whatsoever of his participation in the defence, and in view of Lieutenant Chard’s comments, I consider that there is insufficient evidence to support the inclusion of Evans in the Rorke’s Drift roll of defenders. The fact that Evans received a copy of the Address from the Mayor of Durban does not, in any way, prove his presence at the battle.

     The evidence in respect of the four varying rolls of Rorke’s Drift defenders obviously cannot be regarded as being complete, and consequently a number of important questions must necessarily remain unanswered. In the final analysis, the identification of those present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift can only be achieved by the means employed in this work, that is by utilising the original rolls together with additional documentary sources. The results of such a comparison make it possible to determine the majority of the individual soldiers who were present, or likely to have been present at the action, and it is only in a very few instances that an element of doubt must continue to exist.

Editor's note

The Society has received a number of letters from members and non-members alike requesting information about relatives who 'fought at Rorke's Drift'. In the majority of cases we discover that the name of the relative is unrecorded or that he served elsewhere. It is evident that there are a number of families who genuinely believe they were represented at Rorke's Drift, contrary to any evidence. We can only presume that some soldiers rather naturally embellished their role in the war while others enlisted, for whatever reason, under false names."

Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-06-01

24th wrote:: I can't believe that no one at RD took the names of the soldiers ASAP after the battle. To see who survived. And those soldiers were more than capable of stating their names and numbers.

Me too, agree with that to an extent. In the film Zulu, Sargent Bourne (I think) or possibly Bromhead or Chard?? takes a register. Obviously, checking the names of the men in his company to see who was there and who hadn't survived.
The men who were not members of his company, he must have had to find out who they were somehow and this might be where the mistakes would creep in
However, films and reality of war probably aren't the same thing.
In the immediate aftermath of the battle, the soldiers, officers etc probably had more pressing duties to attend to than take a register. Important to do the roll call, but do you think it would have been on top of Bourne's or Chard's "to do" list?
Or would they have done the roll call hours or even days later?
Norman Holme's passage that littlehand has written up seems to say clearly that the rolls were not accurate and inevitably contain ommissions/inclusions and other mistakes so it is easy to see how men with the same name could get mixed up.
The fact that the exact same 2 Jenkinses (Name and number) on Chard's roll and Clery's for Isandhlwana are on both rolls prove that mistakes/inclusions/ommissions were made.
Did Lt Moore lresearch and correct these mistakes after the regiment returned home? If he did so, as he noted in the regimental diary or ledger whatever it is, his notes, statements and conclusions - if he actually wrote them down - may still exist somewhere, perhaps even in the museum where this ledger was recently found.
Cheers.

Posts : 225 Join date : 2011-09-19

Hi everyone

It is the understanding in the Museum that Norman Holme when conducting his research, was unaware of the 1/24th ledger (for the reasons previously given).

Bill

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Bill, this ledger, who complied it! And what date

Posts : 588 Join date : 2013-05-07 Location : Brecon

There is no ‘official’ roll for the defenders of Rorke’s Drift. Official = caste in stone, or signed by a General. Let me explain:

Norman Holme was a medal collector and researcher passionately interested in the exploits of the 24th Regiment and started publishing medal rolls for the Regiment in the 1960s with the help of medal expert John Hayward of Spinks. Of course, today every collector would wish to have a defender’s medal. The list of defenders names has become important to collectors and enthusiasts of the AZW. But who owns it??

The same is true of those present at Waterloo and took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade, and those who fought with Admiral Nelson on HMS Victory. Norman undertook this research in the days before computers and when little data was able outside of established archives. He laboriously cross-checked the entries on the campaign medal roll with the pay & muster rolls which had survived. Many inconsistences were found in the spelling of names (first and surnames) and regimental numbers. He set about compiling as much information as he could about the defenders of RD and those killed at Isandlwana. His efforts were published in 'The Silver Wreath' and updated in 'The Noble 24th'.

You also have to remember that on 22 January 1879 the 24th Regiment lost 596 men – remember we are today morning the loss of one soldier at Woolwich – the impact in 1879 was tremendous only on the families and the country as a whole – but the 1/24th had lost a significant part of its command and administrative structure. In those days without computers, typewriters and photocopiers errors in recording information were inevitable and lack of information often prevailed.

From the rolls for the South Africa 1877-79 campaign medal, these were soldiers named ‘Jenkins’ who served with 24th Regiment (1st and 2nd Battalions) in South Africa (1805 Pte G Jenkins H Company 1/24th who did not serve in the AZW has been added for completeness):

25B/295, Pte. JENKINS, David, 1/24, Clasp 1877-8-9
1805, Pte. JENKINS, G, 1/24, St Helena detachment 1876-77 Not shown on Medal Roll – Not entitled?
25B/841, Pte. JENKINS, James Edmund, 1/24, Clasp 1879 Killed Rorke’s Drift
25B/2139, Pte. JENKINS, Rees, 1/24, Clasp 1879 Draft 1/3/1879 from 1-23/858 Number incorrectly on Medal Roll as 25B/139
1-24/1083, Pte. JENKINS, Watkin, 1/24, Clasp 1879 Killed Isandlwana 22/1/1879
1-24/1767, Pte. JENKINS, William, 1/24, Clasp 1879 Killed Isandlwana 22/1/1879
25B/1135, Pte. JENKINS, William, 2/24, Clasp 1877-8-9 Killed Isandlwana 22/1/1879
(The clasps for 841, 1083 and 1767 above are probably incorrect and should be 1877-8-9 but we cannot change that now)

After the battle, a roll of the defenders at Rorke’s Drift was produced – dated 3 February 1879 – signed by Lt Chard. Nobody has found this original hand-written roll. However, army clerks made copies. One copy was published in the Times of Natal dated 10 February 1879 along with the Chard report (that dated 25 January 1879). Chelmsford sent another copy of the Chard report, with Major Spalding’s report, with the RD roll to the War Office. The Chard report with Chelmsford’s covering letter was subsequently published in the London Gazette dated 15 March 1879 (page 2203 onwards) – but no RD roll was published (only a summary). (The same London Gazette contains an initial casualty list for Isandlwana – pages 2208 onwards). The Chard report (again without the Roll), with Chelmsford’s covering and Major Spalding’s report is now lodged at the National Archives – ref WO32/7710.

If we go to the earliest published roll (The Times of Natal 10 February 1879) there are 11 soldiers listed 1/24th as being present at RD on 22/23 January

56 Sergeant Edward Wilson
625 Private Edward Nicholls (killed)
1083 Private Jenkins
1861 Private W Horrigan (killed)
568 Private Desmond
372 Pte Paton
104 Pte Turner
449 Private Waters
841 Private Jenkins (killed)
129 Private R Bekett (wounded since died)
1542 Pte R Roy

It is interesting that of the 11 entries above at least 4 entries have errors – either name or number - which suggests that these entries were added to complete the list to those of 2/24th which are largely accurate. Also at least 6 of the soldiers were part of a detail from G Company 1/24th.

The ‘Cantwell’ roll appeared on the scene in 1930s and was probably produced (or initially drafted from old Natal newspaper reports) as a souvenir in South Africa for the 50th anniversary celebrations of AZW in 1929 as the names closely follow those listed in The Times of Natal dated 10 February 1879. The Cantwell roll was reproduced without comment in the 1937 History of the South Wales Borderers by C T Atkinson. This is roll that Norman Holme worked on.

The only London produced RD roll that has currently been found has been in the brochure published by the Fine Arts Society for the exhibition of Alphonse de Neuville’s painting in 1880 (2 copies of this brochure are held by Regimental Museum in Brecon). This lists for 1/24th:

Sergt E Wilson; Privates E Nicholls (killed), Jenkins, W Horrigan (killed), Desmond, Paton, Turner, Waters (wounded), Jenkins (killed), Baskett (wounded since dead), and R Roy.

Both these rolls point to the fact that there were TWO soldiers from the 1/24th named ‘Jenkins’ present at RD on 22/23 January. 841 Pte J E Jenkins (G Company) was killed at RD. We know that 1083 Pte W Jenkins was killed Isandlwana. Norman Holme deleted the second Jenkins – but failed to locate 25B/295 Pte D Jenkins (also part of G Company detail) as an option.

The entry for Pte D Jenkins in the Battalion Record of Service (or regimental digest or diary) of 1/24th (Museum reference r1950.41) which confirms him being at Rorke’s Drift. (Norman Holme never saw this Battalion Record of Service so was unable to resolve the 1083 Jenkins query). The RD bible with its bookplate with Pte David Jenkins’s name and correct number has to reinforce his presence at Mission Station. The layout of bookplate inside the bible is consistent with those inside four other RD bibles held by the museum. (Remember the bibles were issued to the defenders not just those in B Company 2/24th). The leather cover is embossed in gold ‘Rorke’s Drift’. These are difficult to replicate.

The final comment is that David Jenkins was a local Brecon lad. He knew the Lewis family (also from Brecon) – Bombardier Thomas Lewis was at RD (he mentions Thomas at RD in his letter home). Thomas Lewis’s sister Margaret married CSgt George Chambers 1/24th (killed at Isandlwana) – hence the letter home about the disaster and losses at Isandlwana. I said previously it was great tragedy and some of the soldiers never recovered from their experiences; some did not speak about it. There is no doubt that David Jenkins suffered all the tumours of 22/23 January at RD as did others. As he died in 1912, he would have never seen the Cantwell roll nor perhaps even the earlier the Times of Natal list.

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 61 Location : UK

Impi, that's covered in David's post.

What I can't get to grips with, is we're these names came from, as the records of the 1st/24th we're destroyed at Isandlwana.

The roll calls relating to Rorkes drift have been re-written on various occasions.

We have a few accounts of Jenkins being mentioned by other defenders, but none stated David Jenkins.
David is not on any of the rolls. I also believe that a copy of Cantwell's roll was given to every defender that was present.
We could all adopt a theory on how David Jenkins became to be at RD, but it will only ever be theory.

As Norman Holme points out!
"The Society has received a number of letters from members and non-members alike requesting information about relatives who 'fought at Rorke's Drift'. In the majority of cases we discover that the name of the relative is unrecorded or that he served elsewhere. It is evident that there are a number of families who genuinely believe they were represented at Rorke's Drift, contrary to any evidence"

"

Quote :: Major Dunbar, who was then commanding the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, had signed the list of defenders which related exclusively to the survivors of ‘B’ Company. No mention was made of men belonging to the 1st Battalion 24th Regiment and those men who had served in other regiments and corps, both Imperial and Colonial, were similarly excluded. The honour conferred upon the garrison by the people of Durban was somewhat unfairly reserved for members of ‘B’ Company."

I wonder if Dunbar's list was the list issued to the ladies of Durban, regrading the bibles that were issued.

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:28 am

Great post Kenny.

Excellent work, and very well explained.

agree

Posts : 588 Join date : 2013-05-07 Location : Brecon

I thought I would add some more - to bring a more serious note to the forum.......

The content of soldiers’ letters home from AZW is an entirely different thread – perhaps should be explored in depth by members of AZWRS. Letters home seem to have become the staple diet of modern authors.

I watched an excellent programme on BBC2 TV on Friday about the ‘Common People’ in Elizabethan times. You have place yourself in the mind-set of the ‘common’ soldier in the field in 1879. In a truly ‘alien’ country with funny place names (with no roadside signage) – and they did not see the travel briefing video before left UK. The private soldier did not have a map nor did he have sight of any orders. Certainly, no modern luxuries like mobile phones, GPS and newspapers. And he had left school at age 12 with the basics of reading and writing. Some soldiers could not even write their own name.

Meanwhile, you are being shouted at by the sergeants – marching large distances (PMB to Helpmekaar) and constantly road making for the bloody General’s large supply wagons. And often you did not have the luxury of a tent to sleep in a night. Have you have experienced one of KZN sudden rainstorms?

When the greatest disaster in your life occurs on 22 January when 596 of your mates are butchered on the battlefield – you are absolutely devastated. You wish to write home to tell your family and love ones that you are safe. Isandlwana is hot news at home – as I said compare this only one soldier killed in May 2013 at Woolwich – you must find a piece of paper. You are not too good with words - perhaps you get a comrade or the company clerk who has paid more attention at school to make a draft for you. All you have to do it top and tail the clerk’s words. So the messages in letters home have to be taken with ‘a pinch of salt’ as a record of what the soldier actually experienced and where he actually located on 22 January 1879.

Furthermore, when the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment (most were out with Chelmsford on 22 January) were stationed at RD for 6 weeks after the famous defence, many soldiers found time to write home – again they headed their letters ‘From Rorke’s Drift’ and again told or re-told to their families about the catastrophic events in Zululand of 22/23 January 1879. Families were naturally relieved that their loved one had survived and were proud that he had taken part in one of the most dramatic events in military history – therefore many years later when that soldier passes away – the local newspaper reports death of a Rorke’s Drift defender. But he was not there on 22/23 January – however his family remembered him as a hero.

Today anyone can easily search the net and find these newspaper reports – I have found another ‘RD Hero’. There is measured professional research and just inexpert manipulation. Remember the following when you compose your next post on this forum, these men went through hardship in South Africa and many of them never recovered from their experiences. And of course 596 died on 22/23 January (plus 23 soldiers of the 24th buried at RD and near abouts). We shall always remember them.

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Quote :: Sherman said.
"We could speculate that the 'prisoners' were not in fact Zulus, but British soldiers who may have been on a local charge....given the known military records of both Desmond and Jenkins, perhaps they were....the prisoners"

You add ROY to this as well. Going by his record.

Posts : 225 Join date : 2011-09-19

Impi

With regard to your questions about the "ledger" - these has already been covered in this thread. Could I suggest you arrange to come to Brecon and I will show it to you.

Kenny has summarised the position excellently.

The position of the Museum is that Pte David Jenkins was PROBABLY there based on the available evidence. This is a view supported by many of the leading AZW researchers. On that basis, he is listed on the roll that appears on the Museum's web site. I do not believe that the doubters have produced sufficient evidence for us to change this viewpoint.

Bill

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

Bill,

Thank you for your clarification.

Regards,

'Jimu

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:54 pm

I should think it matters not if Desmond, Jenkins or Roy were indeed the prisoners being escorted 'to the rear', these men fought alongside their mates in the defence of RD and therefor deserve recognition for it. You should never judge a book by it's cover.

Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-06-01

Prisoners or not, when the Zulus appeared over the ridge, all would have chipped in the fighting and defence of Rorkes Drift.
This is portrayed in Zulu, when the malingerer in the hospital (and I know in reality this charcter was portryaed unfairly) becomes a hero.
Great post Kenny, makes it very clear. I am not sure why anoyone doubts the presence of David Jenkins or Roy, or any other member of the prisoner group was at RD.
2 questions (which may never be answered with any certainty)

1. Were they escorting Zulu prisoners, or were these men of the 1/24th the prisoners themselves?
2. If they actually were the prisoners, did they fight like the rest of the heroes, or were they safely chained up in a cell during the fighting?

Cheers

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

kopie,

Private Roy certainly fought he was awarded the DCM for the action.

As to cell(s) where do suggest they might have been?

Regards,

'Jimu

Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-06-01

OK, thanks very much for your reply kwajimu, learned something new again and you have answered one of my 2 questions.

So if Roy fought at Rorkes, so did David Jenkins and the rest of the prisoner party.

The DCM puts Roy of the prisoner escort at Rorkes Drift. The 2 oldest and most reliable rolls that Kenny mentioned indicate a second Jenkins was at Rorkes and was part of the 1/24 prisoner party - not the one who was sadly killed in the hospital.
The ledger - an official and contemporary document of the 24th Regiment - states clearly that this second Kenkins was "David Jenkins."
Not "Jenkins" but "David Jenkins."
Yesterday, I was 80% sure that David was at Rorkes and fought as a defender.
Today, I am 99%.
Great discussion, great forum!

Kopie
The fact that Sgnt Williams was mentioned for his bravery and died, Horrigan died, Waters died, Jenkins died, Becket died of his wounds really tells its tale that they fought pretty hard.
Regards

Posts : 947 Join date : 2011-10-21 Location : Algoa Bay

Hi jimu,

In answer to your questions as to where the cells would have been . Well to the rear, and in all liklehood to the garrison town of Ladysmith. I know that much time was spent escorting prisoners to that town as the infrasructure to inacarcerate , although primitive, was in place there at that time.

regards

barry

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

Barry,

Not actually my question, merely trying to tease out an answer from kopie, as he suggested it.

Don't forget Ladysmith wasn't a garrison town in 1879. The military were in a clutch of tents around the church at the time.

I would say the nearest army cells would have been at Fort Napier, PMB. I doubt the army would place squaddies in the NMP's lock-ups.

Regards,

'Jimu

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

Picking up on the Greaves' piece he writes:

Quote :: Pte David Jenkins was hardly ‘active’ and ‘fit’ – the poor fellow suffered from syphilis – which begs two supplementary questions; 1. What was he doing on the front line,

To my limited knowledge at least two other defenders were suffering from the same STD, and at least one of those was receiving Mercury treatment whilst at Rorke's Drift.

Does having a case of 'the clap' inhibit - in any way - a man from fighting? Any real doctors (of medicine that is) here who can enlighten me?

'Jimu

You wouldn't want to be sharing a bowle of soup, with someone who had it Shocked

Extract from: Disease and Illness Prevalent During the Anglo Zulu War of 1879 - Part 1
An initial overview of physical conditions and general medical problems

Adrian Greaves and Dr. Alan Spicer

"Civilisation and syphilization have gone hand in hand for five centuries, the disease having been imported into Spain by Columbus's sailors following their discovery of Haiti and the questionable sexual delights offered them by the island's generous women. The returning sailors carried the newly acquired syphilitic bacteria Treponema pallidum and, as heroes, were feted and bedded by a grateful nation. The bacteria immediately began boring into the bones and skulls of the population and syphilis rapidly spread across Europe to Britain. It had no regard for rank or title, royal houses spread it among their courtesans and the aristocracy while the military rapidly spread it both at home and abroad. Soldiers were indeed, syphilis's best friend. A soldier far from home, particularly one facing possible death from an assegai or typhus, rarely bothered about sexual convention and accepted syphilis as the 'merry disease'. There was an almost total acceptance of the effects of the disease with its raging headaches, swollen joints, wartlike lesions and mouthfuls of sores and ulcers. The disease then entered a latent stage in which no outward signs or symptoms occurred, but inflammatory changes took place in the internal organs. The latent stage could last 20 to 30 years. In 75 per cent of the cases, no further symptoms appeared. When the final stage of tertiary syphilis did occur, it produced hard nodules in the tissues under the skin, the mucous membranes, and the internal organs. The brain and skeletal structure were frequently affected, as well as the liver, kidney, and other visceral organs. Infection of the heart and major blood vessels accounted for most deaths.
During the period of the Zulu War, venereal disease turned out to be as large a threat as the enemy, directly or indirectly causing more soldiers to seek medical assistance than any other ailment, although most of the severe cases were recorded as 'fevers'. For the troops, there was little or no official sex education and curiously, even the word 'syphilis' was banned from British newspapers until 1920. In June 1879, of the 300 cases being treated at the Durban military hospital, most patients suffered from malaria, dysentery or venereal disease. September 1879's 'The Lancet' records that the latter had been 'landed from the troopships, the disease having been contracted previously to the men leaving England'.
"

Taking into account the hot climate, not a pleasant exprience.

"What are the symptoms in adults?
Primary Stage
The appearance of a single sore marks the first (primary) stage of syphilis symptoms, but there may be multiple sores. The sore appears at the location where syphilis entered the body. The sore is usually firm, round, and painless. Because the sore is painless, it can easily go unnoticed. The sore lasts 3 to 6 weeks and heals regardless of whether or not a person is treated. However, if the infected person does not receive adequate treatment the infection progresses to the secondary stage.
Secondary Stage

Examples of a secondary palmar rash (above) and a generalized body rash (below).

Skin rashes and/or sores in the mouth, vagina, or anus (also called mucous membrane lesions ) mark the secondary stage of symptoms. This stage usually starts with a rash on one or more areas of the body. Rashes associated with secondary syphilis can appear from the time when the primary sore is healing to several weeks after the sore has healed. The rash usually does not cause itching. This rash may appear as rough, red, or reddish brown spots both on the palms of the hands and/or the bottoms of the feet. However, this rash may look different on other parts of the body and can look like rashes caused by other diseases.
Large, raised, gray or white lesions may develop in warm, moist areas such as the mouth, underarm or groin region. Sometimes rashes associated with secondary syphilis are so faint that they are not noticed. Other symptoms of secondary syphilis include fever, swollen lymph glands, sore throat, patchy hair loss, headaches, weight loss, muscle aches, and fatigue. The symptoms of secondary syphilis will go away with or without treatment. Without appropriate treatment, the infection will progress to the latent and possibly late stages of disease.
Late and Latent Stages
The latent (hidden) stage of syphilis begins when primary and secondary symptoms disappear. Without treatment, the infected person can continue to have syphilis in their body even though there are no signs or symptoms. This latent stage can last for years.
About 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis develop late stage syphilis, which can appear 10–30 years after infection began. Symptoms of the late stage of syphilis include difficulty coordinating muscle movements, paralysis, numbness, gradual blindness, and dementia. In the late stages of syphilis, the disease damages the internal organs, including the brain, nerves, eyes, heart, blood vessels, liver, bones, and joints. This damage can result in death."

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

Littlehand,

Thanks for that, I'll decline the soup...

So nothing to stop a man from fighting for his life, or in the case of one syphilis sufferer receiving a medal for his Distinguished Conduct.

'Jimu

We don't know at was stage these men were at. I can't see it being an issue if they were at the "Late and Latent Stages"

I doubt If they would have been sent to the front anyway at the early stages of the illness. I no doctor, but I'm sure men breaking out in sores and ulcers probably would have been confined to hospital / Barracks .

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:54 am

No soup for me thank you Shocked

:p;:

'Jimu, I always thought that 'the clap' was Gonorrhea scratch

I can remember many years ago that if a bloke was unlucky enough to 'catch' more than one of these STD's, ie; a mixture of any of the following, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Crabs, Herpes, Hepatitis, or whatever, we used to say that the poor sod had caught a dose of 'Nap Hand', there was also another saying that some folk used, and I think that was 'The Dreaded Lurgy', but that might have been for something else.

No matter what these men may or may not have contracted, they did their bit and fought alongside their mates, and David Jenkins 295 was one of them.

Salute

Posts : 947 Join date : 2011-10-21 Location : Algoa Bay

Hi Jimu,
On the contrary, the NMP were paid a bounty of 2 Br pounds for every Imperial Trooper whom they arrested and who absconded, or who had committed a crime in the Colony. The Police cells were used to hold the miscreants until trial.

regards,
barry

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

It starting to look like we are going around in circles again, we have evidence to suggest he was there and documentation that doesn’t put him there. I am still of the opinion that David Jenkins should not have been added to the roll, in the way it was done. It was not the place of historians to put him on the roll.

As Mike Snook Rightly says and how it should have been done.

“Such matters would rest with the descendant regiment, on the basis of the best historical advice it can obtain. That would undoubtedly be channelled through Martin Everett Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!!!”

I would be more than happy to accept David Jenkins as being a Rorkes Drift if the Hi-lighted above was done. I cannot accept it based on what Meddling Historians think.

Barry
Open to correction but wasnt Fort Pine used as a detention Barracks?

Regards

Subject: Pte David Jenkins Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:13 pm

impi.

Pte Jenkins was ALWAYS on the Chard Roll, he's not been added to it by 'meddling hisorians'.

There are two Pte Jenkins on Chard's roll, one of them, Pte Jenkins 841, was debilitated in the hospital, he was killed there by the zulu's.

The other Pte Jenkins on Chard's roll was Pte David Jenkins 295, he was on the firing line with the others, it was David Jenkins that gave Chard the warning of a zulu about to shoot at him.

After the battle, Pte David Jenkins was listed on Chard's roll with the wrong number, he was shown with the number 1083 instead of 295.

It is impossible that it could have been Pte Jenkins 1083, because he was killed at iSandlwana earlier in the day.

Pte David Jenkins 295, was with the prisoner escort party, and all these men were at RD and are shown on the Chard roll, the problem came about through the mis-numbering of David Jenkins.

Read the posts, Martin Everett knows about all this and so does Bill Cainan, they accept that David Jenkins was indeed at RD.

Martin and Bill are the custodians of the regiment, they wouldn't just accept something as being fact if they did not think it was, I think that we can trust their judgement on this issue.

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

David Jenkins is not on the roll, if he was you would see his name and number. If a mistake has been made, then is should be corrected using the correct channels. Not by Historians who work in a museum.

One of Davids Points

Quote :: "The Chard Report merely states that Chard was given a warning by Pte. Jenkins of the 24th - but could Chard have been referring to Pte James Jenkins of the 24th? Pte. James Jenkins appears on the various nominal rolls as a defender at Rorke’s Drift - and he certainly participated in the battle because he was killed towards the end of the fighting".

Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-06-01

impi wrote:: It starting to look like we are going around in circles again, we have evidence to suggest he was there and documentation that doesn’t put him there. I am still of the opinion that David Jenkins should not have been added to the roll, in the way it was done. It was not the place of historians to put him on the roll.

As Mike Snook Rightly says and how it should have been done.

“Such matters would rest with the descendant regiment, on the basis of the best historical advice it can obtain. That would undoubtedly be channelled through Martin Everett Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!!!”

I would be more than happy to accept David Jenkins as being a Rorkes Drift if the Hi-lighted above was done. I cannot accept it based on what Meddling Historians think.

Hello impi. What you state in yellow, has this not already been done by the descendant regiment's museum?
I am sure Martin Everett, the ex-curator was an officer of the 24th's descendant regiment and he sanctioned the inclusion of David Jenkins. Correct me if I am wrong.
I do take your point however, that perhaps it should not be up to one man such as Major Everett.
This panel that Mike Snook proposes that Martin Everett should convene: who do you think should be invited on to it to decide?
It is an interesting idea. I would suggest Major Everett as chair, Bill Cainan, the current Colonel of the Royal Welsh or whoever the descendant regiment is today, the divisional commander i/c of the British Army in Wales. Who else could we suggest?

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Kopie.

Major Martin Everett retired as curator of the museum in March, a role he held since April 1998. He started as a part-time archivist at the museum in 1992 having served part-time in the Territorial Army for 36 years, the last 20 of which were with The Royal Regiment of Wales.

Someone of Col Mike Snook caliber would be more appropriate. And i can't accept the familey based David Jenkins presences on a bible and sketch.

David Paynes post has to many un-answered questions.

And whats really annoying, Mike Snook even advised them out to go about correcting record. They chose to ignore it. $Don\'t agree$

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

Barry,

Quote :: On the contrary, the NMP were paid a bounty of 2 Br pounds for every Imperial Trooper whom they arrested and who absconded, or who had committed a crime in the Colony. The Police cells were used to hold the miscreants until trial.

Thanks for that, but they would have been those soldiers who were absent without leave or deserters, and those who as you stated committed a crime in the Colony of Natal. Nothing has changed I was a military provost back in the 1970's and we used to pick up those who were found absent from the local police, as well as take them from civilian courts to military confinement to serve their time.

Mr M. Cooper,

I agree with you I just wonder why Adrian Greaves even mentioned his medical condition in his article, yet fails to mention others with the same complaint who we know were present at Rorke's Drift. Most odd!

impi,

What about Bill the current curator, I think you'll find he was a career soldier. What does it matter that Martin Everett's rank was a T.A. & V.R. commission, I can't see what trying to say there.

I'm missing something with your last sentence? Only it doesn't make sense to me.

Quote :: And was really annoying, Mike Snook even advised them out to go about correcting record. They chose to ignore it.

'Jimu

» Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
» PTE DAVID JENKINS vs Pte J edmund Jenkins
» No 295 David Jenkins