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

Kenny wrote:

Impi

You have to do real research to solve this - it is easy and requires no effort to comment on others postings.  Have you ever been to the National Archives and trawled through the regimental pay and muster rolls?  Be assured that DJ was at RD on 22/23 Jan 79 - you will have to wait for Julian's published research.

Thanks Kenny, but I have my own opinion. If your happy to accept David Jenkins presence at RD then I respect that along with all others who accept he was there. With that in mind is there really any point those members contributing further to this discussion.

And there really is no point going to the NA, as there is nothing there that's puts David Jenkins at RD.

Impi

Really 

DB.Please tell me "Really" isn't going to be your catch phase.

Dont go to Brecon..........Check
Dont go to NA................Check
Dont go to RE Museum ....Check
Dont go to NAM...............Check

Visit Wipepedia for info....Check
:p;:

Doubters

This whole thread was prompted by the very recent media reports of Geoff Rees claiming he had found evidence that his relative fought at RD.  This appeared to raise the 'feathers' of many serious AZW researchers and enthusiasts.  How dare someone steal our thunder without consulting us?  They used to call it 'sour grapes'.  Then almost everyone started responding by taking the point of view that DJ could not have been at RD; many ever quoting modern day sources which were often ill-researched. 

It was decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove that DJ was present at RD some 6 years ago long before Geoff Rees's findings were reported.

The aim of my recent post to Impi was to suggest we should take a positive view and try and prove that DJ as being at RD - and not starting for the point of assuming he was not there.  This means serious and hard research, much of it without the computer, perhaps uncovering fresh source documents which have not been known before.  It will be time consuming and painstaking work - we may not be successful - but it will be worth it for the memory of these soldiers who took part in a difficult campaign. It won't be easy; the search may take us all over the world.  But let us continue to find out more about the lives of these 'noble' soldiers and please do not let our own egos dominate the direction of this vital research.  Sermon over.

Good to see a sensible post again.

My main issue, it's the fact that a redication went ahead, the headstone showing the man to be a Rorkes Drift defender. There are doubts he was there and near impossible to prove, main reason being he just does not appear on the rolls.

DB when trying not to impress an Historian, made a good point, as to Chard going out of his way to obtain the name if the man who saved is life. But would he not have made sure that man was entered onto the roll correctly?

And we all know there is another possible 15 defenders that could be added to the roll. Well according to NAM. One of then could yet prove to be another Jenkins?

impi.

Do you really think that a re-dedication and a new headstone would have been arranged, without first doing some serious, and thorough checking up about David Jenkins?

The people at the museum, ie; Bill and Martin, would not be part of any sort of conspiracy along with Kris and Julian, to falsely claim that David Jenkins was at RD when he wasn't. Bill, Martin, Kris and Julian would not be party to such a thing, they are all trustworthy people. They must have gone through many documents, and also dealt with the powers that be in the regiment, before adding David's name to the roll. The regiment must have granted permission to have a re-dedication and headstone for David, and don't forget that even the army chaplain did the re-dedication for David.

They all must be convinced that David was at RD, and that he fought alongside his mates, also saving Chard's life in the process, and therefor deserves recognition for his bravery, and I am sure that David rightly deserves his place on the roll of honour.

If it was as clean cut as that, this discussion wouldn't be taking place, nor would Julian bother writing another publication on the subject. As I said before, the members who are happy to accept David Jenkins as being at RD. I see no point them contributing to this topic, unless they have some doubts themselves. So may I suggest you leave those who have a serious interest debate at will.

A very informative article  by Ian knight. It's good to see that he does't actually say David Jenkins wasn't at RD and it's doesn't say he was. But simply points out the pit falls when trying to research and indivual who wasn't add to the roll call at the appropriate time. 

For my part I hope Julian can provide new evidence that shows Pte David Jenkins as being one of the defenders. The main reason I have not contributed much to this discussion, is because the historians involved in this was he wasn't he debate, that being JW. DP. AG only posted counter arguments, no hostilities just a reasonable debate. It was the members who started the arguing, which dragged the historians into a situation where they thought certain suggestions were being made that could harm their credibility, not something you would want to happen after years of hard work. The Historians in question have all play an important part in the History of the Zulu War. So it was refreshing to see that Ian Knight included JW in his notes at the bottom of his article. I sure there is rivalry among them, but not to the extent they were pushed to relating to this particular discussion. 

There is a very good argument to show David Jenkins as being at RD, but there are doubts that say other wise. I'm sure Julian will take everything into consideration before publicising his information. I wish him all the best. As for David Payne and Adrian Greaves, i think the issues they posted do warrant an answer. 

Well that my feelings on the matter!

Adenorff we now know for a fact was at RD, but he was still missed of most the rolls 

I think people agree he was there but there is still some doubt. 

However if you have information based on fact, then please post in the ardendroff topic. I for one would be very interested in seeing this.

littlehand wrote:

A very informative article  by Ian knight. It's good to see that he does't actually say David Jenkins wasn't at RD and it's doesn't say he was. But simply points out the pit falls when trying to research and indivual who wasn't add to the roll call at the appropriate time. 

For my part I hope Julian can provide new evidence that shows Pte David Jenkins as being one of the defenders. The main reason I have not contributed much to this discussion, is because the historians involved in this was he wasn't he debate, that being JW. DP. AG only posted counter arguments, no hostilities just a reasonable debate. It was the members who started the arguing, which dragged the historians into a situation where they thought certain suggestions were being made that could harm their credibility, not something you would want to happen after years of hard work. The Historians in question have all play an important part in the History of the Zulu War. So it was refreshing to see that Ian Knight included JW in his notes at the bottom of his article. I sure there is rivalry among them, but not to the extent they were pushed to relating to this particular discussion. 

There is a very good argument to show David Jenkins as being at RD, but there are doubts that say other wise. I'm sure Julian will take everything into consideration before publicising his information. I wish him all the best. As for David Payne and Adrian Greaves, i think the issues they posted do warrant an answer. 

Well that my feelings on the matter!

Hi All,
I have been watching with mild interest, the forum debate on whether Pvt D Jenkins should be on the roll of Rorke's Drift defenders or not.
So, my interest was stimulated when finding  a 22 page booklet in private AZW papers, titled "Defence of Rorke's Drift , January 1879", published by the Natal  Mercury, probably in 1880.
On page 13, it lists the 141 'defenders' of RD. It also states whether they survived or were kia. I will not copy them all here,  but merely the detail of those of controversial interest;

11    1083 Pvt Jenkins
17      841 Pvt Jenkins     ( killed)
125          Pearse           ( doctors servant )
128          Pvt Ludlington ( Army Hospital Corp)
132          Tpr Hunter      ( NMP) *
133          Lt Adendorff    ( NNC)
141          Private           ( native, Umkungu's tribe ) ( killed ) 

This booklet contains  much of Chards reports etc, and I would assume these  names came off his roll  which I would consider to be the most authentic, suggesting anything else is naive , in the extreme. 

* kia at RD but not stated.

regards,

barry

KIA At Isandlwana. 1083 Pvt Jenkins I think?

I appreciate this is going to run and run, and some people keep referring to a roll by John Chard.

Julian has stated that this 'So-called Chard Roll' was produced by someone else, and anyone who has seen John Chard's signature can tell at a glance it isn't his own on that roll.  That isn't new Norman Holme went over this ground more than once.

So then I turned to source material contemporary to the period.  On Saturday 25th January 1879 at Rorke's Drift, John Chard composed his initial report of the action at Rorke's Drift.  Chard's report was subsequently published in 'The Supplement to The London Gazette' of 15th March 1879, as well as in a number of newspapers.  During the course of the report John Chard details actions of a number of the defenders and names a good number of them as well.

At the conclusion of his report he gives '...The following return shows the number present at Rorke's Drift, January 22nd, 1879:-
Staff, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, total 1.
Royal Artillery, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, 3 sick Non-Commissioned and Men, total 4.
Royal Engineers, 1 Officer, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, total 2.
3rd Buffs, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, total 1.
1st Battalion, 24th, 6 Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, 5 sick Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 11. ...'

So let us try to establish who those eleven men that John Chard has recorded were there from 1st/24th might be, here are the ones we know of:

1st Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot
1:  Private 25th Brigade/135 William Beckett, died of wounds 23rd January 1879.
2:  Private 25th Brigade/568 Patrick Desmond.
3:  Private 1st/24th/1861 William Horrigan, killed in action 22nd January 1879.
4:  Private 25th Brigade/841 James Jenkins, killed in action 22nd January 1879.
5:  Private 25th Brigade/625 Edward Nicholas, killed in action 22nd January 1879.
6:  Private 25th Brigade/372 Thomas Payton.
7:  Private 1st/24th/1542 William Roy, awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal.
8:  Private 25th Brigade/104 Henry Turner.
9:  Private 1st/24th/447 John Waters.
10:Sergeant 25th Brigade/56 Edward Wilson.
11: ??????? I wonder who that could be????


A primary source, written by the officer commanding the action giving the number as eleven 1st/24th present, can anyone refute that?  I'm sure some on here may attempt to!



'Jimu

Jenkins. But DAVID JENKINS is not on the roll

24th,

Which roll?

The faked John Chard roll?  The 1930's Frank Bourne rolls? The Matthew Dunbar roll of the 2nd/24th only roll?  Which roll are you talking about?

Eleven men of the 1st/24th present according to John Chard, we have identified ten of the eleven through accounts and alike.  Four are easy, because they still remain at their posts at Rorke's Drift.  A fifth, Private William Roy received a gallantry award; leaving six of the 1st/24th no-one here has disputed five of those names.  That still leaves the sixth.

Someone has already mentioned it in this thread, does anyone believe that John Chard would not have gone to the trouble of discovering the name of the man who yelled a warning to him that saved him from harm?  Would he lie to his Sovereign Queen?  I think not because that is who he told about "Private Jenkins 24th..."

'Jimu

He's not on any of the rolls that were compiled, by those that compiled them. The only roll he appears on is the one in Brecon.

24th,

I'm sorry why the fixation with rolls?

John Chard states eleven men from 1st/24th present, apart from asking me about rolls you are not presenting any evidence to refute that David Jenkins was not there.  The Chard statement is held in the Royal Archives at Windsor, it is signed by John Chard unlike any of the rolls you keep mentioning.

If Corporal Schiess had written a roll would it have been a Swiss Roll?

'Jimu

The Chard and Bourne rolls remain the only viable documents for confirming an individual’s presence at the battle.

Impi,

How can a fake document and something written in the 1930's be considered as "viable documents"?

Whereas you dismiss contemporary evidence written by John Chard without reason.

'Jimu

Your normal joking self. :p;:

No one that I can see is disputing any accounts.

What date did chard make the report, where he states Pte Jenkins gave him a duck down.

Not trying to tread on Dave's toes, I have been waiting for Dave to follow up this thread that he started, but it seems the Yes vote has won, as of this morning, just over 2 weeks.

So YES, David Jenkins should be added to the roll.

The NO camp has been defeated quite comprehensively, 11.5 yes to every 1 no.

The other option, which I voted for, "should more research have been done" has no doubt taken quite a large proportion of the yes vote away, for if I had been pushed to get off the fence and make a decision one way or the other, I would have gone for a "Yes" over a "No" with all things considered.

Regards,

Kopie

impi, it might be time to accept like King Canute, that you can't hold back the tide!

AND that the world is round!:p;:
:p;:

Rorke's Drift

 
25th January, 1879.

SIR, 
    I HAVE the honour to report that on the 22nd instant I was left in command at Rorke's Drift by Major Spalding, who went to Helpmakaar to hurry in the company 24th regiment ordered to protect the ponts.
   About 3.15 p.m. on that day, I was at the ponts when two men came riding from Zululand at a gallop, and shouted to be taken across the river.
    I was informed by one of them, Lieutenant Adenhdorff of Lonsdale's regiment (who remained to assist in the defence) of the disaster at Isandlwana camp, and that  the Zulus were advancing on Rorke's Drift. The other, a carabineer, rode off to take the news to Helpmakaar.
   Almost immediately I received a message from Lieutenant Bromhead, commanding the company 24th Regiment at the camp near the commissariat stores, asking me to come up at once.
    I gave the order to inspan, strike tents, put all stores, &c., into the wagon, and at once rode up to the commissariat store and found that a note had been received from the 3rd column to state that the enemy were advancing in force against our post, which we were to strengthen and hold at all costs.
   Lieutenant Bromhead was most actively engaged in loopholing and barricading the store building and hospital, and connecting the defence of the two buildings by walls of mealie bags and two wagons that were on the ground. I held a hurried consultation with him and with  Mr. Dalton, of the Commissariat (who was actively superintending the work of defence, and whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his most valuable services) entirely approving of the arrangements made. I went round the position, and then went down to the ponts and brought up the guard of 1 sergeant and 6 men, wagon, &c. I desire here
to mention the offer of the punt-man Daniels and Sergeant Milne, 3rd Buffs, to move the punts in the middle of the stream, and defend them from their decks with a few men. We arrived at the post about 3.30 p.m. Shortly after an officer of Durnford's Horse arrived and asked for orders. I requested him to send a detachment to observe the drifts and punts and throw out outposts in the direction of the enemy and check his advance as much as possible, falling back upon the post when forced to retire and assist in its defence.
    I requested Lieutenant Bromhead to post his men; and having seen his and every man at his post, the work once more went on.
   About 4.20 p.m. the sound of firing was heardbehind the hill to our south. The officer of Durnford's returned, reporting the enemy close upon us, and that his men would not obey his orders, but were going off to Helpmakaar, and I saw them, apparently about 100 in number, going off in that direction. 
   About the same time Captain Stephenson's detachment of Natal Native Contingent left us, as did that officer himself.
    I saw that our line of defence was too extended for the small number of men now left us, and at once commenced a retrenchment of biscuit boxes.
   We had not completed a wall 2 boxes high when, about 4.30 p.m., 500 or 600 of the enemy came in sight around the hill to our south, and advanced at a run against the south wall. They were met by a well-sustained fire but, notwithstanding their heavy loss, continued the advance to within 50 yards of the wall, when they were met with such a heavy fire from the wall and cross fire from the store that they were checked, but taking advantage of the cover afforded by
the cookhouse, ovens, &c., kept up a heavy fire. The greater number, however, without stopping, moved to the left, around the hospital, and made a rush at our N.W. wall of mealie bags, but after a short but desperate struggle were driven back with heavy loss into the bush around the work.
    The main body of the enemy were close behind, and had lined the ledge of rock and caves overlooking us about 400 yards to our south, from where they kept up a constant fire, and advancing somewhat more to their left than the first attack, occupied the garden, hollow road and bush in great force.
    Taking advantage of the bush, which we had not time to cut down, the enemy were able to advance under cover close to our wall, and in this part soon held one side of the wall, while we held the other. A series of desperate assaults were made, extending from the hospital, along the wall, as far as the bush reached; but each was most splendidly met and repulsed by our men with the bayonet, Corporal Schiess, N.N.C., greatly distinguishing himself by his conspicuous
gallantry.
   The fire from the rocks behind us, though badly directed, took us completely in reverse, and was so heavy that we suffered very severely, and about 6 p.m. were forced to retire behind the retrenchment of biscuit boxes. 
   All this time the enemy had been attempting to force the hospital, and shortly after set fire to its roof.
    The garrison of the hospital defended it room by room, bringing out all the sick who could be moved before they retired. Privates Williams, Hook, R. Jones and W. Jones, 24th Regiment, being the last men to leave, holding the doorway with the bayonet, their own ammunition being expended. From the want of interior communication and the burning of the house it was impossible to save all. With most heartfelt sorrow
   I regret we could not save these poor fellows from their terrible fate.
  Seeing the hospital burning and the desperate  attempts of the enemy to fire the roof of the stores, we converted two mealie bag heaps in to a sort of redoubt, which gave a second line of fire all round; Assistant Commissary Dunne working hard at this, though much exposed, and rendering valuable assistance.
  As darkness came on we were completely surrounded, and after several attempts had been gallantly repulsed, were eventually forced to retire to the middle, and then inner wall of the Kraal on our East. The position we then had we retained throughout.
  A desultory fire was kept up all night, and several assaults were attempted and repulsed; the vigour of the attack continuing until after midnight, and men firing with the greatest coolness did not waste a single shot; the light afforded by the burning hospital being of great help to us.
  About 4 a.m. 23rd instant, the firing ceased, and at daybreak the enemy were out of sight over the hill to the south-west.
  We patrolled the grounds, collecting the arms of the dead Zulus, and strengthened our defences as much as possible.
  We were removing the thatch from the roof of the stores, when about 7 a.m. a large body of the enemy appeared on the hills to the south-west.
   I sent a friendly Kafir, who had come in shortly before, with a note to the Officer Commanding at Helpmakaar asking for help.
  About 8 a.m. the third column appeared in sight, the enemy who had been gradually advancing, falling back as they approached.
   I consider the enemy who attacked us to have numbered about 3,000 (three thousand).
  We killed about 350 (three hundred and fifty).
  Of the steadiness and gallant behaviour of the whole garrison I cannot speak too highly.
   I wish especially to bring to your notice the conduct of:—
Lieutenant Bromhead, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, and the splendid behaviour of his Company B, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
Surgeon Reynolds, A. M. D., in his constant attention to the wounded, under fire where they fell. 
Acting Commissariat Officer Dalton, to whose energy much of our defences were due, and who was severely wounded while gallantly assisting in the defence.
Assistant Commissary Dunne.
Acting Store Keeper Byrne (killed)
Colour-Sergeant Bourne, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
Sergeant Williams, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment (wounded dangerously).
Sergeant Windridge, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
Corporal Schiess, 2nd Battalion 3rd Natal Native Contingent (wounded).
1395 Private Williams, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
593 Private Jones, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
Private McMahon, Army Hospital Corps.
716 Private R. Jones, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
Private H. Hook.
Private Roy, 1st Battalion 24th Regiment.
The following return shows the number present at Rorke's Drift, January 22nd, 1879 :—
Staff, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, total 1.
Royal Artillery, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, 3 sick Non-Commissioned and Men, total 4.
Royal Engineers, 1 Officer, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, total 2.
3rd Buffs, 1 Non-Commissioned, Officer and Men, total 1.
1st Battalion 24th Regiment, 6 Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, 5 sick Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 11.
2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, B Company, 17 casuals sick, 1 Officer, 81 Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, 17 sick Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 99.
90th Light Infantry,? Non-Commissioned Officer and man sick.
Commissariat and Transport Department, 3 Officers. 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and men, total 4.
Army Medical Department, 1 Officer, 3 Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 4.
Chaplains, 1 Officer, total 1.
Natal Mounted Police, 3 sick Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 3.
Natal Native Contingent, Officer, 6 sick Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 7.
Ferryman, 1 Non-Commissioned Officer and Men, total 1.
Total.—8 officers, 96 Non-Commisioned Officers and Men, 35 Non-Commissioned Officers and Men sick, total 139.
The following is a list of the killed:—
Sergeant Maxfield, 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment.
Private Scanlan.
Private Hayden.
Private Adams.
Private Cole.
Private Fagan.
Private Chick.
1398 Private Williams, 2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment.
Private Nicolls, 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment.
Private Horrigan, 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment.
Jenkins, 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment.
M. Byrne, Commissariat Department.
Trooper Hunter, Natal Mounted Police.
Trooper Anderson, N.N.C.
1 Private (Native) N.N.C.
Total 15.
12 wounded of whom two have since died,
viz.:—
Sergeant Williams, 2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment.
Private Beckett, 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment.
making a total killed of 17.
Herewith is appended a plan of the buildings, showing our lines of defence. The points of the compass referred to in this report are, as shewn in sketch, approximately magnetic.

 
I have, &c.,
(Signed) JOHN R, M. CHARD,
Lieutenant R. E

To Colonel Glyn, C.B.,
Commanding 3rd Column.

Can't see the saving of Chards life bit, have you cut that out to prove a point.

SAS 1,

The report by John Chard which includes the information about Private Jenkins is governed by Crown Copyright, as it is housed in the Royal Archives at Windsor.

However, it available on line at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Look for the paragraph which starts 'Trooper Hunter...'  It also appeared in 'The Silver Wreath'.

The account that Impi has reproduced is the one from 'The London Gazette' which as I stated previously proves that there were eleven other ranks from the 1st/24th present at the Mission Station at Rorke's Drift.  I named ten names which no one has chosen to challenge; I suggest the name that is missing from that list is that of Private David Jenkins.

'Jimu

The one Impi posted is the one written by John Chard. Two days after the Battle while events were fresh in his mind. As we were tole write your report ASAP after the event!

Chard only names 5 members of the 1st/24th by name. One being Jenkins who was KIA.

The other 6 were unknown to him.

Dave wouldnt mind. Bill shot it down anyway..

Springbok wrote below. Was it ever established if there were two rolls?

Where it says men were clearing up outside the barriers, would this clearing party have included members of Chelmsfords column who came to their relief?

Springbok wrote:

Subject: Re: Lieutenant Adendorff 1-3 N.N.C.   Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:37 am 
I had a long conversation one evening with David Rattray about this. He maintained that there were two roll calls, the first being incorrect as men were outside the barriers clearing up. That one listed Addendorf. The second one was more formal and didnt include Addendorf.
As the saying goes, "pay your money and take your choice".
I dont recall any other mention by anyone who wrote of the battle mentioning Addendorf. As his presence was open to dispute from early on would it not be logical to think that someone with an over all view point, ie: CS Bourne, would have mentioned his presence?

90th you have probably the largest collection of books, can you find any reference, apart from Stafford that is.? I cant. And lets remember Stafford was quoting Addendorf so its all heresay. Addendorf would be the last to admit to cowardice surely.

Ray63,

With the greatest of respect to David, who I knew, he always described himself as "a storyteller" and not a historian.

Sometimes he would embellish fact for theatrical effect.

When he gave his Rorke's Drift speech he would always have Frank Bourne calling the roll just like in the film, and the audience lapped it up.  I imagine his son, Andrew, who has taken up his father's mantle more than likely does the same, but I have yet to hear his Rorke's Drift speech so I can't say for certain.

Why let fact get in the way of a good story.

'Jimu

Ray, Springbok had the conversation. Let's hope he will give his opinon!

As Kwa Jimu says David was often quoted as saying he was a story teller. His classic saying was "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." In his more serious moments though he was a very passionate seaker of the truth. At the lodge he saw himself as 'mine host', and did it brilliantly.

Cheers

So you think the two rolls story was just a story with no truth behind it. 

Can't see how that would have benefited his buiness.

Ray63,

His business was that he was a raconteur, and he was a very good one at that. 

His guests would hang on his every word entranced by the way he would conjure up the events of the Anglo-Zulu War, assisted by the fruits of the Garden Route and Bombay Sapphires.

'Jimu

I think we get the gist of how good David was at captivating his audience.

But why would he mention 2 rolls being taken.that would be of no interest to those wanting to know about the Battles?

What Chard's report is telling us, is that he didn't have a clue who the men were who took part in the defence of Rorkes Drift. Why should he,was an officer of Engineers. 

As pointed out, he only named some of the 1st/24th the rest was just a number to make a total, that being ten. 

I think David Jenkins, was out with Chelmsford, and returned to RD the next morning.if someone could show otherwise I would appricate that. The fact the records of the 1st/24th were lost at Isandlwana I accept it would be difficult.

Impi

How could David Jenkins of the 1/24th be out with Chelmsford when he only had the 2/24th with him ?



Cheers

If you can provide a list of names of all those out with Chelmsford, and Jenkins is not on that list I will accept that.

Impi,

I take it that mathematics is not your strongest subject.

Impi wrote:

As pointed out, he only named some of the 1st/24th the rest was just a number to make a total, that being ten.

In the 'London Gazette' report dated two days after the action John Chard gives the number eleven.  Now despite posting that very report you have managed to lose one of the 1st/24th, very careless of you there were enough of the 1st Battalion lost without you losing another!

1st Battalion 24th Regiment, 6 Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, 5 sick Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, total 11.


DrummerBoy16,

Your statement isn't quite right:

DrummerBoy16 wrote:

How could David Jenkins of the 1/24th be out with Chelmsford when he only had the 2/24th with him ?

There were actually some members of the 1st/24th out with Lord Chelmsford, however, they were members of the 1st Squadron, Mounted Infantry.  That said we actually know who they were and before anyone asks, David Jenkins was not one of them.

'Jimu

Chard1879,

Chard1879 wrote:

But why would he mention 2 rolls being taken.that would be of no interest to those wanting to know about the Battles?

For the same reason he would refer the 24th as being "...Bronzed little Welshmen. ..."  Something his son Andrew now points as being erroneous.  Or that "...the band of the 24th played 'Men of Harlech' as the troops crossed the Buffalo River."  Or that more "British officers died at Isandlwana than in battles of the Waterloo campaign in 1815."  It sounds great but it is wrong.  If you don't believe me listen to 'The Day of the Dead Moon' compact discs which are available from Fugitives' Drift Lodge, and hear the late maestro recount them, then check the facts from yourself.

'Jimu

:p;: Sounds like that green eyed monster!

Admin,

Before you do please allow me the response to the inane comment posted by Impi.

impi wrote:

Sounds like that green eyed monster!

When I was replying to Chard1879 query and citing examples of David's other inaccuracies, how is that jealousy?  In my opinion you are just blustering in an effort to divert attention and to resort to throwing personal insults does not progress this debate in any way.  Or do I take it that impi is the abbreviated form of impish?

Why not answer the question I posed to you, how did John Chard's recorded eleven suddenly become ten in your reckoning?

'Jimu

The reason that the 11 of 1/24th was reduced to 10 soldiers is because Norman Home in his books - The Silver Wreath - The Noble 24th - discounted the entry for 1083 as an error not realising that it was an incorrect number and only recorded 10 men.  Pte Waters 447 also has an incorrect number - shown as 449.  But these errors are understandable as everything was hand-written in those days. This just shows the chaos in the aftermath within the 1/24th with the loss of their orderly room staff at Isandlwana.

BUT JULIAN DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT THE PRIVATE JENKINS WAS DEFINITELY at RORKE'S DRIFT! THEY WILL BE IN THE SECOND VOLUME of "Studies in the Zulu War in 1879"

Lets wait and see.

And the Gospel according to Julian?