rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:04 pm

16 VCs at Inkermann 5 Nov 1854 not 15:
Beach 55th Regt
Byrne 68th Regt
Clifford Rifle Brig
Gorman RN
Andrew RA
McDermond 47th Regt
Miller RA
Palmer Gren Gds
Percy Gren Gds
Prettyjohn RMLI
Reeves RN
Rowlands 41st Regt
Russell Gren Gds
Scholefield RN
Walker 30th Regt
Walters 49th Regt
None of these are at Little Inkermann

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:46 pm

Jonathan,

It is a mute point, but a number of the 2nd Relief of Lucknow V.C.'s were elections under Rule 13 of the Warrant. Of these the following: Hastings Harrington; Thomas Laughan; Hugh McInnes; James Park; Alfred Ffrench & John Guise, do not detail their comrades' endorsements. Others: Charles Pye; Patrick Graham; William Stewart; John Smith; David Mackay; James Kenny; Charles Irwin; Samuel Hill; Peter Grant; John Dunley & Edward Jennings do give some scant detail for the reason for the election.

Thomas Young's & William Hall's recommendations from Peel, is not unlike the Rule 13 elections for the members of Bengal Artillery.

This leaves us with Nowell Salmon; John Harrison; James Munro; John Paton, Thomas Hackett & George Monger with direct recommendations.

Augustus Anson's V.C. also in part relates to 16th November, 1857.

The actions for Hugh Gough's(part only, the other date being 25th February, 1858) & John Watson's V.C.'s, appear to have taken place away from the main relief operation, on 12th November & 14th November, 1857, respectively.

According to the works I have consulted the following dates relate to the above mentioned:

1, Gough - 12th November, 1857. (& as above.)

2, Watson - 14th November, 1857.

3, Harrington - 14th to 22nd November, 1857.

4, Laughan - ditto.

5, McInnes - ditto.

6, Park - ditto.

7, Jennings - ditto. (Although one source states 16th - 25th Nov., and another 16th - 22nd November.)

8, Dunley - 16th November, 1857.

9, Ffrench - ditto.

10, Grant - ditto.

11, Guise - 16th & 17th November, 1857.

12, Salmon - 16th November, 1857.

13, Harrison - ditto.

14, Young - ditto.

15, Hall - ditto.

16, Hill - 16th & 17th November, 1857.

17, Irwin - 16th November, 1857.

18, Kenny - ditto.

19, Mackay - ditto.

20, Munro - ditto.

21, Paton - ditto.

22, Smith - ditto.

23, Stewart - ditto.

24, Anson - ditto (& 28th September, 1857.)

25, Graham - 17th November, 1857.

26, Pye - 17th November, 1857.

27, Hackett - 18th November, 1857.

28, Monger - ditto.

I'm sorry but this obviously throws your conclusion out somewhat, if you believe that the 12th November, 1857 was the first day of the relief.

John Y.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:57 pm

Julian,

What about adding Edward St. John Daniel, Royal Navy & Ambrose Madden, 41st Regt., to your list of 5th November, 1854?

Regards,

John Y.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:21 pm

Michael,

I wouldn't trust that link you quoted, as the author of it doesn't seem to know the difference between a mountain and a garden!

Dagh is a Turkic word for mountain.

Bagh is the Hindi word for garden.

Sikandar Bagh translates to Alexander's Garden, after al-Sikandar or Alexander the Great. (Shades of The Man Who Would Be King!)

John Y.

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:47 am

Mike,

All the best luck with your endeavours, it's good that the 41st will at least receive a chapter instead of just being lumped in with the many other regts. that suffered so dearly that day (though they seem to have been hit hardest). Unfortunately ol' 'Billy the Beast' and I have been on the outs since 1980 when he borrowed my Disk Operating System homework, moved to Seattle, and never returned it!

( My use of "seemingly forgotten" was based on a google search of "British 24th Regt" yielding nearly four times the hits of "British 41st Regt") [If you don't add "British" here you of course get the US 24th Regiment which was a "Buffalo Soldier" outfit that claimed an ex-pat Zulu Prince amongst it's numbers, a rather interesting story. See - http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist10/buffalo.html ,not at all sure how they came up with it but we Yanks have always been suckers for a good yarn and less than informed on matters outside our own borders!] [To me the spelling seems more West African than South African but I'm at sea on this one.]

John,

I'll be sure to take your suggestion under advisement! (Thanks for the guffaw, I needed that having been laid up these last two weeks. As well for renewing my faith in Jung's Syncronocity theory ; I've been reading up on Chillianwalla, reputed to be the site of one of Alexander's great victories as well, and current events referencing an Afghan mountain fortress reputed to have been built by Alexander, and your coming up with a 41st Regt. VC.) [By the way, in case no one's mentioned it, you guys are still the envy of US law enforcement for your erudite handling of last summer's misfortune.]

[Speaking of "The Man Who Would Be King", one tangent we've never taken is the Masonic connections in the A-ZW, but I suppose that could be considered tales told out of school.]

Best

Michael

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:14 am

Michael

I seem to remember that JY or Martin (or both) did discuss - perhaps briefly - the Masonic background of a number of the 24th officers somewhere on the old forum. Quite an eye-opener but I suppose the same thread could be found in most regiments?

Peter

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:36 am

Both Melvill and Coghill were Masons from memory.

As opposed to Pte Mason of Rorke's Drift who wasn't.

Peter

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:02 pm

John
Madden's was for Little Inkermann, different date.
Daniel's was for Siege of Sebastopol with subsequent actions (one of which was Inkermann)

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:38 pm

Julian,

With regard to Edward St. John Daniel here is the following quote from P.A. Wilkins' book The History of the Victoria Cross, published 1904.

Recommended by Sir Stephen Lushington for conspicious bravery on November 5, 1854, when a call for volunteers was made to bring up powder from a wagon which had been left in a most exposed position owing to the horses being all killed. Captain Peel (V.C.), who was in command of the battery at the time, specially reported the bravery of this young naval officer. He also accompanied Captain Peel as A.D.C. at the battle of Inkerman, and, at the attack on the Redan on June 18, 1855, when his officer was wounded, displayed the greatest devotion to him, placing a tourniquet on his arm under a terrific fire.

Looks to me, on this evidence, as if he was recommended for his actions on 5th November, 1854, and that the 18th June, 1855 was the subsequent action.

The Register of the Victoria Cross gives both dates for his deeds.

William Peel's entry in the index of Wilkin's book states: 'Sebastopol, Inkerman, Redan'. Whereas, Daniel's states: 'Inkerman and Redan'.

I'll stand to be corrected on Madden, and apportion the blame to The Register of the Victoria Cross as it gives the 'Place/Date of Deed: Crimea - 5 Nov. 1854.' Rather than 26th October, 1854!

So I'll deduct Madden and add William Hewett, R.N., of whom T. E. Toomey writes in his Heroes of the Victoria Cross - 'For his pluck at Inkerman on Nov. 5, he was awarded a clasp to his Cross.' Now, I know that's not right, but the dates for his deeds relate to 26th October & 5th November 1854.

Just a thought, but if you are going to apply the premise for that multiple dates should be excluded, than the same should apply to John Byrne - 5th November, 1854 & 11th May, 1855.

I know I should have kept my late father's Crimea books for a reason!

Regards,

John

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:20 pm

John,

Thanks for the information on the number of VCs won at the Second Relief of Lucknow. Upon consulting my copy of Jim Bancroft's article in 'SOTQ' March 1998, he states that thirty VCs were won during the Relief and goes on to write that 'The three VC superlatives for a single action are... 20VCs - the Redan 18th June 1855, 17VCs the Sikandar Bagh 16th November 1857 and 12 VCs the Redan 8th September 1855.'

Does the first sentence of my conclusion still hold true?

Regards,

Jonathan

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:18 am

Dear All,

War is serious but regrettably messy business. The award of VC is a very tangible way of recognising individual bravery in the field under fire.

The recommendations have always gone through a thorough approval process - by the soldier's peers at the time. Any re-assessment based on later criteria is not valid and a pointless exercise.

I abhor league tables whether it by regiment, battle, action etc - because the VC is an award to an individual. League tables suggest turning war into a sport - which it is certainly not.

Go out and visit Rorke's Drift, The Radan, Inkermann, Delhi and Lucknow - as I have done - and stand on the spot where history was made and brave men gave there lives. They all deserve our respect - particularly those not recipients of the VC.