rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - BBC HISTORY

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:23 pm

Mike

Was there a C.O.I. concerning the disaster at Maiwand ?

Thanks

Coll

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:31 am

Better than that Coll, the regimental commanders of the 3rd Sind Horse and the 3rd Bombay Light Cavalry were court-martialled for an array of alleged offences including the C word.

They were acquitted honourably, however, a verdict which reflected rather badly on George Burrows and Thomas Nuttall (the cavalry brigadier), who brought the charges.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:59 pm

Thanks Mike

I had a feeling there would be something.

I recently saw a book review of 'The Prince of Wales's Own, The Scinde Horse.' by Col. E.B. Maunsell, in which there is a chapter about Maiwand, apparently describing how the 3rd Scinde Horse was mishandled by the Cavalry Brigadier.

I'm assuming this would be the same Brigadier who brought the charges that you mention ?

May I ask, what of Burrows and the Brigadier, as in, was there a separate investigation into their roles ?

Thanks again

Coll

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:36 pm

Coll

Yes. Tis he - Nuttall but brigadier with a small b - in those days an appointment not a rank as it is now. So he was Maj Gen Nuttall.

I'm sure there must have been a COI although by the nature of the new book, which has a number of campaigns to cover and only a certain amount of space to cover them in, I haven't been able to go too far beyond the end of the battle in question. That's why I think there might be merit in going back later, researching deeper, including COI and the court martial proceedings and giving it a book all to itself. I've just managed to get my hands on an autobiography of General Sir Frederick Haines who was C-in-C India at the time, and I'll see what that has to say about COIs at the weekend and let you know.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:02 pm

Mike

Yes. Definitely a story to be told - the participants, the battle and the aftermath. I only know the basics so far, but as they say - knowing something is better than knowing nothing at all Smile

Coll

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:29 am

Coll

I'm talking rubbish above. Both Burrows and Nuttall were Brigadier-Generals at the time of Maiwand - but would have been addressed as 'General'.

I confused myself with the Boer War which I was working on at the time, where the brigadiers are all Major Generals.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:06 pm

Thanks Mike

I must admit, military ranks confuse me, as in, who salutes who, etc. Confused

If, for example, 'in the field', would Lt. Melvill, 24th have saluted Col. Durnford, R.E. ?

Even within the same regiment, what officers salute other officers ? Or, if 2 officers were of the same rank, do they salute each other ?

Another example - Capt. Shepstone, would he have saluted Col. Pulleine ?

I apologise, but unless stated in books etc., I don't know who responds with salutes, calling someone 'Sir.', or when talking to a fellow officer, would they have to keep saying the rank before the name ?

I know the confusion I have with this matter is probably ridiculous, but when wanting to know specifics about military protocol, I'm at a loss.

Coll

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:08 pm

Coll

You're writing a screenplay aren't you?!

This is a real minefield - you sort of have to live it to know it sort of thing, Here are a few random notes.

Yes certainly Melvill would have saluted Durnford. He would have called him 'Colonel' and Durnford would have called Melvill by his last name or 'Mr Melvill'. Officers of the same rank do not salute each other, though in the British Army there is a convention in barracks that one would salute on entering another officer's office, even if he is the junior. Quite how far back that particular convention goes I am unsure.

Everybody salutes a holder of the VC regardless of rank.

Yes Shepstone would certainly have saluted Durnford. He was his immediate superior. There would have been a lot of saluting in the field in Victorian times - only in the modern military age has the practice tailed away. We no longer salute in the field (for reasons to do with Boers and snipers). We do salute in barracks.

A junior officer would address a lieutenant colonel or above by his rank, as in 'Good morning Colonel', though 'sir' would be used on formal occasions such as on parade and at first greeting in the morning. In the mess, ranks are never used, except in addressing the CO - who is always addressed as 'Colonel'. If you come down a grade, 'Good morning Major' would not be normal - we tend not to use ranks below Lt Col in that way - though the Americans might well do so. A subaltern would therefore greet a major with 'Good morning sir.'

The conventions vary across armies - the US Army is much more formal in this respect than the British, though the cliche would have it that we Brits are the stiff-necked redcoats of course. In today's world as a Lt Col I would be addressed by all officers in my regiment, (with the exception of other Lt Cols), as 'colonel' - in pretty much all environments - except on parade, when 'sir' would apply. Superiors of full colonel and above would call me by my first name. I would address a full colonel as 'colonel', a brigadier as 'brigadier', and generals of any grade as 'general' - with a good few sirs thrown into the conversation for the sake of politeness! (which does nobody any harm).

When I was a major my rule was that I should be saluted and greeted by my company officers as 'sir' first thing in the morning, and thereafter that they were at liberty to address me by first name, though not in front of the soldiers, when they should continue to use 'sir'. If it was not the first time I had seen one of my officers that day, and he was walking past me in barracks in the afternoon, say, where nobody could hear, 'Good afternoon Mike' would be acceptable, accompanied by a salute, because though nobody else could hear, everybody can see, and the absence of a salute would be improper. 'Sir' tends to be used in the field, because there are invariably soldiers about, but is never used in the mess, when there are not. In reverse, though, I would be at liberty to use a junior officer's first name, including in the field when there are soldiers about, because I have nothing else to call him except by his last name - which is way too formal for the 21st century, though normal for the Victorians.

Because one knows them less well, and they have yet to win their spurs as it were, junior subalterns would address all field officers (that is to say Majs and Lt Cols) as 'sir' at all times, except in the mess. However even in the mess they would not be allowed to bounce around annoying the field officers, as they would very quickly become over-familiar - if not house-trained in the ways of the army and the regiment first. Part of this is knowing that in a fighting service there is a very real hierarchy - not like the school they have just come from - but a real hierarchy that deals in matters of life and death. i.e.. that one officer might have to send another on an exceptionally dangerous mission, and that the one who is being sent has no choice but to go, no matter what his personal feelings might be.

A hugely complicated area to explain, but it sort of comes naturally once you have lived with the rules for a few months.

I've probably done a really bad job of explaining that Coll, but I hope it helps in some way.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:50 am

Mike

Thankyou for the very detailed answer.

Yes. I see what you mean about needing to live it to know it.

Coll

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:50 am

mike snook 2 wrote:

For anybody interested in things 2nd Afghan War, there will be a little magazine piece by me in the December edition of BBC History on the Battle of Maiwand.

M

Mike,
Do we have time, date and channel?

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:22 pm

Hi Paul

Sorry, I should have said BBC History Magazine. You can normally get them in WH Smiths I think.

Sorry for the confusion.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:59 pm

I have been reading with interest the commentary on Maiwand. Mike Snook is well known to me and I have had the pleasure of supplying him with information about the battle especially for the 66th. I have been making a study of the battle for some years now and I have to say that I agree with one member who has said that the battle needs to have a higher profile.

Maxwell is the only book that has made a detailed study of the battle. Robson in his book has a very interesting chapter on Maiwand and disagrees with Maxwell in places. Robson I feel has the upper hand, but that is a personal opinion.

I feel there is a place for a new book on Maiwand. The information is out there, I know I have found a lot of it. I have gleaned and used information from all angles including personal accounts, records etc. Mention has been made of the Court Martial of two cavalry officers. I have the transcripts of the proceedings and they make interesting reading. I have to opine that Burrows and Nuttal appear, and the court martial makes this point, to have held out the officers to dry! The officers were aquitted quite rightly.
I hope to write about this incident in the near future.

A book in the style of Mike's previous publication would be a welcome addition to the understanding of this battle. There are many angles to be covered and human stories to be told - what about those men who deserted after the battle and Kandahar. The officer in the 66th who was asked to leave the service and the court martial of the paymaster! All of which I am looking at.

Mike I know will have guessed who I am - I am only to happy to help him and it is a privilge to have done so.

Stackers

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:59 am

Stackers

Good you're here! Can you answer for Coll his question whether or not there was a COI. The court martial you and I have talked about, and I was hoping to check through Haines's biography last weekend for any reference to a COI but plans changed at the last moment and I was unable to do so. I'm sure you will know the answer off the top of your head.

I got your note on the other means and will reply to it with a private message on this means as I'm not convinced all my replies get through to you. I want to run through my reconstruction of the 66th position and officers to companies with you, to see whether you think it holds water.

And as a public acknowledgement to those who know who you are - this is the man who knows about Maiwand.

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:09 pm

Stackers

It would be great to know more about the court martial and any C.O.I., as well as other events which occurred after the battle itself.

The information on the internet, although giving some details about the Battle at Maiwand, is really just bits and pieces, although I did print out an article suggested previously in this topic, and also the excellent painting by Peter Archer.

'My God ! - Maiwand.' by Leigh Maxwell, is one of the titles I'll hopefully be purchasing next year.

May I ask if there is the possibility that you will be visiting this site now and then, as I feel there will be a great deal to discuss about this subject ?

Thanks

Coll

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:36 pm

Mike,

Very interesting info on saluting there, thank you very much. I never knew VC holders were saluted. Back in our active days I had a rule that nobody salutes nothing when we were out on duty, as it draws unneccesary attention. I actually reprimanded a sergeant who saluted me in the field when we came back. As far as the Boers were concerned, my granddad used to tell me that they loved the way you guys waved swords around. Anybody with a sword in his hand were "first price" so to speak. I never forgot this when we started doing sword drill at the college. I was hampered with the thing, as I was my OC's ADC

Johnny