The Welsh Soldiers and others at Rorke's Drift 1879

Hi "Historien suprême"

Not 50% of the Foreign Legion soldiers are strangers, but after incorporation, 100% of them have a false nationalitée ...

As against 100% of the original British Legionaires want to be French because of the kitchen and women ...

Well, all the English are British, when they have this nationalitée there, but all are not British English ...

As for Cornwall, it was conquered in the early ninth century by the Anglo-Saxon and therefore lost all its Celticity long before the Welsh.

But you know what people are like, many cling to their Regional Particularities.

While it is impossible to know which is which, given the mixing of populations, but it amuses me, though some take it seriously and become dangerous with this kind of "theses ..."

Hey again, UK, there is no choice, but imagine the mess in France, they casually refer Britons, descendant of Senegalese born in Brittany, is not messing around!

Want to do, in France it has been proven by the war of 14-18 and 39-45 that of some French regions provide better soldiers than others (human material, as we say in militarytechnical language ) when it is for the British army?

Such statistics have necessarily been carried out, even in the nineteenth century, since Napoleon 1 st did in 1814 ...

By the way, I count on you for what you know, if I can not paint my Zulu ...

Cheers

Pascal

Just like the Gurkhas in the British Army really....who (naturally) come from the Monmouthshire district of Nepal....

:lol!: Happy New Year Julian.

Yes, the Gurkhas, what a fine set of lads they are.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Just like the Gurkhas in the British Army really....who (naturally) come from the Monmouthshire district of Nepal....

Yep the gentlest gentlemen, fearless and brave in the field. Fine Englishmen, every one of them. :lol!:

I think I am correct in saying that the tribal (regimental) system is unique. No other nation's army has regiments with a separate identity/ uniform etc. Has its good points, has its bad points.

The British citoyens of the Foreign Legion are also excellent ...

Cheers

Pascal

I don't know about you guys, but to me the endless discussions about how many Welshmen were at Rorke's Drift are both mind-numbingly boring and pointless. In the second half of the 19th century, a man may have been born in (for example) London, Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester, but he could easily have been a first-language Welsh speaker whose parents came from the Llŷn peninsula and who could barely speak English, if at all. Up to the First World War, it was said that you could live your whole life in Wallasey and never have to speak English. So, Englishmen or Welshmen - and what does it matter anyway? Take Pembrokeshire. Holme lists at least three men from that county among those from 'Wales' (2/24th 25B/1396 Private Thomas Collins, Pelcomb; 2/24th 25B/963 Private David Lewis, Gorsgoch; 1/24th 25B/568 Private Patrick Desmond, ℮ Fort Hubberstone). Now, 'David Lewis' (= James Owen) was by all accounts indeed a first-language Welsh speaker who kept diaries in that language throughout the AZW; but if Pte Collins hailed from Pelcomb then he was south of the Landsker (the area Camden referred to as Anglia Transwalliana), and were he on this forum today, the chances are he would have your guts for garters for having the brazen neck to call him 'Welsh', so we can take him right out of that list for starters. Again, Henry Howard Molyneaux Herbert, descendent of the Herberts of Raglan and through them to the Princes of Gwynedd, fourth Earl of Carnarvon [Third Creation] and twice Colonial Secretary, had Welsh lineage of eye-popping antiquity. But there was no doubt in his own mind that he was an Englishman through-and-through and true: born at Grosvenor Square, London; educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford; in 1878 he gave an address in Edinburgh in which he went out of his way to state in no uncertain terms that Scotland was, in fact, England (by which he meant, of course, Britain).

The territories known collectively, and for the sake of convenience, to the English as 'Wales' had been finally annexed to England by the Laws in Wales Acts (27, 34 & 35 Henry VIII), and since the 16th century Welshmen were referred to in official documents, both in England and abroad, as Angli - 'Englishmen'. So yes: juridically, Monmouth was in England. So was Caernarfon. My take on it all is that some of the men who fought in the AZW spoke Welsh and English and thought of themselves as Welsh; some thought of themselves as English / British; and all of them thought of themselves as men of such-and-such a company, battalion and regiment of the British Army, who fought for one another and for their regiment.

Change the record, already ...

Yes, I agree with all that. No-one (well, me at least) is saying that certain men WERE Welsh because they were born in Wales, merely that there are several inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the biographical details of where men were born and these should be corrected. Whether a man says he is English or not, he cannot alter his place of birth, be it Aberystwyth or Billericay.

Julian

Indeed; and your own scrupulous researches on this matter are beyond criticism. My point was rather more about the persistent myth than the facts you have brought to light.

Cytunaf â hynny'n bendant.

Julian, which translate site do you use?
The above translates as "I agree he goes, heartburn definite" on mine.

I translate it as!

"I certainly agree with that"

Admin wrote:

I translate it as!

"I certainly agree with that"

Please let me know the name of the translation site you use Admin; obviously better than mine! :lol:

Now that works perfectly - gr8 site. Added to my favourites.

Hi pawb

Nid oes unrhyw milwyr o Gymru, ers i Gymru yw bellach yn annibynnol.



Pascal

ALL
i CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT!

I second that!

You are all gr8 sports!

:joker:

Julian a Tasker, rydych yn cytuno gyda mi ?



Pascal

Hi Barry

Many thanks for your comments.

Could I ask you why you think that CTSG and myself would make formidable authors?

I have a feeling that in my case it could be my unmoveable stand on trying to get the proper recognition for the REAL name of the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift, that regiment being the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot. And let's face it Barry, when all is said and done, this was the REAL name of the regiment that did the business, yet the credit (through an almost fictional film), nearly always goes to a mythical Welsh regiment who's name did not even exist during the AZW, and to me, this is a total injustice.

Museums, sites, and other places that are supposed to be dedicated to the memory of this noble regiments part in the AZW should display the REAL name of it in very large upper case letters, and not just refer to it as the 24th foot or 24th regiment, as this implies the regiment pre 1782. The regiment from 1782 until July 1881 was called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, and this is the name that should be displayed by these so called 'dedicated' places, and there should be no mention of the SWB during the AZW, as that name did NOT exist until July 1881, two years AFTER the AZW.

Thanks again for your comments Barry, and hope that you are keeping well my friend.

Best regards.

Martin.

But there was a regimental name chage. Regardless of what t was called then,

Hi Dave.

Yes, there was a regimental name change, but this occurred 2 years AFTER the AZW, therefor any reference to the regiment during the AZW should ALWAYS be the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, as the name SWB did not exist until 1881, 2 years AFTER the AZW.

Also the 24th regiments name of the 2nd Warwickshire regiment existed for 99 years, much longer than the SWB 88 years, and the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, yet it is the SWB that nearly always gets the recognation and credit for this, but the name SWB did NOT exist during the AZW.

The reforms of 1881 ended the regimental numbers, and also changed the names of many regiments, therefor the last British infantry regiment to have been numbered the 24th foot, was the 2nd Warwickshire regiment, the SWB was NEVER officially numbered the 24th foot or regiment, it was just called the SWB with no regimental numbers, as they were ended in 1881. So any reference to the 24th foot between 1782 and 1881 should always be the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment.

Martin.

Martin

From where do you get the idea that the numbering of regiments disappeared in 1881 ? I would remind you, for example, that on the 11th June 1969 an amalgamation of The South Wales Borderers and The Welch Regiment resulted in the formation of "The Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot)". That was their full correct title whether you like it or not !!! Numbering was, of course, retained throughout to confirm the principle of precedence amongst the Line regiments.

In 1782 a Royal Warrant conferred county titles on all regiments not already possessed of special designations - it was intended that regiments should cultivate a recruiting connection with the counties whose names they took - the 24th became the 2nd Warwickshire and were ordered to send a recruiting party to Tamworth (in 1781, the 24th had been recruiting in Birmingham, Coventry, Tiverton, Warwick and Worcester). In 1782 Tamworth was split between the counties of Staffordshire and Warwickshire, it was to be 1888 before Tamworth was to be wholly incorporated into Staffordshire. Despite the Royal Warrant, NO SPECIAL LINK WITH THE WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY MILITIA WAS ESTABLISHED, NOR WERE ANY DEPOTS OR PERMANENT RECRUITING CENTRES SET UP WITHIN WARWICKSHIRE. This is in stark contrast to the Cardwell reforms that began in the early 1870s, where territorial links, and links to the local Militia were actively encouraged. This effective territorializing of the infantry of the line began in earnest in 1873-74, with the establishment of permanent Brigade Depots. It was concluded in 1881, with the logical re-titling of some Regiments, such as the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment becoming The South Wales Borderers, to reflect their geographic locations. I've already explained previously the reasons for Brecon being chosen and won't bore people by repeatingv these here.

I'm sure you've read the various histories of the Regiment between 1782 and 1881 and can confirm that, apart from the title, the Regiment's links with Warwickshire were very marginal (eg how many Warwickshire men were there at Rorke's Drift ? !!!). This is totally different from the 2nd Warwickshire/SWB's links with Brecon and Mid Wales from 1873 onwards.

Your constant defence of the Warwickshire link is admirable, if somewhat tiresome. You really need to develop a greater understanding of the traditions and heritage of the British Army to understand how todays Regiments can trace their lineage back over the centuries, inheriting distinguished military traditions from their predecessors. It is a constantly evolving process.

No one is disputing the title of the Regiment in 1879, and any reference to it being the SWB originate from one statement narrated by Richard Burton at the end of 'Zulu' - an innocent slip I'm sure. However, have you thought of writing to the distributors of the DVD asking them to include a correction on the box cover ? Though, I suppose then they'd have to include corrections on the dozens of other mistakes in the film !!!! Do the NNC complain about Schiess being portrayed as being in the NMP !!!!!!!

See you in Brecon on the 16/17th June ?

Bill

Now them!,,, I stumbled across this. Someone out there hopefully will tell me its the wrong regiment.

"The 24th In the Napoleonic Wars

The 24th first got into action as part of Sir Ralph Abercromby's army which drove the French out of Egypt in 1801. The 24th received its "Sphinx" emblem as a result, though one is left to wonder why, as total casualties in action amounted to 4 wounded! Battle Honour "Egypt" was awarded.

In September of 1804, a 2nd Battalion was raised.

In 1806, the 1st Battalion participated in the capture of Cape Town from the Dutch (Battle Honour awarded), then ended up in India for the balance of the Napoleonic period. In 1814, it was involved in the 1st Nepal War, fighting Gurkhas. This, needless to say, was not fun - the hill fort of Kalunga had a Gurkha garrison of 600 men, was beseiged by a British/Indian force outnumbering it by 6 to one for a month. When they surrendered, out of ammunition and food, only 60 Gurkhas were left, but British casualties were 31 officers (including the commanding general) and 750 rank and file. To quote Brereton, "it was here that British regard for these valiant little hillmen was born." After the campaign, a small obelisk was erected, with the inscription: "They fought in the conflict like men, and in the intervals of actual conflict showed us a liberal courtesy." Of course, there are still Gurkas in the British Army and in the intervening 195 years, there has never been occasion to question this initial assessment.

Meanwhile, the 2/24th had fought its way from Lisbon to Toulouse under Wellington. Landing at Lisbon in April of 1809, it played an important role at Talavera July 27/28 (Battle Honour awarded). It was at Busaco in 1810 (Battle Honour), Fuentes d'Onor in 1811 (Battle Honour ), and Salamanca in 1812 (Battle Honour). The regiment played an honourable part in the unsuccessful Siege of Burgos in Sept/Oct. of 1812, by which point it had suffered so many casualties that it was formed, along with the 58th Regiment, into "The Third Provisional Battalion" in December of 1812. As such, the battalion participated in the 1813 campaign: Battle of Vittoria 23 June (Battle Honour), actions in the Pyrenees passes in August (Battle Honour "Pyrenees"), and in the crossing of the Nivelle River in to southern France in November (Battle Honour "Nivelle"). Its last action was the Battle of Orthes, 27 February 1814 (Battle Honour). For its services, it earned the general battle honour "Peninsula". The 2/24th was disbanded at Ramsgate on the 24th of November 1814.

All in all, between its constituent predecessor battalions (1st & 2nd 24th, 1st & 2nd 41st, & 1st & 2nd 69th), the Royal Regiment of Wales has almost every major Battle Honour awarded in the period 1792-1815; and many unique Honours, such as St. Vincent, Detroit, and Miami."

Thanks 24th.

In 1881, when the 41st and 69th became the Welch Regiment, the 24th, which already had two battalions, simply changed its name to the South Wales Borderers, and various south Welsh volunteer and militia battalions were formerly affiliated to it. During the Zulu War, although the Regiment had been recruiting in South Wales and its Depot was Brecon from 1873, it was technically still officially named the 24th(2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.


And that gentlemen is fact. No matter how much you twist it.

All posts relating to this discussion have been split and merged.

CTSG
Yes, agree totally.

24th
Yes, the same Regiment. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars the army "downsized" and some regiments had their second battalions disbanded. However, the needs of a developing Empire soon resulted in them being reformed !

ADMIN
Well done. Maybe you should start a new section, and not just a thread, on the 2nd Warwickshires !!!!


Bill

This from Mike Snook. Source Victorian War Forum.

"Under the old pre-Cardwell/Childers system, British line infantry regiments were numbered as 'regiments of foot'. I have told you that one of these, the 6th Regiment of Foot, bore a county affiliation 'The Warwickshire Regiment.' This regiment is nothing whatsoever to do with the Zulu War or the battle of Isandlwwana.

There were, however, two regiments with a Warwickshire designation. The second of these, the 24th Regiment of Foot, bore the county affiliation '2nd Warwickshire' accordingly. This is to distinguish it from the other one - not very original I grant you but there it is. Written in full, the correct designation is The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.

Now, back to what I said earlier - regiments are divided into battalions. Present at the Battle iof Isandlwana were elements of both the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. In the case of the former battalion there were 5 companies present. In the case of the latter, only one. These battalions are commonly abbreviated as 1st/24th and 2nd/24th, meaning, in the case ofthe former, The 1st Battalion, The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot, and, in the case of the latter, The 2nd Battalion The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.

The association with Warwickshire was purely nominal in the case of the 24th. It had never served there and had never had a depot there. In 1873 in accordance with the Localisation Act, the 24th Regiment was associated, in very real terms, with Wales and, in particular, with the town of Brecon, where it opened its new regimental depot. This was some 5-6 years before the Zulu War. In 1881, two years after the war, all the regiments lost their numbers under the Childers reforms - phase two of the Cardwell reforms if you will. This was because an awful lot of regiments were single battalion organizations and these had to amalgamate to from new two-battalion regiments. Hence the old numbers had to go and everybody had to have localised titles reflecting their affiliation with their recruiting areas.The 24th became The South Wales Borderers or SWB. However, because the first 25 line regiments had always had two battalions and hence did not need to become involved in amalgamations, the old numbers marched on, on an unofficial basis. As late as the 1960s if you asked a man in the regiment what outfit he was in, he might just as readily reply 'the 24th' as 'SWB'. "

sas1
The title of the 6th Regiment was the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. It received its 'Royal' title in 1832.

Bill

If you read the post by sas1 you will see that your question has been answered by your Col Snook, wher he says that; "in 1881, two years after the Zulu war, ALL REGIMENTS LOST THEIR NUMBERS UNDER THE CHILDERS REFORMS". He goes on to say that "the old numbers marched on, ON AN UNOFFICIAL BASIS" I would remind you that this means that the last British infantry regiment to OFFICIALLY have been numbered the 24th foot/regiment was indeed the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and NOT the SWB. Therefor by you saying that the RRW's full correct title incuded the numbers (whether I like it or not !!!) is wrong, as the numbers were only included UNOFFICIALLY to show the precedence of the regiments, whether you like it or not !!!.

You say that the regiment had no special link with Warwickshire, yet Ian Knight says that " The 24th regiment, notwithstanding its historic Warwickshire associations, was attached to the 25th subdistrict"

You then go on to say that it was logical to retitle the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment to the SWB to reflect its geographic location, you then continue that the regiments lnks with Warwickshire were very marginal.

May I remind you that the regiment was raised in Kent, England, it was raised for the defence of the English kingdom, and it was later given an English county title, so its association with England is totally self evident, it had no link or association with Wales whatsoever, until it was moved there by the reforms made by the government of the day. So I would say that from its raising in 1689, and from its English county title from 1782 until 1881, that it had a lot more links and associations with England than it it did to Wales, let's face it, it had only been at Brecon for 8 years, and as Ian Knight says, " by the beginning of the Anglo-Zulu campaign in January 1879, NEITHER battalion had spent time in Brecon".

That was a rather silly quote you made about how many men came from Warwickshire at RD, but typical of trying to justify the name change to the SWB,
It would not make a blind bit of difference how many men came from Warwickshire at RD, the name of the regiment would still be the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, whether you like it or not !!!.

Another rather silly thing to say was that you are sue it was an "innocent slip" that Burton made by saying that the regiment was called the SWB. I suppose that all the other mentions of the regiment being "A Welsh regiment" and all the rest of the false Welshness in the film was also an "innocent slip up". You know as well as I do, that this film was made that way, to con the uninitiated general public into believing that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was a Welsh regiment, and as a result, the Welsh now bask in the glory that is not rightfully theirs. And websites, museums, etc, that are supposed to be dedicated to this regiments part in the AZW don't really do much to clarify the matter do they. The literature that some of these places put out is almost propaganda. Take for instance this quote from one of thes sites.

"The South Wales Borderers are perhaps best remembered for Marlborough's campaigns when the Duke was their Colonel, the American war of independence, in the Peninsular at Talavera, and the Sikh wars at Chillianwallah. Its involvewment in the Zulu campaign was both tragic and glorious, Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift are likely to be remembered for a long time"

What a load of tripe this is, it is all pretence, as all the above happened well before the regiment was named the SWB, and there is no mention whatsoever of the 2nd Warwickshire regiment who's name was around for a lot longer than that of the SWB, what a disgrace this is to the memory of a regiment.

I have seen many pictures and read many articles from the museum, yet it seems that this regiment does not get the proper recognition that it deserves. If the museum is supposed to be dedicated to the regiments part that it took in the AZW, then why have I never seen or read much about the regiments full title of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, why is the name not displayed in large upper case letters or in the literature that I have read. There is reference to the 24thfoot/regiment, but this implies the regiment pre 1782, the regiments titlke from 1782 until 1881 was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, yet this name is very rarely displayed, why? Could it be to keep the myth of the film alive and well I wonder?

Sites and museums supposedly dedicated to this regiments part in the AZW, should be proud to display the name of this regiment in full and in large upper case letters, rather than hide it in the small print so that no one will read it.

If you are proud of this regiment and its part in the Zulu war, then you should show it by displaying its full name (even though it is an English name), or would that give the game away to the public?

No, I won't be coming to Brecon, so you don't have to worry.

Hi all

Nid oes unrhyw milwyr o Gymru, ers i Gymru yw bellach yn annibynnol.




Pascal

Quide?

And there were not also in Zululand ...



Pascal

Martin

A pity you can't make Brecon on the 16/17th June as you would then be able to see for yourself as how the Museum approaches this issue, insterad of presupposing how we do so.

One day maybe ... ?#

Bill

Hi all

What I find unfortunate is the fact of giving regiments, names of particular regions, so that even in kilted Scottish regiments, there were soldiers who were neither Scottish Highlanders and even less .. .

I would have loved me all the regiments are ethnic ...

This would have a competition against each other ... for they are unleashed in combat.

Alas , no Welsh , English , Cornish , Irish or Scottish Regiments or Soldiers in the British Impérial Army in 1879...In fact they were all British ONLY ...




Pascal

Pascal
The composition and cohesion of the regiments mixed with a local allegiance was (and continues to be) one of the strengths of the British Army.

For Julian

False, because the ethnic origin of each unit of soldiers of the British army is too diverse ...

But it is unfortunate that this may not be like that.


At the beginning of the first World War, the French army regiment was organized in ethnic regiments, even though the regiments did not wear that in theirs titles, and one could see were is the best human material, in general, he is found in the north of the Loire ...

Thus the Bretons and the Vendeans were to bleed white and in August 1914, there is a full army corps of méridionnaux of 50,000 men who are discharged like rabbits ...

Dailleur Bonaparte 1er a bien dis que les méridoniaux ne lui avaient fournis aucuns bon régiments , mais que les bretons , étaient la race de granit...
Also , first Bonaparte has said that the méridoniaux had not provided some good regiments for his army, but the Bretons, were the race of granite after him ...

After we tried to make people believe that the native regiments had been sacrificed, (ditto, during the second world war) in fact the opposite has been proved by one of your compatriots who live in Charente, in his book on the Verdun Osprey editions ...

Now , were is the best human matériel in the british army ?
And the french in the zulu war quelles étaient leurs origines ?
( look the topic for the french in the zulu war...)

Now, were is the best human material in the british army?

And the french in the Zulu war what were their ethnic origins?
(Look the topic on the french in the Zulu war ...)



Pascal

Pascal
Without going off topic too much, and with the greatest respect, you are wrong. The composition of the regiment underlines the fact that the men's foremost loyalty is to the regiment. Not to their ethnicity. Not to their country of birth. Not even to the United Kingdom, funnily enough. But to one another, embodied as The Regiment with all its traditions. In the regiment you look after one another.

Julian , for me there are only the ethnic, the rest of it is ...

Pascal

Bill

I don't have to pre-suppose anything. All I have to do is to google in things like RRW, Brecon Museum, SWB, RW, etc, etc, then just see and read the stuff that comes up. Nearly everything is worded in such a way so as to cover up, hide, gloss over or disguise the fact that the 24th regiment had English origins, or that it had an English county name and was called the 2nd Warwickshire regiment during the AZW, you only have to read the quote that came from one of these sites, and which I mentioned in my earlier post, to see what I mean. Everything is worded to give the impression to the uninitiated general public that the 24th regiment has always been a Welsh regiment, its Englishness is always avoided being mentioned. That is why, in much of the literature, the regiment is written down as the 24th foot or 24th regiment to avoid putting the English County name of (2nd Warwickshire), as this would give the game away that the regiments origins are English, and that it was originally an English regiment, which, as far as I am concerned, it still is, and, in my opinion, was wrongly moved from its native England to the south Wales borders.

By just putting the 24th foot or 24th regiment, this implies the regiment pre 1782, from 1782 until 1881, the regiment was called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and this is what should be written when describing the regiment from 1782 until 1881, but this name is always avoided for fear of giving the game away, and to help feed the myth created by the film.

In an earlier post by you, you said that the traditions of the 24th were being kept by the RW, well, I can't ever remember reading that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment ever had a goat for a mascot, or that the regiment ate raw leeks, or that its regimental march was 'men of harlech', I always thought that it was 'The Warwickshire Lad'.

The origin of this regiment is English, and it should never have been moved from its native land, it is not getting the justice it so rightly deserves, its origins are glossed over, its name is avoided like the plague, its pre 1881 glorious past is written down on some sites as being that of the SWB (who's name never even existed until 1881), everything is worded up to make it appear to the public that it has always been a Welsh regiment, and anything of its Englishness is never mentioned.

In fact how many of the RW's antecedent regiments are actually all Welsh?

The 23rd, Assembled at Ludlow, Shropshire, England, but recruited also in Radnor and Montgomary, so that is not all Welsh is it?

The 24th, raised in Kent, England, later titled 2nd Warwickshire, England, so that is not Welsh then is it?

The 41st, formed from invalids and Chelsea out pensioners, so that is not all Welsh then is it?

The 69th, This was the old 2nd Battalion of the 24th, it was redesignated the 69th (South Lincolnshire) regiment, so that is yet another regiment that is not all Welsh isn't it?

Seems to me that the Royal "Welsh" isn't actually all that "Welsh" after all.

Martin.

In conclusion, the 24 th is a Welsh regiment, in name only ...



Pascal

Martin

You are obviously fully entrenched in your beliefs, and no matter what evidence I produce to counter those beliefs, you just will not listen. I can therefore see no purpose in continuing this debate.

I do feel disappointed to see that you have no real understanding of the regimental traditions of the British Army.

Bill

"The cap badge of the South Wales Borderers on the front gates of the museum. The Sphinx was awarded to the regiment for its services in Egypt in 1801"

This is taken from the Brecon Museum website - it would seem to imply the regiment was called The South Wales Borderers in 1801 ? Is this the case ?

Hi Gary

They are implying that it was the SWB, however this is not the case.

The sphinx was awarded to The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, the name SWB did NOT EXIST until 1881, two years after the Zulu war. As I said in my earlier post, anything relating to the regiments English origins or its achievements and battle honours pre 1881 (while it still had its English county name), are hidden or glossed over, and worded in such a way to make it appear that the regiment has always been Welsh, and of course, the regiments pre 1881 Englishness takes a back seat, whilst the Welsh bask in the glory of these past achievements that are not rightfully theirs, what an awful way to treat the memory of the noble 24th.

Martin.

My daughter brought me a sphinx from egypt couple of years ago, had Made in Cardiff stamped on the bottom. Could be your wrong after all this time Martin and the 24th was an egyptian regiment. :lol:

Cheers Mate

Tad more serious that probably supports your contentions Martin is that the official regimental history by CT Atkinson is called The South Wales Borderers 1689 - 1937.

Its called stirring the pot :evil:

Cheers

Nice one about the sphinx springy, it's a wonder it didn't have made in Hong Kong on the bottom.

Yes, I am afraid that C.T. Atkinson must have swollowed the myth hook line and sinker, unless, of course, he is also party to keeping the regiments English origins, and its glorious pre 1881 achievements and battle honours, hidden behind the wall of Welsh pretence.
Take a look at one of my earlier posts where I have written a quote that was listed in the history of the RW. They make the claim that Marlborough was the SWB's Colonel, and that the SWB fought in the American war of independence, the Peninsula at Talavera, the Sikh wars at Chillianwallah, and of course the AZW at iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift, this is some achievement isn't it, saying that the name SWB did not exist until 1881. It's just one big cover up to hide the regiments Englishness, and its great achievements before its name was changed in 1881. To my mind, it is all a conspiracy to hide the regiments Englishness, and substitute it for Welshness, and Bakers film certainly added to this myth, and it wouldn't surprise me if indeed this was his intention.

If I had any say in this, I would return the 24th to its native England, and also release the old 6th from its fusilier status (which was forced on it against its will), and unite them both as the 1st and 2nd battalions The Warwickshire Regiment, and return some pride to the historical county of Warwickshire, which has lost both its regiments through meddling government reforms.

Thanks for the post springy, hope you are keeping ok mate.

Martin.

Quote :

Seems to me that the Royal "Welsh" isn't actually all that "Welsh" after all.

:lol:

I cannot find the full account by "Brickhill" just parts. So can someone confirm if this is actually a part of his account...

"Brickhill says : "There were thirty Zulus to every British soldier. At 120 yards distance they raised the cry "Usutu!", the name of Cetswayo's army which overthrew the Izigove under his brother, Umbulazi, in the fight for supremacy in 1856. The cry then was"Minizeld Usutu!" (The Usutu has swallowed up, or overwhelmed.). Since then, all Cetswayo's army goes by this name. They now came on with an overwhelming rush. I went back to the 1/24th (1st Battalion, 24th Foot Regiment, the South Wales Borderers) camp to see if I could find my companion"