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

rusteze wrote:

Lets not forget that, so far as the public is concerned, David Jenkins has been "Returned to Official Records" as a defender and quite right too. Four or five people on this site disagree, but that doesn't matter a jot. They are wasting their breath. Next Wednesday would be a good day on which to stop indulging them - the horse has bolted.

Steve

And where do you think, posts like this will get us. As said before if your happy to accept Jenkins was there, then for you the discussion is over. Why keep harping on about four or five people. If they don't agree let them say why, which they are doing. Just because they don't agree with what you say, doesn't make there doubters. they just take the subject more seriously than you!

All
There comes a point where trying to show those who know not that they know not becomes impossible. Every single statement made by John. chard and impi is incorrect historically and it pains me to see such ignorance. I also find it disgraceful that they seem to have set out to deliberately manipulate history to suit their own petty squabbles such that brave men's names are sullied.
Kris write her book a couple of years ago before my research was done and published. We've consulted and naturally she agrees with my findings.
The newspapers I quoted above also state that Roy was in the escort party. The escort was waylaid a few days before the defence at RD (probably the 19th/20th) with 1 or 2 of its members falling ill whilst on its way back to Isandhlwana.
The failure to recognize that there were two Jenkins - one kia and one who survived (the no. is immaterial - most have wrong nos.) is crass.
Just a few weeks back impi asked me what was the difference was between a primary and a secondary source. It is unreasonable to expect someone who doesn't know what a primary source is to know how one should be treated. I shall no longer respond to this topic.
Lee
Thanks.

“History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation.”

I thought this hoary old fable had been put to bed but I see its still plodding its rather silly course.
For Jenkins to have got out of hospital, this is what he would have done.
Firstly, crawled out of a window, or even more intelligently asked the Zulus, ( thousands of them mind you) to step aside while he unbarricaded the door. Then he would have run/crawled the gauntlet through the mass of Zulu, passed the Zulus firing from the cook house.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Having got this far hes now under fire from not only the cookhouse but also the caves just behind him, but still only a another 100 metres to crawl, shame poor bloke.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nearly there old chap hang on, watch out for all those nasty buggers trying to stab you with the odd traditional weapon or two, oops dodge the knobkerries and keep going, nearly there.

Now jump over the wall, phew safe inside the barricade,
Crawl along till you can find Lt Chard or any other officer you can toady up to.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Give him a tap on the shoulder, "Begging your pardon sir but there a local indigenous chap about to take a pot at you."
"Thank you my good man, by the way my names Chard,"
Pleased to meet you sir, David Jenkins here, your life saver, " ( There ya go Koppie that's the way it happened.)
Chard. " Thanks old chap to hop of/crawl back the way you came."

Bugger cries Jenkins, 'histories going to kop it now,' and he crawls back over the wall through the 4000 Zulus back through the door, re barricades it then manages to get dragged out and die.

If that lot sounds stupid then read the arguments your putting up.

Ray 63
By the way, if you had bothered to search for that quote you would have known its been discredited by every one from Knight, Greaves Laband Lock and Quantrill. In fact every one with a modicum of knowledge on the wars.

I did suggest this some days ago. Hear the words of the worlds leading authority on the Zulu War. Mr Ian Knight.

"Frustrating as it may be, many an attempt to validate an individual’s participation at Rorke’s Drift is likely to get no further than a brutal truth - that ‘he is not on the rolls"

The fact Julian as decided to stop contributing on this subject, says it all!

So it's back to the beginning. Was David Jenkins at Rorke's Drift. ?

Martin. As stated by Julian "the no. is immaterial - most have wrong nos." You see it's not that simple.

None of those that disagreed, set out to slur the name of the Brave Soldiers. They just wanted the truth. It would be more disrespectfull to their memory, to include a Soldier who may not have been there. And it's certainly looking towards he wasn't.

All members that I know admire Kris Whealeys work. It's the best there is. And she gets it right. Her books are highly recommended.

Admin now this would be a good note to end this discussion!

“History is that certainty! produced at the point! where the imperfections of memory! meet the inadequacies of documentation.!”  says impi  ( my exclamation marks )

So, that was well said impi, but do you fully realizes the implication of
that statement, the exclamation marks highlights each tenant of the
statement.. well said
..except that, you seem to be hoisted by your own petard..as you might
recall you have consistently refused to look at the documentation that
has been fully provided by means of diligent and meticulous research!.
so one is left with the overwhelming conviction that you refuse to look
at any thing in case you have to retract! your refusal to look does you
no favours, i now and in the future will look at your post's with a
jaundiced view. which is a shame!

Springbok    absolutely brilliant! and so funny.   

Chard, Impi etc.

Seriously ?   

The evidence that Jenkins was a defender is in Julian's publication, clear as day - anyone who has read it has agreed that the evidence provided places DJ as a defender.

springbok9 wrote:

I thought this hoary old fable had been put to bed but I see its still plodding its rather silly course.
For Jenkins to have got out of hospital, this is what he would have done.
Firstly, crawled out of a window, or even more intelligently asked the Zulus, ( thousands of them mind you) to step aside while he unbarricaded the door. Then he would have run/crawled the gauntlet through the mass of Zulu, passed the Zulus firing from the cook house.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Having got this far hes now under fire from not only the cookhouse but also the caves just behind him, but still only a another 100 metres to crawl, shame poor bloke.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nearly there old chap hang on, watch out for all those nasty buggers trying to stab you with the odd traditional weapon or two, oops dodge the knobkerries and keep going, nearly there.

Now jump over the wall, phew safe inside the barricade,
Crawl along till you can find Lt Chard or any other officer you can toady up to.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Give him a tap on the shoulder, "Begging your pardon sir but there a local indigenous chap about to take a pot at you."
"Thank you my good man, by the way my names Chard,"
Pleased to meet you sir, David Jenkins here, your life saver, " ( There ya go Koppie that's the way it happened.)
Chard. " Thanks old chap to hop of/crawl back the way you came."

Bugger cries Jenkins, 'histories going to kop it now,' and he crawls back over the wall through the 4000 Zulus back through the door, re barricades it then manages to get dragged out and die.

If that lot sounds stupid then read the arguments your putting up.

Ray 63
By the way, if you had bothered to search for that quote you would have known its been discredited by every one from Knight, Greaves Laband Lock and Quantrill. In fact every one with a modicum of knowledge on the wars.

     Springbok. Put that time machine back in the garage!

How on earth can you pin point Chards position! We know from Ken Gillings the lay out of RD was exactly how it was back then.
Read Smith's account, he saw just about everything, witnessing nearly every death. Hearsay evidence. And speculation on your part. Good photo's though!   

[quote="Les" i now and in the future will look at your post's with a jaundiced view. which is a shame![/quote] I'm sure Impi will lose sleep over that!  I personally think Impi has done a good job, he has never give us any doubt what he believe. This has been shown over the last few days.

DrummerBoy 16 wrote:

Chard, Impi etc.

Seriously ?   

The evidence that Jenkins was a defender is in Julian's publication, clear as day - anyone who has read it has agreed that the evidence provided places DJ as a defender.

DB. Post something from Julian's publication. To convince us he was there?

No doubt there will be a load of posts saying Jenkins was there with no foundation to back it up.

So we have doubters and believers. Best leave it at that. It has been clearly shown doubt exsists   

CTSG
The position marked for Chard is within 10 yards ( that's the max distance you can travel from that point INSIDE the defense area.
The two accounts of 'the other ' Jenkins death are entirely compatible. The regimental records record his death, his wife probably re married and his kids spent hours crying over there lost daddy. There is no doubt in any historians mind that he died in the hospital. Hes buried in RD and his name is on the monument. You don't even come close to any form of sensibility in denying his death. That lot being said there is not one iota, shred, morsel, nano kin, of evidence to prove that David Jenkins wasn't there.

Be honest with yourself and the forum , non of this is about David Jenkins at all. Its an orchestrated attack on a highly qualified forum member.
If Im wrong and it is about David Jenkins then sorry to say but the level of debate is pretty pathetic, obtuse, ignorant and puerile.

Im, like Julian, backing away from this debate, incidentally my interest in the signatures is a totally separate issue and in no way at all does it reflect a view that absents David Jenkins from RD.

  

CTSG wrote

"And where do you think, posts like this will get us. As said before if your happy to accept Jenkins was there, then for you the discussion is over. Why keep harping on about four or five people. If they don't agree let them say why, which they are doing. Just because they don't agree with what you say, doesn't make there doubters. they just take the subject more seriously than you!"

Where it gets us is to a conclusion which has already been arrived at by the vast majority of people. Jenkins is accepted as a defender and there is now fresh published research which proves it.  You have done no research yourself and you have not read the research that has been produced. Of course you are doubters and you offer nothing substantial to back up those doubts. You have a very warped idea of what taking a subject seriously means old son.

Steve

Post something from Julian's publication. To convince us he was there?

why would the world entire! have to convince you lot, most of you have
by now asked the same thing..post something out of Julians ' truth ' and
you really dont get why people wont. its certainly not the case that the
author needs another half dozen sales! so why collectively and without
any inter communication,we decided that no! the information is out there
and readily available, so if you are serious about your entrenched view's
its beholden on you to gather all available evidence to support your argu-
ment, that you all choose not to! is in my opinion highly suspicious, you
should of begged borrowed or even god forbid ' bought ' a copy of this so
you could de construct the piece and if so..advance your argument armed
with your newly acquired intel..i suspect one! and through that..all of you
have seen or know full well what is in the piece! but it presents you with
an inconvenient truth which has become anathema to you! time to give
up lads..  

Springbok wrote:

Be honest with yourself and the forum , non of this is about David Jenkins at all. Its an orchestrated attack on a highly qualified forum member.

It's comments like this, that has degraded the discussion. No one has orchestrated any attacks. Julian was not involved in the discussion from the on set, but chose to join in. There are many well known Historians who like us, can see the issues that could suggest he wasn't there. Some of those issues have be highlighted over the last few days. We could say that an orchestrated attack had been launched against Impi, because he didn't agree with Julian. Just because some of you see Julian, as you say a highly qualified member, doesn't mean he's always right. Although I don't know Julian personally, I do find him arrogant and he does throw his dummy out of the pram, when it doesn't go his way. I'm more than happy to except there is a Julian Whybra camp, with-in the forum. But please allow those who are not to carrying on posting their views without the ridicule of its wrong, because Julian says it is.

And you of all, people do not need to hold Julians hand, your an Historian in your own right, with far more ability than Julian. And don't slang Impi off, because believe it or not he really admires your work, he may be an amateur like me and others but he does have a place on this forum.

Anyway Dinner time!

xhosa2000 wrote:

Post something from Julian's publication. To convince us he was there?

why would the world entire! have to convince you lot, most of you have
by now asked the same thing..post something out of Julians ' truth ' and
you really dont get why people wont. its certainly not the case that the
author needs another half dozen sales! so why collectively and without
any inter communication,we decided that no! the information is out there
and readily available, so if you are serious about your entrenched view's
its beholden on you to gather all available evidence to support your argu-
ment, that you all choose not to! is in my opinion highly suspicious, you
should of begged borrowed or even god forbid ' bought ' a copy of this so
you could de construct the piece and if so..advance your argument armed
with your newly acquired intel..i suspect one! and through that..all of you
have seen or know full well what is in the piece! but it presents you with
an inconvenient truth which has become anathema to you! time to give
up lads..    

In which case JW should not have given the go head to Kopie to post & copy from his work.
The opinon above is yours and yours only.   

Impi!   

CTSG
You should know by now I don't hold any ones hand. My believe in David Jenkins is promoted by the probabilities/evidence not by a desire to agree or back any individual. But then again Ive looked at the evidence, independantly from Julians publication.

I don't believe I have launched any personal attacks at all, not Impi, yourself or any of the other forum members. I have attacked their belief and interpretation and way of avoiding producing any evidence.

You want inflammatory then look at the stupid bloody post that preceeds this one.

Cheers

Now. Now! It's Sunday relax!

Julian Whybra says: "I shall no longer respond to this topic"
Well said Mister Whybra.
A debate is useful when all the participants search the truth. it's not the case here
Amitiés

frédéric

Shall we say this discussion as finally ended! Or does anyone have anything sensible to say!

Replies would be appreciated!   

Yep you cant spell appreciated.

Enjoy your Sunday Pete

think that's about it!. ive enjoyed all
the jousting, i never got personal and
i agree that everybody's opinion must
be heard..well i reckon everyone's said
their bit, so lets all agree to 'let it go'
and move forward.

It's a divided opinion! It's not going to change. But have no problem with Jenkins name being on the made up roll in the Museum! We all have a hobby!

There's evidence to suggest he was there, but some of the evidence has been flawed! Good arguments from both sides. More work needs to be done, before David Jenkins is accepted as one of the defenders.
It's a stalemate! which can go no further!

John wrote:

There's evidence to suggest he was there, but some of the evidence has been flawed! Good arguments from both sides. More work needs to be done, before David Jenkins is accepted as one of the defenders.
It's a stalemate! which can go no further!

Echo John!   

What evidence is flawed ?   


Cheers

My opinion stands. Not enought evidence to show he was there! Personal preference applies.

Admin, apply the coup de grace, we have all
suffered enough!   

Lock it   

There has been lots of evidence posted to show that he was at RD, however, the doubters have not posted anything to show where they think he was if he was not at RD.

But I suppose we will all have to agree to disagree.

Lock it. I don't want us to be going down this path on the anniversary of the defence in which he played a part.

Steve

 

Lets just say it's inconclusive!   

Locked. Can be opened on request!!

Yet he knows more about the battle and the people there, than Jenkins!    Yet the Old Soldier is telling lies!   

impi
You wouldn't know that because you've not read the evidence for Jenkins.
Also, that's just the point. Old Soldier doesn't know more!

Julian if Jenkins wasn't on Chards original roll call, how was he presented with a bible from the ladies of Natal. Even if a batch had been sent to England. Who wrote his name in the Bible.?

And it's good to see the Old Soldier doesn't give the impression, he was at Isandlwana?

Julian if your convinced, that the evidence you have, shows David Jenkins to be one of the Rorkes drift defenders. Then submit your evidence to the descendant regiment, let them look at the evidence, and if accepted, let them add David Jenkins to the roll of defenders. After all your hard work, would it not be in your own interest to end it correctly, rather than adding his name to a made up roll put together by museum staff, and do it yourself Historians. Because until then, there will always be doub't over Jenkins being at Rorkes Drift. But you know that. It's all well and good convincing some of the members on the forum, but they are not the "descendant regiment"and in real terms, their vote doesn't count. Get it agreed with the descendant regiment and your work will not be invein?

Every word on this! from your mouth ..
sound's offensive! your a one man
crusade! i take it your now talking
about the 24th/41st The Royal Welsh!
i take it you have made your view's
known to the Regiment? and that you
have had encouraging support which
enables you to carry on in this really
offensive manner...no i did'nt think so!
you need to get a grip now! think of
the real living ( now ) descendant's..
you do them no honour..pretty low!

Don't turn this in to a arguments. Can you see your name on the post intended for JW. As I said your vote doesn't get Jenkins added to the roll. Your a nosey little man, who only contribution is to find fault with others. Post something of interest connected to the Zulu War. If possible. I see your free masons topic is in the " One the History Books Forgot " Section         

Don't turn this in to a arguments. Can you see your name on the post intended for JW. As I said your vote doesn't get Jenkins added to the roll. Your a nosey little man, who only contribution is to find fault with others. Post something of interest connected to the Zulu War. If possible. I see your free masons topic is in the " One the History Books Forgot " Section Very Happy No scratch ....thank you impi..

i never thought i would say this..but! your off topic!. your off trend. i have absolutely no
connection with any forum member off forum! i seek no argument, your position remain's
untenable..you make NO attempt to answer any point i raise! if english is not your first
language then i apologise..i would them make allowance for your apparent lack of under-
standing of how a rational debate should flow. yes i dont know as much as i should about
the AZW! but i feel sure you will further this nosey little mans education! so kind..      

Impi I'd like to know who you are calling do it yourself historians ? . You cracked the sad' s the other day when I attempted to correct a couple of points your old soldier had written back in , as I said 1897 ! . I think you referred to them as minor ! , well , isnt it the aim to check or clear these '' minor '' errors ? . I'm sure no one wants to put forward a name , and then say ' hey ' he's on the list ! . This isnt done unless the evidence outweighs the non evidence , even though you quite plainly dont think that is the case . For someone who preaches often , for facts , and enlightenment , I dont see why you dont buy JW's work for yourself , gee , if you purchased Carlos Rocca's book I dont see why you wont spend the same amount on JW's ?? .   
Then you can debate all you like with some real ammunition , instead of blanks , and that isnt meant to be a smart arse comment , merely a suggestion which you may or may not decide to take up .
90th

I take a lot of pride in being called a do it yourself historian, 45 years its taken for me to be acknowledged as such. Mind you its also taken 45 years for my good lady to call me a DIY disaster on any house projects.
But impi my friend look critically at the Old Soldiers musings and see what is fact and what isn't. Look at the various positions he puts himself into and then what is wrong with his descriptions. A lot can be put down to old age memory wandering.
If you want to take the Old Soldier on as total face value then take a look at the story I published on the 22nd. That's based on full historical proven fact and should be granted equal status. Or even the Zabange statement, why not accept that as fact.

Cheers   

Sprinkbok wasn't aware you were involved in adding Jenkins to the lesser roll in the museum.

Your publication appears to be date 2014. Quite a gap between yours and the Old Soldier. Still if his accounts are to be dismissed, because they don't tally up with others fair enought. But remember according to NAM there are possibly more men to added to the defenders at RD. The Old Soldier could very well be one of them.

Your quite right, he could easily be one of them, its going to take lot more research to prove that though, as it stands the three of us that have been involved in researching have for the time being run into a brick wall. That's why ive left it saying that there is still a tantalizing possibility.
As with any research, its always open to new finds. I for one am very eager to give those men of B Company ever bit of Kudos they deserve.
Possible the major issue in my mind with the Old Soldier is that we just cant find his name, yet, once that can be reasonably established further work can be done.
Till that time, its an open book. Albeit only partially, theres still that very vivid description of his visit to Isandlwana with Black that just doesn't add up.

Cheers

PS How do you know my article was dated 2014? Possibly the finding of the documents was fact!   

Impi

JENKINS
I did say I wouldn’t respond to any further posts to you on the subject on Jenkins.  There is no point.  I don’t want to argue – I don’t like that side of the forum.  It’s not the way debates are conducted and it doesn’t get anyone anywhere.  So, I will say this to you to answer your points as reasonably as I can and I hope you think fairly.  Please take the trouble to read my reply carefully and ask if there’s anything you don’t understand:

Your whole problem with Jenkins stems from the fact that you are missing the central tenet of the argument FOR Jenkins’s presence – namely, his THIRD letter which states he was there, is contemporary, describes events, etc, etc.  Its remarks can be verified and corroborated by 13 other independently-verifiable primary sources and several other unverifiable minor ones.  It was the missing central piece of the jigsaw and, once found, all the other pieces fell into place.

All you remarks are based on his SECOND ambiguous letter, on overstating the case for the unverifiable Bible, and on “Jenkins not being on Chard’s original roll”.  The fact is he IS on Chard’s Roll, or rather he is on the original rolls on which the 1929 Chard Roll is based (again you’ve not read the evidence).  You make much of David Jenkins on the 1929 Chard Roll being given the wrong number but, impi, have you ever noted in the various RD rolls at one time or another that surnames are misspelt, initials are given incorrectly, and wrong regimental numbers are given for other 1/24th men.  To cite all the examples for the 1/24th from your beloved 1929 ‘Chard’ Roll:
Nicholas’s surname is misspelt and he has an incorrect number
David Jenkins’s number is incorrect
Payton’s surname is misspelt,
Waters has an incorrect number
Beckett’s surname is misspelt and he has the wrong number
Roy’s surname is given as ‘Joy’ and he has the wrong initial
Why don’t people argue that there was a Pte. Joy at RD (his name is on the Chard Roll after all!!!) and that Pte. Roy was elsewhere?  They don’t because the evidence FOR Roy can be verified and corroborated in other sources.  The same for Waters and the others, and for David Jenkins too.  But to be taken seriously, one is obliged to read the evidence before venturing an opinion.  And you haven’t and that’s why you’re getting such stick.

Thus you aim at the wrong target.  If you had read his THIRD letter, you would then seek to do as I described earlier – you look for corroborative, verifiable evidence.  And it is overwhelming.

You also ask me “to submit my evidence to the descendant regiment, let them look at the evidence, and if accepted, let them add David Jenkins to the roll of defenders”.  This request is based on a total lack of understanding of how history ‘works’.  If I were to do this, the regiment would not know what to do with it.  There is no precedent.  They would send it back to me saying ‘this isn’t our job mate, we’re not qualified to examine this, we’re not even do-it-yourself historians’.  It would be pointless.  They would laugh at me.  I haven’t even ‘submitted’ it to the regimental museum.  There isn't even a 'roll' for them to add Jenkins's name to. Do you think Ian Knight or John Laband submits his work to the regiment or the museum before it is published?  Of course not.  Research is published, put into the public domain, for critical peer review.  That’s how historical advances are made.  Not by amateurs on forums, not by professional soldiers in “descendant regiments” (what prior claim or special knowledge does THAT give them?), but by other professional historians.  So far I’ve had no-one rebut the Jenkins evidence.

I might also point out that the scenario you describe of “adding Jenkins’s name to a made up roll put together by museum staff, and do it yourself Historians” is one that exists only in your head.   Such a scenario has no basis in reality.  I’m saying this as politely as I can, but your wanting “to get it agreed with the descendant regiment and your work will not be in vein? [sic, it’s vain; vein is what’s in your body]” is risible.  The regiment would laugh, professional historians would laugh, the museum would laugh, the forum would laugh, Jenkins would laugh.

OLD SOLDIER
I do wonder whether sometimes you don’t actually read the posts on the forum, or don’t understand them.  You jump in with both feet and get yourself into a hole you can’t get out of, as before.  If you had read and understood, you could not possibly have written the recent posts you did regarding the Old Soldier accounts.  I suggest you re-read them calmly.  Again, anything you don’t understand, ask before you respond.  The same process is being used as for Jenkins.  Springbok, Lee, I and others have been looking for verification and corroboration for Old Soldier’s remarks and there isn’t any - yet.  Yes, in 1895/7 he seems to know a lot about what went on in 1879 at Isandhlwana and RD.  But it’s not accurate and no-one else has said those things.  That’s the problem.  What’s galling is that if there are any nuggets of information in there that are true, we have no way of finding out if they are, because they are hidden under a mass of enhanced story-telling.

You also wrote that “it's good to see the Old Soldier doesn't give the impression, he was at Isandlwana”.  He does of course, but after the battle, for the visit to the stricken field.  And that too he gets wrong.

I’ve tried to explain all this as clearly as possible.  On the forum everyone is entitled to an opinion (and that is how it should be) but it doesn’t mean that all opinions are equal.  With the greatest of respect you have no experience of validating historical evidence, of assessing historical authenticity, of carrying out historical research, of historical methodology, and it shows.  You're not a professional researcher or historian like some of those on the forum.  You’re not even a gifted amateur like many on the forum.  One of the huge advantages of the forum for me is that those gifted amateurs have on several occasions come up with information that I was not aware of, that I can use, or they give opinions which are irrefutably sound, and I am always grateful (and duly acknowledge them if I use them in my work).  You DO have an interest and an enthusiasm but you should direct it more carefully.  FIND a source which says Daniels was American.  FIND who Darkie Andrews was.  Can you imagine how negative it seems to forum members when you base your arguments on what you have NOT read?!? History is not a matter of who shouts the loudest.  In history, loudness is impotence.

Don’t get angry.  I  have no idea what you do.  If you’re a plumber, I’m sure you’re a good plumber.  If you’re a stockbroker, I’m sure you’re a good one.  But I’m an historian.  That’s what I do.  I do it to the best of my ability.  And I always accept constructive criticism.  I’ve learnt from Lee, from John Young, from Springbok, from Sergio, 90th, xhosa, drummer boy, kopie, ymob, and others.  Learning from mistakes is how we progress.  So, go on, I challenge you, prove Old Soldier was at RD!  Prove his identity!  Prove that ALL the pro-Jenkins evidence is invalid.  Prove that you have something valid to say in these matters.

Julian.not my place so i wont! but here's a thought!
why not simply reproduced the third letter here! and
there by forestall any more aggravation on your part!
i think you have been tolerant in the extreme. but at
least any one concerned with this can see! and then
appreciate! the clinching piece of your jigsaw, i say
your's because it is!

I would post it in full, but its the fruit of your ,
labour! and then maybe those who have eyes to see..
will do so! just a thought.

Helpmakaar, March 11th, 1879.
Dear brother, - I wrote to you about Christmas last, when stationed at Greytown; whether you received it I cannot say. I can assure you, dear brother, that there hundreds of letters and papers lost and mislaid. We have lost two English mails, the runners or mail bag carriers being captured by the enemy. They were killed, and the bags and contents destroyed. I received a paper from you on the 9th instant, dated the 2nd November, 1878. I have written four letters, two in November from King Williamstown, two from here to my father, and one to Cousin Thomas, but I have not received any answer to either of them.
I dare say you have read in the papers of the great massacre at Isandula Camp on the 22nd of January last. We lost five companies, band and drummers, and the staff, consisting of 541 men, about 181 of the 2-24th, some volunteers, wagon drivers, and some of the Natal mounted police – making a total of about 975. When the enemy attacked the camp the column was out skirmishing some twenty miles from camp; about 30,000 Zulus attacked us. We were under the command of Colonel Durnford, R.E.; he took the command from Colonel Pulleine. He sent one company out skirmishing, and they were seen no more. Our men fought splendidly; they fired until all their ammunition was spent. They then charged with fixed bayonets, but were soon overcome, the enemy being so strong. They all died the death of brave and gallant soldiers. The Zulus cut a great many of them in pieces, the same as a butcher does his meat. They hung the drummer boys upon hooks, opened them, and cut them up the same as you would an animal. Our men killed about 7,000 of the Zulus. I was that day at a place called Rorke’s Drift, some twelve miles from the other camp. About 5,000 of them attacked us on the same day. We had two hours’ notice of their coming. We converted mealie and oat sacks in a kind of fort. There were only 96 of us able to fight in this place. However, the hand of God being with us, and these sacks forming a wall, so as we could kill them as they were trying to rush in. We were able to hold our position until nine a.m. on the 23rd, when the column came to our assistance. We killed 900 of the Zulus, and lost 13 on our side and 10 wounded. There were only six of our regiment at this place; we happened to be there on escort. Out of the 551 of our regiment that were engaged on the 22nd January only ten are alive - a narrow escape. I thought every minute that the black savages would cut me in pieces. It was an awful sight to see the dead men lying in heaps all over the camp. I think we are coming home soon, as we cannot go to the front any more. We have lost everything. Thank God for my life. I hope I shall be spared to see you once more, when I can explain things to you. We are in a fort this last six weeks, sleeping with our clothes on, and lying out like cattle, with our ammunition by our side, ready at any minute, as we do not know when they may attack us. So no more. Please give my kind love to all at home, and all old friends. Hoping this will find you quite well and happy, as I am. Please write soon. –
Remaining your affectionate brother,
DAVID JENKINS
P.S. – There is a rumour of the colonial people presenting us, for the gallant defence of Rorke’s Drift, with a colonial medal.

I will post this again!

Well he certainly knew a lot of details about Isandlwana more so than Rorke’s Drift,

“It was an awful sight, to see dead men lying in heaps all over the camp”

“We were under the command of Col Durnford”

"He sent one company out skirmishing and they were never seen again"

"They hung up drummer boys on hooks"

This is the same information a lot of those out with LC Sent home in letters to give the impression they took part in the battle, Jenkins is trying to do the same.
He doesn’t mention anything about saving Major Chards life, which any normal person would.
And just because he says he was at Rorke’s Drift doesn’t mean he was. We had an account from a chap (Yankee Dan) who gave a lot more information about the battle and who was there.
Sorry by this proves nothing!

_________________
Of Isandlwana. "A Zulu chief afterwards said, " They turned
back to back and fought till they died. Not one tried to escape"

Impi
Dear oh dear! You really don't read posts do you? Look at what he says about RD and then try to verify it. You can. His remarks are corroborated over and over again.
as for what Jenkins might mention, I don't think you know anything about what a normal person thinks and does.
And you're so confused too. There is no account by Yankee Dan. What are you talking about? Well, you're down in the hole and you have a shovel. Keep digging. You obviously enjoy it.
Well, I tried. I honestly don't care what you believe. You're not worth the trouble any more.