"Victorian British Army - key issues for investigation?" Topic

Hi all,

I am starting to get interested in the Victorian Army and am especially keen to read about any *key issues* that have exercised historians in the last few decades. These might be significant disagreements/uncertainties/advances regarding particular campaigns or battles or more general issues about organisation, doctrine, etc. etc. etc.

Does anything interesting come to mind? For example, I know there have been some striking revisions regarding the generally accepted interpretation of what happened at Isandlwana in 1879 (i.e., less emphasis now on critical ammo shortages and more on Pulleine's firing line having been simply too far forward and too extended). Any reading pointers on this, or indeed any other key issue, would be very much appreciated!

Cheers all!
Redcoat

I'm honestly trying to be supportive here, but your question and the fact that, strictly speaking, you're inquiring about a time span of 65 years and at least five continents…you might wanna narrow your focus a bit more.

The horrible treatment accorded soldiers thanks to the Good Old' Duke of Wellington decision to "hide" the army from civilian eyes and caring after Waterloo

or

The horrible loss of animal life (beasts of burden) throughout almost the entire South Asia quadrant during the 2nd Afghan War.

…and all points in between.

Pick a section of the field and start digging, you'll find enough to keep you busy for a lifetime.

Honestly

…and Good Luck to you too!

The Crimean War itself will give you more than enough issues.

Some misguided souls even find enough details in the Zulu War of 1879 to keep them busy for a lifetime and that little dust-up only lasted some seven months!

Poor Sods!

You might find Saul David's "Victoria's Wars" a useful introductory overview.

Read ALL the Flashman novels … twice.

There are so many misconceptions and myths about the army of the period that, as others have said, it is very difficult to know where to begin.
I have just finished writing a 'myth-busting' account of the Boer War, so you might find that an interesting starting point – its currently in the hands of the publisher, but should be out before the end of the year.

BullDog69

Hopefully you will let us all know when the book is available for pre order from Amazon

Agreed, please do let us know!

I certainly will – in the meantime I am busy changing my name and making plans to flee South Africa!

redcoat,

You might also want to pick up a copy of the relatively recent, "Into the Jaws of Death" by Colonel Mike Snook, published in 2008, which deals with a handful of dramatic British defeats at the hands of Zulus, Afghans, Mahdists, and Boers, from 1879 to 1900.

If you want to get a great flavour of the real British Army in the Victorian era you can do no better than read some books by the late Byron Farwell. "Mr. Kipling's Army", "Queen Victoria's Little Wars" and "Eminent Victorian Soldiers" are three of the best. "The Army in Victorian Society" by Gwyn Harries-Jenkins is a more cerebral examination. There are many revisionists that may scoff at such a collection but these are still solid accounts of the Victorian Army.

There has been some controversy and recent revisionism around the colonial New Zealand Wars.

Thanks all,

Much for me to get my teeth into here!

I am getting especially interested in the British Army's involvement in the Crimean War. Might anyone recommend a few accessible books that might allow me to focus in particular on the British army's performance, whether tactically, logistically, etc. etc.?

Thanks so much all!
redcoat

"The Reason Why" by Cecil Woodham-Smith is an excellent book on Balaclava and the Charge of the Light Brigade. It touches on a variety of problems in the British army during the campaign, with particular focus on the personal friction between Lucan and Cardigan, and the relationship between the army as a whole and Victorian British society in general. Not a lot of from the enlisted man's perspective, but still a classic study of the campaign.

David Howarth's "Queen Victoria's Little Wars" is a great source for this period.

"THe DEstruction of Lord Raglan" is quite good as well. Richard Holmes' "Sahib" is very good on the British in India. I was shocked at some of the statistics. That Britain lost about 4000000 people in India. 4000000 Brits went there and didn't return! Horrifying. Only about 5% of HEIC Officers lived to receive their pensions. Of some British regiments sent to India in the 19th century, no soldiers ever returned; the 16th Lancers, for example, of those with the regiment on arrival, none returned to the UK when the regiment came back.

Chouan

Those stats are incredible – indeed, barely believable. I always thought there were only ever a couple of hundred thousand Brits in India throughout the Raj? (I mean at any one time, of course). I suppose infant deaths etc were horrific back then, but it still seems remarkable that 4,000,000 Britons died in India – fascinating.
I have always been amazed that – after 200 years of British rule – there isn't a significant 'white' community left in India and that even the 'Anglo-Indian' community is very small / barely there at all – I mean, you still get white Kenyans and Zambians etc (admittedly in small numbers but I doubt four million British colonists are buried in either country).
You'd have thought that, if 4,000,000 Brits died in India, that would suggest many millions lived there over the years and it would therefore reasonably follow that a good chunk of these would have remained in India after 1948 – but this does not seem to have been the case (I confess I cannot find any sort of stats on this, but I have worked in India and have lots of Indian friends / colleagues and am basing my assertion on this very limited experience).
I suppose there are lots of factors at play though: with the rest of the Empire still intact at that time, I imagine that people could relocate to another colony if they were so minded? In contrast, by the time white / colonial rule ended in Rhodesia / South Africa, it was the end of the road and there was nowhere else to go if you wanted that lifestyle.

Maybe he meant 400 000.

The Anglo-Indian community is much bigger than you'd imagine. However, post independence, those who stayed, the majority, have pretty much assimilated to an Indian identity, except for their religion and their names. I sailed with an Indian seaman called Anthony Leighton, who was as dark as any Tamil, and who only spoke the Bhat and whatever his local language was, probably Konkani, but no English. Another, with the splendid name of Sylvester Charlesworth, from New Delhi had the skin tone of a Brit just back from the Dordogne, and whose English was almost accent free; just that hint of "welsh". Another, Ivan Pereira, from Bombay, who was fairly dark but spoke English as his first language, and enough Hindi to give orders to his servants, and the crew (he was 2nd Engineer).
Some, a very few, Brits stayed on in India. Some, because they'd effectively made their homes in India as well as their careers, like Auchinleck in more recent times, and people like Sir David Auchterlony in the early 19th century. But most, nearly all, went home on retirement, unless they were recruited for the various services in India; fairly common for NCOs whose pension would go a lot further in India than in the UK.
The Anglo-Indian community, until independence, were very friendly and, let us say "accomodating" to British NCOs, in the hope of getting more Brit blood into their gene pool.
As far as I can make out, only British army people were likely to serve in other colonies; other forms of service in India, whether civil or military, tended to be in India alone. BI Officers, for example (British India Steam Navigation Company)would, until the 1970's go out to India for 2 years, taking local leave only.
The Brits in East Africa/South Africa often went there to settle, rather than as "service", hence it became their home. Hence the white land owning and farming community in such places as Rhodesia and Kenya. The Brits in India, however, rarely went to farm or to settle. They managed industries or plantations or businesses, as well as running the infrastructure, then came home on retirement, if they survived.
Holmes suggests that in the 19th century the death rate of Brit soldiers was something like 69 per thousand, per annum. For women it was 44, and children 89 per thousand per annum. In early 19th century Manchester it was 12.5 per thousand, per annum. Shocking figures! When you think that the Brits first arrived in India in 1620 or so the figures aren't that surprising, when added up over the years.

"Maybe he meant 400 000."
No, 4 million.

4 million deaths over 300+ years isn't so surprising, is it?