British Foot Regiments Massacred in Battle (2 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

What about the 93rd at New Orleans -- I don't have the figures in front of me but they certainly got chewed up pretty badly.

Yes they had 557 casualties (about 75%) standing in line firing against the Americans protected behind a redoubt but retired in good order.

 

[glossman]

*
I think "British Foot Regiments: Heroic Final Stands" would have been a much better title for this subject.

 

[trooper]

In 1914 the withdrawal of the 5th Division needed rearguard cover which was provided by !st Btn The Norfolk Regt. and 1st Btn The Cheshire Regt. along the Elouges-Audregnies road. They would be opposed by the 4th German Army Corps consisting of 25 infantry battalions, 6 cavalry squadrons, 24 artillery batteries and 56 machine guns. The fighting was furious and continuous. Eventually Colonel Ballard of the Norfolks, who was in overall command, decided that the 5th Division had completed their withdrawal and decided to follow them and retire by companies. At least five messengers were sent to the Cheshires informing them of the situation but all were killed and the battalion remained in ignorance. Still fighting they were cut off and surrounded ransacking the dead and wounded for ammunition. Refusing to surrender "A" company, out of ammunition and down to 30 men, fixed bayonets and charged. Others fought with clubbed rifles and bare fists until overwhelmed. Some 40 odd men were taken prisoner.

 

[glossman]

In 1914 the withdrawal of the 5th Division needed rearguard cover which was provided by !st Btn The Norfolk Regt. and 1st Btn The Cheshire Regt. along the Elouges-Audregnies road. They would be opposed by the 4th German Army Corps consisting of 25 infantry battalions, 6 cavalry squadrons, 24 artillery batteries and 56 machine guns. The fighting was furious and continuous. Eventually Colonel Ballard of the Norfolks, who was in overall command, decided that the 5th Division had completed their withdrawal and decided to follow them and retire by companies. At least five messengers were sent to the Cheshires informing them of the situation but all were killed and the battalion remained in ignorance. Still fighting they were cut off and surrounded ransacking the dead and wounded for ammunition. Refusing to surrender "A" company, out of ammunition and down to 30 men, fixed bayonets and charged. Others fought with clubbed rifles and bare fists until overwhelmed. Some 40 odd men were taken prisoner.

Hello Trooper,

Thanks very much for your contribution. Much appreciated.

Your story of the 1st Bn The Cheshire Regt underscores the point I was trying to make in starting this thread ie: the indomitable fighting spirit of the British Regiment of the Line.

The story of the courageous stand of the 1st Bn The Cheshire Regt in covering the withdrawal of the 5th Division is example par excellence of this.

Kind Regards, Raymond.

 

[Iron Brigade]

*
This is a short write up of the most massacred British Regiments in battles during the 18th and 19th Centuries from BritishBattles.com.

Here in the link: http://www.britishbattles.com/most-massacred.htm

44th Regiment of Foot: Final Stand at Gandamak on 13th January 1842, First Afghan War.

24th Regiment of Foot: Battle of Isandhlwana on 22nd January 1879, Anglo Zulu War.

66th Regiment of Foot: Battle of Maiwand on 27th July 1880, Third Afghan War.

Dear "Glossman": Thanks for the interesting data on #3 hard hit British Regiments during the 19th century. I noted that two of the three were relative to Afghan Wars. Alas, the Afghan War since 2001 to date is killing still more in the same area.
Best regards, "Iron Brigade" - Gary

 

[glossman]

Dear "Glossman": Thanks for the interesting data on #3 hard hit British Regiments during the 19th century. I noted that two of the three were relative to Afghan Wars. Alas, the Afghan War since 2001 to date is killing still more in the same area.
Best regards, "Iron Brigade" - Gary

Dear Gary,

Thanks very much for your comments.

I think "hard hit" is a good alternative to describe the brave and resolute stands of the 3 British Regiments in these battles.

The term "massacre" is not quite correct as it is often applied to the unlawful killing of a large number of people, usually civilians. There is also some overlap usage with genocide, which it even more inappropriate.

Best Wishes, Raymond.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Dear Gary,

Thanks very much for your comments.

I think "hard hit" is a good alternative to describe the brave and resolute stands of the 3 British Regiments in these battles.

The term "massacre" is not quite correct as it is often applied to the unlawful killing of a large number of people, usually civilians. There is also some overlap usage with genocide, which it even more inappropriate.

Best Wishes, Raymond.

"Massacre" means the promiscuous slaughter of many who can not make resistance, or much resistance or to kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations. Thus is practice it is not limited to the slaughter of civilians but in a military context can apply to killing prisoners or those who surrender. In that sense, Isandhlwana may qualify toward the end as would the Alamo for Americans. I am not so sure about the other two.