British Foot Regiments Massacred in Battle (1 Viewer)

[glossman]

*
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.

 

[damian]

*
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.

Raymond sorry to be pedantic, but routed implies running away.
These regiments never did that.They were massacred but they did not run away.

 

[glossman]

Raymond sorry to be pedantic, but routed implies running away.
These regiments never did that.They were massacred but they did not run away.

Damian,

I have checked my hardcopy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

There are several entries, but the relevant one is "a disorderly retreat of defeated troops."

I used the term "routed" rather loosely to mean an overwhelming defeat.

You are right and I am wrong.

Therefore, I stand corrected and sincerely apologise.

Thanks, Raymond.

 

[BeaconsAl]

I wouldn't worry. They are all fascinating stories. Thanks for the link.

Alan

 

[Louis Badolato]

The 24th also got massacred (more than 50% casualties) at the Battle of Chillianwallah. They were a hard luck regiment.

 

[jazzeum]

At Raymond's request, I have corrected the title of the thread.

 

[mikemiller1955]

Raymond....that's a great link....interesting reading....seems the 24th has the un-distinguished honor of official "whipping boy".

 

[panda1gen]

What a great thread, terrific link as well. Thanks for posting.

Motto, don't mess in Afghanistan?

 

[lancer]

In addition to Gandamak, the 44th was also shot up at the Monongahela.

 

[1879fanatic]

The 24th also got massacred (more than 50% casualties) at the Battle of Chillianwallah. They were a hard luck regiment.

Someone's been watching their Zulu Dawn! They were "creamed" at Chllianwallah, but were advancing while doing so. Great one, Louis!
Mike

 

[Spitfrnd]

Interesting stuff. I need to check some of my sources again but I seem to remember that a number of other regiments suffered 50% or more casualties in various Peninsula battles. It was a bloody campaign at times.

 

[1879fanatic]

Interesting stuff. I need to check some of my sources again but I seem to remember that a number of other regiments suffered 50% or more casualties in various Peninsula battles. It was a bloody campaign at times.

Great Point, Bill. At what point does a "loss" become a massacre? If the 50% stays and fights, and is killed off, is that a massacre? If the entire unit is in action, and 50% are killed, is that a massacre? I would tend to answer my questions in the affirmative.
Anyone else's thought on what defines "massacre"? and events that happened in history?
Mike

 

[Mister Dave]

*
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.

Apologies if someone's pointed this out already, but the 44th also had a bad showing at Monogahela during the FIW.

MD

Oops, sorry Lancer I see my apology is in order......

 

[Spitfrnd]

Is is interesting to see these events described as regimental massacures since in practice through the 1800s, British regiments were typically deployed as battalions and most often the two battalions of a regiment were located in different places. For example, it was the 1st battalion of the 24th Foot that was destroyed at Isandhlwana; I am not sure about the others.

Of course the referenced link is describing the near or complete destruction of the applicable unit, not just a devastating loss of men. The British army in the Peninsula frequently suffered brutal casualities but not to that level and most frequently in victory. To cite just three examples, the 1/43 and 1/52 at Badajoz and the 1/42 at Toulouse all suffered about 50% losses but held or took their objectives.

 

[Mister Dave]

Is is interesting to see these events described as regimental massacures since in practice through the 1800s, British regiments were typically deployed as battalions and most often the two battalions of a regiment were located in different places. For example, it was the 1st battalion of the 24th Foot that was destroyed at Isandhlwana; I am not sure about the others.
Of course the referenced link is describing the near or complete destruction of the applicable unit, not just a devastating loss of men. The British army in the Peninsula frequently suffered brutal casualities but not to that level and most frequently in victory. To cite just three examples, the 1/43 and 1/52 at Badajoz and the 1/42 at Toulouse all suffered about 50% losses but held or took their objectives.

I know the 44th Foot was also essentially wiped out to a man at Gandamak. Don't recall the figures for the 66th at Maiwand (some did survive this event).

MD

 

[Spitfrnd]

Just took a quick look through my Wellington's Regiments and found that many British battalions suffered heavily in Napoleonic battles. To cite some further examples the 1/23rd at Albuera, 2/27th at Ordal, 2/34th at Maya, 2/59th at San Sebastion, 2/73rd at Waterloo, 1/79th at Toulouse and the 1/88th at Orthes all had 50% or more casualties for their respective battles. The 1/11th and 1/32nd were virtually wiped out at Salamanca and Waterloo respectively. Three battalions had around 50% losses twice: the 1/42nd at Burgos and Quatre Bras, the 48th at Talavera and Albeura and the 1/52nd at Badajoz and Neville. The butchers bill was often rather high even in victory.

 

[1879fanatic]

Bill,
That's right about the battalions, even after the Cardwell Reforms, though 2/24 lost Pope's whole company as well as the Sphinx.
I think we should define massacre...like Custer& Co.....or Reg/Batt loss of more than "whatever" we come up with.

The butchers bill was often rather high even in victory By today's
super-civilized standards, it was rather shocking and almost unbelievable how many men died in warfare!
Mike

 

[Spitfrnd]

Bill,
That's right about the battalions, even after the Cardwell Reforms, though 2/24 lost Pope's whole company as well as the Sphinx.
I think we should define massacre...like Custer& Co.....or Reg/Batt loss of more than "whatever" we come up with.

The butchers bill was often rather high even in victory By today's
super-civilized standards, it was rather shocking and almost unbelievable how many men died in warfare!
Mike

You are correct Mike, the examples I gave were not massacres and certainly nothing like Little Big Horn but they were indeed shockingly bloody. That is particularly true given that even the best ranks could only fire once every 15 to 20 seconds and the poor accuracy of musket fire. It is estimated that less than 1-2% of shots fired hit anyone and some estimates run much lower. That means on a good day a full strength battalion might hit 10 or so men per volley. Of course canister was deadly but there were only so many cannons and their field of fire was limited. The bayonet was also deadly but more often in a rout, of which there were very, very few on the British side. Of course these are losses for the winning side; imagine the French losses.

 

[damian]

Damian,

I have checked my hardcopy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

There are several entries, but the relevant one is "a disorderly retreat of defeated troops."

I used the term "routed" rather loosely to mean an overwhelming defeat.

You are right and I am wrong.

Therefore, I stand corrected and sincerely apologise.

Thanks, Raymond.

No need to apologize.
I was just pulling your leg.

 

[lcdr1635]

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.