Page 113 - Chronicle Vol 17

these troops fought with distinction, with occasional desertions being their worst occurrence.
However, the aforementioned massacres of Europeans explain such fears, which plagued defenders by lack of closure regarding friends and loved ones. Most infa- mous was Cawnpore, whose beleaguered defenders (which included a company of the 32nd), were utterly wiped out after being tricked to leave their battered defences in promise of safe passage by the rebel leader. The betrayed defenders were ambushed, and the surviving women and children captured and murdered, and their bodies thrown down a well (some whilst still alive). Word of this even- tually reached Lucknow via heroic messengers running the siege-lines, where it presented a grave challenge to morale - the 32nd’s chaplain advised a Major that it was preferable for him to shoot his own wife than have her captured by the rebels. Inglis noted how several officers had wives in Cawnpore, describing the ‘wretched face’ of one Captain Evans in particular, who ‘seldom spoke’ after hear- ing the news. This reflects Harris’ statement that the presence of women and chil- dren granted the conflict its own ‘special sense of horror and dread’.
Although fear of such atrocities repeating tormented the defenders, they also inspired the men to fight like lions to prevent a reoccurrence, being one of the paramount motivating factors behind the 32nd’s stubborn resistance. Private Metcalfe encapsulates this attitude, describing how he and his comrades prom- ised ‘with their lives’ to ‘never let the women and children fall into enemy hands’. Even Captain Evans did not succumb to despair and continued his duties, as he appears in Forrest’s History of the Mutiny leading a daring sortie to destroy enemy guns. Although The 32nd’s modern descendants would appreciate such convictions, Victorian gender attitudes regarding masculine duties heightened this fervour. General Havelock, (whose army fought its way into The Residency mid-way through the siege and and bolstered the defence) epitomised this mind- set, as Harris argues the presence of women and children ‘spurred’ Havelock and other British soldiers to the extent that ‘unnecessary risks were taken’. Indeed, Havelock declared to his men that their mission was to save the civilians ‘or die trying’. After witnessing the aftermath of Cawnpore first-hand, Havelock’s mes- sage to Lucknow urged its defenders to ‘hold on, and do not negotiate, but rather perish with sword in hand’. This popular vindication of the British cause is sum- marised by Gould as transforming the war into a ‘moral crusade’, a powerful motivating factor for Lucknow’s defenders.
Coupled with the obligation to protect came perhaps an even stronger urge to enact revenge upon a hated enemy, which can explain much of the 32nd’s fero- cious fighting-spirit. Controlled aggression remains a valued skill for modern Riflemen, and many such examples permeate the accounts of the defenders although admittedly some strayed beyond the modern standards of armed con- flict. The war correspondent William Howard Russel summarised British atti- tudes, arguing ‘we consider ourselves engaged in suppressing a mutiny, in which the actors have perpetrated great crimes’. John Syms of the 32nd (who lost his entire family at Cawnpore) shared this sentiment, vowing to kill any mutineer
112