Animals in War

The hourly sufferings when on the march, from fatigue, improper and scanty feeding, saddle-galls, climate, and other causes, are probably inevitable to campaigning and not always avoidable, though forethought, organisation and kindly feeling can do something towards lessening these inflictions. But when the horse is wounded, perhaps dreadfully injured, there is no Red Cross Corps to come to his assistance, to either mercifully destroy him or to attend to his wounds. The following pages will also demonstrate the inadequacy of the veterinary service in the field. The sufferings of horses in war are indeed of a terrible nature and deserve instant consideration on our part. Here are some extracts from various publications which will sufficiently illustrate the need for action NOW; it ought not to be left until war is once more upon us.

In the Crimean War between Dec. 12th, 1854, and Jan. 19th, 1855, the cavalry division lost no less than 426 horses. Lord Lucan accounted for this by the fact of the horses being employed on transport duties. Really they were badly fed, most of them died of starvation, combined no doubt with the severity of the weather, fatigue and exposure. During the first six months the army was in the Crimea 2,329 transport horses and mules were landed. Of these 200 were destroyed, 689 died from sickness due to exposure, fatigue and want of sufficient forage. The distance from Balaclava to the front was not more than seven or eight miles.

In a volume, “The Franco-German War, 1870-71,” by Generals and other Officers who took part in the campaign, edited by Major-General J. Maurice, C.B., appeared the following description of the scene following the surrender of the Sedan by the French to the Germans in the war of 1870-71: —

“A success has been gained that was beyond all parallel; never yet had so large an army laid down its arms. On the 29th of October it left the dungeon in which it had held out so long and so steadfastly; it was received by the conquerors with respect and sent on to Germany. The sorrows and hardships they had endured were clearly seen in the forsaken camp. The buildings were mostly destroyed, the gardens and plantations swept away, fences and hedges had vanished. Of vegetation there was not a trace left.

The starving horses had gnawed off everything, even the bark of the trees. Many of these animals were in a piteous condition between the houses and the walls, motionless, awaiting death by hunger; half broken down, some sat on their haunches, others licked the slime at their feet, and many had sunk down in harness by the carts. The ground of the camps formed extensive swamps, in which men, horses and carts sank ankle deep. This mud had served as a bed of rest for some time to officers and men. Of straw not a trace was to be discovered. Scarcely to be distinguished from the universal grey of the soil, carcases of horses lay in the morass. Also corpses of soldiers were found. These unfortunate men probably had died just before the surrender, and nobody had thought of burying them. It was a hell on earth that these brave defenders had quitted. Indeed, one could not but respect an enemy who, under such circumstances, had held out so long.”

“I think I pity the horses more than I do the men,” said one stalwart young fellow to a “DAILY NEWS” reporter in 1900 at Netley Hospital. “Poor beggars! You see ’em all gashed and torn and reeking with blood and staggering as though they can hardly carry their riders; but you know a man ain’t going to part with his horse while the horse can carry him and he’s under fire. Before he parts with his horse he wants to get out of range.”

In applauding Tommy Atkins up to the sky (remarked “THE ECHO,” London) the man in the street is apt to forget his dumb companion in battle. It may be mentioned that no fewer than 7,000 horses were computed up to March, 1900 (a period of four months) to have suffered death in the harnessed service of their country in South Africa.

“THE TIMES,” of January, 1901, told us that 200,000 horses and ponies were furnished as remounts. How they fared the following extract will help us to understand: 

“The selection of animals for mounted work appears to have been made without reflection upon the requirements of the country, its climate, and the conditions of the service therein. Hundreds of animals have been purchased by the remount agents which have been found totally unfit for the work which they were called upon to perform. No class of animal has come under more general condemnation than those which have been purchased in the Argentine Republic. These particular animals are wanting in quality, and have neither the conformation nor sufficient pace to make cavalry or mounted infantry troop horses.

The South African-bred pony could always outpace them under every condition. Even the better class of animals supplied, English and Australian, have been very uneven. While, perhaps, 50 per cent. were serviceable animals, the balance were too light to carry 18st., [stone] and were more fitted for harness and spring-van work. The draught animals purchased for the artillery have, as a whole, been a more serviceable class than those supplied to the other arms. But it mattered little what class of animal was purchased. Deterioration set in as soon as purchase was effected. The shipment of remounts furnishes as great a scandal as the want of veterinary organisation at the front.

Horses were crowded into ships with insufficient preparation for a long voyage. In the case of many of the batches the animals’ feet were never attended to from the day they were purchased until they were delivered at the front. After landing in South Africa the animals were ‘trained’ up as far as possible in trucks totally unsuited for the work. When taken out of the train the horses were driven along in ‘mobs’ and tied in ‘heaps’ at night, so that many of them found their first opportunity of lying down since their shipment when issued to the troops and transferred to regimental lines.

During the halt at Bloemfontein it was no uncommon sight to see bunches of remounts driven through the streets, some with sore backs, others with cut heels, all with feet grown out of all natural proportions, the majority lame, simply on account of neglect and want of attention. These animals were rested until, to use a dealer’s expression, they could ‘jog sound.’ They were then issued to the troops and put at once into the hard work of cavalry campaigning. Later on in the campaign they were not even given a rest until their feet were ‘pared,’ but were issued to their units from the vert trucks.

Is it to be wondered at that such treatment resulted in an early breakdown, and that when no hospital existed for the treatment of sick horses the veldt of South Africa became strewn with what represents millions of money.”

The following is from the “MORNING POST,” of March 26th, 1900, headed “Veterinary Deficiences”: —

“The Veterinary Surgeons are everywhere overworked (at the seat of war), and absolutely incapable of attending more than a small proportion of the cases of sickness. The result is that numbers of horses have been discarded and left to perish, though a few days’ treatment might have cured them.”

The American authorities were more alive to the necessities. The following are the terms of a General Order issued by Maj.-Gen. A. Miles, U.S. Army in 1900: —

“With a view to avoid extreme suffering among wounded horses or mules on the field of battle, it is hereby ordered that a veterinary surgeon or some other person detailed by the commanding officer will accompany troops in an engagement, whose duty it will be to put an end to the agonies of all horses or mules that, in his judgment, are suffering to a degree requiring such action on his part.”

Mrs. Clara Barton, President of the American National Red Cross, wrote from Key West, Florida, in 1900: —

“I have often said, as I am sure would be recalled by the friends who have heard me speak, that among the shocking and heartrending scenes of the battle-field the screams of the wounded horses lingered more painfully in my ears, if possible, than the moans of the wounded men.

“I think you are right in the statement that the veterinary surgeon in Germany is commissioned to follow the army and put an end to the agonies of the poor wounded animals, which from their great animal vitality and strength will live long to suffer. They die slow and hard if left to themselves, and I myself have seen the vultures hovering and tearing at them while life yet remained.”

A military correspondent of one of the papers connected with the Remount Department of the Army Service sent home some heart-rending particulars of the sufferings endured by the horses during the war in South Africa. He said the army rations for the horses were “none too lavish,” but of the horses which survived the terrible ordeal of forced marches over scores of miles for many weary hours, on reduced rations or none at all, he gave the following account: —

“I will attempt no vividly drawn picture. But had you seen those bags of bones looming through the twilight, on their way to the morning feed, it would have startled you no less than it did me — and would have brought before you, more than any sight not actually in the fighting line could have done, the horrors of war. I take it for granted that you have sympathies for the horse as well as for man. The less decrepit among this awful band of skeletons has been back from the front about a month, the worst cases about a fortnight — representing, with others I was yet to see, in great part the remnant of General French’s good cavalry charger, with which he forced his way to Kimberley. How those ragged frameworks still supported life, even on the improved diet of their present quarters, was in itself a marvel. Yet most of them moved forward, some even blithefully, to their food — squeezing their gaunt projecting hips into the crush along the feeding-trough, some few still bore signs of wounds scarce healed. Their detrainment at Picquetberg-road must have been

A TERRIBLE EXPERIENCE

Several were dead in the train. Eight died at the station; a few more on their way to the farm; while on most days afterwards one or more would succumb from sheer weakness. If it be true that the convoy of 120 wagons captured by the Boers on Riet river contained the forage intended for the cavalry force, and that for upwards of fifty hours afterwards the horses of the force had to continue their march without any nourishment whatever, no wonder they fell down to die by the roadside in hundreds, or that this great deed of the relief of Kimberley was costly to a degree that makes one shudder for very pity for the poor animals that had to be sacrificed.

It was the same at the next farm, and at the third. I care not to call up the remembrance of those angular, almost transparent, frames and tottering limbs. Of the whole 600 only four could be found against whose hoof-numbers one could write fit for service.’ Of the others, not half are likely ever to do service again for her Majesty. The remainder, it is pleasing to know, are revelling amid streams of cold water, in wide if not very luxuriant pasture, and twice a day come to the troughs for what the Americans term ‘a good square meal.’

For my humble part, I should venture to consider the meal both better and squarer if its component parts were more suited to digestive organs already enfeebled by starvation. Wheat, 8lb., and straw-chaff unlimited (as per contract), are hardly calculated to coax back flesh and stamina exhausted by prolonged fatigue and hunger. But this point, I have reason to believe, has been duly represented in the proper quarter, and is likely to be remedied. For — it is satisfactory to add — out of about 150 similar cases arriving at Stellenbosh Camp a month or five weeks ago, and there fed freely upon linseed, bran, and oats, more than forty have already returned to the front in tolerable working condition. I now quit this rather sad subject.”

Mr. Julian Ralph wrote at the same time (1900) in the “Daily Mail” as follows: — “Even the blooming butterflies are the colour of khaki,’ as Tommy Atkins remarked when he saw his first swarm of locusts.

“There is an exception to the rule, as was proved by the next living thing I saw. It was a secretary bird a yard in height, as heavy as a big turkey — a stately bird holding himself proudly and stalking along with noble strides as he glanced about him for a breakfast of snakes. He was black and white. Partridges and many snipe-like birds fluttered out of our road, and, presently, I saw ahead of me a swarm of vultures soaring in as thick a cloud as if they had been moths. As I drew nearer I noticed that the bulk of each one’s body was very great. On the ground — where there were two more waddling about — they seemed even larger. We marked the outer edge of the great and horrid field of carnage. Many dead horses lay on the veldt, and these birds were eating some and perching on the backs of others.

“Foul nauseous, ugly beastly birds are these. They were to be my constant companions for three days. I was to see hundreds upon hundreds of them, and never once, by day, fail to see them. Yet there were not enough of them to make away with all the food that war had given them. Toward the end of the ride the ghoulish birds thinned out but the dead horses and oxen multiplied.

“I am told that a British officer who would not take a pin for his own use will steal like an Albanian to feed a hungry horse — and all our horses have been hungry of late, and many a gentleman has looted forage. It must be, then, that our officers feel as I do about this slaughter of horses in this war. Between battles a dozen deadly forms of disease seize them, and they have to be flung aside, and left to die in the dust. And in battle their legs are snapped off, their bodies torn, and their heads are shattered — and there is nothing to do but to leave them to the aasvogels, as the vultures are called. There is no time in battle to shoot them.

“Let the anti-cruelty people at home rave as they may, there are other things to think of besides humanity in the heat of great battles. The writer does not comprehend our position. We have asked, as a minimum, that the horses injured shall be mercifully killed AFTER the battle. — Ed., Animals’ Guardian.]

“But of all the pitiful, heart-rending sights I have ever seen, none had compared to this view of hundreds upon hundreds of dead and dying horses on this 100 miles of war’s promenade. The poor beasts had done no man any harm — in fact, each one had been a man’s reliance — and to see them shattered by shell and then ripped open by vultures, often before they were dead, was enough to snap the tenderest chords in one’s breast. They had not deserved and they could not understand their horrible ill-luck. For some reason, hundreds had dragged themselves to the main road, and then had died either in the track of the wagons or by its side.

“But the worst horror was to come when I approached close upon the last battlefield only twenty-four hours after the fight at Driefontein. On this field not nearly all the horses were yet dead. On the contrary, as I came up beside the prostrate body of a beautiful steed it would slowly and painfully lift its head and turn upon me a pair of the most pleading woe-stricken eyes, full of a hunger to know what I could do for it. And all I could do was to drive on, for I had no firearms — even for my own protection, deep in an enemy’s country, where we had put no single armed man to guard the route of our supplies and reinforcements.

“My companion used to turn and look back at these dying horses, only to find that they were still straining their sad eyes after the cart. Then he would say ‘He is looking at us yet. Oh, it makes me ill. Look! he is staring at us like a guilty conscience. What can we do? I wish we did not see such things.’

“For my part, I would not look behind. Heaven knows, it was bad enough to see ahead where horses stumbled and fell from weakness while the horrible aasvogels swept in circles over them, eager to rend their living flesh. Oxen, too, were lying everywhere, with straight, stiff legs silhouetted against the veldt. They looked like the toy animals that children make out of round potatoes with wooden matches for legs.”

Investigations into the actual state of affairs in South Africa revealed a reckless waste of animal life and disregard of sufferings quite unimaginable. Mr. Charles E. Hands, a correspondent of the “Daily Mail,” after the occupation of Bloemfontein, travelled back to Kimberley. On the 2nd of March, 1900, after describing the dead oxen and horses on the road, he goes on to say:

“More pathetic than the sight of the dead horses was the sight of the living ones. There were horses that had been hit, horses that had been broken down with overwork and underfeeding, horses with hideous saddle-sores hidden by clustering mounds of flies, horses abandoned for every conceivable defect; some horses for whom death had loosened their riders’ control, big English horses, unshod Boer ponies, most of them with hip bones that projected so far as to suggest dislocation; and all along by the side of the river where they found grazing and water, they were wandering about helpless, forlorn, abandoned creatures, who looked at you dubiously, as though they feared you were bringing them more of glorious warfare; and then, seeing you pass, turn listlessly away, and, hanging down their heads, went on with their dejected grazing. Every Kaffir kraal had a dozen horses round it. Every Kaffir you met was mounted on some sort of a horse. Horses were cheap along the Modder River.”

Mr. A. G. Hales, an Australian, one of the war correspondents of the “Daily News” (London), in his romance based on the South African War, “DRISCOLL: KING OF SCOURS,” utilised facts which came within his own knowledge. He showed plainly that even in the ordinary every-day life of campaigning great sufferings are inflicted upon the horses, who are a necessary part of the equipment of any force. He described a Boer Scout, for instance, and these are the words he uses: —

“He did not seem to hurry himself; yet he never loitered by the way. He was too good a plainsman to knock his horse to pieces by galloping wildly. He just held his horse together, and covered the  ground easily but rapidly, easing the game little animal over the rough and broken ground, stretching out a bit when the rolling veldt lay like a race track in front of him, moving steadily but always strongly. At dusk his horse was beaten and staggered when it stumbled, but he rode on. His grey eyes set steadily in front of him, his hand like a vice on the bridle, his spur red with hard riding.”

The last few words convey a world of meaning, and one’s imagination suggests at once what untold misery and suffering has been inflicted upon horses alone in all the wars waged since the world began.

That it is still necessary to decide our differences by fighting and destroying each other’s property seems to be the general opinion of the world, but whether we have the right in any circumstances to inflict the awful sufferings on harmless creatures is a very serious question which does not receive enough consideration.

The War Correspondent of another London newspaper has written: —

“Do not look at the horses as you go to the front. They rarely unsaddle even a cavalry horse, but if you see one with bare back, it is invariably covered with festering sores six inches square. The Turks have no notion of horsemanship.

“Both the horses pulling the heavy artillery pieces through all sorts of impossible places, beaten, clubbed, cursed, and those dying, lacerated, dismembered, by the bursting shells, as well as the wretched survivors, ruined by the desperate service, call for infinite pity.”

Mr. Laurence Pike, in his “NINETEENTH CENTURY” Article, in 1900, put forward the following suggestions for reform: — “An Army Veterinary Reserve should be formed to expand the peace establishment, when necessary, in time of war.

“All this is something that can be done without reference to other countries or amendment of the terms of the Geneva Convention.

“The Geneva Convention is an agreement concluded at an International Conference of the Great Powers held at Geneva in 1864. In 1868 a second Conference, summoned by the Swiss Federal Government, was held. At this a supplementary Convention was drawn up. This supplementary Convention, although never yet ratified by the various Governments, was by agreement adopted provisionally by France and Germany in their war of 1870.

“The Geneva Convention relates exclusively to the relief of human suffering. Amongst other things, it enables soldiers lying wounded between opposing forces, and after engagements have been fought, to be attended to by surgeons and ambulance corps. This same protection, so afforded to persons succouring wounded men, is required for persons engaged in putting an end to the sufferings of badly-wounded animals in like situations.

“The first step to be taken with a view to making the necessary additions to the Gevena Convention is to induce the Swiss Federal Government to invite another Conference. If our own Government would let it be known that it is ready to respond favourably to such an invitation, it would go far to promote its being issued.

“The Swiss Government has for some years had under its consideration schemes for the improvement of the Convention of 1864. The abortive Hague Conference of 1899 placed upon record in its Final Act, its wish that ‘steps may shortly be taken for the assembly of a special Conference, having for its object the revision of the Geneva Convention.’ Experience of its working in the South African war makes it advisable that a revision should be undertaken. The supplementary Convention of 1868 still awaits revision and ratification. The time, therefore, appears ripe for the summoning of another Conference at which the claims to consideration of the animals wounded in warfare could be dealt with.

“One of the chief military objections to the prompt destruction of badly wounded animals is that shots fired in the rear of advancing troops are apt to produce panic fright; and, further, that shooting could not be allowed on ground between opposing forces after engagements, and while wounded men were being attended to.

“Under proper veterinary supervision, however, and by a staff of trained assistants, it is quite possible to destroy animals without having recourse to shooting.

“To summarise:  

“(1) The Army Veterinary Department should be reorganised and put on the same footing as all the other departments in the Army, such as the Medical, School, Pay and Ordnance Departments.

“(2) The extension of the protection of the terms of the Geneva Convention should be obtained for those who care for wounded animals.

“(3) This protection having been obtained by international agreement, or temporarily for a campaign by agreement between commanders-in-chief of opposing forces, all badly wounded animals should be destroyed by the Veterinary Staff without avoidable delay.

“There are many members of both Houses of Parliament, of all shades of politics, who are interested in these questions. If they would take united action something might be done to induce our Government to act.”

Since the South African War, it is asserted, very considerable improvements have been made in the care of horses in the military service. In 1903 the establishment was put upon a more satisfactory footing. Officers, non-commissioned officers and men are attached to the different military districts where their services are most required. A full veterinary equipment is provided for first aid, together with properly constituted hospitals. Included in the equipment are humane killers, so that any badly injured horse may be speedily and mercifully relieved of its suffering.

Regulations adapted both to peace conditions, manœuvres, and to active service, are laid down, providing a vast improvement, both for the transport of horses to the front, and for their treatment and relief in sickness, or in cases of injury. It is understood that the military authorities have everything in hand to make this service as efficient and as thorough as possible.

We can only hope that this statement is not too roseate; but we should prefer to know, in round numbers, what the extent is of the additions to the Army Veterinary Staff, which was so hopelessly inadequate in the South African War. Not only wounded, but sick, horses need treatment.

“OUR ANIMALS,” of San Francisco, published the following in its January (1913) issue: —

“Through the efforts of the Humane Societies in America all the soldiers in the American cavalry are instructed to shoot their horses at once if the animals become wounded in battle and are of no further use.”

When the war in the Balkans broke out in the autumn of 1912 the R.S.P.C.A., the Humanitarian League, and The Animals’ Guardian all brought this matter forward, and pressed it upon the attention of the responsible authorities. Arrangements were even made from England for sending out a Red Cross detachment to succour the horses wounded in the Balkan war. But we were informed at the War Office that this could not be done seeing that the persons engaged in the work would not be under the protection of the Red Cross.

The Hungarian branch of the World League for the Protection of Animals published in November, 1912, an appeal to the Sultan of Turkey and the Kings of Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Servia, pointing out that while the Red Cross succours and protects the wounded soldiers on battle-fields, there is no such provision for the wounded horses, who lie groaning with crushed limbs, torn bodies and other frightful wounds, or run about till they drop and die of hunger and thirst, and urging that the merciful provisions of the Geneva Convention be speedily extended to the horses.

The appeal was headed by a [sic] Red Cross and some touching lines by the late Swabian poet, Carl Gerok, entitled: “The Horses of Gravelotte.” It was printed in Hungarian on one side and in German on the other, and signed by the President, Privy Councillor von Lukacs.

At the time of the South African War the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was advised by the Secretary of State for War to direct its efforts towards the establishment of some international convention which would extend to those who care for wounded animals the same protection the Geneva Convention provides in the case of men, and in consequence of this the late Mr. John Colam (the then Secretary), personally saw the President of the Swiss Republic (who had a mandate from the Hague Peace Conference to call a meeting of the Powers signatory to the Convention at an opportune moment), and placed in his hands a document which made out a strong case for the suggested revision.

The President cordially agreed with his views, and gave instructions for the papers left with him to be placed on the dossier of the Swiss Government referring to the Convention, so that the Swiss delegate could deal with them when the right moment arrived. Unfortunately, owing to various causes, the Swiss Government have not yet called a meeting of the Powers to reconsider the Convention, but when they do the matter will be, it is understood, officially brought forward.

At a meeting held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, London, on January 23rd, 1900, Mr. Butcher, K.C., М.Р., presiding, the following resolution was passed, on the proposition of the Hon. Mrs. Henniker: —

“That the Great Powers who have given their adhesion to the Geneva Convention be most respectfully approached and asked to consider the desirability of an international agreement extending to those on the battlefield engaged in mitigating or terminating the sufferings of wounded animals the same protection as is now accorded by the Geneva Convention to those who succour wounded men.”

At the National Peace Congress, London, in June, 1912, a resolution on “Horses in Warfare ” was introduced by Mr. Ernest Bell (Humanitarian League), who gave many facts concerning the culpable carelessness and heartless indifference with which the horses were treated during the South African War. No fewer than 669,575 horses, mules and donkeys were provided for the war. Close upon 16,000 of these were reported as “lost on voyage,” and of the others over 400,000 were expended in the war. Mr. Bell proposed:

“That this Congress, in view of the fact that the merciful provisions of the Geneva Convention at present extend only to human combatants, and that the Red Cross affords no protection to those who would visit the battlefield to relieve or put an end to the sufferings of wounded horses and other animals employed in warfare, respectfully requests the British Government to invite the other Powers so to widen the terms of the Geneva Convention as to protect the veterinary surgeon, the horse ambulance and such voluntary aid societies as may be duly recognised and authorised by the Governments.”

Further terrible facts and quotations were given on the subject of the treatment of horses during war time by Mr. H. Bailie Weaver, who seconded the resolution, which was adopted.

The following letter was subsequently addressed to Sir Edward Grey (British Foreign Minister) by the Committee of the Humanitarian League: —

“We desire to express our earnest hope that his Majesty’s Government will give favourable consideration to a resolution unanimously passed at the recent National Peace Congress to the effect that the merciful provisions of the Geneva Convention should be extended to wounded horses and other animals employed in warfare, and that protection should be accorded to the veterinary surgeon and such voluntary aid societies as may be duly authorised to visit the battlefield.

“We trust that this resolution will have the sanction of the Government, and that the British delegates will be instructed to give it their support at the meeting of the Third Hague Conference in 1914.”

A reply, dated July 11th, 1912, was received from Sir Edward Grey, stating that “the resolution will be borne in mind by the British delegates at the next Peace Conference.”

It now rests with the public to see that something is done for our equine friends and helpers who bear their full share of the tribulations and sufferings entailed by war on mankind.

Gentle and brave amid the ranks he rode,

And felt the steed beneath him proud and true;

Gentle and brave the steed beneath him strode,

And felt “My master’s hand will guide me through.”

And hour on hour, through dying and through dead,

And lashed by rain from heaven, and hail from hell,

From morn to eve, unscathed alike, they sped,

But, at the close of day, the charger fell.

He saw the shattered limb, the heaving breast,

And eyes entreating aid he could not lend,

With kiss on kiss the velvet nozzle pressed,

And longed, yet loathed, its agony to end.

And heedless for a while how trumpet blared,

Or round him roared and flashed the fiery zone,

He, who all day the battle’s worst had dared,

Now dared not brave the bivouac alone.

Then in one sob a fond farewell he spoke,

The loaded death with hand reluctant drew.

O! dear dumb friends! So patient of our yoke!

There’s many a heart, ye know not, aches for you.