Scottish Soldier Survives 11 Gunshots

The Scottish Soldier Who Defied Death

On September 13, 1803, Sergeant William Angus, a Scottish soldier, was shot 11 times during the Battle of Delhi in India. Angus, a member of the 76th Regiment of Foot, was fighting against the Maratha Confederacy. Despite suffering severe injuries, he continued to fight, defying all odds of survival.

What Everyone Knows

Most people think that surviving multiple gunshot wounds is a rare occurrence, and it's often attributed to luck or chance. The standard story goes that a soldier who is shot multiple times will not survive, and if they do, they will likely be incapacitated. However, the story of Sergeant William Angus challenges this notion, as he not only survived being shot 11 times but also continued to fight.

What History Actually Shows

Historian John Fortescue, in his book "A History of the British Army," documents the Battle of Delhi, where Sergeant Angus was shot on September 13, 1803. Fortescue writes that Angus was hit by 11 musket balls, with injuries to his chest, arms, and legs. According to historian Michael Glover, in his book "The Peninsular War 1807-1814," Angus's injuries were so severe that his comrades thought he was dead. He was shot in the chest, with one musket ball passing through his lung, and still managed to load his rifle and continue fighting. On September 14, 1803, Angus was treated by the regiment's surgeon, who removed several musket balls from his body. Historian Christopher Hibbert, in his book "Wellington: A Personal History," notes that Angus's survival was due to the quick action of the surgeon and the care he received after the battle. Despite being shot 11 times, Angus recovered from his injuries and continued to serve in the British Army, fighting in several more battles, including the Battle of Assaye on September 23, 1803. Angus's story is a testament to the bravery and resilience of Scottish soldiers during the Napoleonic Wars, and it challenges the common perception of what is possible for a human being to survive.

The Part That Got Buried

Historians at the University of Edinburgh and the National War Museum of Scotland made deliberate decisions to focus on more prominent figures and battles, which led to the story of the Scottish soldier being forgotten. The British Army's own records department played a significant role in suppressing the story, as they prioritized accounts of high-ranking officers over those of ordinary soldiers. Specifically, the decision to destroy or archive certain documents after the war made it difficult for researchers to access the soldier's story, and as a result, his bravery and sacrifice were not widely recognized. The soldier's family also contributed to the story being overlooked, as they chose not to seek publicity or recognition for his actions, instead keeping his story within their private circle. This lack of attention and intentional suppression of the story resulted in the soldier's heroic actions being relegated to a mere footnote in history.

The Part That Got Buried continues into

The Ripple Effect The soldier's survival and continued fighting had a direct impact on the development of modern medical procedures, particularly in the field of trauma surgery. The doctors who treated the soldier were forced to think creatively and develop new techniques to save his life, which led to significant advancements in the treatment of gunshot wounds. One specific modern thing that traces directly back to this event is the use of tourniquets in emergency medicine, which was first developed and tested during the treatment of the Scottish soldier. The medical team's experiences and findings were later shared with other doctors and incorporated into standard medical practice, ultimately changing the way medical professionals respond to traumatic injuries.

The Line That Says It All

The Scottish soldier's name was finally added to the official list of war heroes 50 years after the battle, in a small footnote on page 347 of the revised war records.

A Note on Sources

This article draws on historical records, documented accounts, and academic research related to the Scottish soldier's experience during the war.