The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
14th January 2003	Rorke's Drift by Adrian Greaves By Nigel Hutcheon I've just started reading the latest book on the events at Rorke's Drift. Its written by Adrian Greaves and titled 'Rorke's Drift'. According to the publishers (I quote) - "This is the first major reappraisal of Rorke's Drift for over 20 years. Armed with rare documentary and archaeologocal evidence, Adrian Greaves brings to light many aspects of the battle that have previously been unavailable to the general reader. In particular, he highlights the less-than exemplary behaviour of the absent British commanders, who attempted to use the legend of Rorke's Drift to cover their own appalling mistakes. The result is both a work of admirable scholarship, and a gripping account of one of the most celebrated episodes in the entire of warfare." Has anyone else read it? If so, any comments. After this I intend to read the 'Zulu Victory. The Epic of Isandlwana and the cover-up' which has been recommended in this website. By the way, this is a fantastic website.
Date	Replies
14th January 2003	John Young Nigel, There may well be some who visit this site who will groan there he goes again. Dr. Greaves' 'Rorke's Drift' is marginally better than his 'Isandlwana', which in my opinion was appalling. His heading to the book's introduction contains an oft-repeated error - Lord Chelmsford was not 'Commander-in-Chief, South Africa', he was the General Officer Commanding. Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere was the Commander-in-Chief of British Forces in southern Africa. From thereon in errors appear throughout the text, silly errors that someone in this 'work of admirable scholarship' should not be perpetuating, yet all the same Dr. Greaves manages to do it. I am no scholar, as I have said so many times on this forum, but even I can add up - page 23 of Dr. Greaves' book has the Prince Imperial of France aged 21 years of age in 1879. Yet the prince was born on 16th March, 1856, making him 23 years of age when he met his death in the Anglo-Zulu War. Considering Dr. Greaves has previously published work referring to the Royal Artillery - 'The Curling Letters of the Zulu War' - one might conclude he has some inkling as to the strength of battery of artillery, yet on page 49 according to Dr Greaves two cannon make up a battery, in fact six cannon made up a battery - two cannon formed a section. On page 53 Dr. Greaves details local units prior to the invasion, he includes the 'Natal police', rather than the Natal Mounted Police. The 'Natal Horse', but how could this unit have existed prior to the invasion? It was only formed in February of 1879, after Isandlwana by the European non-commissioned officers from the disbanded 3rd. N.N.C. regiment. Page 57, Dr. Greaves repeats an error he first made in his 'Isandlwana' in that he states that Henry Fynn Senior was 'the British resident in Zululand'. How could someone in 1824 hold a position that did not exist until 1879? These are just some of instances of obvious mistakes made in this book, to my layman's knowledge the mistakes number in the hundreds. Add to these assumptions & omissions which Dr. Greaves chosen to include, or omit, for reasons best known to himself. But please don't let my views cloud your own judgement of the book. If you like it all well & good - for my part I would chose not to recommend it, as I did with 'Zulu Victory...' John Young, A.-Z.W.R.S.
15th January 2003	Melvin Hunt John, It's nice to know that there are experts like yourself to look after us so to speak and I personally thank you for that, but the errors you mention, whilst I agree should be pointed out and corrected, would not nessesarily detract from my enjoyment of the book(indeed I, along with many others, would probably not even notice them) and would not in themselves justify not reccommending the book. What really matters is that the book lives up to the publishers hype of new worthwhile information and appraisal of the battle etc. I would point out that I have not yet read Adrians book.
16th January 2003	John Young Melvin, In my opinion 'Rorke's Drift' doesn't live up to the hype. Much of the 'new' information is pure conjecture, much of which has already been proved wrong. If we were to believe Dr. Greaves then Corporal Schiess' forename at one stage becomes 'Carl' on page 209 - and he is wounded at the back of the head, and the bullet travelled down the shoulder where it lodged. Yet Schiess was wounded in the foot! The injury described and wrongly attributed to Schiess was sustained by Cpl. Carl Scammell. The self same Corporal Scammell that on page 208 Dr. Greaves listed as 'killed' - yet weeks after the event he was alive and kicking at Helpmekaar! Errors abound - men are given the wrong ranks. At one stage Dr. Greaves can't make up his mind as to who was commanding the N.N.H. who arrived at Rorke's Drift from Isandlwana. In the course one paragraph we have Henderson, then Vause, before Dr. Greaves settles on Henderson again. In the case of another Isandlwana survivor Private Edward Evans, a mounted infanrtyman from the 2nd Battalion, of the 3rd (East Kent) Regiment, Dr. Greaves mistakenly identifies this man as 'Private Frederick Evans 2/24th on loan to the Mounted Infantry.' If Frederick Evans of the 2nd/24th were a mounted infantryman, I contend he would not have been a member of No. 1 Squadron Mounted Infantry, but of No. 2 Squadron, which was assigned to Pearson's No. 1 Column, along with the rest of the 2nd/24th's mounted infantry. Unlike Dr. Greaves, I am not a former army officer but what sort of phrase is 'on loan'? Surely he should written either; attached to, or serving on detached duties from his regiment with ... To be frank I learnt little or nothing new from this 'work of admirable scholarship' as for it being '...the first major reappraisal of Rorke's Drift for over 20 years.' I'm sure there are other authors in the field who would seriously contest that claim. To correct Dr. Greaves' work, with full explanations would amount a small volume in itself. My concern, which I have voiced many times on this forum, is that if authors such as Dr. Greaves repeat errors over and over again, as he has done with this work, then the time will come that no-one challenges the error, and thereafter the error is accepted as fact. The classic is that of 'fifty-five Europeans' surviving Isandlwana, page 89 of 'Rorke's Drift', keep saying despite the facts and you're printing the legend, not the truth. The same can be said forbattlefield tour-guides, I heard a recent recording of a very well-known tour guide, still telling the same erroneous tale I first heard over a decade ago, still with the same errors. That tour-guide and Dr. Greaves make a good living, I'm sure, from the Anglo-Zulu War. I am nothing more than an enthusiast, rather than an 'expert', as you term me. Yet I can find serious fault with the content of this book, which is why, in my untrained opinion, I would not recommend the book to another, but that is my opinion and mine alone, I don't wish to sway anyone with it. If the book had gripped me as did 'Zulu Victory...', I would had certainly said so, but 'Rorke's Drift' failed to grasp my imagination - it conjured no images of this epic event whatsoever. The scant eighteen pages of text which actually covers the battle are bulked out by no fewer that six maps or plans. Where is the N.N.C. man in Hook's room, by the way? The wounded African soldier who Dr. Greaves contends elsewhere in the book to have been a prisoner! Others who visit this site will tell you, I hope, that Dr. Greaves has perpetuated errors made by the late Norman Holme in his work 'The Silver Wreath'. I know for a fact that both authors have failed to give the full text of the Frank Bourne article from 'The Listener', both have made the exact same omissions, can anyone please tell me why? I note with interest too that the article is no longer attributed to 'The Listener', but rather 'AZWHS, December 1998'. All the comments I have made are my own opinion, and mine alone. I have been there in the same position as Dr. Greaves, and so has everyone else who puts pen to paper on the subject of the Anglo-Zulu War, we all have our critics, some of us hopefully learnt from our past mistakes and have taken onboard the constructive criticism, I know I have. I would also say that my criticism of Dr. Greaves' work is in no way meant as a personal attack on him, nor would I wish anyone to misconstrue these comments as such. The simple fact of the matter is the book is not without error. That others might be unaware of those errors, does not detract from that plain and simple fact. John Young.
16th January 2003	Nigel Hutcheon John, FANTASTIC! Thank You so much for your comments. Very much appreciated. And Thank You as well Melvin. I'm no expert on military history, just a humble enthusiast but going on what I already know on this subject (which compared to you Gentleman isn't a great deal)) I was hesitant to purchase it. Some of the mistakes John pointed out I'm finding myself. JOHN - Can you recommend a book on RD which you think is more accurate?
16th January 2003	Clive Dickens Nigel I think the best one I have read so far is without a doubt Ian Knight's book"Nothing Remains but to Fight" published quite a few years back now but to me the best of the lot, Ian always in my personal opinion put's togeather all his works on the Anglo/Zulu war well. He is simply superb Clive
16th January 2003	John Young Nigel, I concur with Clive's comment above, Ian Knight's 'Nothing Remains But to Fight', published by Greenhill Books is by far the best book of the Defence of Rorke's Drift. John Young, A.-Z.W.R.S.
16th January 2003	Nigel Hutcheon John/Clive, Thank You both for the recommendation. N
16th January 2003	Melvin Hunt John, Many thanks for your valued further comments.
17th January 2003	Clive Dickens I would like to point out that my recomendation for
17th January 2003	Clive Dickens Sorry Folks I pressed the wrong key I will start again. I would like to point out that my recomendation of Ian Knight's book"Nothing Remains but to Fight" is in no way meant to say I am critical of Adrian Greaves book, I have read the book and I noted the mistake John pointed out concerning the artillery battery, other than that I just do not have the knowledge myself to be critical I just believe that Ian Knight's works are simply superb mind John himself wrote a very good book "They fell like stones" which by the way is bringing quite large prices on the second hand book market , No I think anyone who has the courage to write a book on the Anglo /Zulu war has quite a lot of bottle . Clive
23rd January 2003	Martin Everett John, When Norman Holme published the Silver Wreath in 1979, he ommitted two phrases from the Bourne article in the 30 December 1930 Listener indicated by . . . These refer to the six survivors alive today (i.e. in 1930) and to the de Neuville painting of Rorke's Drift held by 2/SWB In my opinion these ommissions make do not alter the substance of the Bourne account. Adrian Greaves obtained the permission of Norman Holme's widow to published the text which originally appeared in the Silver Wreath. So that is why the ommissions are the same. I think you are making a mountain out of molehill as they say on this one.
24th January 2003	John Young Martin, Am I 'making a mountain out of molehill'? Frankly I don't think I am? How many errors, wrongful assumptions and omissions did you find in the text? Or do you have no problem with accepting them as fact? Surely someone researching such a subject should consult on the original text, rather then relying on an edited transcript. John Young, R.Z.W.S.
11th February 2004	Victor Scamell I also note the errors in the Greaves book of the battle. I am very interested in the part played by Carl Scammell of the N.N.C. I am a family researcher and know very little about him or how to find more about him. Any assistance from members of your group would be much appreciated. Victor Scamell