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
20th January 2002	Adendorf By Adrian Greaves Chairman Anglo Zulu War Historical Society Whist not disagreeing with what has previously been written, did Chard confuse Adendorf with Corporal Attwood? Chard made no mention in his report, written only two days after the event, about Attwood, yet the actions for which Attwood received his DCM seem to be those attributed to Adendorf by Chard. So, if Attwood was at RD, where was Adendorf? Could Chard have realised his mistake at a later date when further awards were being considered, if not why no award for Adendorf? This is all speculation, I doubt if we will ever know the truth!
Date	Replies
20th January 2002	John Young Lieutenant James Adendorff. With regard to Dr. Greaves's comment, in John Chard's report of 25th January, 1879, he writes:'...I was informed by one of them, Lieutenant Adendorff of Lonsdale's Regt (who remained to assist in the defence)of the disaster at Isandhlwana Camp, and that the Zulus were advancing on Rorke's Drift - the other a Carabinier rode off to take the news to Helpmakaar.' (Original spellings retained. JY) Two days after the event John Chard has James Adendorff present at the action at Rorke's Drift. As to John Chard's report submitted to Queen Victoria in 1880, as the report is Copyrighted I cannot use the exact words; however it is merely John Chard's belief that the Zulu attempting to set fire to the thatch of the storehouse roof was shot by Adendorff. Obviously John Chard could not, and did not witness every single action of each and every defender. Why an award for Francis Attwood, of the Army Service Corps, and not for James Adendorff? May I speculate that Attwood was a non-commissioned officer and as such was eligible the award of The Silver Medal for Distinguished Conduct in the Field, which was duly submitted on 29th July, 1879. The day after Frank Bourne's submission for the same award. What award could James Adendorff have been submitted for? He is was an officer, albeit a volunteer officer, I am sure that Dr. Greaves is aware that the only gallantry award available to officers in 1879 was the Victoria Cross. Given the evidence we have of a 'possible kill' would the award of a Victoria Cross, even have been considered? I believe that answers Dr. Greaves's question '...if not why no award for Adendorf (sic)?' Apart from the Victoria Cross there was no suitable award for gallantry available to an officer until the introduction of the Distinguished Service Order some seven years after the events of the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. As to specualtion, we could just as easily speculate that Francis Attwood and James Adendorff both shot the same Zulu warrior at the same time. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society
20th January 2002	John Young Sorry about the spelling faux pas in the last paragraph, for 'specualtion', please read speculation. John Young
20th January 2002	Adrian Greaves Chairman Anglo Zulu War Historical Society Whilst I acknowledge John Young's excellent answer, he seems to rely on Chard's reports. I understand the report allegedly 'written' by Chard on the 25th January and presented to Queen Victoria was proved to have been a fake (or, at least, not written by Chard)- see Norman Holmes's The Silver Wreath. If Norman Holmes and the handwritting experts were correct, then the subject of Adendorff remains an interesting question. The second 'Chard report' that also referred to Ardendorff was probably based on the first report as it is known that Chard 'lost' his original notes relating to the first report.
20th January 2002	John Young Dr. Greaves, Referring to your previous response I believe it is not the report that is in question, but the list which appears on Page 71 of 'The Silver Wreath'. One does not even have to be a handwriting expert to conclude the signature does not match that of known examples of John Chard's. Where as both reports bear the correct signature of John Chard. As to whether James Adendorff was present at the Defence of the Mission Station at Rorke's Drift. In my opinion, Lieutenant Henry Charles Harford's 1879 Almanac held at the Local history Museum, Durban, holds the answer, as I stated in the previous series of discussions held on this forum on the same subject. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society
20th January 2002	Alec Weston Hi John, I was interested that you say both Chard reports were signed by the great man. Last year I tried to find his original report as the ones seen in the UK, and the PRo, are definately not Chards signature. I was told by Chatham Museum staff that the very original report - from which the others, including the one given to Queen Victoria, were probably copied,is actually owned by the (I believe) Oppenheimer museum in S. Africa. Is this correct or do you know where the original report signed by Chard is? Alec
20th January 2002	Alec Weston Hi John, I was interested that you say both Chard reports were signed by the great man. Last year I tried to find his original report as the ones seen in the UK, and the PRo, are definately not Chards signature. I was told by Chatham Museum staff that the very original report - from which the others, including the one given to Queen Victoria, were probably copied,is actually owned by the (I believe) Oppenheimer museum in S. Africa. Is this correct or do you know where the original report signed by Chard is? Alec
20th January 2002	John Young Alec, Did you try The Royal Archives at Windsor? The material which supported the his presentation to H.M. Queen Victoria is obviously housed in the Royal Collection. The text which is apparent in various works on Rorke's Drift has most certainly been written by John Chard, himself. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society
21st January 2002	Alec Weston Thanks John, Yes I did, and it appears that their 'original' is also a copy, which suggests the true original may well be in the museum in S Africa. I think we need to know where the original report is located to know that it signed by Chard, until then, the original question about Ardendorff is a good one.Are there any other known reports from Chard to check his style of writing. Many thanks for your help, I feel I'm slowly getting there with your help. Alec
21st January 2002	Adrian Greaves Dear Alec, I am just off to Zululand so here is a quick response that may help you; The first Chard report certainly states that Ardendorff remained to assist in the defence, the second report, to the best of my knowledge, omits this important statement. Chard merely states that "one man was shot, I believe by Lt. Adendorff". Who knows what he meant by this so long after the event, as I said earlier, we may never know. With regard to the Chard report in Kimberley Museum, they are convinced that it is the genuine and original report. I have seen it and I have a copy of it - it is not signed by Chard. If you ever find the original, please let me know. Adrian Greaves
21st January 2002	Lee Stevenson There are original examples of Chard's handwriting at the PRO. A letter written to his CO, Walter Parke Jones, on the 6/2/1879 details the services of the "Flying Sap" and those men of the RE who perished at Isandlwana. Another letter, dated 6/4/1879, is in response to enquiries about JH Reynolds' actions at Rorke's Drift, whilst a similar letter, dated 22/10/1879, acknowledges the services of Cpl. Schiess, NNC. The copy of Chard's first report, dated 25/1/1879, at the PRO is quite clearly indicated as "TRUE COPY" and is in fact signed at the bottom by one J.North Crealock.... I also have a copy of Chard's brief testimonial for his batman, Charles John Robson, dated 17/11/1879. To my untrained eye the style of writing in all of these does bear some similarities to the 2nd (1880)Report now housed at the Royal Archives. Although the writing in the Royal Archives report is, as you might expect of something presented to the Queen, somewhat neater!! As to Attwood or Adendorff. Sergt. George William Mabin, writing in 1914, attributed the death of the Zulu attempting to fire the storehouse thatch to Corporal Attwood.
22nd January 2002	Alec Weston Dear Lee and everyone who has helped me with this one. I never guessed the original question about Adendorf might hinge on the authenticity of Chard's report. In the absence of actual evidence it now looks as though Adendorf was indeed Attwood, especially in the light of Lee's answer above, which I have checked out and found correct. If Chard was wrong about Adendorf and only 'copies' of his famous first report exist, is there more to this than meets the eye?
22nd January 2002	Lee Stevenson I'm not sure that we're suggesting anything sinister about Chard's report. In the days before photocopiers and like it would have been standard practice for some poor clerk or staff officer to write out copies of reports/documents etc. As an example there is an original account of JH Reynolds' activities at Rorke's Drift, written by JL Dalton at the PRO, and in the same file a "TRUE COPY" of the same written by Surgeon General Woolfryes... As to why Chard's 'own' report didn't make it to the War Office, (and now the PRO) well who knows, perhaps they simply got mixed up!!
22nd January 2002	Mike McCabe Also, the various diagrams of the Rorke's Drift defence perimeter attributed to JRM Chard VC exist in at least two forms each with discernible differences of detail.In one instance, the draughtsman appears to have "copied" Chard's signature. Within the conventions of the times that would have been very unusual, but not impossible for the purpose of generating an "unofficial" copy (that is: one that would not be used for official purposes of record or reporting). That kind of "copying" would not be thought of as "forging" because the document would never be given any other status than being a copy. It was not unusual for military clerks or draughtsmen to copy original drawings or letters on behalf of the originator, the copy would then be certified by either the true originator or another trusted and authorised person. A more intriguing example is the sketch map of the Isandlwana battlefield produced by Lt Anstey RE (and another RE subaltern) for the Intelligence Department of the QMG ostensibly to support the "Narrative of Field Operations....Zulu War". The two REs would have signed off the basic map survey itself to vouch for its accuracy, but we do not actually know who approved the added detail showing such features as the tented camps, wagon park, and the day and night outpost lines. It could have been Anstey (he had been there earlier to find the body of his brother Edgar) but it was possibly also just a schematic representation drawing information from other sources. In those merciful days before typewriters and computers, the preservation of "official copies" was in theory a carefully supervised and controlled area of work, but transcription errors nevertheless still crept in. The "Chard Roll" of Rorke's Drift probably began life as such a transcript made in good faith, though not necessarily from a properly checked or completed document. Once the "audit trail" on custodianship and authorship gets broken it is very hard to track later - as we now see!