rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:09 am

I've been wondering about an article I read by Ian Knight entitled "The Mysterious Lieutenant Adendorff of Rorke's Drift; Hero or Coward?". I'm not wondering about Lt. Adendorff, discussions here as well as the article leave little doubt in my mind as to the veracity of Lt. A's presence but I'm curious as to Mr. Knight's conviction that "Most of the British troops who were killed at the [Fugitive's] Drift were done to death by Gamdana's followers." He makes an interesting case as kaXongo was one of Sihayo's brothers and that although he had already submitted to the GOC his people were less than enthusiastic and retained their arms. Knight uses no qualifiers in his statements thus seems personally convinced. The only source cited for the article is War Office report W032/7726, Public Records Office. Can anyone point me towards any other sources that support this contention, I seem to remember that in previous discussions here about who killed Lts.Coghill and Melvill that Gamdana's supposed involvement was written off to local oral history.

(Was the family photograph in the article, obtained from the Talana Museum, with the original caption "Adendorff" ever found to be Lt. Adendorff?)

Thanks

Michael

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:34 pm

Michael

I have a full copy of WO 32/7726 which is a record of the Isandlwana Court of Enquiry with accounts by the eight witnesses and additional statements by Essex and Curling. There is no mention of Gamdana in this document, nor of any local Zulu at Fugitives' Drift.

I am familiar with the story of the involvement of Gamdana's men at FD but I am unable to put my hand on a source at the moment. If I locate it, I will let you know.
KIS

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:28 am

Michael

I have never seen anything vaguely convincing on this theory. Contrast this with at least two (one of them is Smith-Dorrien I recall) survivors' accounts which specifically mention Zulu pursuers swimming the river at FD.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:21 pm

All I've read are assertions with reference to local Zulu oral history. Just interested if there's anything more. A reference in a Blue Book would prove interesting but I'm not sure if those types of allegations would get that high. The closest contemporary reference I've read is Maj. Grenville's quote - "Some of them [the fugitives] got right down to the river six miles off and were killed by a lot of scoundrels whom the General had taken prisoner a few days before". This however seems to me to be an altogether different group. I'm unclear on the circumstances surrounding Gamdana's submitting and am unsure if his people had any connection to the prisoners. If not then there are allegations of two separate 'renegade' Zulu bands (if I may use the term) involved at Isandlwana.

I also recall reading similar allegations in the "Red Book" (which I'll check out when I get back to my library eventually!) but those reports could simply be just another case of unsubstaniated rumours often finding their way into the newspapers. However there does seem to be some contemporary source for the rumours and I'm curious as to the cause and effect relationship as applied to subsequent Zulu oral tradition.

Personally I still believe the responsibilty lay with the main impi but an interesting conjecture could be built around the fact that the river was extemely high and swift, the 'drift' rather steep, many of the fugitives seem to have drowned, the amaZulu were not renowned swimmers and the Zulu method of crossing rivers seems to have been a practiced tactical military manouvre which would not have lent itself readily to the excited circumstances surrounding the attempted escape, especially with groups of the NNH further discouraging a Zulu dip by providing covering fire for those attempting to escape. Then there is Cethswayo's stricture against crossing into Natal.

Of course one can't deny the eyewitness accounts and there did seem to be a few ibutho who managed it in enough strength to make a nuisance of themselves later on that day! (Although I have read that some at least crossed further upstream.)

Best

Michael