rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:59 am

Do not know what?

What wall? The outer perimeter wall was only 4' high. The biscuit box wall only 2 biscuit boxes high.

And surgeon Reynolds had enough to keep him busy once the battle started.

Dawn

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:25 am

I thought you had gone to sleep by now , what about the store house

Andrew

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:42 am

How much do we know about the storehouse?

In my books the sketches of the perimeter show that the storehouse jutted out so that three sides were exposed. The hospital was only exposed on two sides. I know which one I'd rather be in.

The rooms in the hospital were not interconnected, leading to Chard remarking at one stage in his report that "I had tried to impress upon the men in the hospital the necessity for making communication right through the building - unfortunately this was not done."

So some thought had been given to the defence of the hospital.

Yes, I'm still up. Someone had to do the night shift. Laughing

Dawn

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:24 pm

Well I am going to bed now, so you would have rather been in the hospital than the storehouse, goodluck , the storehouse was no where near as exposed.

good night

Andrew

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:48 pm

Andrew.

Actually, I think I'd rather be in Helpmekaar.

I'm off!

Dawn

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:03 am

Andrew,

You made a comment in a previous post as to Reynolds being at the storehouse, however, prior to his setting up his operating theatre on the stoep of the storehouse, let's not forget that he was responsible for the re-supply of ammunition to the hospital defenders. Although this is mentioned in his V.C. citation, I feel it is more telling described in the motion to award him the B.M.A.'s Gold Medal.

Dawn,

Re-biscuit boxes, I take it from your remark you've not seen one of them? I rather stand behind a couple of those than some sacks of corn. They are slightly larger than a tea-chest, and built of a hard wood and containing biscuits so hard you'd break your teeth on them - a most effective barricade.

John Y.

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:28 am

John

Point taken on the biscuit boxes. I had heard about the hardness of the biscuits (I had read that men marched with them in their armpits to soften them - yuck!) but not the size of the boxes.

Dawn

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:27 pm

Chard ordered the biscuit box wall built after the NNC had fled this was incase either compound fell, he probably thought that the sick were going to be as safe as anywhere else and it would have taken a while to get the patients and defenders out of the building and a complete reorganisation of the defences.

So he was right to keep the patients and defenders in the hospital.

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:54 am

Hey guys you would be proud of me as far as I am concerned I have answered my own question despite every body else�s assertion.

I researched my books and finally got on to NOTHING REMINDS BUT TO FIGHT by I Knight. If you go to page 54 just above half way down the page, it states, �It was decided to leave patients in the hospital, and surgeon Reynolds, his hospital orderly and 6 men detailed by lieutenant Bromhead � Hook, Jones, Jones, Williams, Williams and Cole- barricaded the doors and windows and knocked loopholes through the walls. Most patients were well enough to bear arms (So Dawn if they were well enough to bear arms they were well enough to move the 40 yards to the biscuit wall even after everyone had bolted as far as I am concerned). Now here is the what REYNOLDS ADMITTED ��WE DID NOT CONSIDER EITHER BUILDING WOULD BE TAKEN UNLESS WITH THE FALL OF THE WHOLE PLACE�.

I know this was said before everyone bolted but I like the idea that they believed that they could still defend the entire perimeter

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:59 am

Exactly.

And even after the others had bolted, they still thought they could defend the perimeter. Or at least have a go, with the building of the biscuit wall to fall back on and still a final redoubt inside that. Who knew where the battle was going to end up?

Dawn

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:06 am

No you�re missing my point

The under estimating of the enemy was still there Reynolds comments even after Isandlwana

And the wounded as you said could not be moved would have been able to be moved if required

Aus signing off

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:05 am

Andrew

For a while I was going to let you have the last word, but alas, I succumbed.

Yes, I did miss your point, for a while I thought we were in agreement.

The second sentence of your last reply did not make much sense so I am unable to reply.

But yes, I agree the sick could have been moved if someone had ordered it.

Dawn

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:51 am

I suppose what I am hanging my hat on is the Reynolds stated he did not believe either building would be taken. even after 1500 men had just been wiped out???.do you think they all thought that.

Anyway I am moving on to Hlobane now which I don't think has really been debated

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:54 am

I guess there was a sense of disbelief all round that a camp on 1500 could have been wiped out. I think also, at the time, they weren't sure whether the whole column had been wiped out.

That they chose to make a defence is what is so incredulous in the first place as they would have had some idea of what a Zulu force could do. The fact that the sick were also made to defend themselves is indicative of the situation at the time. Who are we to second guess?

I saw the Hlobane questions but shall remain silent this time. Other matters demand my attention.

Dawn

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:53 pm

I agree, with your comments a good debate.

Regards

Andrew