rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:07 pm

Clive, thanks for the comments. Over the years On the forum I have learned to put fact when I know it, especially on the weapons as I shoot Martini's, Sniders, Long Lee's etc. I have opinions also, and thats what they are. Noticed a bit of the bitching recently..thought that had all gone.

Myself and Mel are going to be plodding the Fug trail agian in March...any my will there be some opinons flying there hey Mel?, whats the saying for the apres Zulu? gin gin I love you (Bombay sapphire of course).

Simon, you made that 'tini bang yet?

"Ah old guns and load bangs".
Neil

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:07 pm

Neil
You are quite right that the thatch could have been set alight through British firing. Or someone could have dropped a match. Or there could have been a lightning strike or the Zulus could have burnt the roof.
It is all a question of evidence. And where is Mr Rundgren's evidence?
Look in vain. Nothing is presented.
Whereas we do know that Chard's account (and many others) specifically say that the Zulus set fire to the hospital and tried to do the same to the storehouse.

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:25 pm

Julian
I made no implication it did, simply that rifle fire certainly would set fire to thatch or any other combustable material, plus the hard facts to substantiate it as you always insist we have. As they say don't knock it until you've tried it.

But an interesting slant here, while I think about it. Straw mattresses? initial combustion at low level?. how were the rooms illuminated?.

Lets stand back and watch the display.

Keep the guns firing
Neil

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:32 pm

Clive

Fine. However, I don't understand the necessity to make a point of suggesting some contributors to this forum see themselves as 'wise in the knowledge' of the AZW, when expressing their own opinions.

It is news to me that many times I've reacted like someone has offended myself in some way, as I considered it debating and if you are passionate about certain aspects it can get quite heated. Although, as with a few others, sometimes replies can be outwith the discussion and directed at the contributor(s) themselves. In this matter, I don't think I'm the only one who has experienced that, and unfortunately with e-mailing replies, how it is supposed to be read and how it can be read has created many misunderstandings. A case of - it sounded alright in my head when I wrote it.

I appreciate the fact that you are defending your friend, but I don't know your friends like you don't know mine, and I only made a comment on the issue of the subjects mentioned in the original topic for Rorke's Drift and the possibility of more on Isandlwana, which, as we know, is controversial at the best of times.

As for the last sentence, it was an attempt at humour.

The fact of the matter is, I think contributors have to say when they consider comments are away from the subject being discussed.

As I said in my second posting, and I guess it would have been my intention with the other times I've apparently reacted badly, that any posts expressing my concerns about such, would duly be deleted after things were sorted out.

Anyway, it was not a personal attack on your friend. I reacted to what I read about the booklet as detailed in the first 2 postings. Obviously, should the topic become discussed more, with the inclusion of more details about the booklet's contents, I would possibly add my own amateur opinion on matters.

Coll

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:48 pm

Never mind 'I'm boy. You get along to the ramparts with your mates. Now, do be quiet gentlemen, you'll frighten the levies.

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:47 am

[b]
Glen
Yes perhaps he did go over the top with that one but if you new Pat you would know say's what he thinks and I am not saying he is wrong on quite a few things but it is the way some of the contributers to this forum seem to attack anyone who has a different view to what has been taken over the years to be the truth look at the way that Dr Adrian Greaves was torn to pieces on this Forum about the books he wrote I just do not like to see people torn to pieces just because their views are different in the case of Dr Greaves it was by people who by their reputation should have known better. surely it is only for the good of our interest for all ideas to be aired.
Clive

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Hi Mel, finally found booklet in rabbits cage. Bought it off a bloke in Tipton, ugly brute and the rabbits no better.
I,m very excited by the tea stain on page 7. Looks a bit like an artichoke or a bat. After many hours of painstaking checking and rechecking. I am now sure its from the very teapot used by Crealock on the afternoon of the 22nd, to make a nice cup of tea for his Lordship.
I,m sending it to Elizabeth Hogan at the other lot for independent review.
I,ve got 2 books now with tea stains and both are jolly interesting. The other stain looks more like a butterfly.
Cheers Steve

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:17 pm

Hi Clive

Couldn't agree more, well said. Now let any furthur ideas be aired in friendly spirit and will sabres down. Exclamation

Cheers all,

Glenn

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:45 pm

Julian,
Do any of the eye witness accounts actually mention the method that was seen to be used by the Zulu to set fire to the roof?
Pat makes the point that the exterior of the roof would have been wet/damp (rainy season?) and very difficult to ignite. The inside would have been drier. Neil makes a most valid point regarding the hot debri that is ejected from the barrel of a MH.
Now Pat does admit in the booklet that he writes tongue in cheek and I certainly don't agree that the British deliberately started the fire, but it occurs to me that if you were Chard and had to account for the hospital burning down then who would you rather try and blame? Your own men or the enemy?

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:15 am

Hi guys,
As most of you know my great granddad had the VC for defending that hopital!!! However as some but not all will know Robert Jones ,although not a great Victorian historian, could read and write. He also kept a journal that usually written up within a week of events. His description of the battle within that journal written on the 30th Jan 1879 gives credence to the established viewpoint of this battle. What is more so his journals are in my possesion and I'd rather read them than any historic book on the subject any day of the week. I knew people who new Robert Jones VC including my own gran who was his daughter so forgive me if I occasionally chuck my ten pennith worth in. At the end
of the day Although this batttle was 127 years ago Robert Jones still has 5 surviving grandchildren my mum being one of them and I do get defensive. however I like to see where this individual who has chosen to write possibly sell this piece of work got their info from....... Also note that its because of such people twisting words that i have decided never to have my great granddads' words published .
At the end of the day writting something contraersial on this matter is a guarenteed income because ther are enthusiasts who will buy anything and everthing on the subject. however there are some of us who would never consider making a buck from a lonley soilders thoughts cos that are private .

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:54 pm

One last point I would like to say there is no doubt that that January day in 1879 many brave things where carried out by the defenders . I agree with my pal Pat that there was never ever 5 to 4 thousand Zulu's there at one time sheer balance of numbers would have been too much for the defenders but even with shall we say 500 it was still terrific odds and I take nothing away from the soldiers who where there all the VC's where earned and they where and still a part of our history we can be very proud of
Clive

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:15 pm

What evidence is there from which to draw a conclusion of around five hundred Zulu? I have never read any contemporary account that suggests that figure. The only way that anyone could arrive at that lowly amount is by ignoring the 370 dead as a spurious figure. if you take into account the wounded then either Chard, Bromhead and everyone else involved is lying or they wiped out the entire attacking Zulu force and neither option seems feasible.

I find it hard to disregard the primary sources.

Jon

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:34 pm

Hi all

I think I would go as far to say that not all of the 3-4,000 warriors ever attacked at once but in small groups of several hundred as was the case with the initial assault on the rear wall.

I would agree with Alekudemus that one cannot simply call the primary accounts lies or false. There is room for a bit of guesswork here of course. Chard said the total number of dead collected around the post was 351. This is certainly not, in my opinion, anything near the amount of warriors killed in the fight. You must take into account those who crawled away to die, any wounded or others who drowned in the crossing during the withdrawal due to exhaustion, many hundreds who were wounded later to die elsewhere and I expect the hundreds of dead taken away by friends or family for burial, as was done at Isandlwana.

I suppose that many Zulu killed in the afternoon or early-late evening would have been removed during the night when the defenders had limited vision around their position. The same goes for the casualties inflicted in the rocky terraces of the Shiyane and any such as those shot by Robson near the rough kraal.

Those men had ample time to remove their dead and I would not find a figure of nigh on 1000 fatalities hard to comprehend.

Having said that, it's just my hypothesis.

Cheers,

Glenn

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:22 am

To be fair to Pat, he doesn't dispute the contemporary sources at all, in fact, he quotes most of them. For those who have read his booklet, you can find the reference on pages 22 and 23. First quoting Chards report of Jan. 25th where he (Chard) estimates the number of Zulus at "500-600... with the main body of the enemy close behind." And at the end of the report gives a final total of 3000. Pat goes on with Bourne's report to the Listener..."500-600", Sgt. Smith's letter to his wife..."3000", Hitch... "4000-6000", Hook "500-600". His point is that by the time the Zulus had all arrived to bring there numbers up to the 3000 figure; it was late in the battle. The frantic fighting along the North wall, the heroic defense, and evacuation of the hospital were over with and the defenders had retired to the defenses around the storehouse. Once the defenders occupied only this area, anyone who has walked the battle field should agree this was much better ground to defend. A wide open killing ground to the West against the back drop of the burning hospital, the storehouse to the South, a well built stone wall/Kraal to the East, and a 4 foot ledge with 3 feet or so of box or bag taking it up to 7 feet to the North. With the now concentrated British fire, the Zulus larger numbers at that point were of no advantage. Whereas if a 3000-4000 force had been there in the beginning or "close behind" and attacked from the jump, it would be a mathematical improbability that 100 or so firing defenders even with all the ammunition in the world could have fired fast enough or accurately enough not to be over run. So by the time the Zulu old guard finally arrived, they found the hospital burning, the defenders packed in and firing at everything that moved, very little cover and many dead friends. All they could say was look at this mess, Holy Cow!! Holy... Cow...??? and of course that takes us to another one of Pats theories.

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:20 am

Neil,

No, I haven't fired it yet. Can't get the lid off the ammo box. Any ideas?

Cleaned it a couple of times though.

Regards