rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:15 pm

Simon
Are you trying to provoke another thread for us all to fall out over ha ha!

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:22 pm

Perish the thought.... although there's nothing wrong with "healthy debate!"

Oh, I got an original sling to dress it up too. Any recommendations how to mount it on my study wall?

Regards

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:48 pm

Simon
B & Q do a lovely wrought iron coat hook, you have to open up a bit, but its great,

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:28 pm

Alekudemus
The 500 I mentioned in my last post was just an example on my part not meant to be a precise number
Clive

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:15 pm

The only place I can find Pat's booklet still available is in back copies of The Armourer magazine if anyone is interested. Trouble is it is serialised in seven parts.

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:47 pm

I saw a copy mentioned at abe books.

Coll

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:30 pm

It is probably not inaccurate to claim that the Zulus "came & went in dribs and drabs." Laband makes this point quite strongly too and emphasises the raids on other locations nearby, as did Smith at the time. I suspect, however, from the detailed descriptions handed down, that the "dribs and drabs" considerably exceeded 500 or so each, the commotion of the fight being likely to draw rather than repel those who were, or had been, raiding nearby.

Smith claimed to have seen them leaving the Isandlwana area (presumably still constituted as part of the reserve, now to the west of the mountain). He had the help of artificial means and was also able to observe for quite a while. He had had the experience of working with large groups of Africans, including Zulus, for seven years, and his (obviously approximate) estimate of the three columns ("companies") was 1,000 to 1,500 each, although it is of course possible that not all of these actually reached Rorke's Drift at any time, as it was not possible to observe the whole force continually.

Zulu accounts, however, also concur with a rough figure of 4,000.

Peter

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:27 am

There are several references to farm burning carried out by Zulu raiding parties, which certainly means that the entire force was not packed around the defences of Rorke's Drift.
Major Spalding in his report also stated that when he tried returning to the Drift along the Helpmekaar road that
" I came across a body of Zulus in extended order across the road".
This position was between 2-3 miles from where the battle was taking place, confirming that the Zulu force was certainly not concentrated.

Graham

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:18 pm

It's interesting to hear the word 'historian' (brilliant or otherwise!) used on this forum and to speculate exactly what it describes. Is it someone who has written books on a subject, or someone who has devoted their life studying history from a particular period of time, or is it perhaps individuals who have been so facinated by an event that they have read and absorbed every detail and, having evaluated them, are able to give a very informed opinon on that subject which (who knows) in time may be taken as fact?
If any of the above are correct, then in my humble opinion we have some very brilliant historians on this forum!

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:52 pm

Yes,
probably not a very good choice of words by Clive.

I seem to remember something similar from Elizabeth Hogan when defending Adam Zamoyski's review of 'Crossing the Buffalo', and the negative comment here ref Mr Zamoyski's Zulu War knowledge, on the old forum.
We've since grown to love and respect her.

In my opinion, 'Historians' are like Archaeologists,
they are either 'Professional', or 'Amateur',

which probably defines their level of learning and training (qualification), and whether they derive their means of income from the said occupation,

but not necessarily their 'expertise' !.

(Another less than professional description that comes to mind is 'Armchair' whatever .)

This doesn't mean to say that 'Professional' implies 'conventional' or 'uncontroversial' !
And take David Irving for example !
He is styled as a 'Historian', but has no formal qualification ? and conventional he is not !

History Qualifications, in addition to specialist period/event learning and the research necessary for the papers and asignments, contain a mix of the following;
Depth and breadth of knowledge, handling and researching primary and secondary material
Communication and Presentation skills, seminar discussions, oral presentations, exercises in documentary analysis, essays and examinations
and Historical enquiry and critical ananlysis, with the ability to arrive at an outcome, and present it in the appropriate format.

Too much for me, as I've said before, I'm just an amateur enthusiast.
However, there certainly is a depth of knowledge here on this forum, from well researched, highly read 'Historians', who are always willing to share their knowledge and opinions.
Sean

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:33 am

Now that everyone has established their credentials, we can analyse the responses to Mel's original query.

Am I right in saying ?

1. There appear to have been 3,000 - 4,000 Zulu warriors in the general area. Given the geographical nature and layout of the Post, it would have been impossible for them to all be involved at the same time, so presumably, orders to attack would have been given to individual regiments at different times, given that there was some semblance of control by their leaders.

2. Fighting ebbed and flowed as the combatants grouped and regrouped.

3. With walls, perimeters and buildings being defended, and the numbers involved, it could hardly be called a 'street brawl'.

4. The attack and defence of the Hospital was a part of the action, not the whole.

5. There are a number of possibilities in starting a fire. All of them involve a flame, ember, or spark of some sort. Chard maintained that it was by enemy action. There were no other contradictory observations or opinions at the time.

6. There do not appear to have been any cattle at RD. The Zulu combatants would certainly have become more demoralised as the action enfolded, and their piles of dead grew. (refer back to point #2)

7. 'B' Company 2/24th were no more or no less a body of trained fighting soldiers than the norm in the British Army at that time.

cheers,
Sean
and Simon, I've been up the Book Depository, and looked out the window and over the 'grassy knoll'
I think the shots came from the Cuban agent in the carpark !

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:39 am

To my mind, when I review the fight at Rorke's Drift, it seems to have less cohesion that that at Isandlwana, even though we have more primary sources from the Rorke's Drift fight. It appears to me that the attack on Rorke's Drift was less well organised, as if the commanders had stepped back and raised their hands in that distinguishable gesture of the Zulus of "what are we to do?". I think control of some of the younger impi might have been pretty much out of the commanders hands (in spite of the beautiful scenes we have in "Zulu" showing the older general directing the attack from Shiyane). While I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was a 'street brawl', I would say it had some elements of a disorganised riot with parties of attackers storming the defences at various places to find a weak point. I think they found it in the hospital.

How the fire started could be open for conjecture. A thought in my mind is, where did the Zulus get the fire from? They had run all the way from Ngwebeni with just shields and spears, so where and how could they source a spark? There seems to be, however, some logic in the idea of the sparks from a rifle starting the fire. I've fired a Martini Henry and the bits do go everywhere! So not illogical to think that way.

Chard said the Zulus started the fire. I can't see a private putting up his hand and saying, "er, sir, actually..." even if he had any idea at all that his actions could have stared a fire. It was, after all, crammed, confused and daunting inside that building.

I don't agree with all that Pat says, especially regards the numbers but, there are some points there that could be up for discussion and that's what this forum is all about.

Dawn

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:09 am

Dawn

Think we should file this Pat Rundglen with Saul David and Lizzy Hogan Laughing

And

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:12 am

Just to add a little more to this 'discussion' then.

Presumably the two wagons left at Rorke's Drift were lead by oxen...possibly 16 to each wagon....and presumably a quantity of 'fresh' meat was available for the men of Stevenson's company of the NNC.
[1 full sized beast per 100 men daily - according to one source]. So from that it could be fair to presume that there were "cattle" at Rorke's Drift

It could also be argued that 'B' Company carried a higher than average number of men who had attended the school of musketry at Hythe, and gained certificates and payments for good shooting. This might well have been under Bromhead's particular influence. (He had been employed as Garrison Instructor of Musketry from about 1873, attended the school of musketry himself in 1875).

There are several first accounts of the Zulus seen attempting to "fire" the storehouse roof, indeed there has been discussion on this forum in the past as to which defender was responsible for preventing this. There is also at least one account of a Zulu seen lighting his pipe from the embers of the cookhouse fire...

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:40 am

Mel
You asked about how witnesses said that the Zulus set light to the thatch...the closest i can come to it is "one man was shot, I believe by Lieut. Adendorff, who had a light almost touching the thatch".
That Chard 'invented' the story is implausible - lots of his men recorded that the Zulus set light to the roof (no conspiracy theory here).
Sean
3000-4000 seems far too low a number. My 'Contemporary Accounts and the Composition of the Zulu Army' SOTQ article suggested 4500-5500 I recall.