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
27th June 2002	Daily Mail review of Adrian Greaves forthcoming book. By Bernie Drummond. It is suggested that the long awaited relief companies of the 24th that had left Helpmekaar witnessed the fight at Rorkes Drift from a vantage point, and believing the cause to be lost, retreated back to Helpmekaar.This is the first time that I have heard of what amounts to a suggestion of cowardice. It is also suggested that Chelmsford's soldiers were armed with machine guns, could they mean the Gatling gun?
Date	Replies
27th June 2002	CLIVE DICKENS Bernie I know the Gattling gun was used by Pearson at the battle of Nyezane against a small part of the Zulu army on the early morning if the 22January 1879 , so it is safe to say I think that it would be the same gun as the one you refer to, as for cowardice by relief companies well to be honest I have never heard of this before.Let us hope John Young or Martin Everett can add something to this. Clive
27th June 2002	John Young Bernie & Clive, I was wondering when some-one was going to mention the Daily Mail article from 22nd June, 2002. I have written to the newspaper in the hope that the author of the article, Christopher Hudson, will clarify the source of certain points mentioned in the piece - to put it mildly the 2 1/2 page article was not without error. On the question of the 24th Foot companies, (that is if I am permitted to answer any question relating to that regiment?) the text states incorrectly that they were from the 2nd Battalion of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment - whereas they were in fact Companies 'D' & 'G' of the 1st Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment. In my text, which appears on this site, and which I have delivered as a lecture to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, I state: 'Before night fell, some of the defenders could see a cloud of dust rising from the road that led to Helpmekaar. A cheer went up from the defenders it could only mean one thing, a relief force from Helpmekaar. It was in fact Spalding at the head of the two 1st/24th companies from Helpmekaar. Some three miles distant from the mission-station, Spalding was confronted by a number of Zulus who deployed in an attempt to surround his two hundred or so men. Spalding was convinced that the post at Rorke's Drift must have shared the fate of Isandlwana, and withdrew on Helpmekaar.' Cowardice or prudence? I fancy Henry Spalding favoured prudence myself. I have said this before, who are we to judge the actions of men in 1879, with our 21st Century hindsight? Spalding made a judgement decision based on what was going on around him. Coward or correct? On the question of the Gatling Gun, was told along time ago by a late friend of mine, and published author on machine-guns that; "The Gatling Gun was not technically a machine-gun, per se." The Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 was, however, the first major land operation where Dr. Richard Gatling's invention, was used in action by British forces against an enemy. The Gatling Gun was an American invention, dating back to 1862, where it apparently saw limited use in the American Civil War. It was adopted into British service in 1871. During the Asante War of 1873, two Gatlings were sent to the seat of war. The guns were not however used in action. A demonstration of the weapon to some Asante envoys it appears sufficed. As Clive mentions above at Nyezane in the morning of 22nd January, 1879 a Gatling, which was under the command of Midshipman Lewis C. Coker, of H.M.S. 'Active' was used. Gatlings were also deployed at Gingindlovu 2nd April, 1879, and Ulundi (Ondine) 4th July, 1879. As well as being deployed in various fortifications during the campaign. On a different point mentioned by Christopher Hudson in his article, I have challenged him over his 'smooth-faced Zulus' comment. This was the source of some amusement for, the bearded, His Royal Highness Prince Velekhaya Shange, a descendent of, the equally bearded, Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande, the Zulu commander at Rorke's Drift. I await his response. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society
27th June 2002	Peter Quantrill To add to John Young's comments, Spalding did not witness the battle at Rorke's Drift.Having left the latter at 2 p.m. he arrived between Varmaaks and Helpmakaar at 3.45 p.m.There he met two companies 1/24th under Major Upcher.They advanced back to Varmaaks. Fugitives were fleeing in the opposite direction,all indicating that Rorke's Drift had fallen. Three miles from the latter he encountered a body of Zulus 50 yards away who extended themselves across the road.They threw out flankers,wherupon Spalding retreated back some two miles,from where he observed that the mission house was in flames.This confirmed Spalding's view that the post at R.D. had fallen.He thereupon decided to return to Helpmakaar,without any further investigation, which post he reached at 9 p.m. The following morning Chard sent a message which reached Spalding at 9 a.m. "begging for assistance." Spalding declined the request as he considered it "imprudent to risk the safety of Helpmakaar."One might indeed question his conduct. ( Primary source material: Spalding's report, Supplement to the London Gazette Dated 14 March 1879 number 2199)
27th June 2002	James Garland For the information of readers on this site the following is the complete text of Spaldings account Copy of Major Spalding, D.A.A.G.’s Report. 1. At 2 p.m. on the 22nd instant I left Rorke’s Drift for Helpmakaar, leaving a second horse at Varmaaks. My intention was to bring up Captain Rainforth’s company, 1st Battalion 24th Regiment, to protect the ponts. Lieutenant Chard R.E., on returning from the camp, Isandula, had observed Zulus on the neighbouring heights. I thought they might make a dash for the ponts during the night. 2. Between Varmaaks and Helpmakaar, where I arrived 3.45 p.m., I met two companies 1st Battalion 24th Regiment under Major Upcher; on returning from Helpmakaar, I met Major Upcher, who informed me of the disaster at Isandula. 3. We advanced as far as Varmaaks with the troops. I then pushed on to the foot of the Berg, accompanied by Mr. Dickson, of the Buffalo Border Guard. The road was covered with fugitives, chiefly Basutos and people in civilian clothes, but there were one or two mounted infantry. Several of these I ordered to accompany me, but all, except two, slipped away when my back was turned. My object was to ascertain whether the post at Rorke’s Drift still held out. In this case I should have sent word to Major Upcher to advance and endeavour to throw myself into it. 4. But every single white fugitive asserted that the mission house was captured; and at about three miles from the same I came across a body of Zulus in extended order across the road. They were 50 yards off; a deep (ravine) donga was behind them, capable of concealing a large force. They threw out flankers as if to surround the party. Mr. Dickinson agreed with me that they were Zulu, an opinion soon borne out by the “horns” which they threw out. So we trotted back to the troops some two miles in rear. 5. On reaching the summit of a hill from which the mission house is visible it was observed to be in flames; this confirmed the statement of the fugitives, that the post had been captured. This being the case it was determined to save, if possible, Helpmakaar and its depot of stores. 6. It was growing dusk; the oxen had already had a long trek; the hill had to be reascended, and the heights were said to be lined with Zulus. I examined them with my glass, but could not observe the enemy. There may have been a few detached parties, however, as these were observed by competent witnesses. No attack was made by them, and the column reached Helpmakaar by 9 p.m., when waggon laager was formed around the commissariat stores. Colonel Hassard, R.E., met us half-way up the Berg, and took over command from me. 7. The following morning a dense fog prevailed. About 9 a.m. a note arrived from Lieutenant Chard, R.E., stating that Rorke’s Drift still held out, and begging for assistance. It was considered imprudent to risk the safety of Helpmakaar by denuding it of its garrison, and probable that Rorke’s Drift had already been relieved by the column under the General. It was determined to push down to the drift some mounted men to gather intelligence. I was in command. A short distance from Helpmakaar Mr. Fynn was met, who communicated the fact that the General’s column had relieved Rorke’s Drift. At the top of the Berg I met Lieutenant-Colonel Russell, who confirmed the news. At about noon I reached Rorke’s Drift and reported myself to the General. (Signed) H.S. Spalding, Major, D.A.A.G. Source: Statements of Major Spalding and Colonel Glynn concerning absence of Major Spalding from action at Rorke’s Drift. Location: Public Records Office, Kew. Reference WO 32/7738
27th June 2002	James Garland I'm sorry about the strange figures e.g. #8217 that have crept into the above text. I pasted Spalding's account from Microsoft Word and these figures just appeared in the conversion.
27th June 2002	James Garland The following text is from the Diary entry of Dr. Lewis Reynolds for the 22nd January. After receiving information from fugitives regarding large bodies of Zulus Reynolds states... "On this information we hurried on as a relief as soon as possible, but when getting within two miles of the drift were told that place was on fire and we should return to fortify Helpmakaar at once, where we arrived about midnight-formed the waggons in a square round Commissariat Stores and filled up underneath with sacks of mealies and the same on top, forming a very fair and defensible laager - scouts were sent out and we were prepared all night for an attack which however did not take place." Of course the garrison at Helpmakaar did not need the information about large bodies of Zulus from fugitives as they already had this information from Spalding. The whole point of Spalding's journey to Helpmakaar was to hurry on Capt. Rainforth's company to Rorke's Drift following Lieut. Chard's report of large bodies of Zulus in the hills at Isandhlwana. As for the suggestion that Spalding's actions were questionable the full account above shows that he believed it probable that Rorke's Drift had been relieved by the main column when he got Chard's message. He didn't just ignore Chard he sent mounted men forward to gather intelligence. The very fact that Spalding felt the need to report his actions and explain his decisions suggests he wanted to quell any doubts over his absence from the action at Rorke's Drift. Reputation was everything to Victorian Officers and had to be jealously defended. None of his contemporaries critisised him. I personally think he was one of the unluckiest officers of the entire campaign. If he had been at Rorke's Drift he would have most probably received the VC as the senior officer present along with promotion and fame. As it was he got nothing.
28th June 2002	Peter Quantrill The conduct of Spalding initially leaving his post at Rorke's Drift is covered in our forthcoming book "Zulu Victory--The Epic of Isandlwana and the Cover-Up." A point to ponder on his subsequent actions. Chard's letter for help was addressed to the "Officer Commanding" at Helpmakaar This letter was despatched before Chard was aware of Chelmsford's fate. Colonel Hassard,R.E., was commanding at Helpmakaar. The note was received by Spalding at about 9 a.m. He had no idea of the whereabouts of Chelmsford at that time,yet he stated, " It was considered imprudent to risk the safety of Helpmakaar by denuding it of its garrison,and probable that Rorke's Drift had already been relieved by the column under the General." He was therefore prepared to leave Chard to his fate, and assume Chelmsford would relieve the garrison when he knew nothing of the latters movements or indeed if he was still alive. That I'm afraid is reason enough to question his conduct.
1st July 2002	alec weston Peter, Chard's letter for help - is this a new letter? I seem to remember from a distant visit to the museum at Brecon that the letter from Rorkes Drift to Helpmalar was from Bromhead. Can you clarify please. I like the plugs for your book! Understandable though as Knight's Isandlwana and David Jacksons Isandlwana are both out next month. Regards, Alec.
1st July 2002	alec weston One for JohnYoung. Dear John, I, too, read the Daily Mail article and saw the reference to the 2nd Bn marching to the relief of Rorkes Drift. I couldn't get through to the DM - I hope you have more luck - so I went straight to the horse's mouth. According to Adrian Greaves's, he had nothing to do with the DM article which was written by their journalist. Greaves confirms that his book refers to the companies as the 1st 24th, as , of course, does Spalding in his report. Perhaps the moral of this story is not to believe everything one reads in newspapers. By the way, I have an encyclopedia which states that the first machine gun was the Gatling gun. Alec
1st July 2002	Dave Nolan Alec, Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read in encyclopedias as well as newspapers. Dave
1st July 2002	Peter Quantrill Alec, Will respond on Friday the 5th. At the moment I am looking at dolphins, seabirds and game fish feeding on the sardine run on the Natal Wild Coast. Peter
1st July 2002	John Young Alec, No reply from the 'Daily Mail' as yet. I imagine Christopher Hudson is still wading through the six pages of errors that I forwarded to him. As you will see above I attribute the article to Mr. Hudson, and to him alone, although I have sought clarification on the source of his some information. So no need to moralise, I adjudge the errors to those of the author, the aforementioned Mr. Hudson. As to the Gatling Gun, as I stated I was quoting someone who knew something about his subject, to his mind, and with nearly fifty years research in his subject he declared that, and I quote his comment in full, "The first true machine gun was Maxim's Gun. The Gatling Gun was not technically a machine-gun, per se. The method of operation for the Gatling Gun, being manual, as opposed to the Maxim's recoil operation." If we were to accept your encyclopedia as correct I would have challenge that with "The Puckle Gun" of 1718, which was also a hand-cranked weapon, but a flintlock. That was the weapon which fired square projectiles at 'Turks'. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
2nd July 2002	Alkec Weston Dear John, Thank you for your reply, I am impressed by the amount of time you devote to correcting the less well informed among us, including Daily Mail reporters. I notice that you are Chairman of a -society -with- a -very- long -name but is it really necessary for you to spring into action each time anyone, even a Daily Mail reporter, dares to write about the Zulu War? It occurs to me that there is a distinct probability that you are actively deterring new ideas, or new writers to the subject, by acting like a bullying Victorian headmaster( at least they were officially appointed) on a public forum. You may well be right in most cases but your constant nit-picking is sad, and you certainly have no right to decide issues for the rest of us. I suspect that most visitors to this forum are beginning to wish that you would start a forum on your own web site rather than hi-jacking this site to air your personal views. By the way, if you really are important in this field, I presume you are aware of the articles appearing in the 'Armourer' - about Rorkes Drift. At the moment an official South African Battlefield guide is destroying much of the established view about the battle, including statements that the Zulus weren't trying at Rorkes Drift, the stories of hand-to-hand fighting there are a myth, that the front mealie bag wall never existed!, and that the whole story is exagerrated. Now, you could, and perhaps should in your official 'Chairman' capacity, get involved in their debate as these articles really are having a serious go' at us Brits - but if you do, please don't do it on this forum, they have a very good letters page. Sincerely, Alec
2nd July 2002	Phil Evans Dear Alec, As a regular reader of Armouror magazine, I have been following the debate about Rorkes Drift. About a year ago I visited the battlefield with the article's author, Pat Rundgren ,and he is very sincere and convincing. His argument/viewpoint hinges on the statistics of the British casualties and his article seems valid. a. that the battle at RD only lasted a very short time until the hospital caught fire and then it was all over. The stories of savage fighting are all a myth ,and c. The British claim of a 'harrowing never ending battle up and down the barricades, (no front wall barrier remembert!) for nine solid hours is also a myth. As he states in his article - if you whip their asses (the british) then there were thousands of them, if you go down gloriuosly, there were even more. He quotes C/Sgt Bourne who wrote that there were 500-600 being reinforced by hundreds more, other reports he describes as 'hearsay'. Now, this is all powerful stuff in a highly respected journal that is read worldwide. I agree that Mr Young might like to challenge Pat Rundgren with the same vigour that forced him to write 'six pages'!! of corrections to the Daily Mail following their article. I doubt that the journalist, (living in the real world as he does) will be too bothered to read them, let alone reply. Phil
2nd July 2002	Phil Evans, Re the above, b. should indicate the comment that 'the stories of savage fighting are all a myth'. Sorry. Phil
2nd July 2002	CLIVE DICKENS I too had Pat Rundren as my guide at Rorkes Drift and I must say that there is a lot of truth in his theory of the battle do not forget that the battle at Rorkes Drift was a very convenient new broom in which LORD g
2nd July 2002	CliveDickens (Sorry I do not know what happened there)cont:Chelmsford and others had to sweep the disaster of ISANHLWANAunder the table.
2nd July 2002	Dave Nolan Alec, I think what puts people off airing their views is when attacks are made on the person rather than their views, eh? Dave
2nd July 2002	Bernie Drummond Delighted to read the reactions to the article that appeared in the D.M. although it is regretable that some grown-ups insist upon being so personal. As for the theories of Mr Pat Rundgren, no doubt many eminent historians and writers are delighted to hear that they have been victims of a giant con-trick all these years, and the poor old Regimental Museum down in Brecon might as well call it a day!
2nd July 2002	James Garland I personally welcome John Young's entries on this forum. If articles are printed that are factually wrong or in dispute then it is legitimate to correct them or put another point of view. This site would be poorer without John sharing his knowledge on the subject. I have learnt more from his comments than all the others put together. As for new theories about Rorke's Drift I have studied 25 or so letters and accounts from Rorke's Drift which although sometimes differing on minor points are pretty consistant with regard to the battle as a whole. The traditional story of Rorke's Drift is presented again and again by participants in letters home and interviews over a number of years.
3rd July 2002	Julian Whybra I find it extremely difficult to find any correlation between Mr Rundgren's views of the non-ferocity of the battle for RD and the descriptions of the many ordinary soldiers' letters home written in the main immediately after the battle. I do not know of one which would endorse his view. Does anyone else? How does he explain this? There was no censor after all? How does one explain the several sketches and plans drawn of the defence line (and not just by Chard)? How does one explain the Zulu descriptions of the battle's ferocity?
3rd July 2002	John Young Alec, I have no pretensions as to my importance in the field of research into the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. I am, what I am, a keen amateur enthusiast in the subject. That the patrons & membership of Anglo-Zulu War Research Society have for the past ten years elected me to be their chaIrman is compliment itself, for me. If others declare me to be "...a world's authority" or 'historian', that is their opinion, not mine. In answer to your own and Phil's enquiry, no, I haven't seen Pat Rundgren's article. Should someone wish to share with me, I shall view it with my 'untrained eye', and pass comment on its content. In what way do you feel am I '... actively deterring new ideas, or new writers to the subject,...'? Are you saying it is wrong to correct errors? Are saying I should not impart information to others which puts pay to a myth, which if constantly repeated becomes accepted as a fact? As to the allegation of hijacking this forum, have you actually viewed the full content of this website? Should I request the Webmaster & Editor to remove my contributions & illustrations? Or withdraw my support of their efforts to keep this website alive? By the introduction of certain items for sale, by permitting the use my collection free of any charge to do so. I take it you have read the names of 'Content Advisors'? - Please forgive the Americanism, but that's how it is worded. Alec, 'Hoist your own true colours' - declare your own interest if any? Are you some budding author who fears the wrath of the 'bullying Victorian headmaster'? Or perhaps a member or an officer of another society? The simple answer is Alec, if you don't like what I have to say - you don't have to read it - the choice is your's and your's alone. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
3rd July 2002	Peter Critchley Hello, It should be said that John has made many a fine contribution this this website, and his continuing efforts are actively encouraged and appreciated (although I don't always say so :) ).. We started the RDVC.com website as simply a way of directing people to the final resting places of the brave men of Rorke's Drift, and have been astounded by the success, mainly brought by this discussion forum, that this topic has brought. As always, I remain impartial, but I wanted to offer our continuing support to John and others like him, who contribute a great deal to this site. Long may the debates rage on.. All the best, as always Peter Webmaster http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com
4th July 2002	CLIVE DICKENS I would like to add that as a armature in this field. I have always found John Youngs article's very informed and of great interest. I have learnt so very much from them,Keep up the good work John your admirers far outway your very pathetic critics. Clive
4th July 2002	Alec Weston So, a closing of ranks by those controlling this site? Clive's comment about 'pathetic critics' says it all doesn't it? If anyone dares to challenge or question the authority of John Young they are subjected to humiliation. OK, but I actually have no axe to grind, I am a teacher with an interest in Colonial wars and I have never met John Young, or Adrian Greaves - and I am not a member of either of their societies. I have merely wondered why, with all John's knowledge, which I also recognise as being invaluable, why he doesn't write his own book about subjects like Isandlwana or Rorke's drift, I am sure they would become best sellers. Personally, I would much prefer to read John's own full interpretation of the events rather than his on-going, and in my personal opinion, boring objections to the work of others. I am sure everyone knows that it is one thing to criticise the work of others, but it is another matter to produce your own work. Alec
4th July 2002	Alan Critchley Come on chaps. This is only a forum for discussion. There is no room for antagonism. I echo Peter (even though we are separated by a generation and two doors), that this forum should be used to discuss and air views. I also share Peter's opinion about John Young. (I haven't been approached or visited on the site by any of the other authorities on the subject, so John's input is invaluable). He is a great bloke, knows his stuff and if there's a problem, he'll talk about it. And like Peter and myself, he is not here for the money. There is none. Alan [email protected]
4th July 2002	CLIVE DICKENS Alec One should always contrive to be sure of their facts your comment that John should write a book on the matter also speaks for your knowledge I would suggest that you go to your local libary and borrow a book which bears the title"THEY FELL LIKE STONES" and note who the author is ? THE ONE AND ONLY JOHN YOUNG. o'dear' o dear. Clive
4th July 2002	Dave Nolan I think this so called 'John Young' fellow ought to nail his colours to the mast and admit who he really is! Alan - I am sure all of the contributors to the site are delighted that you regard none of them as authorities (perhaps those you regard as authorities are too busy?)- some of the contributors have written with as much authority as any other as far as I can see, but then perhaps their modesty prevails. Dave
4th July 2002	John Young Dave, I hide behind no nom de plume. I am who I say I am. The son of a man who served in a territorial battalion of "The Noble 24th", who introduced me a tender age to the Anglo-Zulu War, and I've stuck to it ever since. I will nail my colours to the mast if you wish. I am the Chairman of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society, which Alec refers to above as 'a -society -with- a -very- long -name', but it is just that a society of enthusiasts banded together by our common interest. The society was founded ten years ago this very day. We are not anything but what we purport to be - a society. Yet it is interesting that Alec makes does not deride a limited company with an equally long name? Alec, In your capacity as a teacher, if a student of your's submits something that is inaccurate, do you not correct it? Or do you let it stand as fact, and agree with the student's view? So is it wrong, for example, to point out errors written by a senior tutor of a university, who is in turn responsible for the correcting the errors of his own students? Or do you as an academic, because of that person's position, agree wholeheartedly with them? If you had troubled to realise that I am a published author on the subject of the Anglo-Zulu War, you very well might have read the words of Kenneth Griffith, the actor, film-maker and author in South African history. You would discovered I am no academic, nor am I as stated in a publication, with a name not too dissimiliar to my own society's 'Journal', a 'historian', perish the thought. As Alan has mentioned above I'm not in this for the money, although I am not adverse to accepting money if certain parties wish to use items from my collection to illustrate books or videos! Normally I prefer it they ask first! On a lighter, and in hope that you will take no offence, as none is actually intended. On this forum you mistakenly criticized me, over the use of apostrophes when referring to Lee Stevenson's book - well this 'bullying Victorian headmaster' is giving you a hundred lines for lack of apostrophes in your comment of 2nd July - the place is not 'Rorkes Drift', but Rorke's Drift. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society. (But hopefully not for much longer!)
4th July 2002	Dave Nolan John, Wind your neck in mate, my comment was intended in a lighthearted manner - I, too, have learnt from your postings and have a copy of your book - I got a signed one off ebay last year - and you and I have exchanged email correspondence! Dave
4th July 2002	H.R.H. Prince Velekhaya Shange To those who provide this website, and to those contributors of this forum, I send my greetings on the anniversary of a battle which, in 1879, would effectively bring to an end a war. A war between two great nations, who had lived in friendship for many years prior to 1879. My brother, for I call him that, John Young, has been a valued friend in the three years that we have known one and other. His knowledge of the history of my people, the AmaZulu, and in particular the war of 1879, where we dared to challenge the invasion of our kingdom, by the British, is in my humble opinion without parallel. No-one can be without critics, but we have a word in my language given to a man we respect, that word is Ndabazitha. The word's translation is most apt to what I have read in this current discussion, it means "his enemies talk about him." I feel need add no more. H.R.H. Prince Velekhaya Shange, Patron of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
5th July 2002	Peter Quantrill Alec I do not know if Chard's original letter to Hassard has survived. This is what Chard said in his letter written from Rorke's Drift on 25 January 1879. "We were removing the thatch from the roof of the stores, when about 7 a.m. a large body of the enemy appeared on the hills to the south-west. I sent a friendly Kaffir (sic), who had come in shortly before, with a note to the Officer Commanding at Helpmakaar, asking for help. " I know of no letter written by Bromhead.It would be unusual as Chard was in command. Perhaps Brecon can confirm. Regarding books on the AZ War,I have no doubt many more will be written in the future.So long as books are not rehashes of familiar themes, and are researched properly, thus affording readers with perhaps a different perspective, then they must be welcomed, if only to further knowledge of the period and engender debate. I am sure that Knight's and Jackson's books will do just that. Ron Lock and I hope that our book will also provide a platform for much debate on key issues. Peter
6th July 2002	Alec Weston Dear Peter, Thank you for your prompt reply, and I look forward to reading your book. You will see that I initially raised this question on the 1st July - I have now checked with Brecon and they confirm that they do indeed have the original Bromhead report dated 22nd Jan from Rorkes Drift warning those at Helpmakaar that Isandlwana had fallen. I agree with you that it is highly unusual as it begs the question of who was acttually in charge at Rorkes Drift. It also suggests that those at Helpmakaar, including Spalding (who has been mentiioned above) knew very early on what had happened. It would be nice to know what was in Spalding's mind when he heard the news. Alec
6th July 2002	Dave Nolan Alec, there is a simpler answer to your 'begged question' - and sorry if it is a prosaic one. Bromhead would, I imagine, send the message to Helpmakaar the moment he received the news of Isandlwana - when he was senior officer at the mission station as Chard was down by the river at that point. Dave
6th July 2002	Peter Quantrill Alec, The original issue concerned Spalding's conduct. Bromhead's letter was dated 22 Jan. Helpmakaar would have known about Isandlwana without without Bromhead's communication, as survivors were all making their way to Helpmakaar. The letter from Chard was sent on 23 Jan, when Spalding, who knew of Isandlwana, still had no idea of the fate of Chelmsford, when refusing assistance. The mounted recconnaissance made by Spalding toward's Rorke's Drift, whilst leaving his fighting element of two companies under the overall command of Major Upcher 2 miles to the rear IS questionable. Had an engagement been taking place, it would have remained in doubt whether they could have been deployed in sufficient time to influence the result. Under the circumstances Spalding's actions may be interpreted at best, as ultra conservative-- not an aggressive and bold commander. A modern Officers Confidential Report may well have echoed " This Officer lacks initiative " Sorry to be so damning, but Spalding's conduct remains unimpressive. Peter
6th July 2002	Lee Stevenson I have read with great interest the continuing �healthy� debate on this forum from Mr Drummond's initial question about Adrian's new book on RD down to exactly who wrote what before/after or during the battle. So just to give the ball a little push onwards how about these comments from Frank Bourne, c.1932; ��The men at Rorke�s Drift behaved splendidly� Col. Bourne said. He described Lieuts. Chard and Bromhead as two single-minded, good- hearted soldiers, and he related that, on the day succeeding the fight, Bromhead wrote a despatch which he, (Col. Bourne) had to copy. Not a man�s name was mentioned in tha despatch. Later however, it was discovered that Chard was senior, and another despatch was written in which names were mentioned. Those two officers were so free from selfishness that they did not trouble to discover who of the two was senior� Extract from an unknown Dorking newspaper, July 29th 1932
7th July 2002	Alec Weston Peter, Thanks for the interesting reply. Did the army ever enquire intoSpalding's behaviour or did he have to explain himself? What happened to him after the 22nd/23rd? Alec
7th July 2002	John Young Alec, According to 'The South African Campaign of 1879', by MacKinnon & Shadbolt, first published in 1880, 'Performed transport duty throughout the remainder of the war.' However, in his biographical notes in his edited work of 'Lord Chelmsford's Zululand Campaign 1878-1879', published by the Army Records Society, in 1994. John Laband furthers this comment that he was the Deputy Assistant Quartermaster General during the 2nd invasion, but remained employed at base. Spalding died in 1907. Hart's 'Army List' of 1880 has Captain (Brevet of Major) Henry Spalding, of the 104th (Bengal Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot, as the 'Deputy Assist. Adj. & Qr. Master General, Cape of Good Hope'. The same work shows his appointment, and subsequent promotions thus:- Ensign; 20th Feb., 1858. Lieutenant; 9th Oct., 1859. Captain; 9th Feb., 1868. Brevet Major; 11th Nov., 1878. Recorded in the same work is his previous active service - 'Major Spalding was attached to the 53rd Regiment in the Indian mutiny campaign, from May to October 1858, and was present at the passage of the Goomtee and occupation of Sultanpore (Medal).' The same work states that he passed out of Staff College in December, 1869. Yet, another set of lines 'A.W.', I'm afraid as your spelling above dated 6th July, flies in the face of your own words of 3rd April - 'And Helpmakaar should, surely, be spelled with an 'e' as used by the Dutch and also original and modern maps...' I see you haven't learnt the use of apostrophes. (Again in jest!) John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
7th July 2002	Peter Quaantrill Alec, Spalding's behaviour caused much gossip and critcism post Isandlwana. Spalding was required to respond to Crealock's letter dated 1 May 1879, as to why troopa were not deployed to build a defence for the ponts at Rorke's Drift in accordance with a direct order made by Chelmsford to Glyn, who in turn instructed Spalding. It was the non-arrival of Rainforth's company,that caused Spalding to leave his post at Rorke's Drift and personally go back to summons Rainforth from Helpmakaar. ( Believe that one.) Spalding's direct conduct remained officially unquestioned,although rumours abounded.On 19 May 1879, Chelmsford wrote from Utrecht to the Adjutant General absolving Spalding from blame in leaving his post at Rorke's Drift to go to Helpmakaar to summons Rainforth. Chelmsford went on to add " I refer to this latter point in justice to Major Spalding, as I have heard that remarks have been made relative to his absence to this post at the time----Helpmakaar was also under his command " Chelmsford must have known that Hassard had in fact arrived and taken command of Helpmakaar. He chose not to rock the boat. That reaction may have been entirely different had Rorke's Drift fallen. Spalding, 104 th Foot,was DAA and QMG on HQ staff. For the rest of the war he was shunted off to perform Transport Duties. Peter