Numbers at Rorke's Drift |
John Young
|
Simon,
I think you'll find 139 was proved to be incorrect several years ago. Despite that the same old number still appears in more recent publications. John Y. |
||||||||||||
|
Keith Smith
|
In case Julian Whybra is not able to respond, his excellent England's Sons, my copy of which may be out of date, shows the defenders as 154, with a further two possibles from B Company, the 2/24th.
KIS |
||||||||||||
|
Simon
|
Cheers Keith,
I'll look out for Sons of England. Simon |
||||||||||||
|
Julian whybra
|
Actually I'm now up to 155 present plus a possible 3 more. England's Sons is available from Martin at the Museum.
|
||||||||||||
|
a.j
|
Let's say someone was doing a presentation on the defence of Rorke's Drift what would be a definite number of defenders to state?
|
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
a.j.
155-158! England's Sons supersedes all previous calculations - from whichever source. The 139 figure, still mentioned here and there as JY points out, has long been out of date. The 155 can all be named - and quite a few others have been eliminated. I was still thinking 152-154, but that's because my edition of ES (always a work in progress) is not the latest. Time for me to update, I suppose! So the answer (today) is 155 with absolute certainty, with possibly up to three more - and it is not impossible that even that may change, but not below 155. Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Numbers at Rorke's Drift |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.