rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
undeserving medals
ralph dyer


Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Reply with quote
today i was surfing the web, i came across a site, the name of the site is - probert encyclopedia. i did start at lampeter university Wales where there is a lot of research on the azw. plus the life of Stanley Baker. i myself was contacted by the lamp uni for any information on Stanley Baker. however as i say i ended up in probert, where upon i read that the battle of Rorke's drift was a minor skirmish and that it was commanded by 2 incompetent officers. after the said skirmish the defending British soldiers butchered 500 wounded zulu on the field, and that the 11 VC awarded after the battle were undeserving but politically correct actions, awarded inaproprietely based on backgrounds and not actions. i wondered what the thoughts of the members of this site are on this, not knowing myself a great deal about the history side of the real battle and , being a great fan of the film i always believed that Chard and Bromhead did a first class job of the defence and that the VCs were awarded entirely for bravery, i have read however that some zulu were dispatched after the battle. but 500 seems over the top to me, anyway i would like to hear your comments on this and would say that a visit to proberts would be cause for more disgusion on this subject. regards ralph.

_________________
Ralph
View user's profileSend private message
Martin Everett


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 786
Location: Brecon
Reply with quote
Dear Ralph,

This has been debated many times on the forum - but I have to say there is no substitute for getting on the ground in KZN and doing the research yourself, putting yourself in the position of the officers and soldiers at Rorke's Drift on 22/23 January. Then make your mind up.

_________________
Martin Everett
Brecon, Powys
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
a.j


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 80
Location: Thornaby-On-Tees, Great Britain
Reply with quote
I do believe that the 11 VC's were right to be awarded after the BATTLE of Rorke's Drift. Especially to private's H Hook, R Jones, W Jones, and J Williams, as these men defended the patients in the hospital and evacuated the patients. Hook also went out with the sortie for the watercart.

There has been some controversy as to whether Lieutenant Chard should have been awarded his VC. I think he definitely should be. It is true that Dalton did supervise the defensive preperations of Rorke's Drift. But Chard was in charge he had to decide when to fall back to the inner barricade, he also decided to build a final redoubt as a last stand and there were numerous times when he took up a rifle and bayonet himself and fought on the barricades with the rest of the defenders.

Lieutenant Bromhead deserved his VC he was the one who motivated and led his men in a counter attack against the Zulus who had swarmed over the barricade in front of the hospital. Later he was also the officer who led the sortie for the water cart. There was also times when he fought a long side the other defenders on the barricades.

Corporal Schiess deserved his because he actually went outside the perimeter to dislodge a number or Zulus.

Private Hitch and Williams deserved their VCs as they kept handing out ammunition to the garrison even though they were severly wounded.

Surgeon Reynolds deserved his VC as he not only attended to the wounded inside the storeroom but also went out to the defences to issue ammunition and tend to the wounded. At one point his pith helmet was hit by a bullet but he continued with his efforts.

James Dalton deserved his VC (eventually) as he supervised the preperations of the defence. Later he saved a comrades life when when a Zulu was about to kill him and after being wounded he remained cool and calm courage.


Last edited by a.j on Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private message
undeserving medals
ralph dyer


Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Reply with quote
dear martin and aj,
thankyou for your response, i agree with you both entirely. i was amazed that proberts had questioned the awards both to officers and others at rd, and my view has always been that it was other than a minor skirmish. and i cannot believe that the said (butchering) of 500 zulu is at all true. from accounts that i have read the figures of dead and or wounded zulu seems entirely unclear. figures more around 300 seem more realistic with an unknown amount leaving the field wounded and dying. as i said earlier I'm no expert by a long way but , i found some of what was written an insult to the brave men and families, perhaps martin would like to comment on the amount of zulu believed killed at the drift. many thanks.
best regards ralph.

_________________
Ralph
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Ralph

The number of Zulu dead reported around the post on the morning of the 23rd was 351. It is not clear whether this figure included or should be added to the number of wounded found in the vicinity of RD and despatched by the British or their allies (NNC who returned with Chelmsford) that morning. It is possible that at least some of them should be added to it.

Undoubtedly, a further unknown number of wounded who managed to leave the battlefield but who later died should be added. Many accounts put this figure at around 100 to 150, which is why most considered estimates of the total Zulu dead give a very approximate figure of between 500 and 600.


The claims of 500 wounded despatched is almost certainly the result of a misunderstanding in quoted estimates (and of one particular "quote") but you should understand that it is certainly correct to state that the Zulu wounded were, indeed, killed on the spot without mercy and not taken prisoner. Even a set of rudimentary gallows was briefly used on the 23rd to execute prisoners, although possibly as a misunderstanding of orders. It is also the case that in all subsequent engagements during the war in which the Zulu were defeated or driven off, the British not only put to the sword or lance (or bullet) as many fleeing Zulu as they could possibly manage, but despatched without mercy the very large numbers of wounded as well, rather than take them prisoner - a policy entirely understood, of course, by their enemy, who adopted the same practice in their usual custom.

The AZW was not, largely, a campaign in which prisoners were taken by either side, other than in one or two smaller engagements. The British had originally intended to ensure that their African allies followed British rather than African custom with the treatment of enemy wounded (& women and children) but in practice this policy did not last, chiefly as a result of Isandlwana. It would probably not be an over-estimate to put a figure on the Zulu wounded and fleeing who were killed (anything up to some miles from the battlefield) by the British & their allies as not less than 1,000 over the duration of the war, with the bulk of these at Ginghindlovu, Kambula & Ulundi. It should also be recognised that these activities were not undertaken without some degree of exultation by the British officers and men at their experience of the chase, the blood and the sheer numbers despatched. Not for nothing were the number of fugitives and wounded being despatched withour mercy by British, colonial and NNC units debated heatedly in the House of Commons during the war itself.

I mention these facts only to remind ourselves that it is a bit late to worry about any slur on the soldiers or their families. What happened at each engagement is well documented and the figures for R/Drift are probably more accurate than for other actions, almost certainly because they were lower. It is also the case that the Zulu hardly expected to be treated any differently than they were, and that the number killed while fleeing (and therefore just possibly still "in action" or arguably still on the field of battle itself) was probably larger than the number of helpless wounded who were despatched (in most cases by African levies). With the eventual British policy (in practice) of taking no prisoners, the fugitives would have been considered men who would live to fight another day if not hunted down and killed, even if many were clearly (according to contemporary reports from British cavalry & colonials) killed in cold blood.

Not a nice subject, but there you are.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Johnny Hamman


Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Dundee, KZN
Reply with quote
The point is, I think, that these men all stayed behind (when others deserted) to defend the post after it had been said that they could not outrun the Zulus to Helpmekaar. I do not think that these 11 VCs were undeserving at all. There has been a recent trend among some historians to sort of downplay the defence and come up with "what really happened" scenarios and theories.

Johhny Hamman
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
I agree, Johnny.

The worst thing about some of the recent material published is not that it is deliberately & provocatively revisionist & sensationalist (by highlighting dubiously sourced minutiae and elevating it out of context & out of all importance) but that it seems to be based on such awfully shoddy research - and I use the word "research" advisedly. This is why I think well infomed criticism of this stuff should really draw attention to the appalling lack of scholarship, rather than take the "our brave lads' names are being sullied" line.

There is nothing wrong at all in criticising past events or individuals who have previously been praised, as long as the argument for a re-appraisal is sound. But some of the "writing" wrapped up in impressive hardback covers and glossy dustjackets these days is not fit for last night's fish&chip wrapping. Some of the so-called reputable publishers who are churning this rubbish out should surely be called to account.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Johnny Hamman


Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 214
Location: Dundee, KZN
Reply with quote
Peter,

That is hitting the nail on the head. I have read some rather dubious "research" about it as well. It is all well to differ about technical points like whether the Zulus had Martini's at Rorke's Drift or not, but the point is, and I would like to stress this: I stood at the front door of the museum today, while waiting for my clients, and I looked at the road to Helpmekaar, and I could, as always, visualise the terror of the men when confronted by the Zulu host, and then, their anger when Henderson and Davies, as well as Stephenson and his NNC rabble did a bunk. They did not follow them. They stayed, and by then they surely must have had some inkling about what waited for them if the enemy should prove victorious. They still stayed, and some men, like Schiess came from the hospital to help with the defence. They could surely have followed the other deserters, but they did not. They same with the men who rallied to Durnford on the saddle. Those Natal Carbineers could have left, but they did not. Vereker could have kept his horse, but he did not. They all chose to remain behind and do what must done. Surely a total sum of 14 VC's for both actions could be considered inadequate.

I know this is old history now, but every time I drive through those old cairns, and see the site again, I can only imagine the grit, the moral fibre and the last moments. No accolade which came the way of these men can ever be undeserving. Never

Johnny Hamman
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
hardly undeserved
Tom516


Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 136
Reply with quote
Without arguing the respective merits of the rights and wrongs of the political situation and why the Zulus and British were fighting in 1879, I too believe that far from a 'minor skirmish' it was - like the American Alamo - an event that transcends its 'size' by the emotional content attached to it, for BOTH British and Zulu. The fact that it happened on the same day as the 'disaster' of Isandhlwana and was such an amazing victory does kind of balance the scale I think. Far from being a 'politically motivated' awarding of VCs it was an amazing victory, barely 150 of whom a good number were technically not soldiers but auxilliaries and rear-line personnel while others were sick in hospital, barely 150 held out against some 3000 veteran warriors including the elite uThulwana which, from what I've read, were virtually the 'Old Guard' of the Zulu nation. While they were within fortifications these were makeshift and constantly repaired and improved while the battle went on and there really weren't enough men to man the perimeter adequately (read somewhere that if the Zulu had used their traditional horns of the buffalo formation and swamped the defenders immediately they'd have broken through - however given their historic bad experiences against European gun men in a fortified position - Blood River anyone? - perhaps that's one reason they were somewhat cautious). I think AJ spelled out the reasons why they deserved their VCs - THAT's what should be on the Probert site I think.

For the Zulus part, it cast a bitter cloud over the victory of Isandhlwana. The exhausted warriors, who had fought just as hard as their British counterparts, came home to scorn and ridicule. Their leader retired to his kraal in disgrace, made all the worse because he had deliberately disobeyed orders so that his men could wash their spears in British blood - he had been explicitly forbidden from crossing the river into British territory. The cost of not winning the battle was high in moral terms - to say nothing of the casualties suffered.

A VC is awarded 'For Valour' - from the pilots who attacked the bridges at Sedan in 1940 and the Swordfish pilots under Esmonde who attacked the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau against the odds, to soldiers who, under fire, rushed to cut demolition charges of bridges or rescue injured comrades. In all cases they didn't have to do what they did. They could have bailed out, turned away, stayed behind cover or ran away. They didn't. They stayed and because they did they saved their lives and the lives of most of their comrades (given the speed and maneuverability of the Zulu in open country, a march to Helpmakaar would have probably been suicidal) and in those individual situations mentioned by AJ, the individuals proved that they certainly deserved those awards.

Tom
Zulu Total War Team, RTW
View user's profileSend private message
ralph dyer


Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 51
Reply with quote
hi tom,
yes agreed, and obviousely you read proberts account, which was what prompted my initial reaction to it here. (minor skirmish) i don't think so. and (undeserving) never. aj, put put it down totally correctly. and peter was explaining to me the despatch of zulu wounded, which i know is correct, maybe peter i did not explain myself properly.i was refering to proberts (butchering) of 500 zulu wounded at the drift, directly the battle was over, they refer to the killing of 500 wounded on the drift site, which i did not believe to be correct. that is why initially i said perhaps martin everet who i know to have both knowledge and records kept at Brecon may wish to comment on the above. frankly i found some of proberts writings on this matter to be insulting and inflamitory.
regards ralph.

_________________
Ralph
View user's profileSend private message
Martin Everett


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 786
Location: Brecon
Reply with quote
Hamilton-Browne covers the dealing of the Zulu wounded at RD. I am sure someone will give the the actual reference. Certainly there were limited (in fact none) medical services for the Zulus. The action prevented further agony - perhaps not acceptable by 21st century standands. Remember nearly 600 soldiers of the 24th were butchered the day before. But then you have judge things by 19th century standards.

_________________
Martin Everett
Brecon, Powys
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
undeserving medals
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic