rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Was Rorke's Drift over-rated????
Toby Hodgson


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Hello,
I was just wondering whether anyone knew of any quotations on Rorke's Drift being over-rated. I am currently writing an essay on the subject and it would be really kind if anyone could help me....
My basic arguement is that although it the battle is obviously an epic of human endeavour as well as restoring the prestige of the army it was not a campaign winning battle and has become somewhat exaggerated (through a momentum of it's own e.g art, films, need to spin the news of Isa, could not handle the defeat, useful to recover morale etc)
It has been clearly the subject of a propaganda campaign and popular legend...

Please please any views ont the topic are much appreciated..

Yours Sincerely

Toby Hodgson

P.S. What are your views on the gut-reaction of Chelmsford at Rorke's Drift. It seems he was unimpressed.
View user's profileSend private message
George


Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
Rorke's Drift, The Defence of the mission Station was definitely not overrated because only 151 Men stood firm against the onslaught of over 4,000 thousan Zulu Warriors of the Undi Corps. It is a staggering success story of almost miracle like proportion. It earned more VCs in one action than ever before and probably ever again. Coming as it did hot on the tail of the Massacre of the Regiment at Isandhlwana many people assume that Rorke's Drift was Hyped up to save face if you like, however I feel that is not the case because you cannot even begin to make up such a story of courage and bravery against overwhelming odds. The defenders of Rorke's Drift were all Heroes, the evidence proves this beyond question, because many unbelievably survived and without courage and bravery that would not have happened would it? Do not ever think ill of these Heroes because that is what they were, every one of them achieved a miracle almost and we would all do well to remember these men and we should never doubt their achievement. Pembrokeshire had but one man in the Battle a Pte Thomas Collins B Company 2/24th Of Foot and we in Pembrokeshire will be recognising him on may the 3rd next for his part in the Famous Battle. Was Rorke's Drift overrrated? The answer is a resounding No! the reverse is actually the case as we should really think much more highly of those in the Battle and that goes for both sides Best wishes George Harris

_________________
319Harris G E 23 Sqdn RE
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Toby

What level are you writing your essay at? It's difficult to give good advice without knowing whether you are at school or university, or whether you are 45 and doing something for the Open University/similar.

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Jamie


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 149
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Reply with quote
For me anyway........

If I was a trooper stationed at Rorke's Drift and I heard a report that the whole of No:3 Column had just been wiped out and the zulu's were marching towards RD, heading my way, I would class myself as a hero for standing my ground and staying where I was!

It is difficult to imagine here today, but if I were in there shoes, I would be absolutely terrified and resigned to thinking I am dead here - in a few hours from now. Imagine the feelings and thoughts of these guys at that time. Another great example of the British Military training system and guts - in years gone by.

Brave? Oh yes!
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Toby Hodgson


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Thank you all for your replies. It is for my A-level coursework. I have seen a few other people asking for a bit of help at the same level and the replies were extremely useful..
Firstly I would like to say that my first post was a bit blunt. Of course I am impressed by the courage of the defenders, especially after the massacre that happened hours before...
Secondly the point about the numerous VC awardings. Only one VC was awarded at D-day (perhaps this is due to the type of fighting were the brave can excel hand-to-hand fighting??) which is another epic of human audacity. Furthermore General Wolseley was outraged by the decorations.. "It is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their own lives". (There may be a bitter resentment that he never was able to take charge of the campaign properly) The Broad Arrow also responded saying the VC was becoming of less value because of the frequency of its use (Chard and Bromhead's addition to the list of potential VC winners by Chelmsford has caused some outrage)... What I suggest is the heroes became wrapped up in a political game where the quest was to shadow the defeat of Isandlwana which is certainly the more important battle in the context of the war (evidence: more books on the empire are beginning to leave out Rorke's Drift, and just mention Isandlwana and Ulundi).
I think we also continue to forget the bravery of the Zulu warriors. To be able to run at a small perimeter guarderd by a concentrated force using the lastest weaponry as well as being well-trained is bravery to save the least.. Do you think it almost evens out the numbers difference??
Adrian Greaves suggests that one mass rush by 4000 zulus at the beginning would have ended the battle which is almost certainly true. The unco-ordinated rushes played into the hands of the British...
Also what do you think of the ill-treatment of the defenders after the battle. The squalor they had to live in was outrageous. Also, after the media circus had moved on many died penniless, having to sell their medals to keep them alive. Hardly the treatment of heroes???
I won't continue blabbering but the wholesale killing and torturing of Zulus after the battle must tarnish the reputation of the battle slightly...

Over-rated or insignificant???

Keep the replies coming... It really helps. Thank you

Toby Hodgson
View user's profileSend private message
marko


Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 5
Location: Derby U.K.
Reply with quote
wolseleys opinion "it is monstrous etc. was directed at melville and coghill who in his eyes had deserted the field at isand. what ,however he thought of the defence was perhaps not recorded
View user's profileSend private message
Jamie


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 149
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Reply with quote
"Adrian Greaves suggests that one mass rush by 4000 Zulus at the beginning would have ended the battle which is almost certainly true. The unco-ordinated rushes played into the hands of the British... "

This point will always stick in my mind.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Sean Sweeney


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 185
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
Rather than questioning whether RD was 'over-rated',

I think an alternative question might have been in relating or comparing it to other historic defences in Military History, or British Military History,
and also maybe it's importance within the whole AZW campaign.

What comes to mind, immediately is the South Africans at 'Delville Wood' and the Boers at the 'Battle of Blood River'.

I don't know (or alternatively cannot remember) enough about British campaigns to be able to make comparison myself, but I'm sure that there are a number of contributors to this forum who can.

I'm sure that there was general hyteria post Isandhlwana, and RD, which contributed to the Medal awards in the AZW campaigns.

Also I have seen varying accounts of the number of Zulu involved in the attack, which leads me to believe that there has also possibly been some exaggeration of the attacking force, and to what degree they were armed or not, and their use of those firearms.

Maybe there is some food for discussion there.
cheers,
Sean
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
Toby

If you go back to the old forum (there is a link in the 'welcome' forum under 'sticky: link to the old discussion forum') there is a thread there something along the lines of whether the defenders should be charged with war crimes for the alleged massacre of wounded Zulu after Rorke's Drift. (In the search field put 'war crimes' and see if that brings it up) This also drew heated response and you may find some of what you are looking for under that.

Dawn
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Martin Everett


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

It is unwise to compare gallantry awards at RD with later campaigns. Additional levels of awards were introduced in WW1 to respond to the numerous acts of gallantry taking place. Yes, had there been the same range in 1879, then perhaps we would have seen fewer VCs awarded. However, in 1879 - it was not the award but the pension which was important to the soldiers - �10 pa at a time when they earnt �36 pa. The VC was not so highly regarded in the eyes of the public as it is today. WW1 with 633 awards (out of 7M soldiers) changed this perception.

There is only one way to understand RD - is to go there and sit on the veranda of the museum and visualise for yourself the events of the night 22/23 January. I will then understand the desparate challenge given to that small garrison.

_________________
Martin Everett
Brecon, Powys
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Mike Snook


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Toby

I presume you are aware what revisionist history is. But if not, it is best encapsulated in the context of the AZW as the re-writing of history to undermine conventional or accepted interpretations, and to replace it with highly judgemental modern interpretation which aims to shock or outrage contemporary perceptions and values. It amounts to 'spinning' history if you like - without adding contemporanous context - so that the reader is left with no choice but judge historical figures and deeds by the standards of 2006. I fear you have fallen into the trap. And that makes me cross (not at you) because you obviously have an interest in the subject, but through no fault of your own have been 'got at' by the revisionists. There is a whole lot more to it. The historical context is everything. Also there is freedom of thought to consider - once you understand the context, you can make your own mind up. But just because Adrian Geaves wrote something in a book doesn't make it true.

For example, it is not physically possible for a 300 metre perimeter to be attacked by 4,000 men at once. That's 13 men per metre of frontage. Be a bit of a squeeze wouldn't it? It also takes time for long columns of men, some of whom are in any case following quite different routes, to arrive at the same place. However, let me assure there were eventually 4,000 men at Rorke's Drift. Those who have to place them somewhere else, such as raiding up and down the Buffalo valley, (which a few dozen or a couple of hundred men did), do so, because they fail to comprehend how 150 men can beat 4000. They also fail to understand the mentality and values of a warrior society, and have no grasp of the psychology of battle - how a battle works in other words.

If you (and by you I mean 'one') are writing revisionist history it helps your spin of course if you can quote a contmeporaneous view like that of Sir Garnet Wolseley. But at all costs don't ever set Wolseley in context. As I have pointed out on this forum before, he was a dreadful opinonated egotist who regarded only his own deeds as worthy of merit. He was also a raging inverted snob with chips on both shoulders. The way in which he tried to blame poor Col Sir Charles Wilson, for what was manifestly Wolseley's own failure to get to Khartoum in time to save General Gordon, is typical of the real man.

So, my advice, be careful to read across a balanced cross-section of books. From your remarks I can tell instantly which ones you have read, and frankly they aren't up to much. Broaden your reading out a bit, until you have a good grasp of the context, and in particular try to read as many primary sources as you can. This will help you to arrive at a historically balanced viewpoint of your own. Once you have done that, it is unlikely that you will take the views you have cited above. [In a perfect world you would go to Rorke's Drift - if not for the sake of an essay - then at some later point for the enjoyment alone - fanstastic!]

There are lots of well read people here, who I am sure will help with your queries. In the meantime, the best of luck with your work.

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Toby Hodgson


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Thank you so much for your reply Mike, it really helps in getting a fair reflection on the battle.
It is very hard to know where to stand on the topic: of course coming to a site like this I was expecting to get peppered!!
Yet I would like to ask a couple of questions to the readers of this post, please express your views on how you view the following:

i) Paintings (such as Lady Butlers and Alphonse de Neuville) and the film i)Zulu have surely painted their own perception of the battle. Surely, before/ at the begining the time of photography this suggest Rorke's Drift has gained a momentum of its own (i.e. an exaggeration). The epic film Zulu is the start for many or our enhusiasm is it not????

As you so well put we are putting 21st century views on 19th century condtions...

ii) Is the ill-treatment of Zulu prisoners tarnish the battle sligtly
View user's profileSend private message
Toby Hodgson


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Sorry not quite finished..

...

Do the minimal lack of number of Zulus killed (in comparison with the size of their army) suggest that Rorke's Drift is not as important as one would expect..

How far do you class the difference in the skill of the armies???

continuing the debate of the VC's, does the frequency of the award suggest political spin.

and lastly your feelings on the bravery of the soldiers..

I know this is a very broad topic but every little helps. Once again I apologise that I am slightly playing devils advocate and this is not to be rude but to get the other side of the coin. An analytical debate is what I need. Thanks for all your replies.. and IO would just like to say this is a great site for reference.. Have a very good weekend

Yours Sincerely

Toby Hodgson
View user's profileSend private message
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Was it over-rated?

Not then, not now, not ever.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


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

You've asked some good questions and it is clear you are determined to get a fair and balanced view eventually, which is commendable (in this respect, there are many who could learn from you!)

Both Lady Butler's and de Neuville's paintings are considered remarkably accurate with regard to the details of the action as seen from inside the perimeter, especially as the artists weren't there and there could be no photos of the action. Several defenders were closely interviewed and you probably know that both of the paintings depict numerous activities which occurred inside the post, although some of these incidents have been "telescoped" chronologically. Both Chard's and Smith's lengthy and detailed reports (compiled almost immediately) were quickly published and were available to the artists, and, indeed, I believe Smith himself was one of those who assisted de Neuville (he appears as the central figure in that painting and was presented by the painter with a large copy of the picture at the time of its completion, which he kept for many years before donating it to his alma mater).

So both paintings provide as accurate and detailed an account as a contemporary painting possibly could - although both, of course, depict the affair entirely from the British point of view, which is to be expected: they were painted by Europeans and the scene is of the area inside the barricades. There is no denying that both paintings deliberately highlighted the actions of the defenders in an attempt to show their heroism/gallantry, etc. No doubt these pictures helped to plant in the public's mind the character of the engagement, along with the poetry, songs and various music hall acts, but to be honest very little of that is likely to have got through to the public at large. (The newspaper-reading proportion of the public was tiny in the 1880s [much higher in Wales, agreed, Paul!] and the music hall audiences are unlikely (in my opinion) to have grasped much more than an idea of black savages in some far flung corner of the empire fighting "our brave lads" in scarlet. I can see no exaggeration or "over-rating" of the engagement in these paintings.

I'm slightly surprised at your "minimal lack of number of Zulus killed in comparison with the size of their army" question. Most accounts estimate the number of Zulu killed at between 500 & 600, with no doubt an unknown number of wounded who survived. (351 bodies reported as buried on the site). If we accept the figure of 4,000, agreed by both British & Zulu contemporary accounts, then I would have thought that up to around 15% dead was quite high and if, as some contemporary accounts reported, the number was nearer 3000/3,500, then their losses were proportionately higher (but whether odds of 30 to 1, 35 to 1 or 40 to 1, potentially it woudn't have made much difference to the defenders' chances). Remember that 22/23rd January was not a good day for the Zulu army or its nation, as altogether it lost between 2000 (the lowest possible estimate?) and 3500 killed in the three engagements that day - not counting walking wounded. The victory in the afternoon was pyrrhic because of their losses alone, not to mention the certainty of defeat it brought down upon them; their losses arising from their repulse at RD were an unnecessary, infuriating & frustrating blow for the King; and the defeat in the east was a dire warning of things to come.

You mention ill-treatment of Zulu prisoners and also, earlier above, torturing of Zulus. I'm not aware of any torture, or even torture claims. Where have you read these? As for prisoners being ill-treated, well there weren't any prisoners, as none were taken (except the two hanged?). All Zulu wounded who couldn't get away were killed on the spot, mostly by NNC of the returning half-column & (perhaps nearer ones?) by the defenders. Other than at Sirayo's, the British took no prisoners (with one or two tiny exceptions) during the whole war, even after their victories, and nor did the Zulus, with the possible exception of a certain Frenchman. This development was a departure from the intended policy, it seems, but matters (such as the news of Isandlwana) rather overtook things.

You wonder if the battle (perhaps meaning to say the British reputation) was tarnished, but this would be by no means the only episode in Victorian times when the army despatched the wounded rather than take prisoners. On the other hand, you do have a point here as the public, both then as now, would have disapproved of such a policy if it could have been avoided, while perhaps accepting that the same treatment was unlikely to be extended to their own soldiery in most imperial conflicts. Indeed, these matters (killing off the wounded and fugitives) were heatedly debated in Parliament and the press during the AZW itself and - if my memory serves me right - the catalyst for this row was a chap called Snook! (Any relation, Mike?)

The number of VCs awarded (not the most for a single action, by the way, as is often claimed) were, remember, not all decided upon at once. The drip-drip process was the result, partly, of lobbying by different units throughout 1879 for "their man" to be recognised and for those who had been initially overlooked to be rewarded, such as Dalton. There was plenty of publicity and praise for the defence of RD, but no official government effort, in my opinion, to raise its profile to conceal the disaster of Isandlwana. Isandlwana remained by far the greater story (of the two) in the press during the first half of 1879, but it was perfectly understandable that an astonishing defence should be highlighted. After all, the contrast between the two battles was constantly mentioned, not just to play one against the other but to emphasise what could (and some said should) be done behind barricades as opposed to "unlaagered" positions.

The bravery of the soldiers? Well, only a fool would question the bravery of the combatants of both sides. Read the detailed contemporary accounts by those who were there, including their admiration for their foe, and you will have no doubts at all, Toby.

The popular histories which you've read have been discussed on this forum before and there is, of course, nothing wrong with new or original views on familiar events, but if they are to hold water they must be the result of sound scholarship. Some of them are not, Toby, but attempt rather to boost sales by inserting claims which depend on points taken completely out of context. If you balance your reading of those with the so-called "exaggerated" claims with the many, unvarnished & detailed accounts of those who were there, even allowing for their contemporary drama and excitement, you will make up your own mind and have little doubt at all.

Sorry to be so lengthy. Good luck with your researches.

Peter


Last edited by Peter Ewart on Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Was Rorke's Drift over-rated????
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 2  

  
  
 Reply to topic