rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:52 am

A quote from Frank Welsh's "A History of South Africa": "These were tha 'amalala', conquered and kept in subjection by Shaka, who retained a lively hatred for their opressors. When war with the Zulu came in 1879 the Natalians ('Kafirs' to the Zulu) responded with alacrity. Chief Phakadet of the Chunu lost three sons and two grandsons in the British defence of Rorke's Drift...". As the author gives no more details of Phakadet or his progeny at Rorke's Drift, the reference has gone right over my head. Anyone able to expound? I thought they all "hooked it" excepting those in hospital.

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:14 am

Commandant E.R. Cooper�s 2nd Battalion 3rd Regiment NNC was made up of seven companies of Phakade�s amaChunu and three companies of abaThembu. (See F.W.D. Jackson, Hill of the Sphinx: Appendix III, p. 63.) Phakade kaMacingwane crossed into Natal from Zululand in 1839 at the �breaking of the rope� and established himself in the Klip river area. Born about 1788, he was too old to take part in the NNC personally and was represented by his son Gabangaye. Also present was a younger son, Mbonjana. (Magidigidi kaNobebe, James Stuart Archive, ii, pp. 85f.) This same extract also containes the words: 'I knew Pakade well. Gabangaye and Mbojana ka Pakade were killed at Sandhlwana. They were part of the Natal Forces.'

The incorrect version which you quote may well have come from Pietermaritzburg Archives Repository, 1/GTN. No C91/1879: 'The chiefs themselves are still at their post at Sand Spruit, Unhlumba, the son of Pakade, only intimating that he would like to return home in order to perform the usual mourning for his Brothers, Gabangaye and others, who were killed in the fight at Rorke's Drift.'
KIS

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:38 pm

Keith

Welsh cites John Lambert, Chieftainship in Early Colonial Natal (Journal of South African Studies, No 2, 1995) for this statement. Perhaps Lambert, in turn, was relying on the reference in the PMB Archives which you quote?

It seems certain that Isandlwana is the engagement which was meant and, being an 1879 source, one can see where the original confusion arose at a time when Rorke's Drift was being confused with Isandlwana in early correspondence.

Peter

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:49 pm

I am descended from the same Clan O'Gollabchair as Colour Sergeant Henry Gallagher. We are of Co. Mayo. I must admit that I feel a wee bit of mist at the corners of my eyes. I Thank you so much for your most wonderful site. Aside from us "historical fanatics"...the world would "little note, nor long remember" what that Company did, on that date...in that time. I consider it an Honour...to be a remote descendant of Colour Sergeant Henry Gallagher.
I Remain, Most Respectfully yours...Patrick Daniel-James Gallagher...
Master...US Merchant Marine.

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:05 pm

Much thanks for the input! This specific confusion does make one wonder at what point Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift began to be considered as two separate and distinct battles (that is if such wasn't the case from "the get go").