"'Wrong men' given VCs at Rorke's Drift" Topic

Old… but still interesting to read…

"The wrong soldiers were awarded Victoria Cross medals after the British Army's battle with the Zulus at Rorke's Drift, while the true heroes went unrecognised, a new BBC documentary will claim this week.

In stark contrast to the film Zulu, in which Lt John Chard and Lt Gonville Bromhead, the commanding officers of the Rorke's Drift outpost, are portrayed as heroes, the BBC programme depicts them as dithering and "hopeless".

The documentary also claims that the pair sought to flee during the battle in 1879, which has become renowned as one of the Army's most inspiring actions…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Booooo! Hissssssss!
Me too Terrement!

anyone seen the documentary?

As far as the Victorian generals were concerned, no one deserved medals for fighting at Rorkes Drift, they were simply fighting for their lives. No choice but to fight or die.

I don't remember it (it was 13 years ago), so it can't have made much impact.

Like Terrement I'm a fan of the film "Zulu"

I'm with Terrement. The Beeb's producing no new information. Announcing that when you get one of the big awards a lot of people are jealous isn't exactly news.

And the third paragraph above is not supported by the article, which is not claiming that Chard and Bromhead attempted to flee, but that the officers taking the colors from Isandlwhana might not have had pure motives. Telepathy at a range of almost a century and a half!

Documentary really isn't the right word. Speculatary? Innuendatary?

The movie did take some liberties with the truth! Pvt Hook was reportedly a good soldier. Corporal Allen had just been demoted from Sergeant for being drunk. Commi8ssary Dalton was a former Sergeant Major and , it being hollywood, all mention of Chaplain Smith was ignored.

Yes, but what to Ancient Astronaut Theorist surmise?

I do agree that James Dalton should have been given his at the same time.

Always a necessity to debunk any "heroes" created by an opposing culture. Even one long passed…

And most of the troops were from the English midlands, not Wales. Still a brilliant film and responsible for me switching from normal DVD to Blu-Ray.

Always a necessity to debunk any "heroes" created by an opposing culture. Even one long passed…

Very well put. We can always rely on the 'Britain hating, other loving' BBC to on anything that honours fashioned virtue.
Commissary Dalton has long been recognised as a key figure in the defense, nothing new here. As for the slightly derogatory personnel reports on Bromhead and Chard, I can't be alone in noticing that some men and officers make poor peacetime soldiers but first rate fighting men.
This is the second BBC smear against the Army in recent times; the documentary on the Somme was also negative and biased.

It will be interesting to see what new evidence has been unearthed that would justify a conclusion that directly contradicts the vast majority of historians…

My guess -- and it's only that -- is that the historian making these claims is a revisionist crank that has no such evidence.

Tom Scott offers a concise analysis of the reasons, I think.

I guess a case could be made for pretty much any of the defenders to have been awarded a VC, but it is not as though they could give out 130+ of them. As a child watching the film, I always thought it a mite unfair that CSgt Bourne didn't get one, but where does one stop?

As others have rightly said, the BBC would never miss a chance to denigrate the British army, British heroism or British history in general.

The film was not actually 'Hollywood' as such – Cy Endfield was on the 'banned' list for being a suspected commie, and moved to England.

We can always rely on the 'Britain hating, other loving' BBC

"The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone
Every century but this and every country but his own" – W. S. Gilbert

Documentary really isn't the right word. Speculatary? Innuendatary?

Polemic is the word you're looking for.

The movie did take some liberties with the truth!

Like the fact that the Swedish missionary wasn't present? that he was only about 30 years old? That his daughter (who was also not present) was either 8 or 6, depending on your source? The worst of it was that neither character was necessary to the movie!

We all hate the BBC(Big Bias Company), political, liberal and extremely active in putting spins on our history/life the news that isn't factual.
I wonder what the history books will say about the BBC and pompous asses like Saul David, its easy to throw mud at people who cant defend themselves.
Sounds like there is as much fact in this programme,( not a documentary), as there was in the Hollywood film U-571

and pompous asses like Saul David, its easy to throw mud at people who cant defend themselves.

That's part and parcel of the historian job: to defy mythologies, in search of the truth. Amateurs call it "throwing mud". Professionals call it doing your ing job.

I read Saul David history of the Zulu War. He didn't claim that there were no heroes at Rorke's Drift, but that the wrong men were awarded the medals that should have been awarded to more deserving men. His arguments are convincing, according the archival sources presented in his book. If you have better sources, by all means, share them.

It is a characteristic of History. Heroism only looks admirable from afar. If you look too closely, then it is less heroic, more mundane. Dirtier (blood, people shitting themselves, vomit… their pungent odors are disgusting) Print the legend, though. It is cleaner, more enjoyable and serves to massage the egos of present generations.

The movie did take some liberties with the truth!

Some? A lot, I would say.

And yet it is one of my favourite movies. Fortunately for me I watched it when I was a kid and didn't know any better. That memory remains and it allows me to continue enjoying the movie despite I am older and more cynical.

Don't worry the Beeb minions are getting theirs and rightly so,

I stayed at one of the lodges near Isandlwana just after Saul David's book came out. The resident historian / battlefield guide told me that David had stayed there during his research for the book, but – to his surprise – admitted to knowing absolutely nothing about the war on arrival, confidently assuring the historian, however, 'that I will know everything by the time I leave'.

I enjoyed his book, and I agree that his job is to cut through myths, though this made me wonder if he really had the depth of knowledge on the subject to really be able to do that.

Geoffrey Wawro's Austro Prussian War springs to mind, rushed into print years too soon, the result was a deeply flawed book.

though this made me wonder if he really had the depth of knowledge on the subject to really be able to do that.

The only thing that is needed is to refute the archival evidence provided by David, either by providing conflicting evidence that proves that the recipients of the medals were more deserving than what David argues, or by proving that David has manipulated the actual content of the documents provided to make them fit his conclusions.

i have the feeling that this bad smelling revisionism has something to do with the politically correct obsession against something like Colonialism that, in my opinion, could'nt be full classified as a bad thing..above in this particular confrontation in which both natives (zulus) and imperials…respected and recogniced the valour of each other

Geoffrey Wawro's Austro Prussian War springs to mind, rushed into print years too soon, the result was a deeply flawed book.

More flawed by Wawro's rampant Czech nationalism. For those not aware, his father was the long-time president of one of the biggest Czech nationalist groups in the US, so little Geoffrey grew up steeped in that attitude, and it shows.

basileus66

Yes, on that specific point, that is probably all that is needed, but I was speaking rather more generally. I recently read a book about Churchill, for example, which stated he sailed to the US in the HMS Prince of Wales, 'the Royal Navy's newest destroyer' apparently – for someone to be writing about Churchill, a man who is inextricably linked to WW2, I would hope that they have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the period they are covering.
Similarly, my conversation with the battlefield guide (which may, or may not, be true of course) made me wonder if David really had enough background knowledge of the Zulu War to make sense of the information he gleaned from the archives and books etc.

GreenLeader

I understood what you meant, but didn't want to wander off from the topic. David might or might not to have an in depth knowledge of the Zulu War. However even in the case he hadn't, we know that he is a trained historian and therefore it is supposed to have a minimum skill to handle archival material.

Now, in the case at hand what David argues that:

A) Bromhead and Chard had had undistinguished careers up to Rorke's Drift;

B) Chelmsford wasn't enthusiastic to award them with VCs

C) In the wake of Insadlwana disaster was a strong incentive to make of Rorke's Drift defence a heroic affair

D) According to other reports, it was Dalton who actually was the brainmatter and the spirit after the defence of the post, but he wasn't as "elegible" as Chard and Bromhead to receive an award due he wasn't in the military at the moment (Commisariat wasn't part of the army establishment in the 1870s)and what British public opinion was supposed to need was military heroes -again, to wash over the humiliation at Isandlwana-

David quotes the sources -extracts of the sources, to be more precise- and provides with the reference in the archives. It is possible that he was misquoting or misunderstanding the documents. I've seen it done before, even by professionals with a lot of expertise on the topic, so I don't believe it is unthinkable that David is beyond making such mistake. However, on the whole, his exposition regarding Rorke's Drift, regardless his expertise or lack of it on the Zulu War topic, looks very convincing. Particularly, because David is not as much as belitting Rorke's defence as trying to give credit to those who he thinks credit was due.

More flawed by Wawro's rampant Czech nationalism. For those not aware, his father was the long-time president of one of the biggest Czech nationalist groups in the US, so little Geoffrey grew up steeped in that attitude, and it shows.

Not to try to hijack the thread but as I find ad hominem arguments deeply uninformative, may be you can illustrate us with the particulars regarding the Czech cryptonationalism that has crept into Wavro's "Austro-Prussian War" and how it has affected his analysis.

basileus66

Yes indeed – I think we were talking about two slightly different things.

I'm very surprised to hear Wawro has a Czech background. Apart from the thin scholarship evident in his book, my main bugbear is his contemptuous attitude to the non-German elements of the KK Army. Having said that, weren't the Czechs regarded as 'German' for the purposes of the Army lists?

bugbear is his contemptuous attitude to the non-German elements of the KK Army

I don't think he is contemptuous as much as he makes a point of the lack of commitment from Polish, Ukrainian and Italian soldiers to the cause of the Habsburgs.

Not supported by evidence – by and large – with the exception of some Italian regiments who's loyalty was decidedly suspect.

BBC?

Revisionist leftist propaganda.

Anti-British and Anti-Colonial. I won't be watching.

J

C/Sgt Bourne asked for a commission instead of the VC he was offered, He retired as Lt Colonel.

The big problem with the "wrong people" getting the VC is that you had to survive the action to get it (at the time). So even if someone was more deserving than any of the actual awardees (like Private Joseph Williams, who pulled almost all the hospital patients to safety), they needed to have survived the battle.

@oldjarhead1: According to his biography on wiki, he refused the commission offered after Rorke's Drift, because "being an eighth son, and the family exchequer … empty" [he couldn't afford it]. He wasn't commissioned until 1890, 11 years after the battle.