"Chakdara: the other Rorke’s Drift?" Topic

"The Battle of Rorke's Drift is famous. Everyone knows the basic story. The British had decided to destroy the independent Zulu kingdom lying to the north of Natal province in South Africa. Zululand had been invaded by an expeditionary force under Lord Chelmsford. The Zulu army had slipped
undetected around the flank of the main advance, and attacked and annihilated the garrison of Chelmsford's advanced base-camp at Isandlwana on 22 January 1879.

Immediately following, a Zulu force of up to 4,000 warriors had descended on the nearby outpost at Rorke's Drift mission station. Between late afternoon on 22 January and the early hours of 23 January, this force mounted a succession of attacks on the 150 or so defenders, the great majority of whom were regulars of the 24th Regiment of Foot…."

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The defense of Chakdara sounds like a more challenging war game. The Pathans have plenty of firearms while the Zulus had a scattering of gunmen, though they were useful in keeping the R.D. garrison pinned down at times.

Also, Chakdara was a proper mud-brick fort that maintained its defensive integrity throughout the siege, whereas Rorke's Drift involved improvised defences that were partially breached and overrun by the Zulus.

The Rorke's Drift position was divided into defensive sectors, any one of which could be lost without leading to a total collapse of the defence. This actually happened during the assault, making for a more interesting and exciting narrative than the attack on Chakdara, the main barracks block of which had no such defensive flexibility, and a breach anywhere (unlikely though that was) would have meant almost immediate defeat for the defenders.

If one or both of the Chakdara garrison's maxim guns had malfunctioned or run out of ammo it might have given the Pathans an opportunity to mass enough tribesmen and ladders against part of the mound to overrun it, but the 25 feet-high walls of the barrack block rendered it virtually invulnerable to scaling. In contrast, the flimsy, shoulder-high walls at Rorke's Drift could be pushed over given enough men and time.

You are right my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

History Magazine presents a specious argument, claiming that the defenders of Rorke's Drift won 11 VC's because they were white soldiers, while the defenders of Chakdara were passed over because they where Indians. This ignores the fact that Indian sepoys were not eligible for the VC until 1911, fourteen years after Chakdara. It was mostly likely the reports of the heroic efforts of the Indian troops during the Pathan Revolt of 1897 that focused popular opinion in the UK to push to change the rules regarding the awarding of the VC.
My understanding about the large number of Rorke's Drift VC's is that they were awarded to take the sting out of the disaster of Isandlwana.

Absolutely right, Nick, and thanks for posting your comment.

Also, you would think History Magazine would have heard of the "Indian Order of Merit", which was the Imperial Indian army's own award for extreme gallantry in action, available in three classes, first established by the HEIC in dating back to 1837. During that same Malakand Campaign, the IOM was awarded to Subadar Syed Ahmed Shah and his entire unit of the 31st Punjabis, and for all I know it may also have been awarded to the defenders of Chakdara fort.

Today, in the US, it'd be a really hard sell for even the leader of a unit trapped like that to get a Medal of Honor. Silver Stars would be much more likely for the leader, Bronze Stars for everyone else (if not a Presidential Unit Citation).

In 1942 MacArthur got the Medal for losing a campaign!

Glup….!

Amicalement
Armand