Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Rourkes Drift
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Researcher 2922573 (U2922573) on Monday, 29th May 2006
TO settle an argument . How many of the troops at Rourkes Drift were actually Welsh .
-
Message 2
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Monday, 29th May 2006
This might help, try surfing through the entire site for clearer definitions.
-
Message 3
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
The South Wales Borderers distinguished themselves in many campaigns. Perhaps best remembered are the Marlborough campaigns, the America War of Independence and the Sikh wars.
Its involvement in the Anglo-Zulu war was both tragic and glorious, Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift are likely to be remembered for a long time.
The 24th Regiment's involvement in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879
The Regimental Museum
-
Message 4
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
By the way - the Museum will usually answer e-mail queries - so if a lot is at stake......!
Like all regiments not everyone was local... -
Message 5
Posted by gumption78 (U2800277) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
To quote Ian Knight (from the site suggested by Ironaxe):
"We've all seen the marvellous movie, where the heroic Welsh garrison at Rorke's Drift match the awesome Zulu war-chants with a stirring rendition of Men of Harlech. Come on Ivor, sing something they know .
Well, it wasn't quite like that. In fact, the county designation of the 24th Regiment in 1879 was the 2nd Warwickshires; they didn't change their title to the South Wales Borderers until 1st July 1881 - almost exactly two years after the war had ended. True, the Regimental Depot had been established at Brecon, in South Wales, in 1873, and from that point there was a small but significant increase in Welsh recruits in the ranks. In fact, however, recruits for the regiment - like every other battalion in the British army - were signed on at recruiting depots across the country, and the 24th consisted of men from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The most that can be said is that the Welsh connection had, by 1879, led to a rather higher proportion of Welshman in the ranks than was common elsewhere. Nevertheless, even the most optimistic search of the regimental roll can find only 19 men of B Company, 2/24th, with any sort of Welsh connection - out of a total strength of more than 80. Of course, there were detachments of numerous other units - including Colonial Volunteers - present at the battle, making a total garrison of about 145. So the Welsh contingent comprised no more than 15% of the total.
And no-one, I'm sorry to say, sang Men of Harlech; the regimental march in 1879 was The Warwickshire Lads."
One wonders if Welshmen Stanley Baker and Richard Burton would have been keen to involve themselves in a film about a bunch "Warwickshire Lads". However, it would be quite interesting to know at what stage of the film's 'creation' the decision to take the 'Welsh' approach was made. -
Message 6
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
I think that Stanley Baker was one of the main investors...... -
Message 7
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Some info on the film -
Message 8
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
It looks like Baker set up his own production company specifically to make the film..... -
Message 9
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
The characters Chard and Bromhead as portayed in the film were not exactly how they were in real life. One of them (I forget which) was virtually blind and the other was renowned for being rather an unexceptional officer who amounted to little in his career (Rorke's Drift notwithstanding). In fact, it is often thought than Commissary Dalton (who was not portrayed in the film that positively) was the brains behind the defensive barracades, having previously served in the Army proper in Canada and elsewhere in the past. Although he was awarded the VC, he was not originally named among the recipients.
Other myths on the battle - Private Hook wasn't the malingering lay-about as portayed in the film. Otto Witt's daughter was not present at the mission statement (Witt's wife and children were in relative safety in Durban I think). The Boer who tells Chard and Bromhead of the horns of the bull tactics in the film (whose name escapes me at the mo) seems to have left the site before the impis arrived in real life, and later on bragged to anyone who would listen that he was there at the battle - his reputation was ruined though when the truth came out and he was branded as a coward. -
Message 10
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
And we complain about the Yanks and movies?
-
Message 11
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
"And we complain about the Yanks and movies?"
I was thinking the same thing!! -
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
"The Boer who tells Chard and Bromhead of the horns of the bull tactics in the film (whose name escapes me at the mo)..."
It was Adendorff
Just picked this up from a website which adds a little more on Chard and Bromhead amongst others:
Both of the real characters had a very different appearence form our heroes in the film - with nice big victorian beards for a start! Chard was described by some as a very ugly man and was also renowned for his lazyness, while Bromhead was quite withdrawn and unpopular with his men, a sad side effect of his incresing deafness. Ardendorf, in the film, is the wise old Boer with a grudge against the British and serves as a source of information about the Zulu for the audience. He only appears at certain times when this information is necessary and the rest of the time disappears - there is very little footage of him actually fighting. As for the real Ardendorf, well I don't think he was a Boer for a start and there is some debate as to whether he was actually at Rorke's Drift at all! Then there is Nigel Green's Sgt Bourne. In the film he is the sterotypical wise old NCO, indomitable, brave, experienced, the rock on which our two Officer heroes can rely on in a crisis. I don't know what Bourne's real character was like, but he differed significantly from Green in one crucial respect - AGE! Green in the movie looks about middle aged but the real Bourne was only in his early twenties and was known as "the kid" by his men. -
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Hmm, seems to be some debate on several military forums about whether Adendorff was there or not - what books I've read on the subject though suggest he wasn't
-
Message 14
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Just to clarify my post above:
Stanley Baker = played Chard in the film - which was pretty much a personal project in many ways as he was the producer, put up most of cash etc personaly selected the writer etc...
Michael Caine + Bromhead -
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Adendorff was at Rorkes Drift for at least a short period. He did give information regarding Isandlwana to Chard. As he was at Isandlwana (for however short a time before deciding he had a pressing appointment elsewhere) the only way he could have escaped was by way of Rorkes Drift.
Chard himself introduces the confusion in his letter to Queen Victoria where he states that Adendorff remained at Rorkes Drift. However from other sources at Helpmekaar (who state that he arrived there later on the day) and other sources at Rorkes Drift it is (to my mind) evident that Adendorff left Rorkes Drift before the Zulus arrived.
Cheers AA. -
Message 16
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
"And we complain about Yanks and movies!!"
"Zulu!" isn't historically accurate in its details , but it doesn't claim that the Brits did something that another nation did. All the inaccuracies are internal to the garrison, or the Witt family.
Ironically, it does claim that a South African, Addendorff, did things he didn't do. Or maybe it doesn't - Adendorff isn't actually shown fighting at any stage in the fim. -
Message 17
Posted by IrHist (U4245554) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
'How many of the troops at Rourkes Drift were actually Welsh .'
Why were the Welsh fighting all the way down in SA, why didn't they fight for Wales?
The English parliament was just using them in their colnial wars. -
Message 18
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Why were the Welsh fighting all the way down in SA, why didn't they fight for Wales?Β
Excellent question, the sources are full of tales of the hated redcoats sweeping through the valleys in the 1870's and forcing the locals into the Army to serve overseas. (Irony).
Aside from other reasons I'll give a short answer below.
They were in the army, they went where the army told them to go. The army went where parliament told them to go. The soldiers in the army had VOLUNTEERED to accept these terms.
They were fighting for Wales as part of Great Britian and Ireland.
The English parliament was just using them in their colnial wars.Β
No, the parliament of Great Britian was "just using them in their colonial wars" to use your phrase. I only use the phrase to rebut your point in the same language.
AA. -
Message 19
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Methinks IrHist is a bogtrotter with typical prejudices.
-
Message 20
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
"Methinks IrHist is a bogtrotter with typical prejudices"
That sounds like something Colonel Simmerson from the Sharpe series would say. -
Message 21
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Now there was a man who knew how to deal with uppity Irishmen!
-
Message 22
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Considering that approximately 30% of Wellington's army were Irish, including the C-in-C, should have kept him occupied. Face it Dark, the british empire was built on the backs of four nations not one or two. The fact that the ruling elite that dominated all four are identified one more than the others doesn't alter that fact.
-
Message 23
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
and I didn't like to make the point that if the "Welsh had been fighting for Wales" presumably against the English they'd have been squahed like a bug, so I didn't.
Just as well I suppose.
AA. -
Message 24
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Elistan, I'd be the first to acknowledge the Irish contribution to British success, but I'm inclined to let Wellington's own assessment of his nationality stand.
-
Message 25
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
In fact, it is often thought than Commissary Dalton (who was not portrayed in the film that positively) was the brains behind the defensive barracades, having previously served in the Army proper in Canada and elsewhere in the past. Although he was awarded the VC, he was not originally named among the recipients.Β
ST,
Why was the regimental surgeon awarded the Victoria Cross?
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 26
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
For dealing with all the icky blood?
Actually a large number of surgeons and medics have won VCs since it was introduced, and in fact 2 of the 3 guys who've won bars to their VCs were surgeons/medical officers. -
Message 27
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Drk,
I am well aware of the Iron Duke's famous quip, and a witty retort it was. But he was no son of a visiting diplomat accidental birthed in a colonial outpost. He was the scion of a well established anglo-irish family. The truer context would be that he, like all his class, refused identification with the gaelic catholic masses under the common appellation of 'Irish'. But he was the son of the kildare born earl of mornington, he sat in Ireland's parliament before union, and his monument was erected in Dublin as its favoured son.
The issue of nationality for Wellington is reduced to a quip over the rest, but pithy lines last longest. It really underscores the reality of the two nations upon the island of Ireland in the eighteenth century which tended to use common appellation although they never shared kindred or spirit. When Swift addressed the 'Whole of the people of Ireland' in his famous Drapiers' letters he automatically discounted anyone not of the protestant tradition, and most likely anyone not of the anglican tradition. Grattan's parliament, the name given to the last hurrah of ascendency independence after thge repeal of Poyning's law, was likewise a bastion of 'Irish' patriotism that used the narrower definition which we would replace with anglo-irish for convebience. Wellington spent seven years in that HOuse as the member for Trim in Meath, where his father, mother etc., lived, and where he first schooled. 1797 he went to India.
Considering the innate prejudice of the British army against all things Irish is it any wonder that someone of the Anglo-Irish tradition who would have experienced such criticism first hand in Eton would not have sidestepped such prejudicial evaluation through wit and pithy? Wellington was no O'Connell, but his version of 'Irishness' has been lost to the modern nation through the manner of the creation of the modern country, should they be airbrushed from history as well, and should all view the 'eight hundred years' as some form of them and us occupation? I think not, but hey, what do I know? -
Message 28
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Well, you know more than I do about Wellington's background, I'll grant you that
. -
Message 29
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Elistan
I think one of things that is overlooked in the Napoleonic War period is the appreciation the English officer developed for the Irish soldier, and, by extension, Irish officer. The Arthur Wellesley who denied his Irish birth was the same man who, as Prime Minister, allowed Roman Catholics into Parliament. -
Message 30
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
C3,
I think you will find that Wellington's reform of 1832 was done under what could be politely termed duress. His hand was forced due to the fact that he presided over a minority government. As i said, he was no O'Connell, and had no specific love for 'catholic' Ireland. I point was that a single quote has come to define his relation to country he was born and raised in and served in its parliament for several years. My contention is that perhaps the remark was tailored for the audience? -
Message 31
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Elistan
Would agree that Wellington bowed to political reality, but that's what politicans do.
I still think that the long road to Catholic emancipation began with the experience of war, when the myth that the Irish would side with Popish foreigners was shown to be untrue (leaving aside all the RCs in the Guards!).
Also, of course, with victory, the threat was much reduced, and the Irish vote in the Commons became increasingly important - although that was more an issue at the end of the century
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.