Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Rorke's Drift/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

African Colonials

Is it really necessary to include the 300 - 350 African Colonial troops in the British strength seen as they all deserted? (82.28.237.200 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Its necessary to mention a large portion of the initial garrison fled just before the Zulus arrived. I'm not sure about the overall characterization. Tttom1 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Seeing that the Colonial contingent departed before the start of the action, they should not be included as a list of the *defenders* of Rorke's Drift in the infobox.Catiline63 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree as these troops were part of the army, participated in the building of the defenses and were assigned positions in the defense. Characterizing them as 'deserters' rather than 'missing' may be overreaching, but they are part of the garrison and part of the casualties caused by Zulu action.Tttom1 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, according to Chard's report to Queen Victoria (an expansion upon his official report), Lt. Henderson's troop of NNH arrived at the station from Isandlwana "shortly after" 3.30pm and were ordered to the far side of the Oscarberg to "observe the movements, and check the advance, of the enemy as much as possible until forced to fall back". Then, "about 4.20pm the sound of firing was heard [from] behind the Oscarberg... [Henderson] returned reporting the enemy close upon us, and that his men would not obey his orders but were going off to Helmakaar, and I saw them, about 100 in number, going off in that direction". Arriving after the most of the defences had been prepared, and being posted away from the station immediately after their arrival, it is clear that the NNH played no part in constructing the defences of the station. Nor do I think that having fired a smattering of shots into the advancing Zulus right at the very outset is enough to credit them in the infobox as full participants in a battle that raged for 12 hours.
Capt. Stephenson's NNC company did help with the building of the barricades, and Chard acknowledges this ("the Native Contingent... were working hard at this with our own men, and the walls were rapidly progressing"). Stephenson's company departed the station immediately upon seeing Henderson's troop go ("about the same time [4.20] Captain Stephenson's detachment... left us"). As such they had gone before the first body of Zulus had rounded the Oscarberg ("500 or 600 in number... about 4.30pm", according to Chard) to fall onto the station a minute or two after that. Thus while Stephenson's company helped build the barricades, they did not face the enemy and took no part at all in the battle.
The only causalty suffered by either the NNH or the NNC was the death of Corporal Anderson. He was hit when one of the British soldiers fired in frustration into the mass of departing NNC. Catiline63 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Troops from a force that flee from battle are counted as part of that force, if they don't return to their formations following the battle they are generally listed as 'missing'. Troops observing the actions of the enemy are 'scouts' and are part of the force whether they subsequently fight in the line or not . If a distinction is to be made then it should be made as to troops 'engaged' since there are plenty of battles in which troops flee without fighting where those troops are counted as part of a force and that is the case here as well. Chard's comments show that he considered the NNH to be part of his force and to aid in the defense; the NNC are obviously part of the force as they flee from their assigned position. Retreat and flight was considered by Chard and Bromhead as a possible option and rejected because they didn't think they could get away.Tttom1 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the NNH and NNC fled at 4.20, ten minutes before the battle began (which is pretty much what the infoxbox says - "300-350 native African and colonial troops fled before initial engagement"). That Chard, at 4.20, considered the NNC and NNH as part of his force means nothing - the battle started at 4.30, by which time they were halfway to Helpmekaar. If you can find a reliable source what lists the Henderson's troop and Stephenson's company as combatants/defenders, rather than just being present the prelude, then by all means add it. Otherwise it's OR. (Similarly, Otto Witt and Lt. Purvis (who was sick) who departed together while the barricades were being prepared are also never listed as defenders of Rorke's Drift; not is Lt. Vane, who rode in with Adendorff from Isandlwana but who went off to warn Helmekaar while the barricades were being built; nor are any of the many other fugitives from Isandlwana who told them 'the Zulus are coming!' but didn't stop; nor is Chard's native waggon-driver, who disappeared before the fight only to be discovered the next day hiding in a cave on the Oscarberg). Incidentally, while Chard, in his report, says that he had some sympathy for Henderson's men, he described the loss of Stephenson's company as desertion ("I am sorry to say that their officer... also deserted us"). It would be disingenuous to list the NNH and NNC as 'missing', as militarily that implies that their fate was unknown (dead? wounded? deserted?). Catiline63 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have this backwards. what you propose is OR and you need sources to specifically dispute that, although they were part of the garrison - as all sources state they were, they should be excluded. e.g.: the NNC is ordered to reinforce the post - which they do and the NNH arrives and volunteers to serve as the picket of the garrison - which they do. There is no question they are part of the garrison which withdraws, retreats, flees or deserts and therefore they should be included and their actions noted. As the article itself says:
"With the defences completed and battle imminent, Chard had roughly 500 men available to him: the 122 men of Bromhead's B Company, 225-250 from Captain Stephenson's NNC company, about 100 members of Lieutenant Henderson's troop of NNH, and 30 others (most hospital patients, but 'walking wounded') drawn from various British and colonial units. Lieutenant Adendorff, who had survived Isandlwana, also stayed (Lieutenant Vane galloped on to warn the garrison at Helpmekaar). The force was sufficient, in Chard's estimation, to fend off the Zulus."
Info box information does not trump info in an article and the box's purpose is to provide a quick accurate summation of what is in an article, not a rewrite, or alternate version.Tttom1 (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
From your post above from Chard: "Lt. Henderson's troop of NNH arrived at the station from Isandlwana "shortly after" 3.30pm and were ordered to the far side of the Oscarberg to "observe the movements, and check the advance, of the enemy as much as possible until forced to fall back". Then, "about 4.20pm the sound of firing was heard [from] behind the Oscarberg... [Henderson] returned reporting the enemy close upon us,". So, according to this, the NNH was engaged skirmishing with the enemy and the battle had started and the NNH was forced to fall back from their advanced post.Tttom1 (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is about *the Battle of Rorke's Drift*. It is not an article on the composition of the garrison at Rorke's Drift, which altered throughout the war, and indeed fluctuated on that day. Stephenson's company of NNC, while part of the garrison's strength at daybreak of the 22nd and helped build the barricades, deserted 10 minutes before *the battle* began. The article reflects this. While the NNH did fire at an advanced party of Zulus (500-600) immediately before the battle, they are not considered among the defenders of the station by any author on Rorke's Drift (or the Zulu War) I'm aware of.
On both points, I direct you toward the table present on p.158 of The War Office's Narrative of the Field Operations Connected with the Zulu War of 1879, where the NNC and NNH are not listed and which is the British Government's official narrative of the war. Catiline63 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you are unwilling to admit the difficulties of your argument, even when your own quotes support what I have said. You should not make the changes you've made as you do not have a consensus. It doesn't matter that the garrison changed during the war - it does matter what the garrison was as the Zulu marched up.Tttom1 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue's not about what either of us think, but about what the sources and the historians say. I've given one source already which doesn't count the NNH and NNC as participating in the *battle* - the British War Office's own official report on the war. I also give you David Clammer's The Zulu War (1973) p.225, John Young's They Fell Like Stones (1991) pp.85-89, and Julian Whybra's England's Sons (2004) pp.56-69. Note also the 'Chard Roll', the 'Bourne Roll', and the 'Amended Bourne Roll', all reproduced in Norman Holme's books The Silver Wreath (1979) pp.71-74 and The Noble 24th pp.297-299. None of them count the NNC and NNH among the particpants in the *battle*. Which is right, because they departed with minutes to spare (as did Witt, Purvis, Hall, and a few others who are also never listed as at the *battle*). Now it is up to you to provide countervailing sources. If you can't, I can only consider your view as OR.
And BTW, according to my count, you're the only editor advocating that the NNH and NNC be counted as defenders - Note the view of Anon 82.28.237.200! Catiline63 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peace

Several years ago didn't the British Army visit KwaZulu to make an eternal peace with the Zulus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I have moved these templates here because maintenance issues are meant to be discussed on the talk page. That is why we have article space and editorial talk pages. After six months, if something is not fixed then it definitely needs to be resolved on the talk page not with brief banners in article space which say next to nothing -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Some, not all, OR issues were resolved here and archived.Tttom1 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Refimprove

With 20 odd citations if more are needed then use the in-line {{citation needed}} rather than leaving people to guess what may be challenged and removed. --PBS (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Have tagged sections with few, or no, citations.Tttom1 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Generally, in MilHist articles, to get an article up to a 'B' rating its needs considerably more citations than the article now has. At a minimum each paragraph should have a citation at the end of it as well as any necessary in line cites. Quotes need to be cited, numbers & estimates, plenty more.Tttom1 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyedit
  • {{Copyedit}} article, date=December 2009

If it has not been done to your satisfaction by now it is time to DIY. -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Article, for the most part reads like it was cut and pasted from an adventure book for boys. Generally expresses only a British POV.Tttom1 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Original research

There is no point putting this at the top of an article unless it is explained what is thought to be OR here on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor arms, powder, maintnance, marksmanship of Zulus

I'm moving this discussion here where it belongs and off my talk page. We've been through this before. The part of the quote that says: "However, the large number of rifles captured at Isandlwana were put to good use by the Zulus, and even if their fire was not highly accurate it had considerable nuisance value. Instances of this kind were reported in connection with the defence of Rorke's Drift and the attack on Khambula." is, in part, just flat out wrong. The Zulus attacking Rorke's Drift were not engaged at Isandlwana, and did not loot the battlefield. They could not have 'put those rifles to good use' as they did not have them at Rorke's Drift. 1/3 of 17 deaths is still only 5 and shows Zulu fire had no particular effect, beyond its 'nuisance value', nor did it suppress the 100+ British from firing 20,000 rounds killing or wounding hundreds of Zulus. From the publication: "the firepower was sustained, and it is estimated that each active man fired about 200 rounds, a total of 20 000 cartridges during the action"; also: "While this was happening some Zulus took position on the terrace of the Oskarberg and fired down into the post causing some casualties to the British holding the south wall." That's the whole reference to Zulu fire. From another : "ZULU WEAPONS: Wearing feathers and furs and loincloths of oxhide, etc., and armed mainly with assegais and large ox-hide shields, the Zulus also had a few muzzle-loading percussion smoothbore muskets at Isandlwana. Captured Martini-Henry rifles were used, however, the same afternoon and evening at Rorke’s Drift, against the gallant British defenders. Fortunately the Zulus were bad shots." Again, we know they did not use the captured rifles at RD. Quality of guns, ammo & powder is discussed in Knight. But even in the quote you give it says the Zulus are bad shot and their guns poor.Tttom1 (talk)

If we are moving to here then I must repeat what I have said on your talk page for clarity of any viewers:---

The difference being that British were firing from fortified positions while the Zulu's were in the open or firing from distance (the hills). Also, it was not '5 casualties' but 5 actual deaths out of the 17 total deaths, how many of the 14 wounded were from firearms I cannot say but if it is similiar to the ratio seen in the deaths then you could likely add another 4 minimum for a total of 9 casualties from 22. Not inconsequential.
I agree that the line 'very suppressive' should be amended as it could also confuse a reader.
I cannot find reference to "supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent" in the ref provided. The ref (South African military society) does however contend that Zulu fire had "considerable nuisance value" and that the majority of Zulus were "mediocre" shots rather than 'very poor'. Also that the Zulus had the large number of (superior British) rifles captured from Isandlwana and put them to use.
Quote: "The firearms which had found their way into Zulu hands were mainly muzzle-loaders of cheap commercial manufacture. Individual Zulus, such as Chief Zibebu, one of Cetshwayo's generals, had become excellent marksmen; most others were mediocre shottists who tended to shoot high or close their eyes when pulling the trigger.

However, the large number of rifles captured at Isandlwana were put to good use by the Zulus, and even if their fire was not highly accurate it had considerable nuisance value. Instances of this kind were reported in connection with the defence of Rorke's Drift and the attack on Khambula." end quote.

I am not debating that the Zulus were relatively poor shots and had (in comparison to the British) poor equipment, I am pointing out that the sentence in question will confuse the general reader into thinking that Zulu fire was useless and had no effect.
The fact that nearly a third of British deaths came from Zulu firearms shows that this is not so.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk)

In addition to this: I don't understand what the problem is. I am not trying to simply get my own way, I am trying to make it clear that Zulu gunfire could not be ignored and that putting an overemphasis on poor marksmanship or equipment is masking the fact that many of the British casualties came from gunfire. I believe my addition has been very evenly applied and takes into account a source that is credible. Said source is also one that you yourself have used to make a point. As you can see above, I have already said that I agree that Zulu marksmanship was indeed poor, and this is reflected in the article. I believe that we are essentially in agreement. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk)

I have put the phrase describing the powder, shot, maintenance back in with pertinent refs as I mentioned above. There is no overemphasis on poor Zulu shooting - its dreadful, as Knight and others point out, but perhaps if we give the actual number of fire casualties - nine - then a proper perspective will be available to the reader. Tttom1 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What some sources say about the rifles taken at Isandlwana being used at R.D. is only speculation and cannot be verified. What is known is that the Undi corps attacking Rorke's Drift was not engaged at Isandlwana and had no opportunity to take rifles from the dead British as they were positioned well past the field of battle and did not participate in the battle or the looting of the camp afterwards, therefore they could not have had the captured rifles from Isandlwana at Rorke's Drift.Tttom1 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor points on style

1) "This company numbered between 100 and 350 men, estimates vary" is preferable to "This company numbered between 100 and 350 men" because the clause "estimates vary" clarifies the statement. Otherwise "numbered between 100 and 350 men" might be read to mean that the Stephenson's company fluctuated in size with time (e.g. were some going to and coming back from other places?), not that it was of a stable but unknown size.

The statement is obviously an estimate and doesn't imply fluctuation in the moment. Even should that happen the footnote absolutely claries - which is the purpose of footnote for such details.Tttom1 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Obvious to whom? There's no loss in moving two words that are currently already in the footnote to the main text. Catiline63 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It is fine where it is in the footnote indicating introducing the 'varying' sources, the line as written is a standard way to express an estimate of troops on the spot.Tttom1 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

2) Not all the NNC were stationed in the kraal; their NCOs and those with guns were behind the barricades, and were Stephenson and Anderson. The current reading makes it appear that all of them escaped over the kraal wall.

previous reading is vastly more misleading, since those with guns numbered less than 10%, see NNC below.Tttom1 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
We'll as the various positions of the NNC have already been addressed in the article (those with firearms behind the barricades, those without in the kraal), why mention from where they bolted at all? I suggest a more nonspecific phrase, changing "Stephenson's NNC company abandoned the cattle kraal and bolted" to "Stephenson's NNC company bolted".Catiline63 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, since we are given almost every specific and non-specific minute detail about the British, and often more than once, I see no problem stating the fact that the NNC leave from the kraal and I believe it is relevant and important and it should stay as is, or, be elaborated on - just as we seem to have to know that James Dalton is of the 'Commissariat and Transport Department' as well as 'Acting Assistant Commissary' and what type of head wounds, leg wounds, etc there are instead of - just wounds. This article needs more balance beyond the British. Tttom1 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I see the plethora of wound details. I haven't been too concerned with tackling the "battle" section yet, so I've left all the details of wounds etc. as they are for the moment except where they're plain wrong (Byrne's rank, for example). Unfortunately there are no Zulu accounts of the battle, and of the colonials I seem to recall that only Cpl. Lugg (NMP) left an account. The nature of the sources means that most of what we know is centred on the British. Catiline63 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There are some first hand Zulu accounts, but that isn't necessary for a balanced article, plenty of secondary source authors give more of the Zulu and Colonial aspects. A Zulu boy's recollection [1]. There are some Zulu accounts in Colenso, can't recall if any cover RD.Tttom1 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Knight reports that no account by a Zulu partcipant of RD exists: "nor... was any account by a Zulu participant ever written down, and that includes Prince Dabulamanzi" (Knight in Greaves (2004) Redcoats and Zulus (2004) p.103). This doesn't mean that there might not be second- and third-hand Zulu accounts, but naturally they'd have to treated with caution.Catiline63 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

3) When articles utilise two languages, parenthesis are somewhat unavoidable (as you'll be aware reading any book on the war). Thus Rorke's Drift (kwaJimu), Oscarburg (Shiyane), Buffalo (Mzinyathi), etc. Avoiding them leads to phrasese like "Rorke's Drift... located on the Buffalo or Mzinyathi River" which as it stands means that Rorke's Drift was located either on the Buffalo or on the Mzinyathi but that we don't know which... Catiline63 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a plague of distracting qualifying parenthesis in this article, most can be set of in comma'd clause or rendered as footnotes. If its just for transaltions, fine but you are using them throughout for multiple purposes and its very distracting to readers.Tttom1 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad we're agreed they have their place.Catiline63 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, some have an occasional place. It would be better to get rid of all of them. Is there a single such use in Washing of the Spears' 500pp or Colenso?Tttom1 (talk)

NNC

The older view of the NNC is that they were cowardly useless troops. This has been modified by the views presented in more recent texts, notably: Thompson, Paul Singer. Black soldiers of the queen: the Natal native contingent in the Anglo-Zulu War and Lock, Ron; Quantrill, Peter. Zulu Victory: The Epic of Isandlwana and the Cover-up. Its always been know since Washing of the Spears that the NNC at Rorke's Drift was deployed outside the main defensive barricades without their rifle bearing comrades or their NCOs - as few in numbers these NCos were. It is pertinent to the NNCs subsequent behavior that this poor deployment is described. To avoid any possible OR the simple statement about this was made and ref'd and the reader can draw their own conclusions .Tttom1 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that the NNC were poorly utilised throught the war, I doubt that their desertion ("subsequent behaviour") was stimulated by their feeling that they had been ill-deployed. The sources (and modern commentators) make pretty clear the link between their seeing the departure of the NNH and their own decision to go. Catiline63 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would you doubt that Chard's deployment of most the NNC outside the main defensive area, with no rifles and no officers or NCOs is behind their withdrawal? They have no guns, no command and they are exposed with no easy way into the main perimeter. Note, no British are deployed in the kraal - even with stone walls. The sources are slanted because they suggest just the opposite - that the NNC left from behind the barricades - which they did not, only a few NCOs left from the barricades after the withdrawal from the kraal. For that matter, what was the NNH going to do? They are out of ammunition and their carbines use a paper cartridge of which there are none in the 20,000 Martini Henry rounds at the drift, there is no indication of any additional rifles available. Nor is there any indication of what Chard meant to do with the NNH once they returned from scouting. Ref'd statements clarify where the NNC is and when and what happens, readers can draw their own conclusions.
That section of the article seems a bit slanted and I think this statement is out of sequence: "Chard immediately realised the need to shorten the perimeter, and gave orders for a new line bisecting the post to be constructed, with the hospital being evacuated. As the last of the NNC disappeared, Private Frederick Hitch, posted as lookout atop the storehouse, reported a column of 4,000 - 6,000 Zulus approaching."
My recollection is in some sources Chard realizes the perimeter is too big and adjusts well before the NNC leaves. In any case, they aren't a big part of the mealy bag/box perimeter - none of the black troops are, so their leaving is unlikely the cause of reducing it. This is what I mean by characterizing their actions as deserting might be overreaching and should be toned down. Tttom1 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't doubt Chard's placement of the NNC in the kraal and their lack of firearms did demoralise them, but most historians I've read seem to think that the effect of the NNH's departure was the only factor in the NNC's departure. No doubt because the one immediately followed the other. And we can only follow what reliable sources think, so we can't speculate (even if probably right!). As for the NNH, I guess Chard would have had them behind the barricades firing what few round they had left until they ran out. I guess those without ammo would have been put to use - looking after the wounded, distributing ammo, etc. (like Rev. Smith was). In the event that the Zulus made it over the barricades, I expect 100 NNH with hunting knives would have come in as welcome! And who knows? 100 loose horses might have benfitted the defenders, as many of the Zulus would have been more occupied with capturing them than attacking the garrison!
Do you really imagine, after Isandlwana, the the NNH is going to give up their life-saving horses, or that Chard is going to let the horses run around inside the perimeter?
I meant that the NNH would have left their horses outside the perimeter, not inside the station getting in the way. You observe yourself that Chard wouldn't have allowed them to remain inside.Catiline63 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Chard's report, immediately after reporting the loss of the NNC: "we seemed very few, now all these people had gone, and I saw that out line of defence was too extended, and at once commenced a retrenchment of biscuit boxes, so as to get a place we could fall back upon if we could not hold the whole". Chard then goes on to describe Hitch's sighting of the Zulu vanguard of 500-600. This implies that *some* of the native NNC may well have been placed on the mealie-bag perimeter, even if only armed with assegais. This seems to make sense: if 100-300 men were in that cattle kraal then they must have been very squashed! Remember too that the north wall was placed on a natural 'ledge' in the terrain which had the effect of giving the defenders a 2 ft height advantage. An NNC man with an assegai would have had a considerable advantage over a Zulu on the other side. This (and the issue of overcrowing in the kraal) means that the idea of a few gun-less NNC on the wall is not infeasible. Catiline63 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
My question was rhetorical, the black NNC, as well as the NNH, are left outside the barricades, the NNC without command or their integral rifle support (where they have been described as 'huddling'- sounds crowded). These are just plain statements from the sources - not opinions of the motives of others (which can't be known) by the sources. Does Chard re-garrison the kraal, as it would now be part of the reduced perimeter and it has that stout stone wall? In any case, Chard's statement "we seemed very few, now" generally supports the estimates of the NNC. My own opinion is that the NNC is considered (supported by Black Soldiers) is that the NNC is considered unreliable, an obstruction, of little use and expendable by the British and that no second thought was given to deploying them separate from their gun-armed NCOs and I'm fairly sure that any former NCO would agree that these troops are going to break sooner rather than later - however, putting that in the article would be OR - on the other hand stating the sourced, plain facts without hyperbole is not OR. Oh, and thanks for clearing up the contradiction in the article of when the reduction of perimeter occurs, I knew it was somewhere, good job.Tttom1 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, you have very interesting and astute opinions, but I see nothing here that that suggests the reliably sourced statements in question should not remain in the article as they currently expressed.Tttom1 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, about what in particular? Catiline63 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Euphemisms

Why are the British atrocites described euphemistically?Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. Have restored original and appropriate description.Tttom1 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rate of fire per rifle/man.

There were 20,000 rounds stored at Rorkes Drift. 19,100 were expended. Allow 140 rifles as the defenders amount of firepower available. The battle lasted 11.5 hours. 136 rounds per rifle fired. its an average of 11.8 rounds per rifle per hour. About one shot every 4 minutes. Irondome (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad mathematics. Or better good mathemactics but bad tactical analysis.

- not every soldier fired constantly. - the hospitalizied soldiers entered late in the battle - the troops where shifted from one sector to another - some troops were used as reserve - massive "platoon volleys" were only used to counter breakthroughs

Well its a pity but I don't have a staged description of the battle. --88.153.184.211 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the "phases" of the battle. But I have just given an average ammo expenditure per man, based on some broad figures.

Thats just the average based on garrison strength, ammo expenditure and the duration of the attack. Points 2-4 seem irrelevant to the figures. There were only a half dozen in the hospital, and they were engaged for the majority of the engagement, esp the fight for the hospital.

The movement of troops doesnt bear on ammo consumption. The whole perimeter was under sustained assault.

Only a dozen occupied a final redoubt position I believe. But they fought in the meantime. Having a dozen troops sitting and drinking tea while waiting for the final defence is improbable.

Volley fire would only have been in the first minutes of the engagement. Once the Zulu units closed with the walls, it was a case of individual fire for the remainder of the engagement. There was widescale use of the Martini-Henry socket bayonet by the defenders, the fearsome 22" "lunger", especially in combat over the mealie bag defences. This would have slowed individual firing by the perimeter defenders. Much of the combat was close quarter assingai .v. bayonet. Accounts after the battle described many of the troops bayonets as being "Twisted like corkscrews" from extreme use. ( The Washing Of The Spears). A shot every 2-4 minutes is therefore plausable I would argue. No wonder so many RD vets displayed symptoms of what we would now recognise as PTSD, especially in their final years. Nice to see a response. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reformatted images

I discovered in doing this that the campaign box caused problems to the layout of text and images adjacent to it, causing the text to overwrite the image. I tried half a dozen arrangements of the picture box and concluded that the practical solution was to move the campaign box above to battle box.

Before changing, permanently, take a look at the effect. NOTE: if you are viewing on vertical rather than horizontal screen you will not see the problem that is caused on wide/shallow format. Don't change, unless it is a serious breach of protocol, in which circumstance you will need to discover a better solution.

Amandajm (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Zulu name for Rorke's Drift

Donald Morris, in his book The Washing of the Spears states that the Zulu name is kwaJumu (not kwaJim)Dobryen (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, thanks. 'kwaJimu', I believe, p. 168, have changed and referenced it. It was that way some time ago.Tttom1 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

  • The NNC foot company can not be listed under "Strength" or "Casualties", as it did not engage in the Battle of Rorke's Drift.
  • the NNH cavalry fleeing (esp. only after after a brief skirmish) can not be listed as "Casualties". While they can be listed under "Strength", their limited participation in the battle has to be made clear.

The remaining changes are standard ordering/cosmetics for this infobox. Its not necessary to explain this was a "tactical" victory unless there is a different strategic impact of said battle. -- Director (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you're making a good faith edit and not vandalizing and welcome your interest and work. NNC is stated by reliable sources to be part of the garrison and must included in strength section - see main article. Missing are also casualties and do not necessarily get broken down in an info box as to why they are missing e.g.: desertion at some point, rout, various separations from unit, capture - plenty of armies lose strength at the start of a battle without engaging, or have strengths that play no part and when it is a notable proportion, as it is here, its included in the overall strength & often, but not necessarily, mentioned. Participation of the NNC is clear in the body of the article where these are supposed to be made clear. Removing them from the info box is misleading as to the facts. Before reverting (3RR) you should have brought this up in talk, those are pertinent ref'd statements and that are further explained in the body of the article. The info box is not an opportunity to rewrite the article before you discuss a major change here in talk.Tttom1 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
..does this place get vandalized frequently?
"Misleading"? on the contrary: the current state of affairs is misleading:
  • The NNC company may be "part of the garrison", but its not part of the battle. It is highly misleading to have them listed in the military conflict infobox, which lists only combatants ('parties participating in the conflict'). It gives the inescapable impression that there were not 150 men, but 450 men engaged in defending the outpost against the Zulus (or more, if we count the NHH entry that's without the necessary note). Imo this is an entirely unacceptable state of affairs.
  • Fleeing men are not usually viewed as "casualties" (casualty, 'a person killed or injured in a war or accident'). More importantly, the {{Infobox military conflict}} template does not use the parameter to list men who have fled the battle. As you can see, the thing is for 'casualties suffered, including dead, wounded, missing, captured, and civilian deaths'. And this is followed throughout Wikipedia, hence rendering the listing of the NHH cavalry as "casualties" misleading. It gives the impression they were killed by the Zulus.
  • Finally, while its necessary to list the NNH under "strength", due to their having participated in the battle, the limited extent of said participation must be made clear with a brief note.
It is necessary to make clear the fact that the battle essentially took place between 150 men and 4,000 men. That's the only thing that makes this skirmish relevant. -- Director (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized and subject to edit warring in the past and our last few edits of this constitute a violation of the 3RR rule. The garrison is part of 'the conflict' and that means, and in the link, more than a narrow opinion view of the battle from when the British start firing, as explained before. It is not misleading in the info box as their participation is clearly explained and ref'd in the body of the article. If you wish to say 'fled' that should be short and clear as required. The guidline says 'casualties suffered including' not 'casualties suffered limited to' and the guideline includes includes general non-combatant civilian deaths (including those who do not fight and were not part of the opposing forces). If something is too vague or confusing or disputed, the casualties section is optional according to the guidline and can be left blank so that the entire story will be in the article itself - this is policy for disputed results - a far more crucial info box fact that is often disputed by editors - it doesn't have to be in the info box if there is no consensus and I don't see a consensus here. The info box should briefly summarize what is in the article - not just the part that shows the gallant stand by the remainder of the garrison once part of it flees. I believe your definition of info box 'casualties and losses' would ignore 'missing' and 'captured' as well (as per the OED definition) and it should not. Would it help to change that section title to 'losses'? There is no misleading as the information which clarifies this is appropriately in the body of the article. Statements in the info box can be ref'd, but need not be, if the fact is clarified in the body which in this case it is.Tttom1 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate link?

Surgeon James Henry Reynolds; Army Medical Department

The link in "Army Medical Department" above links to an article about the US Army. This is inappropriate for an article about a British Army engagement. 86.24.15.85 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, and thank you for raising it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Rorke's Drift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift/Archive_2&oldid=1136554533"