The true story of Rorke’s drift
Toolbox
By KENDALL WILD The Rutland Herald - Published: February 4, 2009
Last Jan. 22 was the 130th anniversary of an event in South Africa that had no long-term effect on the British Empire but drew an immense amount of attention throughout Britain at the time. That was the defense of Rorke’s Drift against an army of thousands of Zulus. A little background is needed.
The Zulus were an independent people who had developed a powerful army of spearmen, subduing neighboring tribes. Their land was east of where the Dutch and British occupied. For some reason the British authorities in South Africa wanted the Zulus to be subdued — probably to expand into their land. So they assembled an army that invaded the Zulu country.
The base for the central column was located in structures near Rorke’s Drift. In South Africa the word “drift” meant a ford across a river. A trader named James Rorke had established a trading post at one of the fords, which was named after him. One company of regular British infantry, plus some supply soldiers and engineers, occupied that post.
The general in charge of the invasion was Lord Chelmsford. Upon entering Zululand he stationed part of his force in the open under a mountain called Isandlwana. Then he took the bulk of his army further into the country.
On Jan. 22, 1879, several thousand Zulus surprised the detachment left behind under the mountain and massacred most of them. Meanwhile a separate batch moved toward Rorke’s Drift. Zulus had traded there when Rorke was alive.
The force at the drift heard gunfire from Isandlwana, and refugees came racing back saying the entire British force was wiped out. Meanwhile lookouts from the drift saw the huge force of Zulus headed in their direction. The soldiers hastily put up barricades made of meal sacks and wooden boxes. The Zulu force attacked in midafternoon and the embattled soldiers inside the barriers fought them all afternoon and evening, keeping them at bay through a great effort. In the early morning the Zulus withdrew.
Years later a movie was made about that incident, called “Zulu.” It was immensely successful, inspiring an author named Ian Knight to visit the scene, scramble around the countryside, and acquire a knowledge of everything that had been illustrated or written about the action. His book in 1993 was entitled “Nothing Remains but to Fight.” It is immensely interesting, giving details of Zulu organization as well as that of the British side.
There are a number of discrepancies between the movie and what actually took place, both as to personalities and persons. There was an engineer brought in to build a span across the drift, named Lt. John Chard. The officer in charge of the British company was Lt. Gonville Bromhead. The movie has Chard and Bromhead arguing over who is to command. In fact, there was a major in charge named Henry Spalding. But on the morning of Jan. 22 he headed for a nearby town to speed more troops to the front. So, as Chard later described it, the major asked: “Which one of you is senior, you or Bromhead?” Chard said he didn’t know, and the major said: “I see you are senior, so you will be in charge, but of course nothing will happen, and I shall be back here early this evening.”
As it turned out, after visiting the town the major was headed back when he met the fugitives from Isandlwana who told him the entire British column had been wiped out, including those at Rorke’s Drift. So he went back to help defend the town against an anticipated Zulu attack. That meant Chard was the actual commander of the Rorke’s Drift defense.
The movie makes a missionary, the Rev. Otto Witt, try with his daughter to make the soldiers refuse to fight or at least depart. Actually, he had already sent his wife and daughter away so as not to be troubled by soldiers, and as soon as he heard of the Zulu approach he departed himself.
The movie shows the color-sergeant, Frank Bourne, as a father figure who encourages the younger soldiers. In fact Bourne was 23, and at 5 feet, 6 inches, was shorter than most of the soldiers, who behind his back called him “the kid.”
The character of Henry Hook is depicted in the movie as malingering in sick bay in the post hospital. In fact, as the attack developed he was sent as a guard to the hospital.
The few firearms of the Zulus were muskets with very bad firepower. The movie has them armed with rifles taken from the dead at Isandlwana.
But it is a fact that more soldiers at Rorke’s Drift won the Victoria Cross — the highest award given to British servicemen — than at any other single action. There were 11. It is likely that came about to help offset the shame of the earlier massacre. But it is also true that a grateful countryside believed a general Zulu attack had been repelled only by the force at Rorke’s Drift.
Chard made a great impression with Queen Victoria when he was taken to describe the fighting. He made several interesting sketches of how the fight developed. He served several years but developed cancer and died in 1897.
Bromhead lived 12 years longer, promoted to major, but died of typhoid in India in 1891.
Hook bought his way out of the service, took a job at the British Museum, and as an expert marksman gave shooting lessons to recruits at training camps. He died in 1905, having written an extensive account of fighting at the drift. Color-sergeant Bourne rose through the ranks to lieutenant colonel, lived through two world wars and died in 1945, believed to be the last survivor of the Rorke’s Drift battle. So while the movie is colorful and exciting — featuring Michael Caine as Bromhead — it is well to balance it with Knight’s factual account.
Kendall Wild is a retired editor of the Herald.
28