Eye Witness RD

The Cardigan observer , Saturday, May 17, 1879 printed the following article, supposedly written be a Eye witness to the Rorke's Drift defence:

A correspondent has supplied to the Natal Mercury an account of the defence of Rorke's Drift, describing himself as "an eye witness" 
1. Was he there, and will we ever know?

About 4:30pm the Zulus came in sight, but the garden with its trees and surroundings gave great facilities for numbers getting near to (US) unseen. The garden must have soon been occupied, for one unfortunate contingent Corporal, who's heart failed him when he saw the enemy and heard the firing, got over the parapet and tried to make his escape on foot, but a bullet from the garden struck him and he fell dead within 150 yards of (OUR) front wall.

2. This seems to imply that Corporal Michael Anderson was not shot by his own command for deserting his post, but by the Zulus that had gathered in the Garden. If this was to be taken as read, could Corporal Anderson possibly have attempted to make it to another part of the enclosure before being shot. Having been overwhelmed by the Zulus at his position?

If you were to read the article, which covers the defence in much more detail, you may be under the impression that the author was there. 

It is possible that there could have been war correspondents present within the columns.  Just a thought.

In relation to the above, there does not seem to be any mention of anyone being shot for desertion in private letters that I have read. 
Someone may have information to the contrary parhaps.
It would seem strange as to not mention such an occurrence, and if you knew him, quite heart rendering too.

Hi Eddie
There's no doubt the Scandinavian Cpl Anderson was indeed shot by someone manning the barricade , Chard states in a letter to Queen Victoria that when Stevenson and his NNC deserted the post , the NCO Anderson fled as well , Chard doesn't say he was shot by the defenders but he certainly was ! , if he was shot by the Zulu's who had yet to attack , or had even got close to the Fort at this stage , it certainly would've been mentioned . Anderson was shot through the head . This came from Zulu Rising , I'm sure it's in Holme and several other of the decent books regarding RD .
90th

Thank you 90th

Now that you mention Chards letter I do recall reading something like that. 
It explains that he was a deserter, but how are you certain he was shot by a defender when the statement says the bullet came from the garden where the Zulus had amassed? and what about the author claiming to be an eye witness who witnessed it coming from there?
I know people say don't pay to much attention to newspapers, but he could have been there. War reporters could have accompanied the column, but will we ever know.

With respect, just delving into statements and letters to see if there are any discrepancies or contradictions in events, hopefully learning as I do.

Thank you once again.

Hi Eddie,
There were no war reporters at Rorke's Drift at the time of the battle, period. Norris Newman, the only one, was with Lord Chelmsford's column when they returned to iSandlwana after the defeat. Plenty more war reporters came out to Zululand once iSandlwana became public, though.
Cheers

Eddie
The Garden / Orchard was fairly close to the post within 50 or 60 yds or so , the zulu's hadn't began the attack at this stage , which was launched against the opposite wall in the opening attack , I'm sure one of the troops Hook Possibly or Bourne say he was shot by someone inside the encampment , the actual shooter was never identified , I'm sure many knew but certainly never let on who it was . If it's one thing you would've learnt reading reports from the day.... by those who were there supposedly there , that isn't always the case ! . Considering how well the action was portrayed by the Press , certainly someone who was an Eye witness would want to be known as being present !? . We do know there were no reporters at RD , as mentioned by Warrior 3 the only reporter covering the war with No 3 Column was Norris - Newman and he was out with Chelmsford .
90th

Thank you worrior3/90th.

Eddie
There were a couple of men who said Anderson (William not Michael and he was English not Scandinavian) was shot while running off with the NNC. Hook was one of them but Hook was in the hospital and wouldn't have been able to see what had happened nor why. He was writing hearsay. Hitch said he and others fired several shots after the NNC and one of the NCOs was brought down by their fire.
This sort of anecdote works well in popular histories and you'll find it repeated in several of them.
Your quotation was written by RD Chaplain George Smith (Natal Mercury 7.4.1879).
However, another letter written later on by Smith said that Anderson had been shot by the Zulus who had "gained possession of the garden on our front". Smith evidently had conversed with Anderson, saying he had been a patient in the hospital, and had worked "the surf-boats in East London & had been also a performer on the wire slack rope". (KZN Archives, PMB, NAB ref. 3012/1879, dated 16.7.1879.)
Whether Anderson was dutifully chasing after the NNC to try to stop them or whether he really thought he could escape by climbing over the parapet and running away is a moot point. In my opinion the latter seems an unlikely scenario, the former the more likely. Indeed there does exist an anonymous letter by an NNC NCO at RD published in an Australian paper which suggests that was precisely what Anderson was trying to do. Letters published in the Aussie press are notoriously difficult to verify. I'm hopeful that one I'll be able to do this and restore Anderson's reputation.

I am interested in the statement that the Anderson incident was resolved several years ago. Who was it that resolved it so confidently?

Hook was not the only man who described the Anderson incident in a different way to Reverend Smith, and while I accept that Hook was in a room at the far side of the hospital away from the garden, the building had doors and windows which he would have been able to look out of. Depending on exactly when the Anderson incident occurred – and as far as I am aware that is not known, and there are discrepancies in the time scales – in my opinion it is possible that Hook saw it.

Reverend Smith also stated: ‘The garden must have been occupied, for one unfortunate Contingent Corporal, whose heart must have failed him when he saw the enemy and heard the firing, got over the parapet and tried to make his escape on foot, but a bullet from the garden struck him, and he fell dead within a hundred and fifty yards of our front wall.’

Three points here. The Reverend says ‘The garden ‘must’ have been occupied’ – so he wasn’t sure – and, while I have read the Smith letter mentioned above – in this description he doesn’t seem to even know the corporal’s name. Trying to make his escape is not the same as trying to stop the NNC for running away - Hearsay?

‘This sort of story works well in popular histories and you’ll find it repeated in several of them’ – including mine.

Just to point out that I wrote my piece before the previous one seems to have been edited down. So I presume the bold statement that the incident was resolved several years ago has been retracted?

Thank you Julian

I recall reading that about the Surf-boats but did not link it to Anderson at the time of writing.
I appreciate that the incident had been covered in the past, but having read that Anderson had been shot as a deserter, then coming across this article stating that he was shot by Zulus that amassed in the garden, I had to question whether he was a deserter or not.
The evidence that you have provided supports the author's knowledge of the incident and obviously supports George Smith's statement of events.

Warrior3, thank you once again for your post. It appears that the author of the article above has echo' d George Smith's statement to the press. 
Admittedly this author may not have been there, but he got the facts right, even though he copied George Smith's statement to the press.
I still find it hard to believe that there was only one war reporter present covering a whole army's advance into Zululand.

Cheers Eddie 

timespan
My! you were quick. I edited my first sentence out within minutes because I realized that if taken too literally it might be misunderstood - for which I apologize to you as misleading.
There was just Hitch and Hook, I believe , who mentioned the Anderson incident.
The door to Hook's room, where he said he was while the incident took place, was barricaded. There was no window. It was on the opposite side of the house to the garden. Hook would not have been able to look out and in fact Hook did not say he saw it. Hitch did.
It is known precisely when the incident occurred: at the moment the NNC fled just before Vause's NNH rode away and the main Zulu attack occurred.
Re Reverend Smith, you are right. In the April letter it can be read as if Smith wasn't sure that the garden was occupied. But in the July letter it can only be read that it was.
In the latter letter Smith knew exactly who the man was.
As I wrote above, running away or trying to stop the NNC - a moot point. Hearsay doesn't enter into it. The truth is simply not ascertainable for sure.
Sorry, I don't know who you are and I don't know which popular history you've written. It is nevertheless the case that 'the story of the man who ran away' is a perfectly understandable anecdote to include in the telling of RD. I'm not criticizing it or you; I'm just commenting on the fact that that's the side of the story that is usually told.

By the same token my reaction was not to criticise you. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as someone who has studied and written about the subject for five decades your remark, which was a bold one, that the incident was resolved several years ago intrigued me so I of course asked who it was that thought they could do so with such confidence.

I agree that the incident probably happened when you say, but as you also say it occurred before the main Zulu attack - so how could he have been shot by a Zulu from the garden?

I am not convinced that Hook could not have seen the incident - it depends on where he was when it happened - but we must agree to differ on that one.

For all that, my interest is in all things British, so I would prefer to think that an Englishman was indeed trying to stop others from running away as opposed to running away himself.

As to my work, whether 'popular' or not is up to others to decide (I only used the word popular because you did), although three of my books have recently been in the top 50 books on Amazon's South Africa list, and one of them is still there (possibly two).

I only joined here today and I have also contributed a couple of other posts, so that is why I was on the ball, so to speak!

Hi Timespan, welcome to the forum.

I hope you enjoy the experience and look forward to your knowledgeable input.
Thank you for replaying to my post, and I hope you understand the reason I posted it. Having only joined the site myself a few weeks ago I am interested in learning as much as possible from the experience.

Thank you, Eddie. I notice that you seem to be particularly interested in the defenders of Rorke's Drift - or 'The Rorke's Drift Men' as I call them, so you might be interested in my post concerning 'Another Rorke's Drift Hero buried at Brompton?' I have not yet confirmed he is the defender, but the evidence up to now seems to suggest it is.

Yes Timespan, I had seen your post, that would be William Davis. I'm pretty sure you we find some information on here.

It interests me, having served in the military myself for many years. Recently I became interested in Rorke's Drift defenders graves, having three buried opposite where I lived in the local cemetery that had, had rededications.

The site has researched the location of many burial sites successfully, but I still find there are approximately 42 yet to be found. As I have said before some, may never be found.
I also have two ex military friends who have namesakes as defenders who were enquiring.

Timespan
I echo, welcome to the forum.
And thanks, yes, I realized that 'resolved' was the wrong word to use - 'covered' might have been better or best of all, not to use the line at all. Hence the deletion.
You asked that since the incident occurred before the main Zulu attack, how could Anderson have been shot by a Zulu from the garden. Smith (April 1879) in the previous paragraph to the Anderson incident describes how the NNH fled at the sound of the FIRST SHOTS, followed by the NNC. The 'Anderson' paragraph has him leaping over the parapet when the first attack materializes against the south wall and the FIRST SHOTS are fired. The sound of the first shots - those from the south wall against the Zulu cause Anderson to move. Anderson was then killed by a shot from garden (Smith both April and July 1879): either by a shot fired toward (in the air?) the fleeing NNC from the north wall OR by Zulus hidden in the garden waiting for events to unfold.
As you say re Hook's witnessing the incident, it depends on where he was when it happened. In his Royal Magazine account he says he went off to his hospital room before he described the Anderson incident. But then, confusion sometimes seems in-built in the accounts and they need not all be taken at face value.

timespan
Yes, I agree that your Brompton man was William Henry Davis.
I feel that Stevenson & Baynham-Jones's' book 'covered' the Anderson incident by publishing both of Smith's relevant letters.

Hi JW
The following from a privately released work ' Natal Carbineers In The Zulu War ' ; Exact copy of extracts of letters and Diary of
J.P.& F.Symons ; ( Black Covered ) Exercise book ; Signed H.G. Symons .
P.31 Fred Symons describes their advance to Rorke's Drift ... '' The first Corpse that met our gaze was that of an NNC Officer ( we know him to be Cpl Anderson ! ) Fred continues ... '' who was shot by the 24th for Deserting them in the hour of danger . His men fled at the approach of the zulus but that was no reason for him deserting too . Thrice they called him to come back but he would not . He was a Foreigner '' . Once again nothing seems to be cut and dried ??? .
90th

90th
Hi, yes just found that too. But Symons didn't witness it himself; he spoke to others who did (24th?) How could they know what was Anderson's intention? And of course who else would run but 'a foreigner'? Couldn't have a Briton running.
I'm not trying to defend Anderson; but I'm not pre-judging him either. It just doesn't make sense to me to have someone running from the safety of a defended position into the open countryside.
By the by, Hook in the hospital (Strand account 1891) wrote "From my loophole I saw the Zulus approaching." He couldn't have seen what was occurring at the same time on the other side of the building.

My, you all get up early!

It seems that Anderson had got 150 yards towards the road to Helpekaar so he could have been seen by Hook. However, my original point was the statement that this was resolved years ago, and I wanted to know the details of that for my own mind's-eye of the defence of Rorke's Drift.

I use Lee and Alan's book a lot for reference so I must have got it right too it seems.

There is nothing on here, or anywhere else, concerning the grave of Private Davis, previous to my post, but there is to John Shergold, his grave in Brompton being discovered by Lee Stevenson.

Hello 90th (Gary) did the book arrive yet?

There was no window in Hook's room.  The door did not face in the direction of the road.  Hook is left with a loophole from which hook saw the Zulus advancing from the direction of their first appearance round Shiyane.

Okay Julian (I hope you don't mind me calling you by your first name) It is simply a case that I am not as convinced as you concerning this incident, so we have to agree to differ.

Julian when you say William Anderson was English not foreign are you basing this on the anonymous account of Rorke's Drift in an Australian newspaper that said he came from "the Old Country" or is there additional evidence that has come to light since 'England Sons' was published?
England's Sons 2020 edition p95 footnote 4

Yes and yes.

Hi Julian
Yes we know Symon's wasn't there as he was out with Chelmsford , seems Symon's spoke to those who Witnessed the shooting , I read somewhere Anderson was supposed to have been sick (? ) , also Symon's states he was called back 3 times ( Thrice ) by the defenders on the wall , this was obviously conveyed to him by someone , or others , who Witnessed the incident , and were close enough to hear the shouts to return etc . Either he was a Foreigner (?) , some descriptions have him as Scandinavian (? ) , with little command of the English language therefore not understanding the shouts etc ? , possibly fever ridden and had little idea what he was doing ? , or he just wanted out after Witnessing his company , and it's Officer Stevenson , bolting off toward Helpmekaar . Nothing is ever straight forward when it comes to Jan 22nd 79 ! .
90th .

90th
Untill more information is unearthed we will not know the true answer to what occurred. 
Your suggestion that he may have been fever ridden is a good point if non bedridden patients were ordered to man the wall.

Timespan
In looking at Chards original sketch he seems to have drawn two windows in the corner room originally inhabited by Hook, One facing South and one facing west.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quite possibly they were both loopholes but even so a view slanted down towards the North West would bring in the route towards the Helpmakaar road. I would agree that there is the possibility, assuming he happened to be looking out of that window at that particular time, that he would have seen the NNC leaving and Anderson running after and being shot.

Just a thought.

Frank

Sorry Julian. Bit confused:scratch:
So yes you are basing your assumption that he was English on the anonymous Australian newspaper.
And I'm assuming the second yes is there new evidence.
Any chance of letting us know what the new evidence is?

In Hooks account ( The Royal Magazine February 1905) he says very clearly that he saw the desertion including an officer and a European Sergeant and :"we fired after them." As this took place as the 500 to 600 arriving zulu had scared/prompted Anderson to move I have serious doubts the shots could have come from the garden area. Possible the Reverend Smith was just being gracious.

Frank

Sorry to confuse Kate.
Yes, there's something new. I don't want to jump the gun with it. Not yet. I want to verify and confirm content.

Hi Frank
I thought Hook had mentioned it somewhere where I'd read it , couldn't find it though . Your Boys were ordinary after winning the first cricket test ??? . I didn't mention the Rugby as I've no interest and even less of an idea ! hahahahaha
90th

Hello Frank. Thank you for your input. I believe it is impossible to state for certain that Hook could not have witnessed the Anderson incident, and, based on my own research, I also don't believe that anyone can be certain that Anderson was shot by a Zulu in the garden. I have had these opinions for decades which is why I questioned the original statement that it was resolved years ago - which has been edited.

I am aware of your work, but I concentrate on the defence of Rorke's Drift and the men who fought there, so I very rarely go along the track to Isandlwana with my work, where the confusion gets even worse!

It was a good debate though, and some useful comments made by everyone!

Frank
I dispute your remark that Hook wrote 'very clearly'.  I think it is far from clear.  Look at the sequence in the text of The Royal Magazine (1905) with The Strand (1891) sentence inserted:
"The two young officers saw that every soldier was at his post.  Then we were ready for Zulus when they cared to come."
"They were not long.  Just before half past four we heard firing...suddenly about five or six hundred Zulus swept round, coming for us at a run."
"From my loophole I saw the Zulus approaching..." (Strand Magazine)
"Instantly the natives...bolted...and their officer...and a European sergeant went with them."
"To see them deserting like that was too much for some of us, and we fired after them.  The sergeant was struck and killed.  Half-a-dozen of us were stationed in the hospital..."
I read the use of "we" in the last sentence, taken in conjunction with the fact that Hook said he was in the hospital, as meaning "we, the British soldiers" and that he was speaking metaphorically (and possibly therefore second-hand), and not implying personal involvement in the incident.  He uses "we" elsewhere in his 1905 account in this same way.
I'm not taking sides or setting up my stall here one way or the other - that would be poor historical practice; I'm looking at the evidence as it is.  For me there is room for doubt about who exactly did or saw what, who is saying what others told them, what Anderson's intentions were, and who shot him.
Timespan
I did not retract the statement. I worded a sentence badly and on re-reading decided it was incorrect and not what I intended to convey and so quickly removed it. Not quickly enough it seems!

Hi Timespan
That it is and was , a good thread .
90th

Okay Julian, I have changed the word I used.

Hello Gary. Did you receive the book yet?

Awe!! That's nice of you 90th 

Julian
Im pretty much a 'draadsitter' here. There does exist a strong possibility that there was a view through the west wall in the corner room towards the Helpmakaar Road across the western end of the garden. So the potential exists that Hook did witness the evacuation and subsequent events with the NNC. But as this sequence occured at the time the first section of Zulu arrived around the side of the hill would his attention not be focused on the immediate threat to the South wall?
With the orientation of the hospital to Shiyane the most logical loophole, in that room, for the best sighting of the Zulu would in fact be the west facing, the same as the escape route taken by the NNC.
Unfortunatly the map(s) produced by Chard give the wrong impression of the actual attack line of the Zulu around Shiyane and also the orientation of the North point.

Gary
They werent ordinary they were bloody horrible Mark Boucher has now fallen on his sword and resigned.

Timeline
I do of course acknowledge your own expertise and research, it would be very interesting to hear what has formed your own pretty strong opinion.

Eddie
Really interesting that you are bringing up all these issues for discussion.  
Cheers

Thank you Allewell.
I find that part of research is to fault find, where there is doubt raise the point for discussion even if my initial thoughts are way off. It's like a well known historian told me when I first joined the site: it makes the historian or author double check their work. So perhaps I am trying to help in that way, and to hopefully come across something overlooked or new.

And you could even call me Frank.

I do apologise Frank, my screen was over to the left covering your name.

Hello Frank. I formed my own 'pretty strong' opinions - as you put it - in the same way as other 'pretty strong' opinions on here have been formed. My original query has been answered so I don't really have anything further to say on this particular incident.

I think my wrist has just been slapped. Not the first and probably not the last.

No problem, Frank. My response is in good spirit. You will notice that I have not told anyone they are wrong I have just given a different opinion or angle. Btw, how can you acknowledge my expertise and research when you don't know who I am? hahaha (Have you been talking to 90th (Gary)

Timespan,

Without talking Smoko a.k.a. Gary, I can tell who you are.

Is still Jim in your signature, or the more formal James?

JY

Timespan

As I said in my introduction to you, welcome to the forum, I look forward to your knowledgeable input, and you have contributed on this tread, the area of your expertise.
It's been good to reading your views on an interesting subject.

That's what the forum is for I believe, debating, where everyone will have their own view, and most importantly be in possession of facts that others do not know about, sharing information and coming to a amicable conclusion.

Sorry John, I put your name on a post meant for Timespan. I have amended it now.

Hello John. Yes, James is my birth name.