N.C.O killed by friendly fire at rorkes drift

There are reports of a NCO who was shot by friendlys as he was fleeing Rorkes Drift before the battle.
Does anyone know who this officer was?

Here yer go,

https://www.1879zuluwar.com/t3866-zulu-war-friendly-fire-incidents-recorded-unrecorded-unknown-but-possible?highlight=Friendly+fire

Sweet thanks
i looked but i am no where near well enough accustomed to this site to find what i need!!
But i was unable to find anything relating to the officer shot 'purposely' while deserting Rorkes Drift in your link..


Sean

Hi SeanG.
The name you want is Corporal Anderson from memory , I'm not home so I cant check for you . Type Corp Anderson in the search box and you'll find what you need . From memory he was shot in the back while fleeing I think with the Black Levies before the zulu's arrived .
Cheers 90th.

Thanks 90th

thats the Man i was looking for, does anyone know why he deserted with his troops?
He was a white officer surely he wouldve preferred to have stayed with the other whites at Rorkes Drift? Even though he knew of the incoming Zulu horde..


Sean

Hi Sean .
Just to clarify Anderson wasnt an officer , he was a Corporal ( NCO - Non Comissioned Officer ) . Did you put his name in the search box ? . We have discussed Anderson a while back . From memory there was a bit of info on him .
Cheers 90th.

The thread is entitled deserter shot, link below.

https://www.1879zuluwar.com/t1345-deserter-shot?highlight=shot

Not to be confused with Henderson's Horse who scarpered as well

Hi Tasker .
It was Capt Stevenson who bolted fom RD with his 50 African levies before the Zulu had arrived . I'm certain Stevenson was dismissed from service not long after . Henderson arrived with Jacob Molife and their black troops , Chard asked Henderson to
'' Observe the movements and check the advance , of the enemy as much as possible until forced to fall back ''(31). Henderson agreed , and Molife and his men rode around the Sthn Flank of Shiyane and took up a position just out of sight of the garrison.
They had not been gone long , however , when there was a splatter of shots and they came into sight again , rising fast for Helpmekaar . Henderson and Bob Hall rode past the front of the post and Hall called out , '' Here they come - as black as hell and as thick as grass (32). He and Henderson lingered for a while beyond the Orchard , firing a few shots at targets still out of sight to the garrison , before they turned and rode after their men (33). Even Chard found it hard to blame them - they were almost out of ammunition and after their experience that morning they had no stomach for a further fight . He saw the same men perform well later in the war , but when he asked them about that day they merely replied ' That Durnford was killed , and that it was no use (34)

F/note 31 . Chard , Letter to Q.Victoria , 21 / 2 / 1880 , quoted in Holme , The Noble 24th .
F/ note 32. Lugg , North Devon Times .
F/note 33. Letter from Bob Hall , C 1906, Campbell Collections , University of KwaZulu - Natal, Durban.
This from Zulu Rising by Ian Knight .
Cheers 90th.

90th

Hahah my Bad! i always thought it was 'Native Contingent Officer..'
still learning.


Sean

Thanks 90th

Corp William Anderson may have deserted after his fleeing NNC or he may not. Revd Smith said in a letter to Anderson's parents that he was killed whilst trying to call them back - the first man of the garrison shot by one of those Zulu snipers on the hill literally just placed there. He also said that he was shot in the head. This may have been Smith being kind to Anderson's parents or he may have described what happened. The few British soldiers who described the event said the NNC fled, shots rang out, and perhaps assumed that Anderson had been killed deserting. We shall never know. One significant fact is that Anderson's name is one the war memorial at RD as a defender kia. Somehow I don't think that would have happened if there'd been any disgrace attached to him - or perhaps I just like to think the best of people.

I think what this Sgt has to say about Anderson is more nearer the truth. Originally posted by Littlehand in another thread.


http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=CHP18970513.2.4

Old historian2
The trouble is that there was no sergeant-major of the NNC at Rorke's Drift who had command of Chard's party. I'm afraid that this is an anonymous fake account with information gleaned from the accounts appearing in the Strand Magazine. Some of his other remarks do not bear scrutiny either. Australia seems to have had a real clutch of them at the turn of the old century.
So, "near the truth" I'm afraid he is not.

Julian. Here's the original post. Some eye opening opinions. My though is he may have been a Sgt Major when he told his story. Or the News reported got his rank wrong when writing.

https://www.1879zuluwar.com/t5868-any-idea-who-this-soldier-is-he-was-a-sgt-major-at-rd

Old historian
Thanks, I have seen the postings, but I'm not convinced I'm afraid. Too many discrepancies. Anderson, Doughty, Scammell and Schiess were all patients in the hospital. They wouldn't have been doing any duty down at the ponts. And we know Millne and Daniels were in charge at the ponts with a party of 24th men all under Chard. There was no sergeant-major.

Appricate your comment..

Julian Whybra wrote:

Corp William Anderson may have deserted after his fleeing NNC or he may not. Revd Smith said in a letter to Anderson's parents that he was killed whilst trying to call them back - the first man of the garrison shot by one of those Zulu snipers on the hill literally just placed there. He also said that he was shot in the head. This may have been Smith being kind to Anderson's parents or he may have described what happened. The few British soldiers who described the event said the NNC fled, shots rang out, and perhaps assumed that Anderson had been killed deserting. We shall never know. One significant fact is that Anderson's name is one the war memorial at RD as a defender kia. Somehow I don't think that would have happened if there'd been any disgrace attached to him - or perhaps I just like to think the best of people.

I am sure it was felt to be in the best interest of ALL at the time, by those on all sides, to assume that Anderson had been shot by the enemy.

We will never know for sure, but it is most likely imo, that he was shot by one of the camp defenders.
(Closer range, more accurate weapons, skilled, experienced marksmen with a grudge)!

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
Napoleon

Personally I think the gent who wrote the artical, knew a bit to much not to have been there.

Or conversely, knew a bit too much to have been there.
There comes a point when despite the excitement of finding a new source which might provide new material for RD research, one has to look realistically at the content to see if it can be verified. I know of at least six fake defenders of RD all in Australia 1890-1930, almost all of whom were willing to put their names to their accounts, and here we have an anonymous one (who may well be one of the six writing anonymously), There are several basic statements of fact in the narrative that are just plain untrue. There's a lot of detail that could easily have been gleaned from Norris-Newman's book or the numerous Bromhead memorial articles which give the appearance of authenticity. Then there a few things that are at the moment unverifiable but could be followed up, like Anderson having been a circus performer. On balance, judgements come down to 'if it isn't a definite yes, then it's a no' and that's my feeling in this case.
That said, it's possible that the writer may have been in South Africa and even in HM forces in 1879 and may have known some of the personalities involved (incl Anderson). This would him an edge in his narrative's sounding genuine. Someone would need to go through the entire narrative with a fine-tooth comb and research all its detail to weigh up the likelihood of its being genuine. I don't have the time to do that at the moment; but I'd like to and I'll save it for a rainy day. There's nothing to stop anyone else having a go but the research needs to be rigorous and without any preconceived notions as to the outcome for it to be acceptable.

Hi Julian.
I've thought for a while now that there seems to be many accounts originating from Australia about certain individuals and their tales of their doings in the AZW. Obviously because of the distances involved , and with communications the way they were back then ,
these individuals , could basically say anything about their previous lives , with virtually complete immunity from being caught out or prosecuted in any way . I wonder if it was as commonplace in the USA or Canada ?. Methinks .....Probably yes !.
Cheers 90th. :lol:

90th
These are my thoughts exactly.
The ones I know of seem to have kept up the pretence all their lives. One in Brisbane attended ex-servicemen's meetings regularly on the strength of it, had pride of place at the town's Armistice Day celebrations at the end of WWI, wrote to the papers or was interviewed by them three of four times, and had a glowing obituary from about 1900 to 1935.
Another was a prominent member of Perth W.A. society on the strength of it for over 20 years. A third has descendants that still proudly believe that their great-grandfather had escaped Isandhlwana despite the fact that there wasn't a Royal Marine Artilleryman anywhere near northern Natal, all on the strength of his say-so.
I don't know of any US or Canadian claimants (but then I've never looked for any) - perhaps it was easier for Natalians to take ship to Australia than to North America?
On that subject, one thing that did interest me was the man's mention of 'Yankee Dan'. Does this imply that Daniels was an American? Now that's something that Hollywood filmmakers failed to pick up on - who would have had that role I wonder? Harrison Ford saving the day at Rorke's Drift perhaps? It's the sort of snippet that, if true, might show, that your anonymous writer had been in SA in 1879 and knew of Daniels. I've never heard the term 'Yankee Dan' used of him before but it's something that might be chased by forum members (in RSA especially) and is precisely the sort of detail I mentioned in the previous post that would help back up or destroy authenticity.
I hope you enjoy my book, 90th. Take your time with it, I take no prisoners! I am away all next week lecturing on the Indian Mutiny (for a change) but will happily answer any questions arising the week after. For the moment, my mind's on Cawnpore! As a by the by, can anyone tell me for certain whether Sullivan (one of the 4 who survived) was in the Madras Fusiliers or the Bombay Artillery (different contemporary works say different things and I don't have time to dig out those dreaded primary sources).

I think, is fair to say, that a lot of the colonial troops, never gave accounts until yeas after. Perhaps because they were never asked. This chap does seem to know quite a bit about RD down to naming other Coloinal defenders. The fact he says Anderson was shot in the head confirms what others have said. Perhaps this chap was was just stretching the truth with regards to he rank. Was the chap he was referring to as Yankee Dandy nicked name that, can we find that out in some way. For me the detail in his artical is just too detailed for him not to have been there. I think more research should be done before his account is dismissed.

I would imagine the guy used a nick name in order to remain anonymous; what he is saying goes against the official version of events.

Julian Whybra wrote:

There comes a point when despite the excitement of finding a new source which might provide new material for RD research, one has to look realistically at the content to see if it can be verified. .

Quite right. Some primary sources are more/less reliable than others.

How does it.

Primary sources are not the be all and end all.
Remember, West Yokshire Police oficers' accounts of what happened at Hillsborough on the 15th April 1989 are primary accounts. Misleading primary accounts.
Primary sources need to be evaluated for authenticity, hidden agendas and anything that casts doubt on their reliability. That is the job of the modern day historian - but even some of these have their own agenda, so beware!

Impi
Knowing quite a bit about RD down to naming other Colonial defenders does not in itself provide authenticity. As I wrote, all his information could have come from Norris-Newman.
The fact he says Anderson was shot in the head confirms what just Smith, not 'others', said. The fact that he says he was in charge of the road/pont party, includes personnel in it that would be lying in a hospital bed, has Chelmsford pursued up to the Bashee, among other things, does not conform to the known version of events.
As you say, he may have also have been just stretching the truth with regards to his rank, but he may also be stretching the truth as to his familiarity with Durnford, his being in charge of the road party, so just how far does one have to stretch truth before it becomes a lie?
As I wrote I have never heard Daniels referred to anywhere else as Yankee Dan (not Dandy). If Daniels turned out to be American, that would count significantly towards the writer's having known Daniels and having been in S. Africa at the time. Perhaps someone can investigate that (I can't at the moment; I'm too busy). But you're right, it should be followed up.
I'm afraid authenticity and veracity do not just rest on the 'amount' of detail present (think of Hitler's diaries, young's account of his escape from Isandhlwana, or indeed the fake Cavaye order - plenty of detail there, but all fakes). What will determine its authenticity is whether the detail is accurate and verifiable (and in particular those snippets which appear nowhere else, like an American Daniels and Anderson the trapeze artist).
No-one is dismissing this account, least of all me, but as you say, the research has to be done into it before we can start to see quotations from it in the history books.

tasker
I agree.

impi
As explained above. Read his 'details' again.

tasker
I agree again!

I have managed to discover that William Anderson WAS indeed a circus performer. The writer evidently DID know him. Has anyone found whether Daniels was American?

Tasker
Can I correct a previous post where I said that Smith stated that Anderson was shot by a Zulu sniper from the Oscarsberg?
He wasn't. He said he was shot by a sniper from the garden. Smith also stated it twice. Once in his account, a second time in a letter.

Julian, the garden was much closer to the defenders I assume - never visited the site.
Makes it even more plausible that the shot may have come from the vicinity of the RD defenders.

Yes, closer but extending a fair distance away from the post too. It would tie in better with someone being shot as they went off down the Helpmekaar road.