Cpl. Christian Ferdinand Schiess

Does anyone know what happen to Cpl. Christian Ferdinand Schiess directly after Rorkes Drift? I have been looking for a photo of him which as drawn a blank. There are photos of most, if not all of the defenders who received a VC, but nothing of Schiess. I can’t believe he just disappeared and not heard of again until The Royal Navy found him, and offered him a passage to England, and died on board The Serphis.
Is there any information on his movement after Rorkes Drift? I’m Especially looking for a photo.

sas1

Hi sas1
Cpl. Christian Ferdinand Schiess of the Natal Native Contingent. Received his VC from Sir Garnet Wolseley in Pietermaritzburg on 3 February 1880. So there might be a photo of him receiving his VC somewhere on the net. I will keep looking for more information.

sas1. To be honest I don’t think a picture of Schiess exists.

Hi sas1

As far as I know there is no known photograph of Schiess. Some say this is Schiess, but it cannot be proven!!!!

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

But then again it might. !!!

I have read various accounts on how Schiess injured his foot. From ill fitting boots to gunshot. Does anyone know exactly how his foot was injured?

In January 1879, at the start of the bloody Anglo-Zulu war, Schiess was carried to the field hospital at the army supply depot at Rorke's Drift with a bad foot infection caused by marching across the veldt wearing ill-fitting army boots.

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

With reference to his foot injury. Schiess was assigned to Hamilton-Browne and was involved in the skirmish at Sihayo's kraal.

By Morris
"There was a short, sharp melee among the boulders, and then Sihayo's retainers broke, leaving twenty dead behind. Corporal Schiess in the thick of the fight had been struck by a lunging assegai which ripped his boot open and slashed his calf".

Also someone might be able to confirm if his name is "Friedrich" or "Ferdnand". I’m not sure on that one.

I think Morris was taking a guess at what happen. There is no documented evidence to show how Schiess injured his foot. But you may all ready know this, by the various versions. I think it was Mike Snook who started the rumour about the ill-fitting boots.

Hi all

This is Schiess

Apparently it was found in the NAM


Cheers
DB14

Hi DB14

This is my option only.

I am not convinced at the moment that this is Schiess, just because it was found at the NAM.
I would need more evidence and better sources than what is stated at the moment.

Hi All,
The story around Schiess is incredably sad, in that he attempted to get government imployment in Natal post the batttle but was repeatedly declined because he was a foreign national. He ultimately died in absolute penury.
I have copies of letters written by him seeking employment, all of which came to nought. Another case of Victorian gratitude. To my memory, in desperation, he travelled to England where he hoped to get employment but died on the way.
He was at Rorks Drift in the hospital because of a previous injury, but whilst there joined Lugg and others in the battle at the parapets and received another bullet wound to his instep.


barry

Just to add a little twist to the tale.....

An entry in the personal diary of Capt. W Penn Symons 24th Regt., notes that he met Schiess in Allahabad India in 1891. Schiess was apparently working in a jewellery shop and was, according to the diary, planning on going to Australia. He had "sent his VC on ahead"........

In 1899 there appeared a request for information about what became of Schiess in the Natal Witness. An unidentified 'correspondant" replied stating that he could remember reading in the Witness years ago that Schiess of Rorke's Drift fame had died in India destitute...

...a second correspondant also replied stating that he had photographs of Schiess...........

The image is not that of Corporal C. F. Schiess V.C., at all, it first appeared the late David Harvey's book Monuments to Courage: Victoria Cross Monuments and Headstones, it is a sketch of a wrongly identified photograph which appeared in Canon William Lummis' Padre George Smith of Rorke's Drift.

Prior to his death David agreed with my conclusions and I believe the sketch was removed from subsequent editions of his book.

kwaJimu1879

Hi Kwajimu

Quote :

Prior to his death David agreed with my conclusions

May I ask a question?

Are you willing to share your conclusions with us. I would be very much interested.

Graves1879,

Only too happy to explain.

On pages 50 - 51 of Canon Lummis' book there is a photograph which Lummis states is that of 'British troops at Rorke's Drift. This photograph was taken the day before the battle and shows sandbags being erected on the rampart...' Lummis then lists a number of well-known Rorke's Drift defenders: Bromhead; Reynolds; Dunne; Bourne & Lugg. At the rear of the group is a soldier wearing a Foreign-Service helmet, it is that soldier on which the so-called Schiess sketch is based.

If you've got the Lummis' book take a look and compare the image with the sketch that's posted above. The problem is the men who Lummis states are Bromhead & Bourne have white facings on their collars, it would be 1881 before that would happen when the 24th became the South Wales Borderers, so I concluded something was amiss with Lummis's conclusions meaning it could not be 21st January 1879 at all.

When I had the opportunity I asked David Harvey on what had he based the sketch of Schiess that appeared in his book? He stated it was based on information he'd got from Lummis that Schiess was in the same photograph, and that Lummis had identified the soldier in the helmet as being Schiess. I latter discovered that the group photograph was indeed taken at Rorke's Drift, but it was taken in between June & November of 1884 and was actually of a group of officers including those from the 2nd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment. The officer whom Lummis had stated to David Harvey as being Schiess was actually a V.C. winner Lieutenant Alan Richard Hill, who was awarded his V.C. for his actions at Laing's Nek, 28th January 1881. If you look at Hill's photograph on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] you can see how alike it is to the sketch shown above.

kwaJimu1879

Hi Kwajimu1879

Many thanks for the explanation.

On your suggestion, I have viewed other photographs of Alan Richard Hill and I do have to agree with you. The sketch is very similar to the photos of A.R. Hill.

I have always thought that the sketch was not Schiess and I need more proof that it was. It is great to know the story behind the sketch.

Many thanks for sharing the information.

Really not a problem I have deleted this post.   

Mate it's you who should study the Zulu war. I haven't seen anything from you that makes sense. It's a load of nonsense! You talk in riddles? To hind your lack of knowledge!

Yes good night, take a look at the link i posted, and consider posting
some thing on the anglo Zulu war? your be better off on facebook or
twitter the later being the best place for you! me old troll. thank you dave, that's me told!

just the one point, next time please ask permission before you post my
stuff!   

xhosa2000 wrote:

Mate it's you who should study the Zulu war. I haven't seen anything from you that makes sense. It's a load of nonsense! You talk in riddles? To hind your lack of knowledge!

Yes good night, take a look at the link i posted, and consider posting
some thing on the anglo Zulu war? your be better off on facebook or
twitter the later being the best place for you! me old troll. thank you dave, that's me told!

just the one point, next time please ask permission before you post my
stuff!   

Really not a problem I have deleted the offending post.   

PS read the fair use notice, home page lefthand side.   

thank you, that's fine   i'm sure the irony
was apparent to you!   

Hi all,
Cpl Schiess, VC, was injured twice in the battle of Rorke's Drift, and the run up to it.
In the skirmish some days before at Sirayo's Kraal, in which he was a participant, he suffered assegai wounds in the lower leg. He was booked in to the hospital at Rd for treatment of those. However when the RD battle started he took his place on the parapets shooting and bayonetting the enemy with a great amount of diligence. However, whilst so engaged on the RD parapets he took a bullet in his instep. This did nor dampen his ardour however, it only firmed his resolve.

regards,

barry

Barry,

I sorry say it is a perpetuated myth that Corporal C. F. Schiess V.C. was wounded at Sihayo's stronghold on 12th January 1879, there is no contemporary evidence to even suggest that he was present at the engagement.

John Y.

Corporal Meyer ( Natal Native Contingent ),
who had been wounded under the knee with
an Assegai at Sihayo's Kraal..   

In January 1879, at the start of the bloody Anglo-Zulu war, Schiess was carried to the field hospital at the army supply depot at Rorke's Drift with a bad foot infection caused by marching across the veldt wearing ill-fitting army boots.

Hi John,
I was most interested in your comment about Scheiss not being at Sirayo's kraal on 12/01/1879.
Please clarify, do you mean to say that was Schiess absent from the NNC that day, or, was the NNC not present at Sirayo's kraal either.?

regards

barry

Barry,

The assault on Sihayo's stronghold was primarily a Natal Native Contingent operation to prove their worth.  The 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment, Natal Native Contingent, under the temporary command of Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Wilsone Black, 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment were the main assault force.

1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment, N.N.C. were composed of approx. eight hundered and fifty all ranks on 12th January 1879, so as you can see the N.N.C. were well represented at the skirmish.  However, Corporal C. F. Schiess was not present, as his unit was not involved in the action.  Schiess served in 2nd Battalion, 3rd Regiment, N.N.C. under Commandant E. R. (or in some accounts A. W.) Cooper.  It was lucky that Schiess was given a pair of boots which caused an infection as 2nd Battalion, 3rd Regiment, N.N.C.'s European officers and non-commissioned officers were decimated at iSandlwana.

The myth of Schiess being wounded came, I believe, from the pen of Donald Morris in The Washing of the Spears, one man writes it, others follow it and the perpetuated myth becomes accepted as fact.

Regards,

John Y.

"The myth of Schiess being wounded came, I believe, from the pen of Donald Morris in The Washing of the Spears, one man writes it, others follow it and the perpetuated myth becomes accepted as fact."

Too true.

I have said before that I would not take anything in 'The washing of the spears' as true. I certainly wouldn't use it as a source.

The amount of errors and 'made-up' dialogue is out of this world. This is not me being disrespectful. I am merely stating it as it is. For example you can turn to almost any page of the Rorke's Drift battle and find numerous errors and inaccuracies abound.

I realise it was much harder to research and piece things together 'back then' and this isn't meant as an attack on Morris. It's just to say that the book is now an unreliable basis to form an opinion or use as a source.


Neil

Nice one John Y, ie; 'one man writes it, others follow it and the perpetuated myth becomes accepted as fact'. This could also be said of the 1964 Baker film, I wonder just how many folk have been conned into believing that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was welsh and called the swb?

Sorry Neil, but i have to strongly disagree here!
Hands up all who got interested in the AZW after
watching the fictional movie Zulu?..and hands up
how many read TWOTS for the first time after
watching Zulu?..and then tell me ( honestly ) how
many of you were aware of David Jackson..say
for at least 10 years after either? i know of Morris's
limitations, but only after extensive and meticulous
research was carried out in the years following
Jackson's Sources re-examined..

Finally would anybody care to list Morris's ' mistakes '
just so we all know!.and then we can subtract them 
from TWOTS and see what we are left with! i suspect
we would still be left with the most monumental work
on the AZW ever undertaken!..with only one..or possibly
two modern author's rivaling it!

Hi Les,

TWOTS and 'Zulu', the 'fictional' film created much interest and that is without doubt a good thing.

Of course, it would be unwise to use the movie as a source of what really happened. I am merely pointing out that I approach TWOTS with the same caution.

I'll dig the book out and have a look at some 'mistakes'.


Neil

Cheers Neil, understood..i'm stepping back
now. to let others go, look forward to your
conclusions.. cheers Les.

Yes, the film and twots got many people interested in the AZW, however, how many of those people STILL believe the 'mistakes'? And don't forget that many of these 'mistakes' were very deliberately made in the Baker film to falsely convey to the public that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was welsh, and look at the number of gullible folk that still believe in that big hoax, and it is still being perpetrated by some even today.

Yes, OK, Morris took a while with his work, however, just how much of it was properly and fully researched, and how much of it was copied from other sources that have since been proved to be wrong, and how much of it was simply 'guessed at' or 'assumed'?

Neil is correct in that it would be unwise to use either of these as being 'sources' of what really happened, and no matter how many folk see them as being 'classic works', they simply cannot be relied upon to provide the facts or the truth, especially the Baker hoax.

The test on this is really easy.

Think about the FIRST time you saw the film. For my generation it was in a huge cinema and at home your TV  was 12 inches across and black and white. You probably didn't know how it ended - think of the impact it had on you as it unfolded, the colour, the music, the suspense. Now tell me it wasn't accurate -  do I care?  Not a jot! It wasn't a documentary it was an experience that had to be repeated.

And think about the FIRST time you read the book - couldn't put it down - finished it in no time and started it again. I can think of no book on the subject that has had the same effect. Out of date? - of course. Essential reading - absolutely.

Steve

"The test on this is really easy"

OK, the FIRST time I watched the film at the cinema it did make a change being in colour and on the big screen. The music was great (probably the best part of the film), and was written by John Barry Prendergast, and although some of the action was good, there was something about it that just did not add up. I was very confused as to why there was all this overdone 'welshness' being churned out to the public when my old grandad had told me that we had a relative who fought in the battle and that he was in the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, yet the film kept banging out all this welshness and even said that the regiment was a welsh regiment with a few foreigners from England, could my old grandad have been wrong? could our relative actually have been one of those few English foreigners in a welsh regiment? and might it not have been the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that fought at RD? was it really a welsh regiment called the swb? I knew my old grandad was getting on and that he had suffered in the mud and the blood of the trenches during WW1, but he had always had a good memory, could he possibly be losing it in his final years? I thought it was time for me to make some enquiries and do some research about this, and found that my old grandad was not losing his marbles and that he was indeed correct about the regiment being the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and that it was the film that was wrong, it wasn't welsh and it was not called the swb and there were many, many more Englishmen than there were welshmen, and it was the welshmen that were the few foreigners not the English. So now I wondered how, and more importantly, why these film makers could make such a big mistake and churn out a film that made so many mistakes and conveyed to the general public that it was almost an all welsh affair when it wasn't. And as a result, the myth about the welshmen from the valleys singing MoH and the 24th being a welsh regiment called the swb was born and has been allowed to fester and grow ever since, and therefor robbing the real men and the real regiment of their hard fought honour and glory and their rightful place in military history. This film credited the welsh and a regiment that did not exist at the time, and in my book that is stealing a regiments identity its honour and its glory, and those responsible, as well as those which still carry on this charade, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Further research has shown that all this was mainly due to welshman Baker and the anti English chip he had on his shoulders, but ironically the anti English welshman Baker played the part of an Englishman, what a turncoat.

Why should the book by Morris be essential reading  

Why would anyone want to read something that is now being classed as 'take it with a pinch of salt'. Why do people often quote from it and use it in some debates as being source material when it has been shown to contain lots of mistakes and inaccuracies and is totally unreliable for this source material, people might well be better off reading Winnie the Pooh and playing Pooh sticks on the bridge with piglet.  

Martin

I didn't expect to convince you my friend. And now I've got your old grandad to contend with as well, I surrender.
Damn good film though and damn good book (even with a pinch of salt).

Regards

Steve

Hi Steve.

You have nothing to fear from my old grandad my friend, the brave old warrior with the heart of a Lion has not been with us for many years (well, at least not in body). But he will never be forgotten

If you have the film and book and intend to either watch or read, then I would suggest that you have the salt cellar close at hand.

Best regards mate.

Introduction from..There will be an awful row..

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

From HRH..

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

Even by today's standards..a bibliography to die for!
unparalleled and unimpeachable private sources.. i
could go on, this should not and must not be dismissed
so casually! a leading modern author told me recently 
that morris did not repudiate his critic's..simply because
he did not wish to! he let it stand warts and all..not a 
bad effort says i..

Hi Les,

It is certainly a comprehensive bibliography but I would hasten to call it unimpeachable.

From his bibliography I can see several primary sources listed that I know confirm certain aspects, but TWOTS goes on to describe the same scenario in a completely different light.

Henry Hook, who we know from numerous sources, including his own accounts, received an assegai wound to the scalp in the hospital. Here is Hook's account of the wound occurring (taken from the The Strand Magazine, 1891, who interviewed him)

"They threw assegais continually, but only one touched me, and that inflicted a scalp wound"

Here is a further account from Hook, taken from the Royal Magazine - " Their assegais kept whizzing towards us, and one struck me in front of the helmet. We were wearing the white tropical helmets then. But the helmet tilted back under the blow and made the spear lose its power, so that 1 escaped with a scalp wound which did not trouble me much then"

Here is Morris' version of the event - "...a bullet struck the regimental badge on Hook's helmet, sending the headgear spinning and tearing his scalp. For a moment he was dazed, and then he recovered and began to return the fire."

We also know from numerous sources that Hook was responsible for dragging Connolly through and 'breaking his leg'. He states this in his accounts.

From one of Hook's accounts -  "All this time, Williams was getting the sick through the hole into the next room, all except one, a soldier of the 24th named Connolly, who could not move because of a broken leg. Watching for my chance I dashed from the doorway, and grabbing Connolly I pulled him after me through the hole. His leg got broken again, but there was no help for it."

Here is Morris' description of the event - "Williams started to pass the patients through, pushing them into the opening while Waters pulled them the rest of the way...Williams placed Connolly beside the hole, scrambled through, and reached back to pull Connolly after him. He was a heavy man and would not fit, and he screamed in pain as his barely knit thigh bone snapped again. Williams finally managed to work him through...The Zulus were pressing in on Hook...He turned and raced for the exit, diving through head first as Williams finally pulled Connolly free."


Incidentally, every book on the battle, including Williams' biography do not describe the events anything like Morris does.

Morris says that Hook tried to save the native patient who was in his room but the patient refused to be moved by Hook, stating that "the attacking Zulus were his friends"... As we know, Hook in his own accounts says that the native was shouting for Hook to help him but Hook said regrettably there was no time and he had to leave him behind.

Morris' description of the hospital action is mixed up to say the least. As we can see, pretty much everything he writes about Hook is wrong.


He confuses Chard with Bromhead when he states that Chard 'led a charge'  to recover the watercart. The fact that it was Bromhead is backed up with Primary source material. Morris makes numerous errors like this. These are just a few snippets.

Morris describes that it was getting dark before the hospital was evacuated. Infact, he says this before the walls were knocked through so it was getting dark quite some time before the actual evacuation. He describes Hitch's participation in the evacuation and later in the battle he then states that Surgeon Reynolds operated on Hitch and removed 38 pieces of bone before stitching up his wound. He adds that Reynolds carried out this operation whilst it "was still light."

This is impossible and Morris contradicts himself here because he had already stated it was getting dark at an earlier stage of the battle, long before Reynold's apparently operated on Hitch in daylight.


This post has been hastily put together by simply opening the book and picking out a few errors and contradictions. I'm happy to devote more time to this if anyone would be interested or would want to chip in. I am willing to go through the R.D section of TWOTS and check everything against the sources. And it would be put together much better than this rushed post! I can do it page by page so it can be easily followed and members can have input etc.

It would be a new thread instead of jumping on this one.


Neil

Neil you get no argument from me! that was well presented..
you are, as i suspected from your earlier posts one of those
strange breed of men that go under the term ' Researcher '
your analytic style i have noted on many many previous
occasions.. it is fortunate that we have a couple on here who 
are without doubt the best in their field, although they themselves
would shudder at that description, which of course does not
make it any less the case..

I take your point at my use of the word..unimpeachable! i am
talking about the sheer volume of work undertaken to present
a work of this magnitude.and remembering how he would have
gathered all the material he needed, at a time when communication
was difficult to say the very least and i mean really difficult! way
beyond the means of the average man.. of course he also had
a full time job, and no ordinary job at that..look again at the sources
and the bib, and maybe one could think, how did he find the time
to even do this..and then realize that here was a man in total thrall
of his chosen subject! the sheer volume and scope of this work in
my opinion demonstrates a deep commitment to presenting to his
peers the most comprehensive work ever undertaken in one volume,
the saga of eastern South Africa from the early years of the nine-
teenth century.its all there, all the main players center stage.. the
indigenous peoples, the early settler's, the missionary's,then the
politicians, military, but always the politicians! think of what went
before this work and then think what came after to the present day!

Yes of course Morris made mistakes!..they are being revised and 
rectified, but does that mean that the trend to ' demonize ' him should
go unchecked? do people really think that TWOTS is of no relevance
today and should be ignored as riddled with errors and therefor of no
consequence?. i think not! i see it as a pioneering epic! and again i
say i can think of only one modern work to rival it! these are of course
only my own opinions, but they say these feeble electronic scratching's
might go on through the ether for who knows how long! and in that case
i am pleased to stand by Morris and his intentions to bring the story of
those times to a wider audience....

To answer your query, a line by line dissection of the RD chapter would
be utterly fascinating, but please think of poor Donald's true intention!.
   thanks for your interesting response..                            Les

As an aside, last night i reread Prebble's article
Slaughter in the Sun..published in Lilliput Magazine
and reproduced in full in Sheldon's Magnificent
work..point being, if left as it was to the final
script, it would have been a quite different film to
the one we all know so well..