Lieutenant Adendorff 1-3 N.N.C.

The newspaper article is genuine. The text is slightly different to Sherman's version - a few word changes here and there but nothing which alters the basic sense of the message or has any bearing on the narrative.
It is most definitely anonymous.
There is nothing to indicate that the writer can be Adendorff. The statements of fact given still do not fit into the timing of Adendorff's known movements in the battle.
Adendorff's other letters from later life are all written in flowery slightly archaic Dutch except one. That has been translated into English (and signed by the translator as a pp) for him.
I do think the letter is genuine however and not a faked account along the lines of Lieut. Young's.
I'm doing more research into this so you'll hear more, I hope.

I was wondering where you had got to Julian. Can see you have been busy. Thanks for the up-date. Should prove to be a well worth project. Looking forward to the next up-date. Glad we have you on board.

Quote :

Glad we have you on board.

Well said OldH. Certainly looking forward to the outcome.

Must admit didn't fully understand th Adendroff mystery. Came across this which explains it.

"A mystery has shrouded the actual activities of Adendorff since 1879 with conflicting and confusing accounts as to his whereabouts on the 22-23 January. The controversy has lasted for well over a century and it is likely that we will never truly know whether he was a deserter or hero. Adendorff was attached to Captain Krohn’s No 6 Company of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment; NNC commanded by Commandant Lonsdale and was present at the Battle of Isandlwana. It was claimed that he deserted from both Isandlwana while on vedette duty before the main battle was underway, and later at Rorke’s Drift during the preparation of the defences by quietly slipping away. However, a totally conflicting view actually places Adendorff at Rorke’s Drift during the entire defence and if so, this would make the lieutenant the only soldier to have fought at both battles on the 22 January. This feat alone would have given him great distinction and honour.

It has been suggested that Adendorff was among the officers headed by Avery and Holcroft who simply left their post during the evening of 21 January when Lonsdale made his way to join Dartnell after the detection of a Zulu impi. At Isandlwana, the next morning he was sent out on vedette duty and is confirmed as having brought a report from the piquet on the iNyoni escarpment regarding Zulu movements on the plateau. Lt Higginson was sent to confirm the oral report as the details were somewhat confusing possibly due to Adendorff’s poor command of English, being of German descent. After he was sent back to his unit, Krohn’s company played no significant role in the battle at Isandlwana as it was held back from the actual fight. Before the Zulus could rush into the camp once the British line collapsed, Krohn’s native troops broke and fled, obviously attempting to leave the battlefield early before any avenue of escape was closed by the Zulu encirclement of the camp. It is assumed by some writers that Adendorff made his way to Fugitives’ Drift several miles from Rorke’s Drift and crossed the Buffalo River at this point. However, an account written in 1939 by another survivor, Captain Stafford of E Company, 1st Battalion 1st NNC, states that his group of three including Adendorff and an unnamed soldier who can be assumed to be Lt Vane, made their way up to Rorke’s Drift by hugging the Buffalo river and crossed by ferry. To add further confusion, upon encountering Lieutenant Chard at Rorke’s Drift after crossing the Buffalo River, Adendorff stated that he had escaped by making his way along the Rorke’s Drift road which in effect was not possible as the Zulus had completely blocked it before the attack on the camp at Isandlwana took place.

The real mystery begins with confirming Adendorff’s participation in the defence of Rorke’s Drift. As he left Chard to give Bromhead the news of the British defeat, Adendorff called back to the officer that he would remain at the mission and fight. Despite this, it is believed by many that he quietly slipped away unnoticed. His motive for doing so may lie in the fact that as a survivor of the earlier engagement, he felt no real compulsion to participate in another fight against the same enemy. Even so, Chard believed that Adendorff actually remained at Rorke’s Drift throughout the entire defence. and this was affirmed by the two official reports that he wrote after the battle. Although Chard was not certain of Adendorff’s role, he presumed his position had been in the defence of the hospital. It is believed that the solution of the misidentification is in Chard’s own report and nominal roll of the survivors; both of which were presented to Queen Victoria. He described certain actions during the battle in his report involving Adendorff by writing:
As far as I know, but one of the fugitives remained with us- Lieut Adendorff, whom I have before mentioned. He remained to assist in the defence, and from a loophole in the store building, flanking the wall and Hospital, his rifle did good service.

In a case of straightforward mistaken identity, Adendorff was erroneously taken for another man whose actions and conduct were well known by many present at the mission. One of the five soldiers who received the Distinguished Conduct Medal at Rorke’s Drift for bravery was Corporal Francis Attwood of the Army Service Corps who received his award at Pietermaritzburg on 15 November 1879. Soon after Isandlwana, news circulated in Natal of Adendorff’s arrest at Pietermaritzburg along with that of Vane for desertion and although both officers were to face a Board of Enquiry no such trial took place. Perhaps this was on account of Chard’s reports that would have been submitted as evidence of Adendorff’s participation in the defence at Rorke’s Drift throughout the action and the possibility of Chard’s own retraction in court. In any case his reports had already been submitted to his superiors.

Conversely, there are a growing number of historians that clearly believe Adendorff did stay at Rorke’s Drift and fight until relieved by Chelmsford’s relief force on the morning of 23 January. It is plausible to assume that both Attwood and Adendorff did defend the building together and that Chard was correct in his report without becoming confused with identities. It is thought that because Adendorff was an unfamiliar figure among the soldiers and at Rorkes Drift, he largely went unnoticed during the heat of the action. Furthermore, since he had arrived at the last moment during a time of confusion and activity, it would have been easy to be obscure especially to the officers. In addition, being stationed in the storehouse would add credence to his isolation and the lack of notice by those fighting outside the building. Stafford’s 1939 account in which details of their escape from Isandlwana was described related some details that Adendorff had recounted to him during a meeting.

He wrote:
I met Odendorff in 1883 and he told me that Rorke’s Drift was saved through two Godsends. The first was that the Zulus retired in the middle of the night, apparently to hold a little consultation and that gave the garrison time to strengthen the weak parts of the little fort, and the Martini Henry carbines time to cool off. The other was the Zulus setting fire to the thatch building which gave a bright light round the little fort and when the Zulus came volley after volley was poured into them. He also told me that Rev. W. Smith was a great help. You will always find that in a tight corner there is a hard case and that there was one at Rorke’s Drift. This man was cussing all the time. The Rev. Smith went up to him and said “Please, my good man stop that cussing. We may shortly have to answer for our sins”. The reply he got was “All right Mister, you do the praying and I will send the black B’s to Hell as fast as I can”.


In addition to Stafford’s account, a member of Chelmsford’s force, Trooper Fred Symons of the Natal Carbineers confirms the presence of Adendorff at Rorke’s Drift on the morning of the 23rd. Lieutenant Charles Harford’s almanac also records that Adendorff was in fact present. In weighing the evidence, a case for both sides of the argument can be made. Adendorff has evoked much attention amongst writers beginning with Donald Morris in his book The Washing of the Spears in which the author contends that Adendorff did indeed desert and had not been part of the action at Rorke’s Drift. He alluded to some available evidence to support his position but which was not forthcoming at the time. Such is the interest in Adendorff that other modern writers have taken totally opposite views to one another. Moreover however, one would think it unusual for such controversy to revolve around an unassuming volunteer junior colonial officer of the NNC who for the most part did not influence events nor contribute significantly to any extent and certainly played a very minor role during the Zulu War. Somehow, he has been picked out for special consideration from among the fugitives fleeing the battlefield at Isandlwana notwithstanding the fact that a number of regular army officers fled too and contributed very little else after crossing into Natal. His treatment has been unfair especially in light of the fact that the conduct of those other officers has not been shown much attention except for the disdain shown by Chelmsford and Wolseley who felt that they should have stayed with their men since it was their duty to do so. Adendorff did in fact make his way to Rorke’s Drift and with others, raised the alarm. For this he must be given some credit. Adendorff gave up military service when the 3rd NNC was disbanded on account of their very poor performance on 22 January when they deserted both at Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift. Due to the lingering debate on the officer’s conduct amongst leading historians on the subject, the question still remains, was Adendorff a coward or a hero?

Source: Officer desertions from the field of battle during the Anglo-Zulu War were too numerous for comfort.
By Dr Andres Traverse

John
This article comes from the the AZWHS journal. It is pointless and infuriating and adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge of Adendorff. I've looked at the original article. No biographical details of the author are given. A Google search reveals only a dentist in Ontario with that name. No footnotes are given (always a danger signal). His 'bibliography' reveals no sign of any research whatsoever beyond reading Greaves, Knight, et al. The English is poor: ("Adendorff evokes much attention" - what's that supposed to mean?). He mis-spells Adendorff. He gives the 'Morris' figures of Isandhlwana survivors as 55 and makes sundry other amateurish mistakes which all help to confuse.

Hi Julian .
I'm glad that you have decided that the Adendorff letter is an original and not a fake , no doubt Knight & Thompson
are also happy with this outcome . The next question on everyones lips I assume will be ; who do you think wrote it ? .
Are you anymore advanced in answering this question since your post of the 23rd March ? - I think it was . Looking forward
to what you may unearth . I'm sticking with Gert , I'm one out of one at the moment .
cheers 90th.

90th
More will follow on the anonymous letter...I would, however, be really interested to know (I promise not to bite) why you so firmly believe that the anonymous writer must be Adendorff, bearing in mind the timings don't fit, bearing in mind Adendorff couldn't write English, and bearing in mind that Adendorff later told Stafford an escape story which differs from the anonymous writer's (remembering that Stafford also knew Henderson, with whom the anonymous writer must have escaped, and would have noted the inconsistencies between the two). You must have reasons. Why is it you have no doubts? When something is this important, I'm always ready to concede that I might have missed something.

Hi Julian .
I promise not to bite as well :lol: . I'm happy to believe the letter has been the result of Adendorff transcribing his account to another , so the letter can indeed be published . As the letter states this person has stayed at RD ; Adendorff is the only person to have claimed to do so . He was never ridiculed by other survivors attempting to deny his story . Chard states emphatically
that it was Adendorff and a Carbineer that after crossing the river informed him of the disaster . Chard later tells us that he ' Adendorff ' stayed and helped with the defences eyc etc . Your timing issues are what makes you think it cant be Adendorff ,
Correct ? . I myself cant read to much into the timing issues for the simple fact there is no hard evidence that certain things happened at a certain time . If Adendorff did indeed leave Isandwana about 1 - 1.30 surely he would arrive there in the Chard
required time as he put it 3.15 , 15 min or so before the Mounted Troops , who were known to have crossed the river at or near the drift and , rested their horses for 15 mins or so - while as has been stated by others that Adendorff kept going to the drift to give the alarm . I'm sure you know all these details so I'm not going to go into it in any detail . Can you elaborate your theory on the timing issue ? .
Cheers 90th.

Hi
Well, the opening sentence concerns me. The letter is dated 29th January, a week since the battle, and the writer states that he promised to give the reader a full account of Isandhlwana, from which I infer that the promise was made in an earlier letter. That doesn't leave a lot of time for an earlier letter. Still, that's feasible.
The timing, as I said in my earlier post, does not relate to his escape and arrival time at RD, but to his coming down from the ridge. Higginson went up there AFTER Adendorff came down and BEFORE Durnford arrived. The writer says he came down AFTER Durnford arrived. By the eye-witness testimony of others, logic dictates that the writer cannot be Adendorff (for the timings see above).

Hi Julian .
Page 327 Of Zulu Rising ; Pulleine and Durnford stood discussing the situation ; Walter Higginson rode in from Capt Barry's
picket on the Mkwene high point , despite watching the zulu for some time , Higginson could add little beyond the fact that several
parties were moving about on the uplands ( 26 ) Higg official report .( So Durnford is in the camp ) . It continues ..... Durnford greeted the news with a flicker of impatience , '' I made my report to the Colonel and he then ordered me to send some men to the top of Isandlwana to watch the hills , the men had been up for about half an hr without sending down any news , so I sent another native up with the orders to come down with news at once , he returned very soon and brought news that the natives were retiring ''. ( 26 ) Higg Official Report .

In short , Durnford is in the camp when Higginson arrives from Barry's picquet , you say not so ?.
cheers 90th.

90th

Adendorff was in Captain Khrons company of NNC that remained formed up in front
of the camp for the whole fight, and broke and fled early so the person charging around the
field can't be Adendorff.

The writer also says

About dark they set light to one of the houses which we made into a hospital

It was already a hospital, they didn't make it into one.


Cheers

90th
Exactly my point. The anonymous writer therefore cannot be Adendorff!

Drummer boy
1) That's not quite right. Adendorff WAS sent up on to the ridge to find out what was happening (about 7 am) and came back with a confusing report such that Higginson had to be sent up to clarify. Higginson returns and Durnford has just arrived (10.15-10.30 am). The anonymous writer claimed he came back down the ridge AFTER Durnford had arrived. And that's why the anonymous writer cannot be Adendorff.
2) The anonymous writer was referring to the storehouse being made into a makeshift hospital operating theatre as opposed to the other building which had already been made into a hospital 'ward'.

Hi DB.
. Not sure what you mean by '' charging around the battlefield '' ? . I dont think I've said Adendorff did so ????.
cheers 90th.

90th
I think what DB is getting at is that Adendorff was a man with responsibilities and duties. The anonymous writer was not and from his account seemed to be able to move about the field, seeing everything, with the sort of freedom an NNC officer in the midst of a battle would not have had.

Hi Julian.
I can see we are no more closer coming together on this point , so unless either Higginson and Adendorff were confused as to the exact timing of this point ( Durnford ) after all they went through ; Otherwise , if it wasnt Adendorff , another NNC Officer
must have escaped via the pont , warned the garrison at R.D , and stayed to assist in it's defence !. Dont forget Chard states emphatically - THAT IT WAS .... Adendorff who first gave him the news of the disaster at the river . No mention of anyone else except I think the Carbineer - that had arrived with Adendorff . So to me Higginson and Adendorff have become a little confused
with the Durnford timings , how else can it be ? . as I said earlier in this post and a few others , Chard states unequivocally it was Adendorff who gave him the news , so to me , you cant really argue with that , whereas timings can be confused and mistaken .
Cheers 90th.

Or the letter in-question was a hoax. For me the question is why would you write a letter in great detail and then not put you name to it. If I had gone through what the chap in the letter claims to have done I would want people to know it was me.

Hi Oh2.
The letter has been proved to be authentic , if you read the earlier posts this was one of the problems that Julian
had at the very start ! . Julian posted about a week ago his research has discovered it is indeed ' AUTHENTIC ' .
cheers 90th.

90th
"if it wasnt Adendorff , another NNC Officer must have escaped via the pont, warned the garrison at R.D, and stayed to assist in its defence!"
And that's exactly what Henderson and Hall did (plus any other European with them)! But what you've written above has not correctly interpreted the anonymous writer's words - the anonymous writer nowhere states that he was an officer, nowhere states that he was in the NNC, nowhere states that it was specifically Chard he reported to, and nowhere states explicitly that he stayed for the entire attack at RD - though he does state that he did assist initially in building the defences for the hospital. The anonymous writer's exact words here are crucial. I'm thinking here of the role Hall played that day compared with the anonymous writer's actions; Hall's known actions closely correspond, which is what is making me lean to the conclusion that the anonymous writer could be Hall.
So, this:
"Dont forget Chard states emphatically - THAT IT WAS .... Adendorff who first gave him the news of the disaster at the river."
is irrelevant.
And this:
"So to me Higginson and Adendorff have become a little confused with the Durnford timings , how else can it be?"
alters the evidence to suit the argument. And that's not what an historian does.

Hi Julian.
How can what Chard has said be irrelevent !!!. He states what happened , Adendorff told him the camp had fallen , I dont see how you can dismiss this as Irrelevent , surely historians dont refute a primary source of evidence or do they , to suit other
explanations .How do you explain Adendorff being seen by Harford and Stafford when the column arrived at R.D in the morning .
cheers 90th.

90th
You are not reading what the anonymous writer has written. He does not say that he spoke to Chard. He does not say when he arrived at RD. He does not say that he was the first to warn RD. The anonymous writer has no stated connection to Chard.
Therefore what Chard has to say about Adendorff is a separate event, is unconnected to the anonymous writer, and is therefore irrelevant in this case.

Hi Julian .
You are entitled to your opinion , as I mine .
cheers 90th

Of course you are entitled to an opinion but opinions have to have some basis in reality, so could you answer me these questions?

Where in the anonymous letter does the writer say:
1) that he reported to Chard.
2) when he arrived at RD.
3) that he was the first to warn RD.
4) that he was an officer.
5) that he was in the NNC.
6) that he remained at RD to assist in the defence for the entire attack.
and
7) How do the answers to any of 1-6 connect with Chard's conversation with Adendorff when he arrived at RD?

For your argument that the anonymous writer was Adendorff to hold water, any single answer to 1-6 would have to be in the affirmative and the answer to 7 would have to be established beyond doubt.

I can't do this and I'd like to know how you can.

Not a good time to start discussing "Opinions" this discussion has moved at quite a rapid pace. Its facts that are need and the question posed by Julian are valid to establishing whether or not the letter was written by. Lt Ardendorff.

Julian.
Your point no 6. It does state that he assisted in forming loopholes thendescibes the attck. So yes there is a firm statement that he was at RD at the time of the attack.

90th
Possible I can clarrify Julians point on the time.

6.00 Jrohns Company were formed up.
7.00 Adendorff was sent , 'by Pullein' onto the ridge.
On his return, and deliver of an uninteligable report. Higginson rides onto the ridge.
He, Higginson spends time watching the Zulu movements.
He returns AS Durnford arrives, put by most commentatores at around 10.15.

Adendorff must have been back in the camp therefore for quite some time and would have witnessed Durnford arriving. Difficult to get that timing mixed up really.
So it does raise a contentuous point.

The writer describes incidents that he could have had no knowledge about, the rocket battery for instance. From krohns position there isnt a clear view of the Durnford donga.

All

A gripe I have with the writer is that the sequence seems to be wrong.
1) He describes vividly the line collapsing.
2) He describes holding on till the last minute untill the impi was almost upon him, 30 to 50 yards I think.
3) He then rides 300 yards and meets up with Durnfords Basuto's

That almost indicates that the line collapse was before Durnfords retreat, or at least the same time.

So if one is going to take the letter at face value then surely the only conclusion would be that Durnford should be absolved from all blame as his withdrawl from the Donga had nothing to do with the collapse.

And that gentleman to my mind casts severe doubt onto the letter writers authenticity.

Regards


PS

90th told you England would lose to Siri Lanka

Hi Julian .
You and I , and everybody else knows that the questions posed by you numbered 1- 6 are not answered in a definitive
manner by the ' Letter Writer '
1/ That he repotrs to Chard ;
Answ ; He states he gave the garrison a warning .

2 / When he arrived at RD ;
Answ; The writer states he rode toward RD , not toward the F.D as many other survivors did , we know Adendorff went this way .

3 / That he was the first to warn RD.
Answ ; The writer doesnt state he was the first but implies he was , as he states , '' arrived in time to give them a warning ''. We also
know that Adendorff met Chard at the ponts , and told him the news .

4 / That he was an officer .
Answ ; He doesnt allude to this as you know . But why would he .
5 / That he was in the NNC ;
Answ; A little misleading but the writer does state '' And nearly all OUR NC '' . One could think he was in the NNC , he could have said '' THE '' NC if he wasnt a part of it ? .

6 / That he remained at RD to assist in the defence for the entire attack ?
ANSW; '' I had hard work for a couple of hours '' '' To rough up some kind of wall '' . Reading the letter he goes into details of the defence , this was written or transcribed by someone who was there one would think . Adendorrf is the only person to be given that accolade .

7/ How do the answers to any of the questions 1- 6 connect with Chard's conversation with Adendorff when he arrived at RD ?
Again , Chard states that when he was down at the river two riders came galloping toward him , One of which was Adendorff who informed him of the demise of the camp , so it's obvious this was the first Chard had heard of it !! . Chard says himself , that he didnt believe him at first until the Carbineer backed up the story . The letter might not say in as many words that it was written by Adendorff , but the pieces fit to most all intent purposes . Going back to question 6 ; We have accounts by Harford & Stafford who say Adendorff was present when the Column arrived at the Drift in the early morning , so we know he was there taking part in the defence .
cheers 90th.

Springbok and 90th
The writer does state that he spent time assisting in preparing RD for an attack, making loopholes etc, and describes 'mowing them down' but goes into no further detail. This is of course precisely what Hall did. He stayed to fire at the Zulus with Henderson and then beat a hasty retreat. It is surprising that there are no further words relating his experience that evening/night.

Springbok
Thanks for the summary. All clarifications are appreciated.

90th
You have said it yourself. "the questions posed by you numbered 1- 6 are not answered in a definitive
manner by the ' Letter Writer ' " and that is precisely why one cannot state with anything like certainty that the writer was Adendorff. So, point by point...

"Answ ; He states he gave the garrison a warning ."
So did Henderson, Hall, Evans, Whelan, Shannon, Doig, a 'carbineer' (possibly Sibthorpe/Vaines/ANOther) and several others (probably waggon conductors).

"Answ; The writer states he rode toward RD , not toward the F.D as many other survivors did , we know Adendorff went this way ."
So too did Henderson, Hall, the 'carbineer', and almost certainly the escaping waggon conductors.

"Answ ; The writer doesnt state he was the first but implies he was , as he states , 'arrived in time to give them a warning'. We also know that Adendorff met Chard at the ponts , and told him the news ."
So did other survivors.

"Answ; A little misleading but the writer does state 'And nearly all OUR NC ' . One could think he was in the NNC , he could have said 'THE' NC if he wasnt a part of it ? ."
In the passage where this is written, the use of 'our' actually sounds weird if the writer was really an NNC member: "I must inform you that mostly all our men, or rather that the General and all the remainder of the 24th Regiment was out some distance from camp, and nearly all our N.N. Contingent,..." but to be fair to you, it needn't do.

"ANSW; ' I had hard work for a couple of hours to rough up some kind of wall ' . Reading the letter he goes into details of the defence , this was written or transcribed by someone who was there one would think . Adendorrf is the only person to be given that accolade ."
This is precisely what Hall did.

ANSW "Chard states that when he was down at the river two riders came galloping toward him , One of which was Adendorff who informed him of the demise of the camp , so it's obvious this was the first Chard had heard of it !! "
But the writer does NOT say that he spoke to Chard, so what has this this statement, that you repeat in previous posts, got to do with anything the anonymous writer wrote?

"ANSW The letter might not say in as many words that it was written by Adendorff , but the pieces fit to most all intent purposes."
That's just it, the pieces do not fit.

"Going back to question 6 ; We have accounts by Harford & Stafford who say Adendorff was present when the Column arrived at the Drift in the early morning , so we know he was there taking part in the defence "
No-one is denying this.

Higginson mentions Adendorff.

“Soon afterwards Lieut. Adendorf of my Company (No. 6) was sent out to the 2nd Batt. outlying piquet [i.e. on the lip of the escarpment] to bring in a report from Captain Barry in charge of the Piquet. He came back very soon and made his report and shortly afterwards I was sent out...”

From TMFH
"Lieutenant W. Higginson, 1/3rd Natal Native Contingent (NNC.)
The first intimation we received about the Zulus was at 6 a.m when. Lt. Honourable Standish Vereker came into camp and said that the Zulus were appearing on the extreme left, and nearly opposite his outlying picket [Assessed as being somewhere north of Magaga Knoll and south of the Nqutu Range of hills.] …… Soon afterwards Colonel Pulleine sent me and Sergt Maj Williams came with me. We found Captain Barry [Comment: Commanding the picquet] and Lt Vereker watching a large body of Zulus on the extreme left of the camp, and they informed me that a large force of about 5,000 had gone round behind the Isandula Hill.  5

This report, made shortly after first light, indicates substantial Zulu deployment sighted within view of Magaga Knoll, together with an approximate’5, 000’ moving westward, therefore well clear of the Ngwebeni Valley with the possible intent to envelop Isandlwana. This occurred before Durnford’s arrival thus indicating Zulu aggressive movement, not only to deploy, but to do battle on the 22nd, confirmed by the actions observed both on the eastern and western areas. The estimated size of the Zulu force estimated by Higginson also indicates a deployment of a major functional part of the Zulu army. It follows therefore, that a deliberate plan by the Zulu High Command was already in place with the right horn located out of the Ngwebeni valley and in position north of Magaga Knoll (Barry’s picquet) at first light 22nd January "

Looking at Higginson's version of events, it more likly that the letter was written by him rather than Adendorff. Higginson was out and about on the field at Isandlwana a lot longer than Adendroff. Reading some of Higginsons comments I'm strongly drawn to him.

Littlehand is this the same Lt Higginson! That was clinging to the rock with Melville.

Hi Impi.
Higginson didnt stay at RD for the battle , the only person known to have done so was Adendorff . He was seen by Harford and sketched by him on the morning of the 23rd . Symons also saw him on the morning of the 23rd at guess where , RD !
Julian .
Hall was a civilian , so I doubt very much that Pulleine ordered him up to Barry's Picquet , Henderson I think was with Durnford
so it also cant be him .
cheers 90th.

Hi Julian .
I realise you wish to indentify the ' Letter Writer ' with 100 % accuracy , but as we all know it will be virtualy impossible ;
unless you are willing to bend somewhat to see , for the lack of a better phrase '' The Bigger Picture '' . Werent Hall and Henderson out with the mtd Basuto's near the river or elsewhere providing a screening tactic , it's well known these '' people ''
fired a couple of volley's rode back to the camp and said ' Bye ' then took off !. Again ........ Chard doesnt mention speaking to any of the 10 or so people you mentioned who may or may not have got to the drift , it was Adendorff who warned him he was obviously the first to do so , why would he not state that he had already had the news , Simple , because it's Adendorff who warned him . Adendorff probably didnt know Chard from chopped liver, hence one of the reasons he isnt mentioned by name as being the recipient of the warning by the ' Letter Writer ' . Remember Chard says he thought Adendorff was mad , until the claim
was verified by the Carbineer .
'' My Answ ; '' I had hard work for a couple of hrs to rough up some kind of wall ''............. You say this is what Hall did ?
Are you saying Hall helped in the defence ? , where are his statements regarding his so called work at the drift ? .
The LW says he was sent to Barry's Picquet , so was Adendorff . Hall was a civilian extremely unlikely he was sent by Pulleine to Barry's Picquet , so the LW cant be Hall !!!!. Isnt it known Higginson was sent to Barry because of the confusing or hard to understand report brought back by Adendorff . Henderson has never laid claim to his presence at both Battles so it cant be him . ! . Adendorff is known to have been at both just as the 'LW ' States . There is no mention of any other Civilian / Colonial
being at both battles , again except it's well known Adendorff was . Harford Sketches Adendorff on the morning of the 23rd ,
Symons also says he saw him there . Adendorff does mention the firing of the hospital , he goes on to say in later life it was a Godsend
and he believed thats what saved them ,for the simple fact the zulu were fully illuminated . The LW states the burning of the hospital and says several of the sick were killed , if you werent there you wouldnt know this . This letter is not to be confused with
an official report , merely someone , and I believe it to be Adendorff describing what happened in his own way . Sure some of the timings may be inconclusive , but they seem petty when the evidence points to Adendorff and I'm sorry to say , it doesnt point to anyone else as far as I'm concerned . If indeed it was someone else ; I'm sure they would have come forward eventually after all the hype , VC'S etc etc . No-one else came forward because there was no -one else able to do so !. Basically what the LW states
is what Adendorff was seen or known to have done .
cheers 90th.

ps. Forgot to add , it cant be Higginson because he left via FD and was arrested with Stevenson a little bit later . He didnt mention that he stayed at the drift , because he didnt .

impi

Melvill held to no rock, that was Higginson.

LH

Higginson's escape is known, he went to FD, left M and C, stole
Barkers horse and escaped to Helpmeeker were he left there aswel.

90th
Harford sketched him on the 24th





Cheers

Quote :

Melvill held to no rock, that was Higginson.

they were both clinging to the rock. DB Would like to see your source where it says otherwise.

Higginson's escape is known, he went to FD, left M and C,

Quote :

stole
Barkers horse

perhaps the person he stole it from was the one who it states in the letter had a gun pointed to his head.

From the letter
"so I made a run for it, and after running a couple of hundred yards some more men came past me and some led horses. So I levelled my gun at one and told him if he didn’t give me a horse I would blow out his brains"

90th
1) Hall was a civilian in the employ of the Army Commissariat and Transport Dept, just like Hamer and Dubois and McCarthy etc. Hamer went up on to the ridge accompanying Raw. I see no reason why the anon writer shouldn't have done the same thing.
2) I do wish to indentify the ' Letter Writer ' with 100 % accuracy but recognise that may not be possible. I am able to identify who it was NOT with 100% accuracy.
3) When referring to the 'big picture' ou need to read everything known relating to Hall and Henderson's movements not just the well-known.
4) You are obsessed by Chard. The writer does not state that he talked to him. Thus the remarks made by Chard as to whom he spoke to are irrelevant.
5) "The LW says he was sent to Barry's Picquet , so was Adendorff." But not at the same time.
6) "Hall was a civilian extremely unlikely he was sent by Pulleine to Barry's Picquet". Hamer was up on the ridge so could Hall be. Please note that I do not say that the letter writer WAS Hall. He is merely among the list of suspects.
7) Henderson is not among that same list of suspects.
8) "There is no mention of any other Civilian / Colonial being at both battles". This all depends on how one reads the anon letter writer's comments about RD. As I've said, he doesn't specifically state that he stayed for the whole defence whereas Adendorff, of course, did.
9) "he believed thats what saved them ,for the simple fact the zulu were fully illuminated . The LW states the burning of the hospital and says several of the sick were killed" You would know this if you returned in the immediate aftermath of the battle as many of those at Helpmekaar did. The passages you refer to are written in such a way that they could be reported speech as opposed to first-hand testimony. They can be read in two ways - which is what is making it so confusing.

Somemore on " Higginson" which shows he saw alot more than "Adendorff"

"Higginson remained observing the Zulus for about half an hour, then returned to camp, where Col. Durnford had just arrived. Higginson put the time then at about 10 am. Higginson goes on to describe how reports of the Zulu presence on the iNyoni heights prompted Durnford to make the decision to ride out from the camp to investigate. Durnford asked Pulleine if he might borrow Higginson, presumably because Higginson had recently observed the Zulu movements, and as a result Higginson found himself attached to the party commanded by Captain George Shepstone which rode up onto the iNyoni heights via the spur which runs down to the tail of Isandlwana. It was elements of this party, of course, which discovered the main Zulu army; Higginson says he was about 100 yards behind them when they did so. He rode forward, saw their predicament, and then rode back to the camp. As he descended the escarpment he saw the 24th (Captain Mostyn's company, presumably) taking up their positions on the spur. Having made a report to Pulleine, he returned to his company, which was still in position in front of the NNC tents."

In the letter. It's says.

Quote :

"' I mounted again, and rode in company with about 150 of Col. Durnford’s men towards Rorke’s Drift, when my horse was knocked up and one of the same party kindly gave me another, so I arrived at this place in time to give them warning

"

Adendorff arrived at RD with one other. What happen to the other 148.

Little hand
Read the anon letter and you'll find out what happened to the other 148. They crossed the river, appeared at RD, and featured in Chard's account, before fleeing.
90th
Let me make a suggestion. It is clear that you are not going to be convinced by any arguments that can currently be put forward. For my part, logic dictates that it is impossible that the anon letter writer and Adendorff are one and the same.
I suggest that we put this subject to one side unless one or the other of us has something new to say about it. I do intend to research it further and will let you know what I discover, if anything. At the moment there seems little point in pursuing a tit-for-tat dialogue. It's just a waste of our precious time.

Hi Julian.
Off course I'm obseesed with Chard because you think the LW isnt Adendorff , Chard again states he first heard the news
from Adendorff , if he had heard the news from another party , Chard wouldnt have even mentioned that he was
warned by Adendorff at the ponts . You really need to open your mind and eyes to this point !.
cheers 90th.

90th
And after Chard spoke to Adendorff and the carbineer, Chard went up to the RD camp. And then Henderson and Hall splashed through the drift by the ponts, rode up to the camp and warned them (them being Chard, Bromhead, and anyone else who would listen). Why do you think it is so impossible that our anon LW wasn't one of the Henderson-Hall party? It would, after all, fit in more perfectly with our anon LW's story, and at the same time be consistent with Chard's account, wouldn't it?

Hi Julian .
For the simple fact ONLY Adendorff is mentioned by other witnesses as having done all the things outlined in the
letter .
cheers 90th.

But those things are not exclusive to Adendorff.
Adendorff may have been up to the ridge...but not at the time the LW said he went.
Adendorff did stay at RD but it is not certain from the LW's account that he stayed for the whole defence.
Adendorff did cross at RD and met Chard; the LW did cross there but does not say he met anyone at the ponts.
Adendorff told Stafford he worked his way upriver from Fugitives' Drift with a companion; the LW states he accompanied the Henderson-Hall-baTlokwa group and split from them with a companion to cross at RD.
The inconsistencies outweigh the similarities.
As I said earlier, unless either of us can come up with something new, we are going to have to agree to disagree, but I really do hope that at some point this can be resolved.

Just perhaps Higginson was with them,I believe they did stay for a while, in which case Higginson would have seen or had help to build part of the defence but when the others fled. It would have been common knowledge regarding the burning of the hospital.

It'.s well known that Higginson didnt stay and take part in the defence ; he isnt mentioned anywhere in witness
statements as being at the battle .Higginson also escaped via FD , he didnt meet anyone at the ponts , especially Chard . As Chard was already back at the camp when Higginson arrived . The letter writer says they fired the hospital it wouldnt have been common knowledge to
Higginson , for the simple fact he didnt see it . He wasnt there , he was arrested with Stevenson and dismissed from the service .You can believe what you wish .
Cheers 90th.

I'm not saying Higginson took part in the defence, but he could have been one of the 148 men that went to RD and then fled. So he would have seen the defences been put-up.

Stafford's 1939 account. After describing Adendorff's route, he went on to give details of the battle which Adendorff apparently related to him;

“I met Odendorff (sic) in 1883 and he told me that Rorke's Drift was saved through two Godsends. The first was that the Zulus retired in the middle of the night, apparently to hold a little consultation and that gave the garrison time to strengthen the weak parts of the little fort, and the Martini Henry carbines time to cool off. The other was the Zulus setting fire to the thatch building which gave a bright light round the little fort and when the Zulus came volley after volley was poured into them. He also told me that Rev. W. Smith was a great help. You will always find that in a tight corner there is a hard case and there was one at Rorke's Drift. This man was cussing all the time. The Rev. Smith went up to him and said "Please, my good man, stop that cussing. We may shortly have to answer for our sins. The reply he got was "All right Mister, you do the praying and I will send the black B's to Hell as fast as I can."

I'm not saying Adendorff didn't stay at RD either. But I am saying he didnt right that letter.

Hi Littlehand.
You are entitled to your opinions . Where does this 148 number come from ; that fled the drift ? . Adendorff may not have written the letter , he could have dictated it to another party, as I've already stated ; and for enough times I may add , according to witness
statements Adendorff is the ONLY person to have happen to him which is outlined in the letter , dont lose sight of that when making a judgement to form your opinion . . Who do you think wrote the letter ??. And how do you arrive at this ? .
cheers 90th.

LH

Higginson was holding to the rock, melvill was swept past asked for him to hold to the
colour, higginson did but the current washed him off the rock.

he then stole barker's horse met up with raw and some carbineers and swapped horses then
went to helpmeeker, were he excused himself as having no gun, he saw stevenson.

impossible for him to be the letter writer.


cheers

Hi DB .
You say Harford Sketched Adendorff on the 24th , where did you come by this information ? .
cheers 90th.

90th

The NNC were disbanded on the 24th, the sketch is of the NNC handing in thier arms and equipment this
happened on the 24th.

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








Cheers

Hi DB.
I have both these pictures in my Harford book , but it doesnt mention the sketch was done on the 24th !. It also doesnt mention the date in his other book I have which is solely about his zulu war experiences - as I looked through them a couple of hrs ago
to verify it was the 23rd . I read it or saw it somewhere that it was the 23rd , but for the life of me , I cant remember where !.
cheers 90th.

Quote :

90th Higginson , for the simple fact he didnt see it . He wasnt there , he was arrested with Stevenson and dismissed from the service

"Lieutenant Higginson was not dismissed but was given the opportunity to continue serving in another unit after the 3rd Regiment NNC was disbanded".

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

DB this image as already been posted in the same topic.