Lieutenant Adendorff 1-3 N.N.C.

Its interesting to note that 'The Diamond News' claims Adendorff as being a former Diamond Fields Horse chap along with Captain Hulley.

In Studies in the Zulu War vol I (2012) I wrote an essay 'The Brave Fugitive' (pp. 52-75) which corrected a misattribution by some writers of an anonymous account to Adendorff.
In the process I not only established beyond doubt Adendorff's presence at but, using primary sources, traced his movements at Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift. None of what I wrote has been challenged, negated or disproved by any professional historian.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Adendorff was at both battles and had nothing to hide. Anyone who still thinks the opposite has simply not read enough.

a well-researched and exciting essay, indeed !
Cheers

Regarding the Ninth Frontier War; I've confirmed that Adendorff served as a Corporal in the Diamond Fields Horse but didn't return to Kimberley with them as he joined the Jansenville Yeomanry as a Sergeant in May, 1878 where many of his kinsman were serving.

In 'The Diamond News' of 17.4.79 published this very interesting article:

‘The Diamond News’ (17.4.79): LOOKERS ON ‘It is professional jealously, or what makes military men ignore so persistently the claims of volunteer? The names of Chard and Bromhead are in everyone’s mouth, but what of the old Diamond Field Horseman – Liutenant Adendorff – whose bravery Lieut Chard in his dispatch acknowledged. Lieuts Chard and Bromhead are now decorated with “the prize more than all to an Englishmen dear” – the Victoria Cross. Adendorff is still undecorated. Again, almost a stigma is cast upon the Volunteers, who gave up their lives on the Zhlobane mountains, but it is clear to the meanest comprehension that their lives were fortified because some military genius had blundered. They were sent almost unsupported up a difficult mountain – their retreat was cut off, and their work supports consisting of Mounted Infantry were the first to become panic stricken, and bolt. Piet Uys, Colonel Weatherley, and seventy more were forfeited that day, and on the following day when the Zulu were repulsed on their grand attack on Col Wood’s column, the military have all the kudos in the despatches, hardly a word is said about the Mounted Volunteers, whi did the greater part of the most dangerous work – drawing the advancing Zulus on in the first place, and rendering the rout complete by pursuing them at last'.

‘Besided Adendorff another old member of the Diamond Field Horse is down in Zululand – Capt Hulley. He was in the party that recovered the bodies of Coghill and Melville with the colours of the 1-24th, and a letter of his to some of his Queenstown Friends (in which he says the Tugela beats the Kabousie all to pieces) has been published in one of the Queens Town Papers'.

Cam
Well done! I was not aware of this report - those Diamond News editions are not in the BL. It's yet another neat piece of supporting evidence.
Well done again!
Julian Whybra

Cam,

Lieutenant Adendorff is a new name to me, I am interested in finding out more about this gentleman and the action at Zhlobane Mountain, I am going to have a read of 'The Brave Fugitive', are there any other resources available that you could suggest.

Regards

Waterloo

Hi Waterloo, whilst the above article makes reference to Hlobane, Adendorff was present at Isandhlwana and Rorke's drift. Most books on Rorke's Drift mention Adendorff.

Cam.

Waterloo
Studies in the Zulu War vol I is available from the RW Museum Brecon.

Many thanks

waterloo

Hi Waterloo
If you have the movie ' Zulu ' Adendorff is portrayed in it !
Cam
Excellent post
90th

90th,

Back to the drawing board for me.

Waterloo

Hi Waterloo

90th

90th



Adendorff:

Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead: Sixty! We dropped at least 60, wouldn't you say?

Adendorff: That leaves only 3,940.

90th wrote:

Hi Waterloo
If you have the movie ' Zulu ' Adendorff is portrayed in it !  
Cam
Excellent post
90th

Adendorff: Haven't you had enough? Both of you! My god, can't you see it's all over! Your bloody egos don't matter anymore. We're dead.

Waterloo

I've come very late to this thread and a fascinating read it has been.
There seem to have been doubts that the writer could have observed all of the action described in the letter.
Have the contents of the letter been authenticated, particularly the bit suggesting that the firing line collapsing before the retreat from the donga?

If the answer to Eaton's question is yes. Who authenticated it?

The only valid authentication must come from the other survivors. Julian Whybra mentions in the thread his essay on the anonymous author (A Brave Fugitive, Studies in the Zulu War 1879:1). In setting out why it cannot have been Adendorf it compares the text to other survivors accounts. That is by far the best source for any authentication of the anonymous letter. Otherwise you must work through the accounts of all the other survivors - something that Julian has done for you.

Steve

I don't have access to the essay in question so have not been able to read it.  
My interest is not who the writer was, rather whether the information contained in the letter is considered reliable.

Eaton
'A Brave Fugitive' appears in Studies in the Zulu War 1879: Vol I pp. 54-75 available from the regimental museum. It is fully annotated with all primary sources clearly given. There are no 'loose ends'.

Hi All
Been a while since this thread was last referred to.

I believe that the evidence is a little sketchy by some, and certain details can come across differently when told by a third party, or one with little knowledge of the facts. I'm not referring to members, but the evidence they post.

Shermans post, page two, Monday July 19th, 2010, 4pm.
Written by Trooper Symons.
When the hospital was fired by the Zulus the men at once set to work to pull off the thatch from the dwelling house.
A German or some foreigner, who was with the garrison, saved the building from fire for saw the Zulu with a lighted bunch of grass on the end of a stick just raised it up to the eaves and shot him.

Joe's post, same page, date, 4:25pm
On Chards report

Seeing the hospital burning and the attempt of the enemy to fire the roof of the store (one man was shot I believe by Lt Adendorff who had a light almost touching the thatch), we converted two large heaps of mealie bags into a sort of redoubt, which gave a second line of fire all around in case the store building had to be abandoned, or the enemy broke through.

Now this, from Colour Sergeant Mabin, Rorke's Drift Defender, his account written in The New Zealand Times, 28  February 1914.
Then attempts were made to set fire to the building, and one of the Zulus, more daring than his fellows, rushed with a lighted assegai, and getting in between the loopholes, reached up and attempted to fire the eaves of the thatched roof.
Corporal Attwood of the Army Service Corps pushed his carbine through a loophole, and fired downwards on the off chance of getting his man; and so it proved, for on the following morning the Zulu who had made the attempt was found immediately under the wall with his head split open by the bullet.

Now isn't that more believeable?
Do you believe in C/Sgt Mabins account?
Do you believe Trooper Symons?
Did Chard get info third hand ?

With that said Adendorff may still have been there even though according to C/Sgt Mabin, it was not Adendorff who shot the Zulu, it was Cpl Attwood, and probably no German either.

This may also bring into question the other claims Trooper Symons has written, may be claims he made on the morning of 23rd January 1879.

Hi All

This is in relation to the post above, please read that post first as it relates to the same letter.

Conjecture.

JW Friday, June 28th, 2013, 10:22am.

As near as i can get this is the sequence and timings of events from primary source evidence: 3:05 Leading a spare horse Gardner's hatless and bootless messenger (Lugg and Gnr Evans saw him, Symons named him as Tpr Fletcher) arrived from fugitives Drift and informed Mabin who took him to Bromhead and Dunne. Bromhead sent a messenger to Chard and commenced fortifying the post.

Once again, is Symons correct in his detail and picture of events. Have we paid to much attention to Symonds and could these arrivals and timings be different.  

This is what Colour Sergeant Mabin had to say in the letter mentioned above:

" I was sitting at my office tent door" said Mr Mabin, Major Spalding had gone to Helpmakaar that morning with a view to arranging reinforcements. At the station we did not expect any trouble. Just after 3 O'clock in the afternoon, a man hatless and bootless rode up on an exhausted horse. He halted at the tent, and I immediately asked what had occurred.
He exclaimed, "Good God, the camp is taken , and they're coming on here" Sergeant Major Mabin took the bearer of the news to Lieutenant Bromhead, who at the time was in charge of the camp. The latter then brought in Lieutenant Chard R.E
who was Superintending the working of the ponts on the river, half a mile away. Steps were at once taken to put the camp in a state of defense.

Notes:

The messenger Bromhead sent to collect Lt Chard was Colour Sergeant Mabin himself, according to the letter. Is this the point where Mabin offers to defend the ponts and being refused?

If Mabin had rode to get Chard would he have got there before Adendorff had even arrived? Or was Adendorff already there at the tent?

Is there a source that implies that Adendorff gave the message to Chard at the ponts? Or is it just assumed?

C/Sgt Mabin does not give a name in his letter, if assuming Symonds to be incorrect, could this man arriving at his tent, who Mabin obviously doesn't know be Adendorff?

Does Lugg and Gnr Evans mention a hatless, bootless man, or do they name him, the answer I believe is yes, they saw a hatless bootless man, but they didn't name him, who was he? Was Symonds hearsay once again incorrect.

According to evidence people were washing and doing their administration and caught out when the attack occurred. Depending on the timings of events, and when Adendorff came back down from the crest to the camp, could he have been caught out bootless doing his admin as well, and maybe in a state of undress, said to hell with this and legged it, hence the time of his arrival at the Drift.

There is always going to be conflicting evidence but, I would much rather take the word of Colour Sergeant Mabin, a man that was there, over Trooper Symons second hand accounts, in this matter and anything to do with Rorke's Drift, going by the conflicting evidence in the letter.

I am not sure if he stayed, if he did, he certainly didn't do what has been claimed. I also believe now that there was never a German or foreigner, going by the stuff Symons has written and being contradicted by Mabin.

Eddie
Re the conflicting info from Mabin and Symons (Chard) re the Zulu attempt to burn the storehouse, you are assuming they are both describing the same event. Why? I have no doubt that the Zulus tried several times to do this and the two men were describing different events on different occasions. There were probably more.
Re the arrivals at RD, read others' statements. There were plenty of eye-witnesses other than Lugg, Evans, Symons and Mabin. Read Dunne, Lyons, Waters, Hitch and Reynolds. Have a look at the essay I referred to above (Studs in the ZW pp. 52-75) and the full quotation from it which you mention:

"It is now possible to construct an approximate chronology and sequence of events (including an identification of the passing Isandhlwana fugitives) from the moment the first message relaying the disaster arrived at Rorke’s Drift to the moment the hospital caught fire:

3.05 Leading a spare horse Gardner’s hatless and bootless messenger (Lugg and Gnr. Evans, saw him; Symons named him as Trpr. Fletcher) arrived from Fugitives’ Drift and informed Mabin who took him to Bromhead and Dunne. Bromhead sent a messenger to Chard and commenced fortifying the post.
3.10 Adendorff and a Carbineer (Sibthorpe?) arrived and informed Chard. Chard received Bromhead’s message.
3.15 Chard arrived at the post with Adendorff and the Carbineer. The Carbineer was sent to warn Helpmekaar; Adendorff remained (and was seen by Chard, Hook, Norris-Newman, Symons, Harford over the 22nd-23rd period). Pvtes. Evans and Whelan I.M.I. arrived at the post and were also sent on to warn Helpmekaar (Jones, Hitch, Waters, Lyons, and possibly Reynolds saw Evans, and McToy recorded both mounted infantrymen’s presence).
3.20 Chard went back to the ponts to bring in the guard.
3.30 Chard and the guard returned from the ponts.
3.35 Henderson and Hall (the ‘Brave Warrior’) arrived at the post. Chard requested the
surviving N.N.H. might check the Zulu advance. Henderson returned to the N.N.H.; Hall
stayed at Rorke’s Drift and assisted with the defence arrangements.
(Henderson was seen by Hlubi, Hall, and Chard [but not named]; Hall left his own account
and was seen by Lugg.)
3.40-4.15 Several other fugitives – Pvtes. Grant, Johnson, Trainer, Actg. Bombdr. Goff(?);
Trprs. Doig and Shannon, Pvte. Gooding(?); Gnr. Green – arrived and moved on to
Helpmekaar. Some spoke to the defenders (Doig, Shannon and a mounted infantryman
were seen by Lugg); some passed by without stopping. The N.N.H. remained in position
watching the river and screening the Zulus’ advance.
4.20 Henderson reported to Chard that the Zulus were close by and that his men would no
longer obey orders. The N.N.H. left for Helpmekaar causing Capt. Stephenson’s N.N.C.
company at Rorke’s Drift to flee too. Henderson and Hall fire at the
charging Zulus and leave when the hospital catches fire. Adendorff fought at the Defence
of Rorke’s Drift and was seen the next morning (by Symons and Harford)."

Thank you Julian

I had seen and read the chronology before posting, and details relating to it. You say " you are assuming they are both describing the same event. Why?" Also "the two men were describing different events".
Are you not assuming that also?

I asked a few questions in the posts above and I did not once say Adendorff was not there.
One of the questions I asked, "is there a source that confirms Adendorff giving the message to Chard at the ponts?" Has this been assumed ?.
According to Mabin's letter it could be said it was not Adendorff who went up to the camp with Chard from the ponts, but Mabin the messenger ordered to bring him in, as stated within it.
I have read letters as you suggested, where the author does state details of the arrivals, but other than Trooper Symons implying it was Tpr Fletcher who turned up in a state of undress, the others did not name him directly. Who names him other than Symonds.

I was also going to ask, if Evans was tasked with alerting Helpmakaar why wasn't the other Imperial forces ordered to stay and defend the post, such as Bdr and Gnr's, concidering Helpmakaar was already being alerted.

I was wondering if Mabin's and Symonds accounts were one of the same event, and the events described in the letter true, could timings have been slightly different.

With that said it was probably true that Adendorff was there, but are the timings correct?

Eddie
You wrote "Are you not assuming that also?"  Yes, I am.  But is that not a more logical assumption when two similar events, but not the same in the details, are being described?  The alternative is to say that one man was lying, was mistaken, or was misremembering.  The nature of Symons (not Symonds) and Mabin's recollections precludes those alternatives in my opinion.

You wrote "I did not once say Adendorff was not there."  I know you didn't.  I was merely including the full quotation from the book rather than excising odd lines.

You wrote: "Is there a source that confirms Adendorff giving the message to Chard at the ponts?"  Yes there is (see Chard quotation p.59 in my book).

You wrote: "According to Mabin's letter it could be said it was not Adendorff who went up to the camp with Chard from the ponts, but Mabin the messenger ordered to bring him in..."  Bromhead, having already received news of the disaster immediately sent for Chard as senior officer.  Chard received Bromhead's messenger and message "while [he] was talking to Lieut. Adendorff" (Chard).  The two events coincided and Chard and Adendorff (Hook saw him) went up to RD post.

You wrote: "...other than Trooper Symons implying it was Tpr Fletcher who turned up in a state of undress, the others did not name him directly. Who names him other than Symonds."  No-one.  Corroboration by another individual would be ideal but can be arrived at by a process of elimination re the colonial (Carbineer) fugitives.  That was one of the aims of the essay.

You wrote: "if Evans was tasked with alerting Helpmakaar why wasn't the other Imperial forces ordered to stay and defend the post, such as Bdr and Gnr's, concidering Helpmakaar was already being alerted."  Many rode straight past or just stopped to shout a warning or didn't report themselves present.  In the furious spate of activity many were probably not even noticed.  There was no time to listen to others; tales of miraculous escapes.  The fugitives themselves had had enough and apart from Adendorff had no thought of remaining.

You wrote "it was probably true that Adendorff was there, but are the timings correct?"  Another aim of the essay was to try and provide a timeline relating to the arrival and naming of all the fugitives which no-one else had attempted.  I cannot guarantee that every time mentioned is correct (though I believe the sequence of arrivals is correct) but I tried on each occasion to justify the time's inclusion. I can guarantee Adendorff's presence.

Thank you Julian for that explanation.

You said, " The alternative is to say that one man was lying, was mistaken, or was misremebering"

To my limited knowledge there has only ever been one portrayal of an event where a Zulu is shot when attempting to fire a thatched roof, and that is that Adendorff was the man that shot the Zulu. This being the case in all popular writings written post 1964 and the film Zulu.
Going by your statement, not that he was lying or misremembering, could it not be said that Symons was mistaken, having not having first hand knowledge.
Other than Mabin's letter there has not been, to my knowledge, a portrayal of the events according to Mabin, has there?
Is that because people have put to much emphasis on Tpr Symons account of things, if so why?

You said, " The alternative is to say that one man was lying, was mistaken, or was misremebering"

Eddie
1. "One portrayal"?  Three.  Symons (a German) / Chard (Adendorff) are surely describing the same event and Mabin (Attwood) is either describing perhaps the same event but misremembering the details or describing a second event.
2. "Other than Mabin's letter there has not been, to my knowledge, a portrayal of the events according to Mabin, has there?"  There has not.
3. "Is that because people have put to much emphasis on Tpr Symons account of things, if so why?"  The accounts are as they are.  If you accept that all were honestly made then 'All is true'.  If you think that Mabin's was a very late account and he might have misremembered, then you might discount it.  To my mind it is a very detailed and precise account, almost as if the picture was stuck in his mind.  It might also therefore be an accurate portrayal of an event he witnessed (but not the same as the one seen by Symons and recorded by Chard).

Julian

I should have used the term "narrative" instead of portrayal in popular writings written post 1964 and the film Zulu.

This narrative becoming popular because of the film, so much so that Authors have continually used it and used Tpr Symons second hand account as the source and have completely disregarded Mabin's account in the process.

I agree with what you say, people will have their individual interpretation.

Julian

One other point, Symons didn't see the event we are referring to, his account was second hand.
It could well have been two separate accounts that occurred, but I tend to lean more towards Mabin, seeing that he was there, him seeing the same event as described by Symons but getting the name right.
In Chards statement he doesn't actually seem certain it was Adendorff in my opinion.

OK, 'narrative', that's clear what you meant now. It wouldn't have made cinematographic sense to have two similar events in a film, always assuming the producer even knew about Mabin's account.

One event or two, all that we really need to know is that the Zulus tried to fire the roof and were prevented.

Hi all

In relation to timings, has Conductor Foley's account of the battle been taken into account.

He mentions timings that are at odds to what has been mentioned so far on the thread. A few are as follows:

1. At 11:00am Dunford came into camp with 250 mounted men.

2. At half past twelve the enemy line had extended to about three mile to surround the camp, which they had already entered (significant point) and the officer in command of the two field pieces was stabbed in the act of spiking the guns.

3. At 1 O'clock the Union jack in front of the Generals tent was pulled down and torn to pieces, but general panic had already commenced and I then retired from camp with one Cabineer (name unknown) and one Army Staff Sergeant.

He goes on to say whilst galloping away they passed through a body of retreating Native Contingent. Could this suggest that these members of the Native contingent left the camp well before 1pm, maybe as early as 12:30pm, as it was mentioned that the Zulu were already inside the camp by that time.

This article was published in The Merthyr Telegraph, Friday, March 7, 1879.

Hi All

Another bit of information is this newspaper article printed in The Western Mail, Friday, February 21, 1879:

Headed: The Action at Rorke's Drift:

In a special edition in The Cape Times this speaks of the attack on the convoy at Rorke's Drift:- The action began at 11am with the enemy's skirmishes, who were supported by dense masses of Zulus these, in spite of the heavy losses inflicted on them by fire of our men gradually closed in and overpowered them. Some of the men made their retreat in the same direction that Captain Stafford and Mr Davies did, and crossing the river at a point before Rorke's Drift, reached Helpmakaar the same night.
They believe that others cut their way through the enemy in the direction of the Generals main force; but there seems no doubt that our loss has been very heavy.

This could suggest Adendorff cut his way through with others and made his escape as he stated, via the Drift road.

It could also suggest that more fugitives escaped than first thought, if they did what has been suggested and linked up with Lord Chelmsfords column.

Just a thought.

Eddie

Eddie
Each NNC coy and each NNH troop left the field at a different moment with the possible exception of Davies and Henderson's troops & Raw and Roberts's - though, even then, not precisely at the same time.

Hi thank you Julian

In my post 4:39pm I was referring to the timings and Conductor Foley's being different to what has been posted on the thread, which could, if going by his timings, suggest the reason for Adendorff arriving before others at RD.

Foley says Dunford came into camp at 11am, the thread suggests 10:30am for example.
Foley implies that the camp started to fold as early as 12:30pm and also says that the Zulus had already gained access by then, where as the thread suggests 1 to 1:30pm the camp folded.

In my post at 7:23pm I was referring to the possibility that, that may also have been Adendorff's avenue of escape as well, directly through the enemy.

Timings given by specific individuals are notoriously difficult.  Did the man have a watch?  Was it right?  Was he estimating?  Can they be corroborated by others' timings?   Etc.  Etc. And Foley of course was a waggon driver. Would he have owned a watch?

Julian I had just amended my post as you were writing.

Think he would have, but checking it at the time, maybe not, guestimate more than likely, as in most cases.

Hi

I just wish to highlight a point about the timing of Lord Chelmsfords column arriving at Rorke's Drift on 23rd January.
I have noticed that quite a few members have said, and authors have written, that the column arrived in the morning of the 23rd.
I need to refer you to private Stephens, Rorke's Drift defenders letter home, where he stated that the column arrived at three in the afternoon.
If this primary source is true, it has other implications to the timings of certain events. For instance, the belief that Adendorff was sketched on the morning of the 23rd cannot be true, as Hartford, I believe it was, hadn't even arrived. Not  just that, within an hour of the column arriving, light must have been dimming for him to complete his sketch, and would he even have started it, having just arrived before sundown.

This leads me on to Adendorff, if he did slip away, as suggested, where would he have gone from Rorke's Drift. The nearest location and most obvious answer is Helpmakaar, but the fugitives that had made it there would have known him, and surely would have informed others later of his presence there and not at the defence of Rorke's Drift.
Could it be that's precisely what did happen, and why he was suspected of deserting Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift and arrested later by the authorities. Only for Lt Chard later, to include Adendorff on his roll, already sent off to London, exonerating him of any guilt.
No one knew of the demise of the column until they appeared on that day, to the delight of the defenders.
Having heard at Helpmakaar that the column and the defenders at Rorke's Drift had survived, the fugitive Cabeineers immediately made their way there to meet up with their boss, Capt Shepstone.
If Adendorff slipped away to Helpmakaar, could this have been where he returned to the Drift, with the cabineers unnoticed, and where Chard probably saw him later and it reminded him of their meeting at the ponts the day before. Could Chard had then thought Adendorff had been at the defence all night, having been far to preoccupied with other matters during the battle to notice him missing. It is feasible that he could have gone unnoticed on returning to the Drift, concidering the hundreds of people that would have been milling about, settling down for the night.

Conjecture maybe, but is there any evidence that he was at Helpmakaar, or anywhere else. What was the evidence to suggest that he deserted Rorke's Drift, and where does it suggest he went.
Yes people there at Helpmakaar would have known him and could have mentioned the fact that he was there, but without evidence of where he may have went, we are in the dark. All Morris said was that he believed Adendorff slipped away early from both battles, but left no evidence. Is there any evidence other than that?

There is Chards evidence, where I have mentioned what may have happened. There is evidence to suggest Adendorff shot a Zulu attempting to fire the thatched roof, and there is conflicting evidence to suggest it was Attwood that shot the Zulu, as mentioned in Colour Sergeant Mabin's letter, a Rorke's Drift defender.
Julian has suggested that it could have been two separate actions. That is possible, but the only evidence to suggest it was Adendorff is because someone heard a men speak in German or a foreign language. We all know that Schiess had a foreign accent and was outside at the defence, but, we also know that he was a casualty during the battle and at some point could have been taken to the makeshift hospital in the storeroom to have his wounds dressed. Schiess was a recipient of the VC for his actions and could have been the foreigner people heard and seen shoot a Zulu whilst recovering. After all, they didn't actually know Schiess, just as much as they didn't know Adendorff.

Eddie
There has been a miriad of repeats of the evidence that Adendorff was at RD through the battle. In terms of your post above there is absolutly no doubt that the column reached RD around 8 in the morning having left iSandlwana at dawn ( its around a 4 hour walk)
For arrivals at Helmakaar, survivors etc look no further than the brilliant study by Graham Alexander.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Frank

Hi Frank

I have amended and added to the above whilst you were posting.
Yes there has been plenty written about it, and the same narrative each time, but is it substantial evidence, some is conflicting, and I don't think Colour Sergeant Mabin's letter was ever taken into account.
It is only since the 1964 film that Adendorff presence has been highlighted and has probably become a popular narrative to include in books because of it.
If you were to read Chards account again, does his statement come across as though he is certain Adendorff was there? You can take at face value, but you can also see uncertainty in it also.
Point taken about column, thank you.

Hi Eddie
Have a look at Grahams study on the survivors.
frank

Hi Frank
I was once again editing and adding more to my last post.
Thank you, I have seen the list of survivers at Helpmakaar.

I will have a look at Graham's study, but I can't open it on my phone for some reason.
I have studied a lot of the evidence, and a lot on this thread.
If Adendorff was accused then there must have been a reason, and that evidence we don't seem to have.

I did say it is maybe conjecture, but it could well have been Schiess and Attwood that shot Zulus from the store house.

Eddie possibly your statement could be looked at a different way in that if Adendorff was found not guilty it would obviate any reason for him being charged? As a further suggestion you may wish to explore, the NNC were discharged very quickly on the 23rd I would suggest then that Adendorff being therefore out of a job muttered something like " sod this for a lark Im off." If he then put in an appearance some where down the line with Stevenson he could have mistakenly been popped into the same basket of suspicion before been exonerated.
Is that a reasonable explanation?

Frank

Eddie
Don't take this awry but do you think there might be an element of confirmation bias in your reasoning?
The information and evidence regarding the arrival of Chelmsford's column at RD is overwhelming.
The evidence for Adendorff being present at RD and being present the following morning is also overwhelming. Chard saw him, Pte. Hook saw him, the journalist Norris-Newman recorded his presence there, and Adendorff subsequently related an anecdote of the defence to Captain Stafford. On the morning of the 23rd, after the remains of Chelmsford’s column came back to the post, Trooper Symons N.M.P. recorded Adendorff’s presence; so too, so too did Lieut. H. Harford, 99th Foot (Staff Officer, 3rd Regt., N.N.C.), who not only named him but sketched him. All the officers of the 3rd Regiment N.N.C. were retained at Rorke’s Drift after their regiment was formally disbanded after sunrise on the 24th January (many natives had fled during the night of the 23rd) and those who had fled and survived Isandhlwana were ordered back there to answer for their being absent without leave after the 22nd January. Lieut. Harford of this regiment recorded that on the 31st January he was holding Captain Stevenson (who had been in command of the N.N.C. coy which fled from Rorke’s Drift; he was subsequently dismissed from the service) and Lieut. Higginson (who may have had to answer questions about an incident involving Trpr. Barker, N.C., during his escape and was transferred to another unit). Lieut. J. Maxwell, 2/3rd Regt., N.N.C., recorded that the Isandhlwana survivors, Lieuts. Higginson, Vaines, and Adendorff, were all brought back to Rorke’s Drift from Pietermaritzburg for court martial, though he may have been mistaken since there is no record of any court martial and, as stated, Adendorff had not left and was still at the Drift on the 24th. Perhaps Maxwell meant Court of Inquiry? Maxwell did make mistakes in his diary entries (he wasn't writing for posterity) so it's entirely possible.
All these 'positives' can be set against no record of anyone writing anything negative against Adendorff. I think, with the greatest of respect, that you're on a hiding to nothing.

Thank you Frank / Julian

Frank  yes it could and it is reasonable explanation.

Julian I merely brought to members attention that there was a letter by Stephens that stated a different time for the columns arrival at Rorke's Drift.
I also wasn't suggesting he wasn't there before or after the battle, and yes there is evidence that people saw him, I was not disputing that. They could have seen him on the 23rd if he also returned that morning. Conjecture of course.
I was merely suggesting another alternative in light of the accusation of desertion.
Other than Chards report there is no other correspondence by any of the defenders that place him at the actual battle.  Symons second hand account that Adendorff was the man that shot the Zulu attempting to fire the thatch was hearsay.
Yes you have suggested it could have been a separate incident but that still doesn't attribute the act to Adendorff. I have given a possible scenario above, which is plausible.

The popular writings that suggest that Adendorff was the hero who fought his way to Rorke's Drift to warn of the oncoming Zulus can also be brought in to question.
Adendorff and his companion, fellow Cabineer, could not swim and we're compelled to take the route they took, so where ever they fought their way out of the camp put them there at the Drift. The same can be said of the other arrivals, they fought through a avenue of enemy that so happened to put them on course for Rorke's Drift.

I also believe to much emphasis has been put on Trooper Symons writings by authors and excluding Colour Sergeant Mabin's account in the process. Yes as you say, they may not have known of the existence of his letter at the time of writing.
Hiding to nothing maybe, but highlighting points that may be different.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Adendorff was "the hero who fought his way to RD". Not since Morris's book has anyone ever dared to put his head above the parapet (no pun intended) that far!
Fair enough.

Hi
We have all at one point or another read newspaper articles of the heroic defenders and VC winners. Chard and Bromhead being front page news at the time.
So wouldn't you expect for someone who was believed to have fought in both battles and survived to be headline news in South Africa at the time. Where is he ever mentioned in the press of the day, highlighting his bravery.
There was one article mentioned on this thread that referred to him, but you would expect it to be a hot topic and headline news, as was the case in the UK.
He may well have went into obscurity after demob, but that does not take away the news facter.
It have been mentioned that he was not in possession of a medal, this leads one to question why.

Eddie
Actually, no I wouldn't expect him to be headline news in SA or in the UK.  Hook and Williams and the others were never 'headline news'.  The papers didn't go in for that sort of story.  And of course Johnny Foreigner Adendorff would never have been good copy.  After all, Norris-Newman was on the spot.  He was in the right place to write Adendorff's story.  Isandhlwana and RD as set-pieces were the big news - that's what went home in the despatches.

I understand where a foreigner would not be headline news in the UK, I was really refering to newspapers in his own country.
There were many headlines about the heroic VC winners returning to the Uk back in the day, especially in Welsh Newspapers.

Headline stories in the UK for ORs? Can you cite me one?

Hi Julian

I was referring to such heroes being in the public eye and written about over the years.
Initial headline here would include such events as Rorke's Drift Heroes return home on the Tamar and interviews with the survivors.
Headlines such as Rorke's Drift Heroes Chard and Bromhead to be honoured with the VC, or honoured with promotions.
There were headlines of soldiers retuning to Brecon and Cpl Lyons visiting his old town and the town councilor greeting him at the station.
Later in life:
Rorke's Drift Heroes, bust to be unveiled by Lord Wolesley in memory of Colonel Chard VC.
Reward for the defence of Rorke's Drift.
Recognition of a Rorke's Drift Hero at Brecon (Cpl Allen)
Rorke's Drift Annual dinner listing attendees.
Etc, etc.
What I was suggesting is that you would think something like this would have been written about Adendorff, initially because of his endeavours, and perhaps later in life also, but nothing. No medal I don't think either.

Eddie
My question was "Headline stories in the UK for ORs? Can you cite me one?"
You replied "I was referring to such heroes being in the public eye and written about over the years."
You may have meant that but what you wrote referred to contemporary Headlines in newspapers:
"There were many headlines about the heroic VC winners returning to the Uk back in the day, especially in Welsh Newspapers."
"We have all at one point or another read newspaper articles of the heroic defenders and VC winners."
"...you would expect it to be a hot topic and headline news, as was the case in the UK."
None of the examples you cite in your 10.12 post were Headlines of the front-page, lead-story type relating to Other Ranks. Come to that, not even Chard and Bromhead made that sort of splash..