Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rourke Drift. a (hardy) a company of well armed and well disciplined troops. hold out against an endless enemy with inferior weapons and discipline doesn't exists.

and win!

It was one of the victorian moments.

and similar moments had been an inspiration to literatures, movies, and computer games

tell us how Rourke Drift influences the modern pop cultre?
for me. it influences the following
1. LotR
2. Starship Troopers
3. Starcraft (especially Terran campaigns)

ok. what else? and does the heroic oldout really a myth?

I don't care about how fat Mickey Rourke's belly has gotten. Oh wait, you mean something else?

How do you know its Rourke's drift influencing, and not the Alamo or a dozen other castle sieges?

It doesn't influence popular culture.
I doubt many people outside of those interested in military history have heard of it.
The Last Stand however has occurred many times throughout history. It has passed down through legends, myths and older to more recent written history. That has affected popular culture.

Incidentally it was a detachment of a company rather than a full company itself.

Damn the levies man!

wut.

actually I can't remember how many troops are there on the defending side. but the attacker has almost endless numbers

In Starship Troopers (Hollywood versions) the batte scene seems to be influenced by Rorke Drift battle. (in both battles. defenders don't have artillery support, in Starship Troopers, the attacker (bugs) has certain forms of support (can't remember which? but it was either flying organism or bio artillery.

Quote from Zulu.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lone Cat wrote:actually I can't remember how many troops are there on the defending side. but the attacker has almost endless numbers

In Starship Troopers (Hollywood versions) the batte scene seems to be influenced by Rorke Drift battle. (in both battles. defenders don't have artillery support, in Starship Troopers, the attacker (bugs) has certain forms of support (can't remember which? but it was either flying organism or bio artillery.

IIRC they had 4,000 warriors...
I don't think that's specifically influenced by Rorke's drift.
By the Last Stand mythos in general yes but not specifically by any one event...

rubiksnoob wrote:wut.

In Zulu, Bromhead was scathing of black levies. Arndorf (unsure, was a boer) reminded Bromhead that 400 levies fought alongside the British. Bromhead said "Damn the levies man, more cowardly blacks!" or something similar . Arndorf replied "cowardly blacks? And who do you think is coming to wipe out your command , the grenadier guards ?!"

Frazzled wrote:How do you know its Rourke's drift influencing, and not the Alamo or a dozen other castle sieges?

Well, one difference would be that the defenders won at Rourke's Drift, and lost at the Alamo. They're very different story archetypes.

The Alamo: A small group of dedicated volunteers facing certain death, massively outnumbered by a better supplied force, decide to sell their lives as expensively as possible rather than face the shame of surrender.

Rourke's Drift: A small group of professional soldiers outnumbered by a tribal army wielding spears use modern technology to win the day.

Certainly both stories have their heroic qualities, but the morals of the story are very very different. The Alamo is used to teach the virtues of individualism, of honor, and of dying for your cause. Rourke's Drift is used to teach the superiority of the European over the African, and how professional training and industrial-age technology can overcome vast numerical superiority.

The small army bravely outshooting a much larger enemy is a part of English/British folklore since 100 Years' War.

Poitiers
Crecy
Agincourt
Rorke's Drift
Mons

There probably is less truth in it than people like to think.

For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded. This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

However the last stand is a staple of war and adventure fiction due to many examples in history.

Rorkes Drift was a courageous stand of UK soldiers fighting for their lives. But let's not forget the Zulus were defending their homeland from a trumped-up war. The annihilation of the British forces at Isandlwana was a case of true heroism of spear-armed warriors flinging themselves into the teeth of modern weaponry, using their bodies as shields so their comrades behind them could close with the enemy.

Thats hardcore, if you think about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded. This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

That's still 850 casualties out of a total of 4000 warriors, a casualty rate of over 20%. Thats very high by the standards of almost any battle.

Anyway the main point other posters have made is sound, the ‘last stand’ battle, where a force is surrounded by a numerically superior one and hangs on for dear life, has been a staple in military folklore for almost all of history and most countries have their own examples.

Aside from Rourke’s Drift as few off the top of my head are:

Thermopylae, Little Big Horn, The Alamo, Dunkirk, Arnhem, Bastogne, Dien Bien Phu, Imjin River, Ia Drang and Mogadishu.

But yeah Rourke’s Drift will always have a special significance for the British Army, but that probably as much to do with the film as anything else.

The regiment at Rorke's Drift became the South Wales Borderers who are based not far from my parents. I've been to the regimental museum several times, though not recently. They have 16 VCs in the museum, many from Rorke's Drift. It's worth it, if you're ever heading in that direction.

LuciusAR wrote:

Thermopile, Little Big Horn, The Alamo, Dunkirk, Arnhem, Bastogne, Dien Bien Phu, Imjin River, Ia Drang and Mogadishu.

I stepped in some dog's thermopile on the sidewalk yesterday. Disgusting.

rubiksnoob wrote:

I stepped in some dog's thermopile on the sidewalk yesterday. Disgusting.

Good spot

Redbeard wrote:
Well, one difference would be that the defenders won at Rourke's Drift, and lost at the Alamo. They're very different story archetypes.
The Alamo: A small group of dedicated volunteers facing certain death, massively outnumbered by a better supplied force, decide to sell their lives as expensively as possible rather than face the shame of surrender.
Rourke's Drift: A small group of professional soldiers outnumbered by a tribal army wielding spears use modern technology to win the day.

Certainly both stories have their heroic qualities, but the morals of the story are very very different. The Alamo is used to teach the virtues of individualism, of honor, and of dying for your cause. Rourke's Drift is used to teach the superiority of the European over the African, and how professional training and industrial-age technology can overcome vast numerical superiority.

Any unfair assessment.

The Alamo was a needless fight as the surrender option was realistic and reasonable. The Zulus on the other hand wouldn't take any prisoners. It teaches the 'virtue' of dying for the cause because that is how it was spun, the value of the Alamo was in how it was used to m otiveate other fighters rather than the action itself.

In both cases neither of the defending forces were expected to survive.

Rorkes Drift is not a simple case of they won because it was Europeans vs natives. The action of Rorkes Drift deserves its credit because of the tenacity of the defense, which was a lot more than a turkey shoot that revisionists like to portray. For a start the Zulus had more of the same gun, mostly attacked at night, with covering fire and from multiple angles. Much of the action took place at very close quarters where the man was as much an issue as the weapon. The Zulus had a lot of respect for the Welsh particularly after the battle, this reputation hold on in some form to the present day.

Kilkrazy wrote:
For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded.

Looked at that, they might have had 20000 rounds, that is not inconceivable, and is not a lot, and it need not all have been fired, allocated yes, fired, not necessarily. Furthermore a lot was spent long range counterfiring at Zulus on an overlook with captured rifles, also the majority of the battle took place at night.

http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=645

Kilkrazy wrote:
This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

It argues that for a night engagement and some long range shooting that isn't a bad hit rate all told.

Kilkrazy wrote:The small army bravely outshooting a much larger enemy is a part of English/British folklore since 100 Years' War.

Poitiers
Crecy
Agincourt
Rorke's Drift
Mons

There probably is less truth in it than people like to think.

For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded. This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

Which is why it can't be compared to the 100 year war battles you mention which did indeed have remarkable English to French loss ratios, even in the most sceptical estimates. Also the opposition did not posses vastly inferior weapons or discipline.

You're correct to raise them examples though, as they are the more likely candidate for what influences these stories in modern pop culture, not in small part due to their dramatisation in Shakespeare's plays.

PVT. Hook

Orlanth wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
Well, one difference would be that the defenders won at Rourke's Drift, and lost at the Alamo. They're very different story archetypes.
The Alamo: A small group of dedicated volunteers facing certain death, massively outnumbered by a better supplied force, decide to sell their lives as expensively as possible rather than face the shame of surrender.
Rourke's Drift: A small group of professional soldiers outnumbered by a tribal army wielding spears use modern technology to win the day.

Certainly both stories have their heroic qualities, but the morals of the story are very very different. The Alamo is used to teach the virtues of individualism, of honor, and of dying for your cause. Rourke's Drift is used to teach the superiority of the European over the African, and how professional training and industrial-age technology can overcome vast numerical superiority.

Any unfair assessment.

The Alamo was a needless fight as the surrender option was realistic and reasonable. The Zulus on the other hand wouldn't take any prisoners. It teaches the 'virtue' of dying for the cause because that is how it was spun, the value of the Alamo was in how it was used to m otiveate other fighters rather than the action itself.

In both cases neither of the defending forces were expected to survive.

Rorkes Drift is not a simple case of they won because it was Europeans vs natives. The action of Rorkes Drift deserves its credit because of the tenacity of the defense, which was a lot more than a turkey shoot that revisionists like to portray. For a start the Zulus had more of the same gun, mostly attacked at night, with covering fire and from multiple angles. Much of the action took place at very close quarters where the man was as much an issue as the weapon. The Zulus had a lot of respect for the Welsh particularly after the battle, this reputation hold on in some form to the present day.

Kilkrazy wrote:
For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded.

Looked at that, they might have had 20000 rounds, that is not inconceivable, and is not a lot, and it need not all have been fired, allocated yes, fired, not necessarily. Furthermore a lot was spent long range counterfiring at Zulus on an overlook with captured rifles, also the majority of the battle took place at night.

http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=645

Kilkrazy wrote:
This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

It argues that for a night engagement and some long range shooting that isn't a bad hit rate all told.

The fight was far from needless, since Sam Houston needed the time to get his army together. Without the 13 day hold up, Santa Anna would have been almost certainly assured of victory in the war.

Glorioski wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The small army bravely outshooting a much larger enemy is a part of English/British folklore since 100 Years' War.

Poitiers
Crecy
Agincourt
Rorke's Drift
Mons

There probably is less truth in it than people like to think.

For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded. This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

Which is why it can't be compared to the 100 year war battles you mention which did indeed have remarkable English to French loss ratios, even in the most sceptical estimates. Also the opposition did not posses vastly inferior weapons or discipline.

You're correct to raise them examples though, as they are the more likely candidate for what influences these stories in modern pop culture, not in small part due to their dramatisation in Shakespeare's plays.

Well I would say that Agincourt was a good example of superior weapons and tactics prevailing, also how our you defining discipline, because i certainly wouldn't describe the zulus as being unable to follow orders or cowardly

youbedead wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The small army bravely outshooting a much larger enemy is a part of English/British folklore since 100 Years' War.

Poitiers
Crecy
Agincourt
Rorke's Drift
Mons

There probably is less truth in it than people like to think.

For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded. This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

Which is why it can't be compared to the 100 year war battles you mention which did indeed have remarkable English to French loss ratios, even in the most sceptical estimates. Also the opposition did not posses vastly inferior weapons or discipline.

You're correct to raise them examples though, as they are the more likely candidate for what influences these stories in modern pop culture, not in small part due to their dramatisation in Shakespeare's plays.

Well I would say that Agincourt was a good example of superior weapons and tactics prevailing, also how our you defining discipline, because i certainly wouldn't describe the zulus as being unable to follow orders or cowardly

I did use the adjective 'vastly' for a reason. You're talking a difference between medieval tactics vs light cavalry tactics and imperial rifles vs tribal spear men.

'He's a peeler 716, come to arrest the Zulus' fave line from that movie, but otherwise yeah, the last stand is something thats been around a lot longer than Rourkes Drift as an influence to popular culture.

Awesome film mind.

Some hardcore spearmen

"because i certainly wouldn't describe the zulus as being unable to follow orders or cowardly "

That's for sure. The Zulu's method of engaging the main body of the enemy, while endeavoring to outflank both sides ( with units known as the "horns") and keeping a reserve was tactically very sound. It would be interesting to see how well a Roman legion would have done against the Zulu's, since the Zulu's used their assegai short spears to thrust at the enemy like the Romans did with their short swords. The Zulus were also cunning to attempt to lock their shields with the enemy's to put them at a disadvantage in close quarters. Since the Romans for the most part were use to fighting disorganized "barbarians" who fought as individuals, I think encountering the Zulu's trained formations would have come as something of a surprise to them.

Too bad the Zulu's did not employed their superb cross-county running ability to hit the British columns on the march, or attacked them at night. The outcome of the war could have turned in their favor--or made it at least more costly to their technologically superior foes.....

Orlanth wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
Well, one difference would be that the defenders won at Rourke's Drift, and lost at the Alamo. They're very different story archetypes.
The Alamo: A small group of dedicated volunteers facing certain death, massively outnumbered by a better supplied force, decide to sell their lives as expensively as possible rather than face the shame of surrender.
Rourke's Drift: A small group of professional soldiers outnumbered by a tribal army wielding spears use modern technology to win the day.

Certainly both stories have their heroic qualities, but the morals of the story are very very different. The Alamo is used to teach the virtues of individualism, of honor, and of dying for your cause. Rourke's Drift is used to teach the superiority of the European over the African, and how professional training and industrial-age technology can overcome vast numerical superiority.

Any unfair assessment.

The Alamo was a needless fight as the surrender option was realistic and reasonable. The Zulus on the other hand wouldn't take any prisoners. It teaches the 'virtue' of dying for the cause because that is how it was spun, the value of the Alamo was in how it was used to m otiveate other fighters rather than the action itself.

In both cases neither of the defending forces were expected to survive.

Rorkes Drift is not a simple case of they won because it was Europeans vs natives. The action of Rorkes Drift deserves its credit because of the tenacity of the defense, which was a lot more than a turkey shoot that revisionists like to portray. For a start the Zulus had more of the same gun, mostly attacked at night, with covering fire and from multiple angles. Much of the action took place at very close quarters where the man was as much an issue as the weapon. The Zulus had a lot of respect for the Welsh particularly after the battle, this reputation hold on in some form to the present day.

Kilkrazy wrote:
For instance the defenders of Rorke's Drift shot about 20,000 rounds bu Zulu casualties were only 351 killed and about 500 wounded.

Looked at that, they might have had 20000 rounds, that is not inconceivable, and is not a lot, and it need not all have been fired, allocated yes, fired, not necessarily. Furthermore a lot was spent long range counterfiring at Zulus on an overlook with captured rifles, also the majority of the battle took place at night.

http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=645

Kilkrazy wrote:
This argues either a very low accuracy of the British shooting (4.25% hits) , or perhaps that the Zulus pressed their attacks home much less closely than depicted.

It argues that for a night engagement and some long range shooting that isn't a bad hit rate all told.

No. Santa Anna had a general policy of death to rebels. This was proven at Goliad where they slaughtered the surrendered prisoners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:

"because i certainly wouldn't describe the zulus as being unable to follow orders or cowardly "

That's for sure. The Zulu's method of engaging the main body of the enemy, while endeavoring to outflank both sides ( with units known as the "horns") and keeping a reserve was tactically very sound. It would be interesting to see how well a Roman legion would have done against the Zulu's, since the Zulu's used their assegai short spears to thrust at the enemy like the Romans did with their short swords. The Zulus were also cunning to attempt to lock their shields with the enemy's to put them at a disadvantage in close quarters. Since the Romans for the most part were use to fighting disorganized "barbarians" who fought as individuals, I think encountering the Zulu's trained formations would have come as something of a surprise to them.

Too bad the Zulu's did not employed their superb cross-county running ability to hit the British columns on the march, or attacked them at night. The outcome of the war could have turned in their favor--or made it at least more costly to their technologically superior foes.....

Well, Romans alsso fight quite well against phalanxes and fought Spanish formations led by Carthaginians. They really only got pounded by horse heavy armies with skilled bowmen. Mostly.

Frazzled wrote:

Brushfire wrote:

"because i certainly wouldn't describe the zulus as being unable to follow orders or cowardly "

That's for sure. The Zulu's method of engaging the main body of the enemy, while endeavoring to outflank both sides ( with units known as the "horns") and keeping a reserve was tactically very sound. It would be interesting to see how well a Roman legion would have done against the Zulu's, since the Zulu's used their assegai short spears to thrust at the enemy like the Romans did with their short swords. The Zulus were also cunning to attempt to lock their shields with the enemy's to put them at a disadvantage in close quarters. Since the Romans for the most part were use to fighting disorganized "barbarians" who fought as individuals, I think encountering the Zulu's trained formations would have come as something of a surprise to them.

Too bad the Zulu's did not employed their superb cross-county running ability to hit the British columns on the march, or attacked them at night. The outcome of the war could have turned in their favor--or made it at least more costly to their technologically superior foes.....

Well, Romans alsso fight quite well against phalanxes and fought Spanish formations led by Carthaginians. They really only got pounded by horse heavy armies with skilled bowmen. Mostly.

And Gauls pumped up on some really funky soup.

Did the Gauls ever win a battle against unsurprised Romans? Thats a real question. I don't know. I know the Wife's relatives pounded the bejesus out of them on multiple occasions, but well they've been known to do that. Indeed Germanic myths about Attila are pretty benign. Leave it to the Germans to see the good side to the Scourge of God.

Orlanth wrote:The Alamo was a needless fight as the surrender option was realistic and reasonable.

Remember Goliad!

Frazzled wrote:Did the Gauls ever win a battle against unsurprised Romans? Thats a real question. I don't know. I know the Wife's relatives pounded the bejesus out of them on multiple occasions, but well they've been known to do that. Indeed Germanic myths about Attila are pretty benign. Leave it to the Germans to see the good side to the Scourge of God.

I don't know about 'unsurprised', but Gauls were said to make great mercenaries, which is why some gallic settlements went as far as Pontus (later Bizantium) and the Black Sea.