Talk:Battle of Rorke's Drift

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 22, 2011.

Military history: African / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

South Africa High‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Late of?

Quote: Later that evening a portion of the No. 2 Column under Brevet Colonel Anthony Durnford, late of the Royal Engineers

I don't get the meaning of "late of" in this context. Thanks. Maikel (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Late of..." means, 'formerly of....used to be a member of' It's very old fashioned. I know the question was 7 years ago, but I just found this and I thought it should be answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C492:CC10:3479:C829:325A:95FB (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victory?

Is it correct to describe the encounter in this way? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -----Snowded ^TALK 09:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informative contribution Snowded. Rather than change the wording myself now, I prefer to mention it here first, even though my change of uncited wording would be obvious and referenced. I suggest the result of the battle should be described as a 'successful defence', which is what it was. 'Victory' is a step too far. If anyone thinks otherwise, please elaborate why. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Manual of Style? There are two options: "X Victory" or "See aftermath" (e.g. for status quo ante bellum). Not all articles have caught up with the convention, but this one is correct. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here [1]. Options are victory or inconclusive or In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail or Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.. A note to a better description in the article seems best. Seeing as the Zuku left voluntarily and orderly it is hard to describe them as being militarily defeated. What consequence was there for the British garrison from this, other than being left undefeated, which is not the same as being victorious. There are reliable sources [2] that describe the encounter as a successful defence and omit the word 'victory' entirely. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a template. The MOS itself has different guidance, although I see that there inconsistencies in terms of exact wording while changes work through. But the point remains that we don't include qualifiers. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a hugely helpful comparison, so apologies for that, but I cannot help thinking of the Battle of Britain, where the attackers also withdrew in good order and gave up the attack of their own volition, the defenders were, at the moment of victory, facing exhaustion and being imminently overwhelmed, the attackers suffered barely higher casualties (in aircraft) than the defenders, and the point of contention on Wikipedia is whether to describe it as a "victory" or "decisive victory" in the infobox. MPS1992 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing - I had a minor input into the debate on the Battle of Britain article too. I recall a debate occurred about whether to describe it as a victory or a decisive victory. I think most editors, including me, had not seen the link above which clearly puts an end to 'decisive' victory. However, I agree that a comparison exists. A 'B of B' debate should be on that article, not here, which is what seems to be happening there, especially with increasing historic revision as time moves on. I think in the case of Rorke's Drift the lack of a 'victory' is even clearer, and that the use of that term, instead of a more reflective analysis of what actually happened, can be better put down to laziness or to nationalistic jingoism, fuelled by a damned good story. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of victory in the context of a battle, not the total war. The Zulu sought to take it and failed and/or choose to fail (depending on how you read history and the myths around the film). As such, per Wiki-Ed the use is correct, or my much simpler yes. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A victory implies the winner receives some type of gain from the victory. That would explain why the Battle of Britain was certainly a victory, even if in strictly fighting terms it could better be described as a stalemate. The gains to Britain from not losing were incalculable. But can the same be said of Rorke's Drift? What meaningful advantage came from the encounter that would not have come had it never happened? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't assess proportionality here - in the context of the Zulu wars it was a victory and coming after the previous massive defeat was more significant. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case Wikipedia is not a place for reinterpreting sources. If the consensus view in RS is that this was a stalemate then we can change it. I am guessing, but I think you'll struggle to find a single source for that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duration query

In Defence Of The Hospital, para 5 "After fifty minutes" is quoted. Would it take so long? Why? What was the wall made from? SkyBod (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British victory - really?

This may have come up before, but is it accurate to describe the result this way? Wouldn't it be better to leave out the section named result, as happens in other engagements where a clear result cannot be succinctly described. The encounter was not really even a stalemate, making that label inaccurate as well. We should remember the purpose of this result label - keep it short and sweet without any opinion adjectives. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much has changed in the two years and ten months since you last asked this question: the Zulus attempted to take the ground, and the British were still in possession of the field when the Zulus withdrew. it may have been just minutes away from a Zulu victory, but the Zulu attack failed. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did check back through the archives because I did think I had raised it before, but found nothing. I should have checked on the current talk page though, so my apologies for unintended repetion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If british

What if british got new reinforcesmet then? 58.11.27.101 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]