This is actually something that fascinates me no end.
There is no doubt that the British government awarded so many VCs to make the battle seem much more than the defeat at Isandlwana. But when you compare the two, Rorke's Drift should have been one of those footnote incidents in history.
Lord Chelmsford lost a third of his expeditionary force at Isandlwana, 850 British and 450 African in British service, 1300 in all. The Zulus captured many rifles and ammunition.
At Rorke's Drift there was only a depleted company of Welsh Borderers, some police and some Natal Native Contingent. 138 men in total.
The simple fact of the matter is that the defenders should have been comprehensively rolled by the 6000 Zulus who attacked. The Zulu command basically sucked. A series of probe and retreat attacks that the defenders barely managed to hold off. A fulled blooded assault from two directions with the entire force would have wiped out the British.
With 11 VCs awarded, Rorke's Drift has more, perhaps 3x, than any other . Why?
Mr. Witt: You will all be killed like those this morning - and now the sick in their beds! All of you!
Lt. Chard: I don't think so, Mr. Witt. The Army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.
Lt. Bromhead: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast.
Only a few of the VCs winners from the battle actually achieved anything after the battle. Bromhead became a Major and died 12 years later. Dalton, the person who developed the defense strategy, died 8 years later, having achieved nothing else. Chard became a Colonel and died in 1897.
Colour Sergeant Bourne is the coolest of the defenders. Only 18 at the time of the battle, called "The Kid". He was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for Rorke's Drift. He was commissioned in 1890 and retired in 1907. He reenlisted in 1914 and at the end of WWI was given the honourary rank of Lt Colonel and made an Officer of the British Empire (OBE).
