The Real Story

Rating: 7/10 (25 November 2013)

Much blather about "bravery", "heroism", "valor", etc. ad infinitum, in the discussion of this movie, but the fact of the matter is that none of these qualities comes into play when your back is against the wall and you have to fight for your life or die. After all, were the fighting men given a choice as to whether they might prefer to retreat into Natal and spare themselves a pointless battle and slaughter? If they'd said, "I think I'd prefer to take a pass on this battle," they would have been summarily shot (indeed, one soldier was shot for exercising his good judgment and attempting to clear out). Or did they have the option, once they viewed the overwhelming Zulu forces arrayed against them, to surrender? Changes are, again, they would have been executed, in this case by their captors. Real heroism et al. comes into play when you willingly put yourself into harm's way, and that ain't the case here. These were simply individuals fighting for their lives.
And they were fighting a battle that was stupid and useless. Rorke's Drift was located on the border between the Zulu Empire and Natal, and the Zulus had no territorial ambitions vis-a'-vis Natal. As it happens, the Brits chose to withdraw their forces from Zululand after the debacle of their first invasion. Six months later they returned to Zululand and conquered the Zulus and "pacified" their territory.
So, in the end, the hundreds of Zulu lives lost and the 2 score Anglo lives lost were lost for nothing. This isn't a matter of hindsight--it's a matter of the kind of stupidity and pig-headedness commonplace in warfare at the level of military command. And so instead of celebrating Lt. Chard for his "bravery" and "heroic stance", we should see him more in the light of "we were waist-deep in the big muddy and the damned fool said to push on."
P.S.: A BBC investigative report into the battle found that Lt. Chard was described by his fellow officers as "a most useless officer fit for nothing."