| Date | Original Topic |
| 31st January 2002 | A. Greaves....Isandlwana (the sources revisited yet again (apologies to F.W.D. Jackson!)
By Keith
Is it really packed with astonishing new material?.I usually buy every book available on the Zulu War. My bookshelves are awash with them. But even I have baulked at yet another book on Isandlwana. Is there anything new?..if there is, of course I will buy it. |
| Date | Replies |
| 1st February 2002 | Jim Cobbin
It contains a good deal about the social circumstances at the time but most interesting is his analysis of events after Isandlwana. According to Greaves,Durnfords orders were 're-written'as part of an official cover up. Durnfords orders were found on his body after Chelmsfords staff re wrote them, to blame Pulleine and Durnford. The real Durnford orders then turned up at Chatham Museum - but you can read it for yourself, its not expensive at �13 via the internet. Jim. |
| 1st February 2002 | Dave Barry
Jim,
This that new? Didn't Whybra & Jackson go over that ground some years ago?
Who or what are the Royal Native Carbineers.
And didn't the Royal Durban Rangers become the Durban Mounted Rifles. Just noticed Natal police instead of Natal Mounted Police.
Three errors in as many lines. How many more?
Zulu shields deflecting bullets where is the proof of that. I heard Adrian Greaves say that on a tape of a radio show someone sent me. I could not believe it then and I don't now sort of thing that should have been on the secrets of the dead program. Dave
|
| 3rd February 2002 | Jim Cobbin
Dave, I think the RDR only became the DMR in 1910 - see Hurst concerning volunteer units.
Re the shields deflecting bullets, I also heard this on the radio and contacted Adrian Greeves. He learned this from relatives of Zulus who participated at Isandlwana and Gingindlovu when he was researching this back in the 80s and 90s. His book does state that this 'may well' have accounted for the Zulus belief that they had immunity. More to the point, he states that British officers were so concerned about their inability to stop the Zulus advancing at Gingindlovu that they traced the position of Zulu bodies after the battle- they only went back to 300 yards, even though volleys and Gatling Guns opened fire at between 600 and 800 yards. He also told me that Col. Buller sent a strong report to the War Office after the war complaining that it was because of faulty ammunition that the volleys were not effective. Greeves sent me a copy, it is Buller's memorandum dated 11th June 1880 to the War Office. It looks as though rounds did bounce off the shields at a distance - but probably because of faulty ammo, and the Zulus must have noticed this, hence telling thier children.
Jim |
| 3rd February 2002 | John Young
Jim Cobbin,
Dave e-mailed me about your reply and asked me to do some checking on the Royal Durban Rangers.
The Royal D'Urban Rangers were formed in 1854. They were disbanded in 1869, ten years prior to the events of the Anglo-Zulu War.
Elements of the Royal D'Urban Rangers formed the Victoria Mounted Rifles and the Stanger Mounted Rifles.
I can only assume that some also joined the Durban Mounted Rifles on their formation in 1873.
Are sure you are not confusing the Royal D'Urban Rangers with the Royal Durban Rifles? As they are a totally different unit.
Source: Eric Goetzsche's "Rough But Ready" The History of the Natal Mounted Rifles.
Regards,
John Young,
Chairman,
Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
(And from a researcher point of view, are you any relation to Dr. Cobbin?) |
| 4th February 2002 | Jim Cobbin
Dear John,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I am not aware that I have any Dr. Cobbin relatives. |
| 4th February 2002 | Julian Whybra
I must object to the wording on your shop site that the Durnford Papers have never before been published. In fact I insist you amend it. David Jackson and myself found the Durnford Papers (not A Greaves)and produced an article on them in The Soldiers of the Queen March 1990 Issue 60. In his Isandhlwana book Greaves does not acknowledge our work and (worse) repeats verbatim 224 words (almost all of it continuous text) and a diagram from our article. I am currently taking advice on this. I might also point out that the work is riddled with the most basic errors. Bring back book burning.
|
| 4th February 2002 | Peter Critchley
Julian,
As you will see on the Shop Front, we are acting as an AGENT of the Royal Regiment of Wales. The shop on this site is an EXACT mirror of the one on RRW. The product descriptions are not created by us, and are not vetted by us. I have emailed you seperately about this issue.
All the best,
Peter Critchley
Webmaster |
| 5th February 2002 | Dave Nolan
I was disappointed in Mr Greaves book - the Durnford papers have been discussed by serious writers on the subject since 1990 - Ian Knight's 'Zulu' (1992) assesses their impact on the course of the battle, for example (and acknowledges Whybra and Jackson!)
The book repeats the racist, apartheid history that South Africa was an empty land where Boers trekking north met the Bantu moving south sometime late in the 18th century - archaelogy of the last twenty years disproves this theory and consigns it to where it belongs.
And as for providing a social background to the conflict I need only cite that the author states that in 1879 2.6 per cent of the population were dying PER MONTH in Britain - using this figure almost everyone in Britain would have been dead within 5 years!
And as for holding the shields at an angle to deflect bullets - this may have worked, at range, in Shaka's and Dingane's days against muzzle loading muskets, particularly if the enemy had poor quality powder and ammunition and may have entered the Zulu oral tradition from this, but if Mr Greaves was to volunter to test this theory - perhaps by holding a shield in front of his body, at whatever angle he chooses, at 3-400 yards range and get some people with Martini-Henrys to fire at him, I am sure the question could be answered once and for all.
Any 'new material' I could see was down to stuff from Lt Curling RA which is covered in Mr Best's book on The Curling Letters published at the same time.
I must add that the book is nicely presented with a soft cover and 'feels good' to read.
|
| 6th February 2002 | Julian Whybra
Re my comments on 4th Feb - apologies, it's not 224 words of text, it's 340 (at the moment) and a diagram. |
| 26th April 2002 | Stephen McDonald
More sour grapes from Julian.
Give it a rest Julian, we're all tired of it. |
| 26th April 2002 | James Garland
Stephen,
If you did a great deal of original research and found that it had been used without aknowledgement in someone elses book would you give it a rest? Perhaps we should have a reply from Mr. Greaves. |
| 26th April 2002 | James Garland
Stephen,
If you did a great deal of original research and found that it had been used without aknowledgement in someone elses book would you give it a rest? Perhaps we should have a reply from Mr. Greaves. |
