The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
18th December 2002	From a zulu Perspective the battle if ISANDHLWANA started at 07:00hrs By PETER HARMAN Lieutenant Charlie Raw is the person usually credited with the discovery of the Zulu army;in chasing after some herded cattle,he all by canters over the edge of a deep ravine.Reining back just in time, below him, stretching as far as the eye can see,are packed ranks of the zulu army,sitting in silence on their great war shilds.Dramatic stuff,but far different from the description of the events as contained in Raw's official report written shortly after the battle.In any event the heights above the Ngwebini valley are two miles further to the north-east of Raw's position, and there would not have been time for the NNH and especially not for the NNC on foot, to have travelled that additional distance.Raw's report was never submitted as edidence at the court of Inquiry,but it was later sent to the war office as supplementary evidence.Also reports failed to mention that the Carbineers and the NMP,under Scott, had been in action since early morning on the 22nd ,and failed to credit the zulu movements taking place at the time preperatory to its planned deployment and attack.From a zulu perspective the battle had already started by 07:00hrs. It is also significant that Ntshingwayo,who commanded the zulu army at ISANDHLWANA,was never questioned.Although after the war Sir Garnet Wolseley gave Ntshingwayo one of the thirteen Cheifdoms of the former Kingdom,It seems no one recorded Ntshingwayo's views on the conduct of the battle.
Date	Replies
18th December 2002	Keith Smith Peter Much of what you say is in Lock & Quantrill's book Zulu Victory. I have had great difficutly reconciling most accounts of the discovery with the Narrative, Raw, Nyanda and Hamer accounts. My own view is that Raw and/or his people rode over Itusi ridge and not Mabaso. There is too much Zulu evidence that the Mcijo were already on the plateau between Mabaso and Itusi for this not to be so, and other regiments seem also to have been deployed from the ravine. To do this, the vedettes had to be eliminated and this took place just after 6 am, as L & Q say, although I do not agree with Whitelaw on Nyezi - from Barker, one should place him on Itusi, leaving the gap between there and Mabaso open for the Zulu deployment. When the discovery was made, the Zulu right wing was already deploying, indicating that Ntshingwayo had decided to attack, having observed Chelmsford's force departing the camp. The moon might have had an early influence but as at Nyezane, fought on the same day, war is war and forget the moon! Sorry to be so long-winded but this, it seems to me, is the crux of this fascinating battle. Keith
19th December 2002	PETER HARMAN Thanks Keith. I have just purchased the book zulu victory. I have found some very interesting information. So what I intend to do is while I'm reading this book I will choose the subjects that I feel and would like different views on and put in on this web site. One of my very first questions on this web site was with reference to papers being taken from Durfords Body. But I will put this on the web-site soon. Thanks for your reply.
19th December 2002	Keith Smith Peter Before you put up your question on Durnford, I suggest you look at some of the very early items - I feel sure this question was raised a while ago and you may find some answers there. Keith
20th December 2002	Ron Lock Peter and Keith, Most of what Peter had to say is virtually taken verbatim from our book "Zulu Victory". In reply, Keith said that he had difficulty in "reconciling most accounts of the discovery with the Narrative, Raw, Nyanda and Hamer's accounts" Although I have read this several times Keith, I'm not clear whether your difficulty is reconciling previous accounts with ours - those of Raw, Nyanda and Hamer - or otherwise? The accounts of these three gentlemen, written shortly after the battle, are, as far as I am aware, the only firsthand reports of the discovery of the Zulu army and, as such, must surely be accepted as factual. There would havae been no motive for collusion and, as each report corroborates the others, there can be no doubt as to their accuracy. Keith, during your recent visit to the battlefield with pre-publication copies of the battle maps from our book (pages 152-3,156-7,197,200-1 etc.) it would have been plain to see that we had placed "Raw and his people" (in order of seniority it was actually Shepstone, Barton, Raw etc.) exactly where you conclude them to have been, not 4 miles away on Mabaso as you seem to think we indicate. Where we do differ is with your sugestion that Whitelaw and his mate were on Itusi. Tpr. Barker's report makes it quite clear that Whitelaw was stationed on Nyezi not Itusi: "We left camp at about 4 a.m., and the Carbineers were posted to the direct front and left of the camp from three miles [Qwabe] and five miles [Nyezi] from the camp ... after being posted for about a quarter of an hour we noticed a lot of mounted men in the distance, and on their coming nearer we saw that they were trying to surround us. We gave the usual signal [circlilng the horses] but had to retire off the hill post haste, as we discovered they were Zulus. We retired to Lt. Scott [on Conical Hill] about two miles nearer camp, and informed him of what we had seen, and he decided to come back with us, but before we had gone far we saw Zulus on the hill we had just left [Qwabe] and others advancing from the left flank [from the direction of the south eastern entrance to the Nqwebini Valley and Nyezi] where two other vedettes, Whitelaw and another, had been obliged to retire from. Whitelaw reoorted a large army advancing, 'thousands' I remember him distinctly stating ..." There is little doubt that there were other vedettes on Itusi, they would most likely have been a few troopers of the Natal Mounted Police, as the NMP had been posted there the previous day. To return to Raw and Nyanda's reports. There was not just one firing line at the Battle of Isandlwana as most accounts lead us to believe, but three - each distinct and separate. These are described in detail in Zulu Victory but briefly they were: a) The firing line comprised of Durnford's two troops of NNH, approx. 100 strong, They held the line of the Nyokana Donga, one mile east of the camp, until they ran out of ammunition and left the battlefield with hardly a casualty. b) The firing line at the bottom of the Tahelane Ridge comprised of Mostyn and Cavaye's companies of the 1/24th, approx. 160 men (less casualties aalready inflicted); 100 men of the NNH (Raw and Barton's men) (Less casualties) and, at the last moment, fifty men of Vause's troop NNH. Most were over run and wiped out. There were no survivors of the 1/24th companies. Raw's report gives an eye witness account of their end: "The company" [there were two] "of the 24th then retired towards the tents, and the enemy following close after, cut the up before they could rally, killing the close in to the tents". c) The final firing line comprising the two R.A. guns and three companies of the 24th, those commanded by Wardell, Porteous and Pope, approx. 250 infantry. A few gunners escaped but all the infantry of the three companies were killed. All three firing lines were distinct and each separated from the other by considerable distance.
20th December 2002	Keith Smith Peter and Ron Let me first apologise to Ron because, having re-read my piece above, it is a little confusing. What I should have made clear was that I had been unable to reconcile the contemporary accounts with modern narratives, until I read L & Q, who place the discovery at Itusi and not the Ngwebeni ravine. However, I still disagree with Ron's placement of Whitelaw. My argument goes thus: Why would Whitelaw be placed so much further east than Qwabe, thereby making the latter post redundant? Further, Ron himself (page 133) says that Clery ordered Insp. Mansel, NMP, who had placed the vedettes, to withdraw those furthest from the camp, and that he did so. (There is no evidence in Mansel's letters that he did remove them.) If he did, he must have removed that at Nyezi, if it existed. Ron cannot have it both ways. Barker plainly states that the other post was to the left, which certainly does not describe Nyezi. Nyezi is also out of sight of amaTutshane (the Conical Koppie) and therefore was hidden from Lt Scott and his command post. Did Barker serve only as a signal station for Whitelaw? Finally, for Ron's thesis to be so, and I accept it, the vedette must also have been driven from Itusi to keep the Zulu advance hidden from the British and this location fits Barker's description. Remember, there was still a vedette on the Nyoni Ridge, further to the west, and this had commanding views over the whole plateau, except for the dead ground behind Itusi. Ron, I will email you privately about some matters in your book when I have read it a second time. I must say that I found many aspects of it most refreshing. Peter, sorry to be so wordy again. Consult Ron's excellent maps for the topography to which he and I refer. Keith
21st December 2002	P.HARMAN Thank you Ron And Keith. Ron I'm finding your book to be full of New evidence some of which sheds light on some of the questions I feel need to answered. Keith I once asked a question relating to papers being removed from Durfords Body in Zulu Victory Durfords brother received a letter from an eye witness who saw papers being removed from his brothers body. I would fully put my question on the web site yet as I need to get my question right first.I have always thought that the papers removed from Durfords Body where part of the cover up. I am still reading zulu victory but its one of those book which you have to re-read to cross refrence certain events.But so far I certainy feel this book will open some interesting discussions in the future.
22nd December 2002	Ron Lock Peter and Keith, Keith, the disagreement between Clery and Mansel regarding the placing of vedettes happened on the 20th January. Clearly, by the following day, the thinking had changed somewhat as vedettes had been placed on Itusi where they observed, on several occasions, a garoup of Zulu horsemen on Mabaso, four miles to the north east. Later in the day, Chelmsford and his staff also witnessed the horsemen and estimated them as being 14 in number. Still later on the 21st, Dartnell's reports started coming in of a substanatial Zulu force ten miles south east of the camp, near Mangeni Falls. So by the time Chelmsford and half the column departed for Mangeni early on the morning of the 22nd, the positioning of the vedettes would, of necessity, have been revised from two days earlier. As for Nyezi not being to the left of , I disaagaree. However, in researching the battle we frequently came upon a problem of left or right being used instead of a compass direction. But if you place yourself in Barker's boots, gazing to the south east where Chellmsford and the Zulu army were supposedly located, and with your back to the camp, Nyezi is to the left front.
22nd December 2002	Keith Smith Ron and Peter OK Ron, as with other things about which we have talked, let's agree to disagree! Keith