Peter Quantrill
Guest
|
Julian,
I fear that the trip to the Natal Archives was somewhat disappointing. Ucadjanas statement/s were not located. The Shepstone papers were there, but did not amplify anything further than that mentioned in Laband's R of S. Certainly no statement that several 'chiefs' had admitted to a pre-planned attack, although Laband eludes to it. Our case rests with British primary source statements that have been argued and counter-argued until, exhaustively, we have agreed to disagree. What was of interest, and again I do not wish to be drawn into the ammunition controversy that has been so often aired, not only in ZV, but on this forum where again we have agreed to disagree. However, here is what Shepstone wrote when interviewing ' several chiefs and certain Zulus.' Quote: " Your people ........would stand back to back & defy us to approach & while the ammunition lasted we did not approach them - but took advantage of them when the ammunition had failed." This is one area where consensus will never be reached, but I thought it worth a mention. |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Peter
With regard to your final aside in today's posting (and mindful of your understandable reluctance to be drawn yet again into the ammunition question!), surely the accounts expressed to Shepstone by "several chiefs & certain Zulus" refer to the final stands of various isolated companies or groups which found themselves surrounded during the latter stages of the battle on or near the saddle? If so, then at this stage of the fight I understand there is no argument at all about ammunition re-supply, as each group was largely cut off from further supply by then - their reason for a back-to-back stand. As for the argument over the decoy possibility, thanks are due to you, Ron, Julian and Keith etc., for patiently going over your stated positions for the benefit of all of us. Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Quantrill
Guest
|
Peter,
You are quite right. The groups referred to first ran out of ammo, then only did the Zulus close, according to Shepstone's report. This however in no way alters our view that an overall ammo shortage did exist. However the shortage theory as opposed to their not being a shortage will never be resolved by the followers of either theory. We feel that in the special chapter devoted to the ammunition shortage in Zulu Victory, together with lengthy debates on this site, we have a strong case, which in turn is disputed, I believe by Julian and Colonel Mike and perhaps others. It may be too tedious to those who have followed both arguments to reopen the issues, hence the boring stance of "agreeing to disagree." I would reiterate what Julian has stated. The perceived spats on site in no way reflect the help that Julian, (or indeed Mike, Mike McC, Keith and John Young have given us) in the direct messages that have passed between us. Long may they continue. Ron has been unable to respond to matters Hlobane and others as he and Brenda are in the throws of moving home after fifteen long years in Assagay. Our next work? How does " Sgt Harry Potter and the Isandlwana Quest" sound? That may give the copyrighters a field day. |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Brilliant, Peter. Aerial views of a Quidditch game with Harry zooming around the summit of the Lion Rock ...
Your debates on Isandlwana with the others are certainly valued. Because of the nature of the argument, only those few who have examined the primary sources (as well as virtually every relevant first hand published account) can really make a pertinent contribution and back it up, so it is understandable when the protagonists (I use the word lightly!) finally draw breath and say "that's it" - one can wade through one's notes only so many times in search of one reference after another. The arguments I particularly appreciate are those which focus on how much weight or reliability (or otherwise) should be placed on any particular source or reference, vis-a-vis another. Evaluation of the evidence and how it has been treated, both previously and today, is obviously crucial and it fascinates me. Much of it is poor, not as first hand as it may look or was not even fresh when originally published, and yet it is all we have, barring the odd primary source still awaiting discovery. I find the debates stimulating & not at all negative - quite the reverse: civilized, informed and restrained. Email postings always do look more abrupt than they are often intended to appear. (And we can always use the "emoticons" now...!) Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Zulu Vanquished |
David Glynne Fox
|
Wow,
All this debate, and I only asked about Norman Magnus MacLeod! Still, it has created yet more interesting debate and I thank all who have taken the trouble to respond. Marvellous stuff. Regards to all David |
||||||||||||
_________________ David Glynne Fox ZuluVentures.co.uk |
Julian whybra
|
Peter Q
Sorry that there were no Ucadjana docs to be found - I wonder whether Laband was mistaken? Peter E I totally agree with your interpretation of the remarks made by certain Zulus to Shepstone. These were not meant to reflect on the overall ammunition availability but on the final moments of each square when of course ammunition MUST run out! |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Quantrill
Guest
|
Julian,
No, Laband is not mistaken. The staff at the Archives are now all "rookies," a 100% turnaround from a year or so ago. What should have been half an hours work took a couple just to produce the Shepstone Papers. Lunch break and guess what. Will make another attempt at some stage. You are, it has to be said, whetting my appetite on the ammo issue. |
||||||||||||
|
Julian whybra
|
Dear Peter
Re Ucadjana, time will tell. Re ammunition, Mercy! No! I really don't want to revisit that in the absence of any new information coming to light. |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Peter
My own PMB contacts echo word for word your own frustrations at the current problems at the archives there - especially the lunch breaks!!! Over here too, archives all too often these days are at the back of the queue for resources, which is obviously understandable to a degree when public money is involved, but a good attitude on the part of the staff can work wonders. County Record Offices and the PRO/TNA have undergone an amazing revolution during this last decade or so, with the customers' needs prominent in most developments. Is it simply a case of the new staff in PMB eventually becoming more experienced, do you think? Or is it more deep-seated? Are resources apparently stretched to the limit? I've also heard that doc production times are not good! Nothing more frustrating ... Peter |
||||||||||||
|
AMB
|
Dear All,
I have clearly come late to the party! A hugely enjoyable debate. Well constructed and thought out viewpoints that have had me reaching for various works from my library. Great fun! Many thanks. AMB |
||||||||||||
|
John Young
|
Zulu Vanquished faux pas spotted!
Ron & Peter, I have just noticed "a howler" in ZV2. Why does Captain Alan Garder's image appear above a caption relating to J.C. Russell? Can't you two tell a hussar from lancer? Regards, John |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Quantrill
Guest
|
John,
You have been a tad slow picking that up. There is a well trod nit-pickers path to that one! We do know the difference but captions do get shuffled about at the publishers, especially if we get to see ( due to distances?) the final proof sans maps and pictures. However the buck does stop with us and we acknowledge this. As ever, R&P |
||||||||||||
|
John Young
|
R. & P.
Tad busy when I initially received the book, hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere, hence my late appearance on this one! Regards, John |
||||||||||||
|
Zulu Vanquished |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.