rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Well Mike, yes, broadly-speaking, I'm in agreement but and I'm writing generally here not specifically about MS's book...if a writer wishes to introduce a certain slant to an historical event, (a) s/he should be able to back up the theory with some hard supporting evidence and be prepared to state where that evidence comes from and (b) s/he should be able to refute contrary evidence in like manner and provide supporting evidence as to why certain 'facts' have been ignored or left out.
MS wrote somewhere in the book that he was not intending to write a book for 'historians' or 'experts' and that's fair enough. From my point of view the book IS good enough to have been so written despite the fact that, like you, I don't agree with all of it, and I feel it's just a pity (and sometimes annoying) that more isn't footnoted.
View user's profileSend private message
Mike McCabe
Guest

Reply with quote
Well, this is a 'big' and bold book, written by somebody who is well enough aware - by dint of diligent research of a very high order and much walking the ground - what might or might not be evidenced by various information sources. That much, deserves genuine respect.

The reader should carefully read, and take very seriously indeed, every word of its 'Prologue'. Here the author makes it perfectly clear how he intends to proceed and, I suppose, one might say that "what it says on the tin" is what you can expect to find in the tin.

There is also a small but utterly respectable smidgeon of love of Regiment, and love of professional heritage, and of the understandable and supportable need to make it very clear indeed that those of the 24th, and some others, at Isandlwana deserve - by their efforts and sacrifice - much more recognition than some of the rather trifling recent histories have dished out. This is no game or amusement, and, if it ever is or was, it was played 'to the death', and that deserves respect too.
That is no small influence - especially as we who are aware know of the distinction with which the modern serving 1st Bn RRW recently served on operations in Iraq during 2003/04, with a sense of professionalism and esprit de corps (what's that in Welsh B-Q?) that is all down to the members of the Bn, but has some profound inspiration in the example of those modest and impressive men of Isandlwana and RD.

Bleak, antiseptic, analytical, uncomprehending, forensic, synthesised, trite, worthy histories of lesser conviction and breadth of vision simply pale by comparison. As do the sour snivelling writings of those who simply write for sensation, disparegement and profit. At least 80% (I speak figuratively) of what Mike has written could be described as unshakeably so - representing the 'science' of what justifiably be said about this enigmatic battle. The rest is passion, disputation, assertion, cajoling, hectoring, and occasionally, utter bullshit. However, it is also a red blooded, living and breathing account in which any man of soul and substance might find some inspiration, uplift, and proper sense of appreciation and admiration for the officers and men of he units that fought, and got killed and cut up, and buried in heaps in the middle of nowhere. Personally, your mourning the lack of footnotes simply adds to my pleasure in reading the book. Perhaps this one is just not for you, or your audit!

These are, of course, merely first impressions and I shall read again and more carefully before writing any review. Objectivity is everything!

MC McC
Keith Smith


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 540
Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Reply with quote
Rich

Yes, the book is on the D P & G list but I don't know any more than that! They are in the UK and I am in Oz, so it's a bit difficult to communicate, since they are not on email.

KIS
View user's profileSend private message
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
D. P. & G. kindly sent me an update of their book list recently.

Local General Orders Relating to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.
Compiled and Edited by Keith I. Smith.

The above title is included, along with details about the book's contents, the price and postage.

Coll
Alan
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 1530
Location: Wales
Reply with quote
I have just placed in the Book Reviews section, a title of DP&G Military books. This lists the most recent publications available from them.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/bookreviews.php?I'd=110

Alan
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
There will probably never be enough primary source material available to provide all the answers which would fully explain exactly what happened at Isandlwana. There will always have to be a certain amount of conjecture. Indeed, I'm not sure that we would want a book which finally gives us all the answers. No further need to analyse? No more debates?

Mike has applied a professional soldiers logic to many years of research and walking the ground.
In his Sept 26th posting, Mike said that he wanted to bring the battle of Isandlwana to life for the reader. There is no doubt that he has achieved that aim.

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Mike
Perhaps that's the point - 80% of Isandhlwana is known already. It is the 20% that is interesting...and if one is writing about the 20% then the 'evidencing' is important. I object by the way...the book is most definitely 'for me' (and I am certainly not in mourning)!
View user's profileSend private message
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Julian
But that it also the point I am raising in my post above.
If there are no reliable primary sources which can fill in the 20%, then it can only be conjecture. How can there be evidencing? This is what makes it interesting.
I ask this, of course, with the naivety of some one who is not a historian.

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
But that's the attraction of Isandlwana - that 20% of it will never be known. Why is it there isn't the similiar amount of interest in any of the other battles of AZW? Because there is no mystery. And thousands visit the battlefield just to try to understand what happened that day. The day that it is all explained away, is the day we will lose interest - may that day never come. Confused

Incidently, my copy of HCMDB is on it's way, so I will soon see what all the talk is about.

Dawn
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Mike McCabe
Guest

Reply with quote
Julian,
Information is not immediately 'evidence' as, in a modern military context, information is not automatically 'intelligence' until it has been collated and evaluated against other information sources.

There are more examples of fairly evidently 'corrupted sources' -or information sources very likely to have been motivated by self interest - featuring in association with accounts of the Isandlwana battle, than one might comfortably hope to find.

In a 'post-purchase' Victorian Army and the emergent middle classes of a rough and tumble 'Colony' like Natal, one might expect much variation between events and how they were to be described thosecwho bothered to do so.

Something being recorded - soon afterwards, or much later - does not make it a fact, or evidence.

MC McC
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Mel and Dawn
But finding information on the 20% alters received opinion. Writing conjecture is fine (as long as it doesn't become accepted 'fact') but what about a conjecture based upon a conjecture? Or a conjecture based upon a conjecture based upon a conjecture? what then? Where does on draw the line? It is too easy these days for 'might have' to become 'must have' to become 'did'.
Mike McC
It 's the historian's job to divide fact from fiction and to sift and assess evidence and its worth.
View user's profileSend private message
Mike McCabe
Guest

Reply with quote
Possibly, but not to make arbitrary decisions on what is fact and what is fiction. It takes a great deal of collateral and understanding of context indeed to establish a fact, and discard what might - on balance - be deemed to varying degrees to constitute a 'fiction', deliberate, mistaken, or otherwise.

Quality and reliability of source must also be evaluated to the extent possible.

And, this disposes to a large generality of soi disant 'historians' a lofty responsibility seldom well exercised in this particular area of study.

MC McC
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Mike McC
I'm sorry Mike. My reply of the 3rd was much longer. Somehow all bar the first two lines were lost. If the muse should return, I'll try and recreate what I wrote. I've only just noticed - I've visited the site intermittently recently.
View user's profileSend private message
WeekendWarrior


Joined: 17 Aug 2019
Posts: 2
Location: San Diego, CA
Reply with quote
Again, only 15 years late, but over the past few years I've been collecting Isandlwana eyewitness accounts, with assistance from Ian Knight, Julian Whybra, Frank Alewell and many other greats. I must say that by and large, HCMDB is holding up extremely well, although there are a few interesting revelations regarding the 2nd Battalion. I continue to recommend this work in the most glowing of terms.
View user's profileSend private message
Colin
Guest

Reply with quote
WW

Have you read the �Isandhlwana Papers� ?
HCMDB
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 2 of 2  

  
  
 Reply to topic