rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Donald Morris-- Ammunition--Again.

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:42 am

Thanks Julian, I wasn't sure. I have some similar questions that I think I'll post under a new topic so they don't get buried in our Cup shortened summer cornucopia here.

Speaking of cornucopias... Lest any casual visitors are feeling let down by the title of this topic not seeming to live up to it's implications, I'll throw in a
couple of quotes from my two latest reads.

A footnote from "The Historical Records of the 24th Regiment" (Available from the RRW Shop and well worth the money given the proviso to the casual reader to save it until you have read much more from modern writers) -

"" The Regimental Records of this date [Jan. 22,1879] say : " Turn where we will, the same story of the disaster is traced to broad characters ; extended formations against savages whose hand-to-hand fighting was alone to be feared, and failure of ammunition. When this failed, there was no hope. It is known that Quarter-Master Bloomfield, 2nd battalion 24th, met his death while trying with others to untie the ammunition boxes on the mules, and that the mules with ammunition boxes on them were to be seen plunging and kicking over the field, maddened with fear. No arrangements had been made for the distribution of ammunition, and it may be mentioned that appliances for the purpose were asked for when the Second Battalion was still at Greytown. An answer came in due time, stating 'the articles applied for are not in store.' The letter further observed : ' However useful and necessary such appliances may be in European warfare, it is not expected that they will be required in a war such as the troops are about to enter upon.""

Juxtaposed against this from John Laband's "Lord Chelmsford's Zululand Campaign 1878-1879" (Out of print but still fairly available.) -

"Memorandum by Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford, [undated, thought to be 26 March 1879]

Companies must be held together in close order - Files must loosen out, but not be extended

Each waggon and cart with the convoy must have some ammunition boxes placed on it in such a position as to be easily got at -

The regimental reserve boxes must have the screw of the lid taken out, and each waggon or cart will have a screwdriver attached to one of the boxes so it may be ready for opening when the screw is not taken out - [...]"

We can come down pretty hard on old Donald sometimes but I believe these are two 'horse's mouth' examples that at the time he was writing may easily have coloured his thinking (in spite of some obvious confusion in the Regimental Record). Not to mention some articles in the Natal press of the day which probably gave the idea 'legs'.

MAB

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:40 am

Neil / Peter

I suspect that the 1415 Thomas letter, which may in fact have been written originally in Welsh and translated into English, is a curious mixture of rumour and guesswork; and it appears to include details which make more sense in the context of Rorke's Drift than Isandlwana. Judging from the newspaper itself, it's highly likely that the text of the letter was garbled during transcription to print. Interesting to note that John Laband seems to have taken it at face value.

Regards,

Paul

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:40 am

Paul

Yes, guesswork & rumour seem to fill this letter, and - like you - I'd be surprised, too, if confusion hadn't also arisen from errors in translation and transcription. For example, his implication that "we" were in the camp but that Chelmsford was somewhere else does not suggest he had been out with Chelmsford that day but there are so many wild anomalies that it is difficult to know where the writer's confusion begins and the newspaper's editorial efforts take over. It is not unlike many published but inaccurate letters in its strange claims (as you'll already know) but must be considered one of the more bizarre!

Where, for example, does his claim that they were forever on the march come from, unless he was not, unlike most, writing from the claustrophobic, soggy and fever-riddden confines of R/Drift or Fort Melvill? Perhaps he meant to say (or actually said but was mis-transcribed) we had been constantly on the march, referring - as in the rest of the letter - to events a month earlier. Who knows? The resulting published letter was a mess and it is impossible now to work out who was responsible for all the wild claims and assumptions.

Peter

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:10 pm

Peter

You're right: Thomas's letter is a mess, but it's worth noting that a number of the soldiers from Wales (perhaps elsewhere too?) refer to their regiments in the first person plural, even when the writers themselves are not personally present: so for example 'they attacked us; we drove them off'. Does this perhaps derive from the sense of identity the soldiers had with their own units?

I think the 'marching' thing can be taken as an instance of mistranslation. Owen Ellis uses a Welsh word which can be translated as 'marching' to indicate that he was on duty. Maybe Thomas was simply saying that the men had constantly been on high alert since Isandlwana - which was, of course, true.

Paul