rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:31 pm

Paul

These postings are deliberately provocative and confrontational, outside the realms of the subject, focussing instead on the petty matter of my new membership details, with you unwilling from the start to recognise a fellow contributor's name or my previous postings informing others of my intentions before re-registering and also those since which confirm who I am.

I've been baited like this before on many occasions, these 'traps' having the purpose of trying to get me to react in a way not in keeping with the sort of person who I am.

Regretfully, with you resorting to such methods I will not respond to your posts any further.

C.J.

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:51 pm

@Denton Van Zan / CJ / Coll

No, the point of the exercise was to get you to explain your pejorative judgement about Ian Knight's work as an historian. Please note: I am not here to defend him or his scholarship - he is, presumably, quite capable of doing that for himself should he so choose - and I can assure you that I would be asking the same question of you had you made that remark about any other acknowledged research historian in this field. But there can be few more serious charges than to suggest that the work of an historian (among whom I count myself, incidentally) is a "novel", which is why I called you out on it.

But since you will neither defend your publicly-stated views nor retract them, then I agree with you that further discussion with you is pointless.

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:34 pm

Paul

Let me make one thing clear, I did not call his book a novel, I said he 'occasionally ventured into the area of a novelist', a comment which amounts to nothing more than maybe a few sentences or paragraphs, not the whole book.

You said regarding myself, that I - 'suggest that the work of an historian is a novel' - but you are mistaken. It is yourself that needs to withdraw this statement.

Called me out on it ? Confused

- this isn't the wild west.

If it was and it was High Noon, when we drew - your shot(s) missed.

C.J.

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:50 pm

Hi Coll

Good to have you back. On this topic of IK's new book, which I have bought but have only had time to dip into here and there in a scattergun way so far, I'm as interested as anyone else is in your views, as you've read it right through.

As you say, you are completely entitled to your own views on it. Without any attempt on my part to bait you, trap you, provoke you or even confront you or do anything else other than ask a simple, relevant question, can you please just let us all know which unproven facts the author has, in your view, repeated? All you need do is return to the book, itemise a few of the points you have in mind, thereby clarifying what you mean.

As I say, I've only had time (frustratingly) to dip so far. Despite having most of the published sources he cites already in my library, especially those he has not (often) cited before, and having already read a great deal on Natal and Zululand in the 1840s, '50s, 60s and '70s, I have so far found what I've read very refreshing indeed. I'm enjoying it immensely for this reason and am looking forward to continuing.

Peter

Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:01 am

Coll

I must agree wholeheartedly with Peter and Paul (sounds like part of a 60's group !). Surely this is the essence of this site ? We all have theories, but in putting them into the public domain on the forum we need to be prepared to justify them.

Ian, in his book, has indicated his views on events and has justified those views based on his intepretation of certain facts. His book is clearly well annotated and his footnotes are copious.

Now, you clearly have an issue with a few points that he has made. Can you not list those points and explain why you disagree ? This should then form the basis of a stimulating discussion. At the end of the day, we may still agree to disagree !

On another point, I am quite intrigued by you chosing "Denton Van Zan" (from "Reign of Fire") as your on-line name. ! quote from a reviewer (www.explore-science-fiction-movies.com) of the film:

[quote]"(Denton) Van Zan is a paradox. On the one hand he mercilessly pursues his agenda no matter the casualties. On the other hand he genuinely cares for his people" and "He has a beef with the dragons bordering on obsession."[/quote].

As for myself, Bill Cainan is my real name - the surname is Irish and was orginally "Cannon" - say Cannon in an Irish accent !

Hoping this will be the start of an interesting discussion.

Bill

Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:09 am

Well, my real name is Jean-Claude Van Damme but I got a bit fed up with being mistaken, both nominally and physically, with my Belgian namesake so I opted for Haydn Thomas Jones instead ('cos after watching Zulu I wanted to sound a bit Welsh, see).

More seriously, and without wishing to sound like a pre- election TV debate, I agree with Peter, Paul (and Mary if she's about) and Bill.

Listen, I'm just a grass root and when it comes to doing book reviews I can't hold a candle to you guys whose opinions I very much respect. But I would like to think I am reasonably well versed on the history of Natal, the Zulu and the AZW and certainly enough to know when I have read something a bit different. In my opinion, Zulu Rising is quite different to anything else "out there", particularly from the Zulu perspective, and is proving a most enjoyable read to date (page 471).

Of course, there will be stuff that we as AZW enthusiasts have all read before but do bear in mind that as enthusiasts we do not hold the monopoly on this particular piece of history. I would suggest that Ian Knight's gift is that he is able to reach a wider audience than most and one can easily imagine that when it comes to telling a comprehensive story of the events leading up to, and including, those of 22 January 1879, "Rising" will become the leader in its field to both enthusiasts and newcomers alike.

But Coll, (Denton? CJ? - which do you prefer?), you are, of course, entitled to your opinion but equally I do think the others have a point. It would be good if you could list the items with which you disagree and a sensible, non-confrontational debate might then ensue.

Haydn (JC) Wink

Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:56 pm

Hi Haydn

OK - it's a fair cop. And since we're being honest about our identities, I'm really M. Paul Bryant-Schwarzenegger. You can tell the physical similarities to my famous namesake by comparing his picture with the one Bill Cainan took of me ...

Embarassed

On the question of Zulu Rising, I think that this book, which I haven't yet finished, is an excellent narrative history. I haven't come across a better account of the Bushman's River Pass incident; and for me, at least, the light which Ian Knight sheds on the history and significance of the amaQungebeni is first-class.

The book isn't flawless (which book is?), and nor is it above criticism; I suspect that Ian Knight would be the first to acknowledge that. But from what I can see it is a very, very good book indeed and a major contribution to the literature.

We have now had two recent keynote studies of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift: this, and Mike Snook's. How about a thread discussing them both?

Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:34 pm

All

As I made no notes on my way through the book, and with it being thicker than a millionaire's wallet, I can't list any of the details on the forum.

I must add, that what I said about the book, was an honest opinion, and nothing like a 'damning criticism' of its contents by myself, which is the way this topic initially appeared to be heading in the direction of.

It'd be better if many more had the opportunity to read the book first.

C.J.

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:22 am

Hi Coll

Thanks for coming back. Again, without intending to be at all confrontational, I'm sure you'll agree that by going on record - in a very public way - by saying that one of (possibly the) most accomplished British research historian(s) on the AZW has, in a very high profile work, "repeated a few unpoven facts" is not the least controversial remark one could make, especially when linked to a statement in which you felt he had occasionally "ventured into the area of a novelist."

You are absolutely right, Coll. It is, indeed, a thick book (which you nevertheless managed to read from cover to cover in a few days or so) so I can readily understand that locating each of the "unproven facts" may not be the work of a few minutes if you didn't make notes at the time. However, I can also understand that you'll be very anxious, too, to support your statement or clarify your position on each of the "unproven facts" you identified, in an equally public manner. What, half a dozen, were there? Perhaps fewer? For this reason, I've not the slightest doubt that this forum will exercise all the patience with which it is renowned, by allocating sufficient time for you to relocate them and itemise them here. What do you think would be reasonable and practical , depending on how busy you are at present? A few days? A week? Even longer?

I'm sure there's no desperate hurry, as we're all busy in our different ways and in fairness to you it must be for you, and you alone, to say how long it will take. It won't, however, take anything like as long as it took to read it right through the first time, will it? But it certainly ought to be done, as someone with as sharp a sense of the concept of fairness as you have will undoubtedly agree.

Peter

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:47 am

Hi Coll

Just to echo Peter really, and in fairness to you, I for one am perfectly happy to "exercise patience" in this matter.

I am genuinely interested to hear your specific points but must say I should be greatly surprised if they are so numerous that it is difficult to readily recollect them?

Anyway, "L8rs then", as my teen-age son would say! Rolling Eyes

H

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:42 am

Peter/Haydn

'.....(to me anyway) a few unproven facts.'

A reminder that it is a single viewpoint from only an enthusiast, not an author, historian or military man, but an enthusiast on a forum where such things are discussed.

A 'few', being as you say, maybe two or three (again to me), but as I get reminded on several occasions whose book we are discussing, it would be better to get them right and in what context they are used, rather than saying this one and that one, hence the fairness you mention, preventing any misquoting - but 600+ is a lot of pages.

My adding to this topic was to start a discussion on the book, both good and bad points, and get people talking, which has happened, however, people appear to be holding back still......watching and waiting.

Watching and waiting for what ? - what one enthusiast thinks, as if I hold any sway on opinion.

All parts of the book should be getting discussed, with me adding my own views about aspects, in amongst the ongoing discussion - not to be put in the spotlight and given a deadline, even if it is of my own choosing.

With respect good sirs, I found the forum fairly quiet the past few weeks, which makes me think, now something different has been posted, that perhaps you have 'pounced' too quickly, not giving me time, or the topic a chance to gain momentum.

Yes, I will follow up my original post, but if expecting me to disclose something astounding, well, you'll be disappointed.

C.J.

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:25 pm

Further to the above.

' That Durnford was trying to intervene in a clearly established chain of command says much about his own determination to act decisively - and the demons that drove him.'

Now, I would have thought this sentence usually would have ended at 'decisively', but it then says, almost as an afterthought - 'and the demons that drove him.'

Now how on earth could this possibly be known, as it compounds earlier conclusions about Durnford's mindset on the day.

'..and as he watched the British position fall apart about him, so all his dreams of redemption disintegrated in bloodshed and horror.'

What 'dreams of redemption' - where did that come from ?

'...according to Nourse, Durnford was again struggling to contain a mass of conflicting emotions..'

Nourse didn't say that, he informed Durnford of Maj. Russell's Rocket Battery - the first casualties - which was naturally upsetting.

'And then, in a apocalyptic touch entirely in keeping with the dark grandeur of the Isandlwana story, and as if to mirror Durnford's inner turmoil, the sky suddenly turned dark above him.'

'...Durnford's inner turmoil...'

The only time I've seen anything relate to such instances of Durnford's mental health, seems to stem from Lt. Henderson's comment at the donga, whilst alongside Durnford, but this is one person, who, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist, yet his words, even now, blacken Durnford's decisions and actions, 130+ years later.

Durnford was one of very few men who were totally aware of the dangers presented by the Zulus and acted accordingly, eventually conducting an admirable fighting withdrawal with native troopers and with his leadership held the donga, with these same troopers, who unlike many N.N.C., stayed with him against huge odds, until out of ammunition.

Now, I'm sure there are primary sources in existence that confirm his qualities as a leader - their 'chief' - by the very men themselves, especially on the day of the battle, so, are their accounts to be unbelieved, all because of what one of his officers said ? - I think not.

These N.N.H. men need to be heard too.

C.J.

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:36 pm

Hello Denton....

Just a comment..

I think I can say that this site can be considered a kind of "classroom" on Anglo-Zulu War history. There are times here for exposition and clarification of much subject matter which has the interest of many here.
I hope that you will think some questions not "confrontational" but really a start for possible debate on an issue. I believe much is learned in good debate (provided it's controlled and btw we have had some doozies here if I recall!!) when some new opinions get aired here.

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:04 pm

Rich

It is Coll - Denton is my new username and C.J. is how I now sign my posts.

C.J.

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:59 pm

Coll it is then! Glad to meet you here and enjoy this great site.