rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:18 am

I am almost half way through the book.
I am enjoying it greatly.
Ian does have quite a bit of new (to me) information.
Especially about the Zulu side.
His detail on the emaQungebeni people is in depth as is his description of the politics around the killing of Ma Mtshali and MaMthethwa by Mehlokazulu.
I am currently reading about the exploits of the NNC and Natal Police at Mangeni Gorge on the night of 21/22 January and the skirmishing with the remnants of Matshana's people on the morning of 22 January. I do not remember this part of the battle being described in so much detail before. Ian seems to disagree with Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill's thoughts that the whole incident at Mangeni was part of a deliberate strategy by Ntshingwayo to divide the British forces.
As for Col Durnford so far Ian has dealt with him fairly. He described Bushman's Nek quite well and explained the problems Durnford had in that engagement. No shoot first orders form Pine and Colonial Troops of doubtful levels of experience.
I look forward to the rest of the book and trust it will be as balanced as the first half. I see Ian quotes the Symons papers which are apparently in the museum at Dundee.
I have not come across these papers before. Are they new or just not well known?
It is also interesting that Lord Chelmsford at at least two occasions went out scouting himself with a small party ahead of the column. Once shortly after the invasion started and on the 16 January when he went to see the lay of Islandlwana. The Commander galavanting around enemy territory unprotected. Obvioulsy he did not take the enemy too seriously.

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:06 am

Damian,

You have hit the nail on the head and just about summed up the tragedy of Isandlwana -- " he did not take the enemy too seriously ! "

Robert

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:39 am

Coll

Thank you for answering the various queries with a list of your reservations. Why am I not surprised that your reservations only applied to comments on Durnford !!!!!

To put my subsequent observations in a proper context, I should make it clear that I too am something of a Durnford fan, believing that he has been sriously maligned both at the time and subsequently for his actions cat Isandlwana. However, I am not a fan to the extent that I believe his actions on the 22nd January can not be criticised. For example, I did think Mike Snook�s criticisms of him were a bit harsh, but I can understand his (i.e. Mike�s) reasoned arguments from a professional military point of view. As with many of the issues emanating from Isandlwana, it is of course difficult to get a balanced view � it�s a bit like Marmite: you either love it or hate it.

However, I do feel that Ian Knight�s judgments (that you quote) on Durnford have to be seen in the context of the character profile that he had been careful to build up throughout the book. Durnford's state of mind on the day is critical to understanding his actions, and to some extent these have been shaped by his early hurts and disappointments - the frustrations of his early career, his failed marriage, his gambling, the debacle at Bushman's Pass and his perceived injustice at the public attacks and criticism made upon him afterwards. Ian�s argument is that there is an obvious impatience to get into action and for Durnford to redeem himself in the early stages of the war - his willingness to move down into the Thukela valley, the way he pushed his men on the move to Rorke's Drift, his reluctance to wait for his baggage train when he moves forward to Isandlwana. In fact, there are far more clues to his state of mind than just what Henderson says, and Ian has tried to bring these out - his (Durnford�s) rather snappy response to the news that the Zulus were approaching and to the Carbineer piquets, the sense of release which is pretty evident in Molife's description of him in the donga, Essex's interesting comment about 'the look on his face' during the withdrawal, and most significantly Nourse's conversation with him in the camp after the retreat from the donga. If Nourse is to be believed and Durnford was pre-occupied with his own disgrace at the very moment the camp was being over-run, and the lives of hundreds of men whom he had previously asserted his responsibility for (he had, after all, exerted his seniority over Pulleine earlier) was hanging in the balance, that seems a pretty good definition of a man in 'inner turmoil' to me. I don�t think you have to be qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to make these judgments . !

It does seem to me that you have made a general statement damning Ian�s book largely on the grounds that you don�t like his interpretation of your hero - but that there is far more to the book than that! And if you were expecting more from it, it would be interesting to now what more you think there is ...? I am obviously not putting you in the same category as "Graham" on the Amazon book review, but throw away lines can be very damaging and can adversely influence people.

On another (but connected) point, you say: �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�. � did you also note that ALL of Durnford�s white officers in the NNH managed to become separated from him during the stand in the donga, and that command of the men fell to their African officers � a point Simeon Nkambule noted. What should we read into that, in the light of Henderson�s reservations, do you think ?

Bill

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:07 pm

Bill

That's the non-surprise I was talking about.

My point is, that as 'Durnford's state of mind is critical to understanding his actions' you can't use guesswork, even on the most intelligent level, as it can't be proven with absolute accuracy after all this time, through what was said and done by him from another person(s).

A person's innermost thoughts aren't seen and therefore can't be judged negatively, no matter what, as it is not the way to base an argument on what he did or didn't do, especially with such a tragic defeat as the disaster at Isandlwana, in which he was the senior officer.

'...there are far more clues to his state of mind than just what Henderson says....'

'Clues' aren't facts, but Henderson's account is a primary source, and the only damning one against Durnford's mindset, which he, as I said, is not qualified enough to make such an assessment.

I didn't 'damn' Ian's book, which is the way another member was taking this topic - but gave an opinion, which I have followed-up with details as requested by others, that should have shown my view has been taken out of context and made into something darker, instead of as a discussion-starter.

I enjoyed the book very much, and as everyone will notice in my previous posts, I didn't say I disliked or totally disagreed with it, instead being content with it as a good last book on the subjects of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift.

I've now read the review on Amazon and that is definitely nothing like what I said, so if I had been put in the same 'category' as that reviewer, it would have annoyed me greatly.

Please will you clarify the point you were saying about ALL of Durnford's white officers - what do you think we should read into that ?

C.J.

PS. '..my hero..' is a pleasant enough comment, but will have the capacity of discrediting my points somewhat, regarding the bigger picture, as if I'm not able to see past this.

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:08 pm

Coll

Thanks for the response.

Guesswork, innermost thoughts, clues ? Surely that�s what Isandlwana is all about ? The people on the British side who would know for certain were killed and there aren�t enough Zulu sources available to provide a full 100% account. So, what we are left with is inherent probability, which is what a lot of human life is based on. Absolute accuracy ? Probably not, but I think we can make statements with a fair degree of certainty based on many contributing factors. Is this not what�s done in a court of law � where judgments are often made based on the balance of probabilities ? What Ian Knight has done in �Zulu Rising� is to gather whatever sources are available and has then made judgments based on those sources, with (what I believe is) a fair degree of accuracy. And the more sources used, the greater the degree of accuracy is likely to be. From the previous postings, it is a judgment which seems to have found favour with most of the thread readers (so far) In relation to sources, I would make the point that there are two books on Isandlwana that literally stand out when it comes to the number of foot notes � they are �Hill of the Sphinx� and now, �Zulu Rising� !!

I didn't 'damn' Ian's book, which is the way another member was taking this topic - but gave an opinion, which I have followed-up with details as requested by others, that should have shown my view has been taken out of context and made into something darker, instead of as a discussion-starter. Although you may not have intended that, unfortunately, to many of the site readers that is what it looked like, and this is why your posting got the reaction it did.

I've now read the review on Amazon and that is definitely nothing like what I said, so if I had been put in the same 'category' as that reviewer, it would have annoyed me greatly. Which re-enforces the point that many have made previously on this site � you have to be careful in how you phrase things.

Please will you clarify the point you were saying about ALL of Durnford's white officers - what do you think we should read into that ? Nothing sinister, I was just asking your opinion on that fact. Can any inferences be drawn from it ?

Bill

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:27 pm

Bill

Regarding your 'Nothing sinister...' comment about a question you asked me....

Sinister may not be the right word, but as you also say in your post - 'you have to be careful in how you phrase things'.

Not only I, but others also, will interpret your comment to mean that ALL of Durnford's white officers deserted their superior officer and men in a time of dire need, because of his behaviour as described by Henderson.

Do you honestly not see the slippery slope downwards, if this negative opinion of Durnford's state-of-mind continues, and becomes commonplace in future Isandlwana publications ?

2 or 3 publications later, this gradual erosion of his mental capability on the day of the battle, will contort the way readers will view how he conducted himself, in such a way that any credibility he had will eventually be non-existent.

Now I see this as very worrying consequences from something said that is not absolutely accurate, but needs to be so accurate in fact, that it can never ever be questioned.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:46 pm

That was quick, Coll! Are you sure you didn't make notes? It'll be a few days before I'm on here again but I'll join the discussion when I get the chance - and read the book itself one day!

Peter

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:01 am

I went and read "Graham's" review on Amazon.
It was a bit nonsensical to say the least.
You may quibble with an authors conclusions but to say he has done no research when the whole book is so well annotated with references is ridiculous.
Ian Knight certainly never implies that the war was anything but a blatant injustice and wrong inflicted on the Zulu people who were an independent self governing entity at the time.
SO even there I do not follow "Graham's" complaint.
I also read a few good rebuttals of Graham's crit by a few regular contributors to this forum.
I have just finished up to the flight of the fugitives across the Buffalo.
On the last stretch now about Rorke's Drift.
I think this book is a superb and balanced overview of the whole campaign.
I would like to see Ian cover the rest of the war and show how the Battle with Islandwana was coordinated with attacks on the coastal column at virtually the same time.
Maybe there will be another book in the future.

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:59 am

Hi Coll

Your intepretation with regard to Durnford's officers was interesting. And of course it is an intepretation that links well with Henderson's comments. Now whether that intepretation is valid or not depends as to how you can support it with other facts. I only asked the question ! However, this surely confirms the point I've been making all along. There are often no absolute facts, as you would wish, so we have to intepret the facts that we do have.

I think Ian Knight's intepretation of Durnford's state of mind at Isandlwana, based on a series of incidents and comments from others is very plausible. Mike Snook, of course, took it even further, looking at Durnford's command and control decisions purely from a military point of view. You are clearly a 100% supporter of Durnford, and can not accept any criticism of him, now matter how well argued it is, either by Ian Knight, or by Mike Snook. However, I would hope you would accept that your viewpoint is very much a minority one, and that most people with an interest in the AZW will see Durnford differently. As I've said before, I have a considerably sympathy for Durnford because of how he has in the past he has been made the sole scapegoat for Isandlwana. Ian Knight's viewpoint is, in my opinion, very balanced, and analises Durnford's actions very well. Have you read Kershaw's book on Custer, where a similar analysis has been carried out ?

To conduct a comprehensive defence of Durnford, why don't you take each of Ian Knight's suppositions and argue why (in your opinion) each would NOT have contributed to Durnford's state of mind at Isandlwana. I think that would be a far better way of arguing your point rather than damning Ian's book out of hand - even if you did not intend that.

An unshakable belief in your hero is one thing, but you ought to be prepared to argue your stance in a logical maner, supported by as many references as you can find - after all, this is what Ian has done !

I know it is fairly soon after publication, but all the comments to date indicate that Ian has produced something really special on Isandlwana and RD, and it may well prove, in time, to be the standard work on the subject.

Bill

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:30 am

Bill

You only asked the question - I only answered it.

'...and can not accept any criticism of him, no matter how well argued it is...'

Untrue. It is my defence of him that is not accepted, no matter how well it is argued.

I've the greatest respect for all historians and military men, and the knowledge they've acquired over the years.

I'm neither, but I have my own mind and have studied military history for many years, to be in a position to raise some points of doubt.

'I would hope you would accept your viewpoint is very much a minority one...'

I have stated that fact time and again, if I'm correct, right back almost to the very beginning, when I first joined.

Details contributing to Durnford's state of mind ?

You surely are not hoping to argue this point ?

How can anyone possibly know any negative effect that life's challenges contributed to Durnford's thought-process on the day of the battle ?

This is unfair to the professional nature of a long dead officer.

'..damning Ian's book out of hand..' and '..my hero..'

Why are you continuing these comments Bill, when I've responded to them previously ?

I've been answering all questions on this topic logically.

C.J.

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:44 pm

Well I'm just going to ask why does some literary criticism as noted by Graham appear to skirt the border of animosity with comments like "The claim is made that the book was extensively researched, where, in the local pub perhaps?". Seems to me an unwarranted cheap shot. I don't hink it was necessary. Damian says the review was "nonsensical". I'd go further and say it was disrespecful. Mr. Knight deserves better for his efforts.

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:13 pm

Bill

'In the case of people, since we cannot solve the equations that determine our behaviour, we use the effective theory that people have free will. The study of our will, and the behaviour that arises from it, is the science of psychology.'

The Grand Design.
by Stephen Hawking.

Page 33 of this new book, which I'm in the process of reading.

Ian is an expert in his field - Stephen is an expert in his.

Are you willing to disagree with Stephen's views in this area ?

C.J.

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:17 pm

There is, of course, so much more to Zulu Rising than the Durnford question, and I hope that we may have a more comprehensive discussion of the book when the time is right. But on that specific point, there is a curious little vignette included in H. Rider Haggard's book Finished. Haggard was neither historian nor military expert, but he had met both Pulleine and Durnford. And interestingly, given his close connection to Theophilus Shepstone, Haggard had a very positive view of Durnford:

... a very gallant officer and gentleman whose military memory has in my opinion been most unjustly attacked. The real blame for that disaster does not rest upon the shoulders of either Colonel Durnford or Colonel Pulleine.

Haggard gives a description of Durnford as he knew him in 1877 or '78:

... he was a tall, nervous-looking man with a fair, handsome face and long side-whiskers. One of his arms, I remember, was supported by a sling ...

A "nervous-looking man". Now, one impression does not a psychological profile make; but it is a curiously resonant impression, given everything else we know about Durnford, in my view.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:52 am

Hi Coll

What an interesting response ! Earlier you said that as far as you knew Ian Knight did not have any qualifications in psychology/psychiatry, but nor (to my knowledge) has Stephen Hawking ! Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Therefore, I'm not sure how his definition of psychology, though valid, is relevant to the point you are making. Has he written anything on Durnford, or indeed does he know of his very existence ? However, I do have a friend who does have qualifications in psychology and he has said that, having looked at ZR, Ian's conclusions with regard to Durnford's seem more than reasonable ! However, I'm sure psychology is much like history, for every supporter of a given theory I'm sure you could find another with a totally opposite view.

I think it would have been useful as a debate for you to have looked at each of Ian's assessments, and to explain why you think they are not relevant to Durnford's actions at Isandlwana. However, you seem disinclined to do this - a golden opportunity missed perhaps. I'm sure Ian would have welcomed seeing the basis for your criticisms of his assessment. And as you say, Ian is an expert in his field. I suspect that as a staunch defender of Durnford, you will never agree with Ian's analysis (of Durnford), though most of the readers of ZR will, and not just because of Ian's reputation, but for the logical way he has presented his conclusions.

Anyway, APART from the bits on Durnford, did you like the rest of "Zulu Rising" ? As Paul has quite rightly said:

There is, of course, so much more to "Zulu Rising" than the Durnford question.

All the best

Bill

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:11 pm

Bill

'...disinclined to do this...'

Wrong. I've been informing you that this aspect can't be used, when there is much more to the human mind, than trying to predict his behaviour from past events, over a century later, which is condemning Durnford forever.

'..we cannot solve the equations that determine our behaviour...'

I'm astounded that this comment by Stephen Hawking is still not clarifying this matter to you.

Anyway, an end to this particular aspect has been reached, for the time being, methinks.

Time to call a halt and have a few drams. Wink

C.J.

PS. Yes. It is a very good book.