rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:12 pm

Paul wrote..
....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.

Perhaps that's why he was so eager to 'close" with the enemy which, in a way, is an absolutely very good quality to have with a commander in the field. It's unfortunate that time and events conspired to have him hanging out there like a wet noodle on the flank away from the camp. But really commanders need to respond to enemy movements. Battle, as we know, is fast, furious and fluid. Durnford sure was in a tough position in those last few minutes before the retreat.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:39 pm

Paul,

You did forget to mention that Finished is a novel.

How about that with his 1893 account which appeared in Andrew Lang's The True Story Book entitled The Tale of Isandhlwana & Rorke's Drift?

...As it chances, the writer of this account, who know Colonel Durnford well, and has the greatest respect for the memory of that good officer, and honourable gentleman, ...

Not a mention of nerves in the 'true' account, could that word have crept in courtesy of Sir Henry's proofreader perhaps?

John Y.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:53 pm

Hi John

Thanks for your reply. My apologies; I had assumed that members of this forum would have known that Finished was one of Haggard's novels. The insertion of the adjective "nervous" could, as you suggest, well have been a literary device. However, as you know, in that same section of 'The Tale of Isandhlwana ...' (p. 138) the author goes on to say that while it was alleged at the time that it was the memory of the "ungenerous nickname" of 'Don't Fire Durnford' which caused Durnford to advance his troops to engage the Zulus in the open, "... none can know with what amount of truth". But Haggard certainly implies that he himself held that view, and he goes on to say that it would have been better had Durnford not acted as he did. So while it is true that he does not make an open criticism of Durnford, neither is it a ringing endorsement. Haggard did not and would not speak ill of the dead, and the question is left open.

Now, when he states in Finished that "... the real blame for that disaster does not rest upon the shoulders of either Colonel Durnford or Colonel Pulleine" it is likely that he was saying what he truly believed (it's also not hard to imagine where he might have felt that the "real blame" lay). Haggard claimed that he knew Durnford well, and was indeed at pains to present him in the best possible light. All the more reason, then, that if he described Durnford as a nervous looking man, it may feasibly have been because he was.

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:34 am

Paul,

My point is that Sir Henry's proofreader was also at Isandlwana, and he has received much criticism from some modern authors as to his own actions/inactions on that fateful day. Maybe, just maybe, he was concocting his own defence to a whispering campaign by throwing in that one word.

John Y.

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:00 am

John

It's an interesting point. To your knowledge, did Haggard subsequently modify what he had written about Durnford, or did he let the description stand?

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:08 pm

Dear Denton Van Coll (I forget which)

Though I can find a variety of things that I would not necessarily agree with myself I am nevertheless pleasantly surprised with the overall quality of writing, breadth of vision and depth of analysis to be found in Zulu Rising. The narrative is intelligently developed with a sophisticated and judicious balance being drawn between telling the basic story, shading in the deeper background and context, and helping the reader (at many different levels of previous knowledge) to understand the complex circumstances surrounding rapidly unfolding events. He also does a good technical job of depicting very complicated concurrent activity, and he undoubtedly writes very well.
There are a number of small factual errors and a few typos, and a bit of revising here and there would certainly improve things further.

I also found it particularly helpful to be provided with a version that put the minor and major individual actors into a sensible overall perspective that gives a better idea of their relative significance and influence on the day itself.

So, whilst 'completeness', coherence and balance requires much of Durnford's activity to be included we are not given any particularly emphatic or exaggerated view of his fairly modest significance in the overall scheme of things or of his, actually, relatively small personal influence over the course of events and the outcome of the day. It becomes much plainer than usual where he might reasonably be said to have erred, in a contemporsary and 'live' sense and with hindsight. He appears to have been given an honest deal and a fair crack of the whip. This point is very arguable, I agree, but at least the book lets us reason this part out for ourselves - as some others don't.

I found much that was refreshingly original in the structure and analysis of this book, and in that respect much of it is indeed 'new'. If you just don't like it very much then that 'is a matter for you'.

G

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:50 pm

Galloglas

It appears you've speed-read this topic.

Firstly - it is Coll.

Secondly - 'If you just don't like it very much then that 'is a matter for you'.

Regarding the latter. Where did I say that ?

You'll find I said the opposite - that I enjoyed it, and just recently, it is a very good book.

Please read my posts clearly.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:14 pm

Having been away on my Route66 trip for the last few weeks it seems I have a lot to catch up on. My copy of ZULU RISING arrived this lunchtime, which after seeing all the comments here about it, I can't wait to read.

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:09 am

John

I have just returned from holiday and therefore, have just seen your comments about Haggard's proof reader. As you know. I have no interest at all in the man (?), so just wondered why you picked on the word nervous.

Haggard claimed to have known Durnford well, and living close to the action, this would certainly have been the case. His use of the word "nervous" must have been considered and approved by him. I cannot see that the insertion of the word afterwards would have been allowed if it was not the case.

If Haggard's proof reader was trying to shift the blame from a whispering campaign aimed at him, would he not have choosen a stronger adjective, possibly indecisive or even cowardly, to apportion blame ?

I also wonder if Essex had ever met Durnford until that fateful day. He would not have had too much time then, to form an opinion, with the firing line collapsing around him. I would also think that most of the men involved in the final defence would have been definitely nervous, with what was about to befall them all.

Regards Graham

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:19 pm

Graham,

I was wondering where you were!

It was only a theory, hence the maybes. Just me playing Devil's Advocate.

I imagine their paths may have crossed before with Essex being in-country with the 75th at the time of Long Belly's uprising, and stationed at Fort Napier.

By-the-way the was an album on e-Bay a couple of months back which had some new photographs of Essex at Fort Napier in 1873/4.

Regards,

John Y.

Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:32 am

Hi John

You are absolutely correct about Fort Napier - They would have had the opportunity to meet there, although Edward was in the U.K. from April 1873 until February 1874, therefore missing the fiasco at Bushmans pass.

I missed the E-Bay album completely ! I would certainly have been MOST interested if I had seen it, but thanks for letting me know. It's nice to know that there are still some more photographs out there somewhere, but I am kicking myself for missing it.

Regards Graham

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:49 pm

Grabbing a moment to set down a few thoughts on this publication at last.

When I first heard that Ian Knight's latest work would be another book on these two battles I was surprised, considering the number which have appeared in recent years, including his own prodigious output. Given that not much new was to be expected on these actions (especially from a historian not given to urgent or sensational claims of "new" revelations) I wondered about the point of yet another "Isandlwana and R/Drift" book. My early thoughts, after a very rapid flick through - as always, starting with illustrations, acknowledgements, bibliography & index! - was that we had a repeat of previous works in the form of a consolidation of Ian's knowledge and later articles since his last major works on these battles. However, although I must admit to reading many of the chapters out of sequence (surely I'm not the only one who does this with books on familiar topics!) I quickly felt that we have a very good book on our hands here.

The trouble is, there is too much fascinating material to discuss here in a few paras! Although there are very few photos which are not familiar to most of us, among those I hadn't seen before are one or two really interesting portraits of the usual characters. Anyone seen that terrific snap of Frere before? I hadn't. Or the Chelmsford portrait? (Apart from Ron Sheeley and perhaps JY, of course!). I suspect one of the challenges in putting this work together was the fact that, in a way, the author is writing for two distinct readerships - those generally unfamiliar with the two battles and those who are, the latter perhaps being a minority (although significant?). How does one present something new for those who have read so much in the past about the subject? And yet one must set the scene for all those who have little background knowledge and, as far as the battles go, give them the lot. As we have a major book publisher here, with extensive reviews in the media (both the popular press and the quality papers) and therefore, presumably, a longish print run, I suspect the priority has been the "new" readership - a bit of a challenge, given the irksome foibles of anoraks such as us!

Because Ian Knight, as a historian, has a safe pair of hands and is equally adept at dealing with broad brush issues and specific matters, as well as being able to write extremely well (in my opinion by far his most under valued attribute) I think he has succeeded strongly with this work. There will be - and has been - talk of Zulu Rising emerging as a standard work unlikely to be surpassed, or even superseded, but we all know that is unlikely with a topic such as this, simply because no two historians will agree precisely on quite a number of the issues. And that's fine and is perhaps as it should be - no work can be definitive or final. However, I'd suggest this work will be as close as one might get to a standard work. There are one or two places where he nails his colours to the mast without entering into - or even referring to - the well known discussions, controversial or otherwise, with which we are familar on this forum.

Waffle about to be interrupted, so I'll have to return later on a few specific points and on some elements of the work which have particularly interested me. Whether my ramblings will interest anyone else, of course, is another matter!

Peter

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:49 pm

Peter

I'd be very interested in your opinion about the references to Durnford's state-of-mind in the book, considering the fact, that with Ian's status as an expert Zulu War historian, anyone who knows something about this campaign, as well as those new to it, will assume this to be the case, rather than it being an area which can never be accurately proven, or even guessed at after so long a period.

My concern being, that this, along with other publications, are beginning a new modern myth, compounding the idea that Durnford wasn't in control of the situation, if anything, giving readers the wrong impression that somehow he was the cause of it.

Everything that had and were taking place, having absolutely no connection whatsoever to the innermost thoughts of the newly arrived R.E. officer at the Isandlwana camp.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:03 pm

Back again. Oh dear, I wasn't going to involve myself with Durnford at all yet, Coll, as there were already several fascinating aspects I thought I'd touch upon first, and I'd certainly have to go through ZR again with Durnford in mind specifically before being in any position to discuss IK's treatment of him. However, I certainly will in due course - and I might just mention that, before you had been asked to itemise your objections, I had briefly read Ian's account of AWD's early career and also read most of the account of the BRP affair, and I must admit that quite early on I did raise my eyebrows slightly at the combined effect on Durnford's mind which IK had intimated had arisen from a number of early setbacks. I was keen to re-read these points again to see if I thought each - taken together or in isolation - was as serious as it seemed, as I like to be alert to what I might, rightly or wrongly, perceive to be assertions which purport to demonstrate a pattern when there is little genuine evidence for the pattern. This does happen in some books or articles but is not a habit I'd expect Ian Knight to slip into, and I'm certainly not saying yet that he did, and may not say so at any time.

However, you must agree that Ian was much less assertive in this regard than, say, Mike Snook, and possibly not much more than Drooglever, although I haven't been back to that work for a while. So I'll have to come back to that when I get a moment. But either way, Coll, any historian will eventually place on record his/her considered view on any aspect after "due diligence" among the sources, and if Drooglever, Snook or Knight end up considering Durnford was demonstrably in a certain state of mind at a particular time in his career, then they will say so and we should welcome that, because we value their considered opinions after assessing and weighing all the sources they have relied upon. It isn't a criminal trial with Durnford in the dock. Try not to take it personally! The old boy's gone, like all the others. His reputation as regards physical and - usually - moral courage has been widely acknowledged for 130 years. His strategic or tactical errors, if errors there were, have also been mulled over. Why not? His contemporaries who survived or who weren't even there might have been accused of speaking ill of the dead, but we can't be, as they're all dead now anyway. Whatever Durnford was, you'll have to agree he wasn't a hero and cannot have been as he had no opportunity. He was certainly an officer and a gentleman and to be so necessitated the upholding of very high standards in one's personal and professional life. If he managed this, jolly good, but so did virtually all the others. If any historian claimed Durnford was "gaga" by 22 Jan 1879, then at least the poor chap would have had some defence for his actions, wouldn't he? We could even sympathise!

I still have word-processing problems when typing more than a few lines in a post on this forum, so I'll have to begin another one now!

Peter

Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 8:40 pm

Peter

Thanks for your reply, although I wasn't meaning for you to answer immediately, but after reading the book thoroughly.

However, I'll continue this post - Do you remember the 4 examples I gave from Ian's book ?

This is the way I'd have expected him to usually write in a book -

'That Durnford was trying to intervene in a clearly established chain of command says much about his own determination to act decisively'

Why add ? - 'and the demons that drove him.

Example 2, about redemption, which doesn't really need to be there - so why add it ?

'according to Nourse' - then Ian should have quoted him.

Why add ? - 'Durnford was again struggling to contain a mass of conflicting emotions'

'And then, in an apocalyptic touch entirely in keeping with the dark grandeur of the Isandlwana story, the sky suddenly turned dark'

Why add ? - 'and as if to mirror Durnford's inner turmoil'

These additions to sentences, are out of place, as they aren't in keeping with historical facts, but instead working against Durnford's character and memory, for no valid reason.

Do you see what I mean, if someone is reading a book written by an influential figure in the study of the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 ?

C.J.