 |
 |  |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Where was I? I found the way Ian had developed his account of the amaQungebeni's role in that particular district over some generations particulatly interesting. I believe I'm right in saying PB-Q did too. Ian had touched upon the movements and activities of these people in previous works (Great Zulu Commanders etc) and so had others such as Laband (Kingdom in Crisis, Rope of Sand & - with Thompson - Kingdom & Colony at War) and Jones (The Boiling Cauldron), but only briefly and often under a different isiZulu variant. It would appear that our old friend Dalton and a kinsman of his were especially relied upon for much of the material which enabled the development of this theme in Zulu Rising. While Zulu oral history cannot possibly be what it was (a bit like nostalgia in that respect!) we must suppose that Ian's questioning was rigorous, careful and thorough. It's a bit disappointing that none of James Stuart's informants seems to have dwelt on the topic (perhaps they weren't asked?) and nor does Magema Fuze offer anything that I can see. Ian has already written biographically on Mehlokazulu in the past and must have been delighted at some of the gems he has been able to winkle out of the old rascal's descendants for this work. Now that Huw Jones has thoroughly covered the district invaded by Wood's column and Ian has offered this material on the area attacked by Glyn, perhaps someone will publish something similar on the country around Pearson's Lower Drift!
Someone asked somewhere whether the Matyana Mondise affair was a new discovery. No it isn't, but Ian's re-telling of it is very well done - clear and balanced. And his returning to it more than once later in the narrative - such as on 22 January 1879 at the Mangeni - is very clever and works well. (Well, the Shepstones have had it coming to them for a long time!) His explanation of the ambivalent position of Matyana's people for many years, including right up to the time of Chelmsford' invasion, is very helpful - and he uses this to describe certain aspects of Chelmsford's and Ntshingwayo's decisions, all well explained. (The Matyana affair is well covered in most works concerning Langalibalele or Colenso - see, for example, Herd's The Bent Pine. (Frere couldn't hold a candle to Pine as regards malevolence, but tell that to the colonists!) I was slightly surprised that Ian, in his detailed account of the Zulu impi's movements early on 22 January and on its discovery by Raw's group, did not refer even obliquely to the claims in modern times that the first clash occurred further west or south-west. Without (as far as I can see) mentioning other possibilties, despite being aware, for example, of Keith Smith's work, he gives his own account of the to-ing and fro-ing of the Zulu parties that morning and the confusion which enveloped the forces on both sides. It gives every appearance of being sound and comprehensive - indeed convincing, as I had been convinced by him on these points in the past - but now jars with what I had more recently considered to be a powerful argument offered by Keith. Possibly it would have been improved had he explained his disagreement, although he has, admittedly, left his sources to explain his case for him. (And he does, of course, repeat his rejection of the decoy theory and explains why). With regard to Raw's big moment, however, the new thread on The Missing Five Hours draws us into comparing the two accounts, whether one goes as far as decoys or intended action on the 22nd or not. That's enough for tonight! Back later, don't know when. Peter |
|||||||||||
|
Last edited by Peter Ewart on Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|||||||||||||
 |
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Coll
Just seen your post after finishing my last. Yes, I do see exactly what you mean, which is why I referred to this in my other post. However, whatever remark Ian makes which you might feel is unnecessary or gratuitous, you must acknowledge he has made it purely because he considers his own research has pointed to it strongly enough for him to insert the comment. His own track record suggests there can be no other reason. You consider it a bit of "author's licence" and unjustified by the facts. He doesn't. One day another historian may publish the opposite view. That's how history is written. Great, isn't it? That's me done for tonight! P. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Denton Van Zan
Guest
|
|
Peter
With respect, which I know you understand to be true, but through school and since, I was led to believe, that with history there can be no half-measures, what you say must be based on factual evidence, whether about events or historical figures. Anything other than that, has veered off the path, resorting to personal opinion, which surely has no place in the study of history ? If venturing away from what can be proven, then in my view, it is no longer history. I'm disappointed if this is now acceptable, as I dread to think of the future, when more myths may be created to maintain interest. This isn't history as I remember it. 
C.J. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Coll
Would you not expect a historian of the Third Reich or a biographer of Hitler to give us his/her considered opinion of the state of his mind? Of course you would. Ditto for Durnford. We'd like to know what prompted him to do what he did. We don't have to agree with the author but his/her task includes conveying his opinions, which will follow from his findings. His personal opinion on the state of Durnford's mind most certainly does have a place in the study of history. Since when has history been a mere catalogue of so called "facts"? You can disagree with IK on his opinion of Durnford's mind, of course. You believe it isn't based on established facts but that he has surmised. Ian disagrees, or he wouldn't have come to these conclusions and published them. Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Denton Van Zan
Guest
|
|
Peter
An unusual post from you good sir. 
Not sure how Nazi Germany and a tyrant like Hitler has cropped up in this discussion, as that is a completely different ballgame, than forming opinions of Durnford's mindset. Not only is it more recent history than the Zulu War, but Hitler and the Third Reich has been 'captured' on a vast scale - film footage, documentation, living witness testimony, etc., etc. Need I say more ? Absolutely nothing like the lack of accurate detail when describing Durnford's state-of-mind. Regretfully, I must say that your reply isn't very satisfactory, as it goes nowhere near to clarifying this matter. C.J. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Coll
Well, "regretfully, I must say that my reply" is as satisfactory as I can make it and is the best I can do. My analogy may be on a different scale but I can't see why it is "a completely different ballgame", as you put it. Hitler, Napoleon, Kaiser Bill, Chelmsford, Cetshwayo, Lloyd George, my father (who, of course, knew Lloyd George) or Durnford. No difference, Coll, to a historian. It looks as if we're as close to each other's position as we are likely to get on this one, Coll, so I'll "make my excuses and leave." I'll return to this thread when I get a moment, in order to offer a few thoughts once again on the various features of Zulu Rising which I find interesting and worthwhile, as it is a book which I have enjoyed tackling very much. Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Returning to this book, I agree with Galloglas that the author has, with particular regard to Isandlwana, managed to paint a picture of the events of the day - all happening simultaneously - very successfully. This is never easy, although all Isandlwana authors have to attempt it. I think Ian Knight does this superbly. Parts of his description of the developing stages of the battle - always a challenge, I'd have thought - have gone into more detail than some other authors. Inevitably, in using some of the primary sources, he has unavoidably, at times, interpreted them differently to how others have.
How does one describe the sudden change in the battle from the beginning of the Zulu rush - either out by the donga or in front of the 24th - to the surge into the camp and imminent collapse, while so much is occurring quickly in different locations and all happening very suddenly? I don't envy any writer this task, however well versed they are in the detail. As has often been said before, it may all have happened as quickly as we can read about it, yet the writer has to convey all this, and describe the detail, without slowing things down. Again, very well done I thought. There is a danger of wanting to get in everything one knows on a topic, especially with all the minutiae revealed in eye-witness accounts from Isandlwana survivors, but precis has been used very skilfully at times, so that well known or hackneyed incidents or accounts have been used very judiciously, to preserve balance. I'd have to say this is the best account of the battle I've yet read, perhaps partly because where matters remain unknown or vague, as they must do, he says so. Have already mentioned his writing style. You know before you pick up one of his books that you will not be assaulted by sensational language, an immature style or wild syntax - which is far from the case in so much other non-fiction nowadays. I think the basis of this is his wide vocabulary, which means the text is always articulate and measured and the meaning sound. Sounds simple, but it's not, as many an author demonstrates. I did think, this time, there had been a partial relaxation in his literary style, with a more easy going or informal nature here and there, incorporating modern colloquialisms such as "busted flush" or buzz expressions such as "moral compass" appearing. (Yes, I know I'm a pedant - ask Keith Smith). I also agree with the others that the Bushmans River Pass episode is well done, and I think his reliance on, among other works, R.O. Pearse (et al) Langalibalele & the Natal Carbineers is well grounded, because the personal accounts contained in that publication are so detailed and useful. (Incidentally, there is also what seems to be some excellent modern research and analysis of the actual Drakensberg routes taken in Pearse's Barrier of Spears). Good to see him use several snippets from A.W. Lee's writings, including one or two I've posted here in the distant past. Even a chapter heading on the main battle comes via Lee. (One has to acknowledge, though, that even though Mehlo and Hlubi were two of his main sources, Lee's knowledge was often rather second hand, and his own overall understanding of the battle was, in many ways, no different to that of any white man who had arrived in S Africa over 20 years later, despite his own intimate knowlege of the country around the battlefield. Damian, above, mentioned the Symons papers. No, they're not new, Damian, but have been used by many AZW historians. However, I am confused in that now they appear to have moved from KCAL to the Talana. Is this right? Only one or two very minor grouses. Typos. Shouldn't occur in any book, but a publisher like Macmillan should surely ensure that an author of Ian Knight's stature gets the benefit of a proper proof-reader. The typos are mostly only the result of routine word-processing corrections and should have been spotted by a new pair of eyes. Secondly, the typeface of the endnotes, although smaller than the main text, could be smaller still, and usually would be. The book would have been a little shorter with this adjustment. Why are the photo acks at the very end, where they are almost invisible? Perhaps inserted at the last moment? Possibly a second printing will put them nearer the front or alongside the bibliography, ensuring people like Ron Sheeley are not tucked away out of sight. Thirdly, the thing which regularly drove me up the wall: all distances were given in kilometres and all quoted imperial distances were converted to kilometres. Why? Can't think of a single good reason. Market for the book? 1st, UK, 2nd USA, a distant 3rd perhaps RSA? So why kilometres? I can't see any argument (although I hear them all) which remotely stands up. The word grates like mad. All in all, though, a superb publication. Much more than the mere consolidation which I had expected. Anyone else with any thoughts? Peter |
|||||||||||
|
Last edited by Peter Ewart on Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
|
|
Peter
I can answer your point about kilometres. Everyone younger than (say) forty-five has been taught metric rather than imperial measurements. The young people at my university think that distance measured in miles - even on signposts - is an anachronism which should be done away with asap. It is now increasingly becoming publishing policy that imperial measurements be converted. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Paul
Yes, I've noticed it in the media - sly, insidious, underhand, creeping in uninvited, like a running sore. You, I know, will fight it to your last breath, like all right-thinking people. Either that, or start drinking your beer in litres and watching Carrow Road penalty kicks being taken from 11.2 metres. Will we one day be speaking of tall people not as six-footers but as two-metre-ers? It is disconcerting that the utter banality of it all fails to register with some people. Anyway, back to ZR - suggest any more metric madness be posted down below. (About six inches by my calculations). P. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
|
|
Peter
Me, I want my beer in pints, my goods measured in pounds and ounces, and a fair mile of road beneath my feet. It is, however, a lost cause, my friend: few and fewer are they who think as we do. But Ian Knight, at least, is not to blame in this. Send missives to his publishers ... |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Keith Smith
|
|
Peter E.
The Symons Papers are in both places. As I recall, the Talana Museum copies are typed on multi-coloured (or green perhaps) paper and are incomplete. The full version, perhaps on which the Talana copies are based, is in the Kille Campbell Library (MS1072). KIS |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Keith Smith
|
|
Peter E.
Oh! what an old Luddite you are becoming. You'll be telling us next how useful poles, perches and chains are (yes, I know the length of a cricket pitch is one chain!). I can't understand why you want to persist with the old imperial measures - after all, you abandoned the 240 pennies=one pound long ago, so it can't be too much of a stretch to go the extra mile (0.625 km). Just think how much industry and commerce would save in the process. To assist you, just multiply kilometres by 6 and divide by ten (move the decimal point one to the left!). Thus 12 kilometres=12*6=72; 72/10=7.2 miles (roughly). 
KIS |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Keith: Many thanks for the explanation of the KCAL/Talana query. I wondered if that was what had happened.
Paul/Keith: Yes, I realise it's not Ian's fault. However, I have never (that's right, never) met anyone in this country who referred to distances naturally or automatically in kilometres, while obviously I'm aware that many of the younger generation are far more familiar with centimetres, metres and the rest, than inches, feet or yards. However, my own teenage sons are surely typical in knowing the distance from here to there in miles, like everyone else, and are easily capable of converting it quickly into kilometres, but would not dream of expressing it naturally, or normally, in kilometres - simply because no-one else does! No-one says it's about 100 kilometres from here to London, they'd be laughed at. They say its about 60-odd miles. Obviously, if speaking to a Frenchman or whatever, we'd be happy to express it in kilometres. Now, it will be argued that it is just silly to have a mish-mash like that. "Go the whole hog or not at all", they'll say (as they have been saying for decades). And Keith's argument (we've battled this out before between us!) that we are out of step also cuts no ice with me. If there are problems inherent in the difference between the two systems obtaining between GB and, for example, Europe (and some other parts of the world), then I see no difficulty in rectifying it. I'd have no objection whatsoever - and I dare say nor would anyone else here - in allowing the dissenters to come on board and adopt a much sounder arrangement, by falling in line with the imperial system. Happy to provide any coaching sessions. But for a book or newspaper or a BBC newsreader to refer to distances here in kilometres when the public at large simply don't and never have, is not only laughable but epitomises the insidious bullying I referred to above: "We will keep referring to kilometres and in the end we will force all of you to do the same, regardless of what you actually want - and despite the fact that no-one, including any government, has ever suggested that our roadsigns will ever show anything but yards [as they do] and miles [as they do!]". I mix and chat with large numbers of younger folk, teenagers upward, and none of them ever refers to kilometres to express distances in this country. Metres, yes. Kilometres, never. (Daft as this may seem to some). So why on earth should publishers and the media begin to do so? I rest my case. As I suggested above, I think this thread should be reserved for Ian 's book and any further observations on this topic entered down below in "off topic." Peter P.S. Keith - we've decimalised our currency? What! Why wasn't I told?  |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
|
|
Peter
I recently bought a first-class (sic) stamp. The vendor was a lady of a certain age. When she told me the price, I exclaimed in my best Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells: "Eight shillings for a postage stamp? EIGHT SHILLINGS?!" She collapsed in fits of the giggles. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Haydn Jones
|
|
Peter
Excellent comments as always but please spare a thought for me. Ever since changing the battery on my bike's Cateye computer it has been stuck on Km so I have to do a mental 8km = 5miles conversion whenever I'm out on a ride! (OK, OK, technically it's 4.9709695 miles but if you think I'll be doing that in my head ......  .....!!).
But more seriously, while I can see it might be irksome to some, I am personally fairly relaxed about the km conversions in Zulu Rising if they help to embrace and engage a wider audience. (Besides, us rugby football fans have been used to dropping the ball out on the 22m line rather than the old '25' for many years now so not quite so much of a culture shock, perhaps!  )
I finished Rising a few weeks ago and must say I enjoyed it immensely and my own thoughts very much reflect those so eloquently put by yourself and others. I am not really one for writing book reviews and in truth, since finishing the book, have little to add to what I said about it in my earlier post on page 2 of this thread. Certainly, the insight into the tensions along the border I found particularly interesting but I must say that what really appealed to me about the book was all the little nuggets of information throughout - which I either didn't know, or if I did know, had long since forgotten - which Ian has ( and apologies for going "arty farty" here) so expertly weaved into a rich tapestry that is the story of events leading up to that day in January 1879. As such, I think Rising could easily become the "standard" historical work to which newcomers to the field will turn. Moreover, it's difficult to imagine too that existing AZW enthusiasts will be able to ignore it in any future meaningful debates. Those who are interested in the minutia of the battle itself will no doubt point to HCMDB - with good reason - but as a consolidated work on the 'whole' story, as it were, I doubt whether Rising can be bettered. Indeed, as you intimated elsewhere, given that so much has already been written on the subject there might no longer be scope for such a further and exhaustive work. Might "Rising" therefore prove to be the last? Just a thought. Paul It's the 4 shillings to use the public toilets at Victoria station that used to annoy me! H |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
 | Zulu Rising | |
|
||
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.