 |
 | Scanlon or Scanlan + Durnford |  |
|
Ed Coan
| Joined: 26 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:04 am |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Just finished 'Like Wolves On The Fold' and firstly congratulations Mike - one of the few books in my opinion on Rorke's Drift which really enables the reader to create mental pictures from the text.
A few questions arose in my mind however:
1. Were the blokes in the hospital ever given any warning of the retreat behind the biscuit box barricade? Just seems as though this happens without anyone telling Hook et al, and they are then left to mount a fighting retreat when the thatch is set fire.
2. Is it Scanlon or Scanlan - the former is the spelling in Mike's book, but unless my eyes are going (quite possible) the latter spelling is the one on the RD memorial.
3. Finally on Durnford - do understand your professional military-based anti-Durnford stance, although I personally think your being too tough on him, but that's for another time.
But one aspect of his actions you suggest in your book is that he took his men out to consciously engage the Zulu, whereas my understanding is that his main motive was that if he thought Chelmsford had found the main impi, Durnford was concerned the right horn (wrongly, as he has the impi in the wrong place) would cut off Chelmsford's rear (ouch!). In fact Durnford ended up encountering the left horn.
Understand the 'he wanted to vindicate himself after the Bushman's Pass debacle, but he had also been given the leeway to act under his own steam as well from Chelmsford as the commander in the field, and I've always taken it that he genuinely felt he was going to Chelmsford's potential aid.
Of course, he should never have even had this thinking in his head had Chelmsford not split his force and gone chasing an elusive enemy. As you know I'm absolutely with you on the 'they were not lured' aspect. Still think that's simply an unsustainable argument.
Ed
|
|
|
 |
| | |
|
Mike Snook
| Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 130 |
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Ed
Glad you enjoyed it. Makes all the effort worthwhile when people say that. So thank you.
1. There is no source reference to a warning being given that I am aware of. If we think of the hospital as having a far end (2 x Wills), a front (Roy & the old soldier), a back (Hook and the large gang next to him) and a near end (2 x Jones and that lot), then I think the near and the front would have been in a position to see what was going on when Chard pulled back. Leaves the far end (pretty remote and really lucky anybody got out alive really) and the back. I think Roy and the old soldier would have called through to the rooms at the back that the hospital was now cut off - so the gang next to Hook including Waters would have been aware, though Hook fighting from his loopholes may not have heard anything as a result of noise. So the people to whom it would have come as a surprise were John and Joseph Will, Billy Horrigan and the other patients in there, and possibly Hook.
Chard may have thought that by calling up a warning to the Jones's in the gable window (not that there's any evidence that was done) that the message would be passed around the building, as he was probably still under the impression that the order he had given earlier for mouseholes to be cut from from to room had been obeyed, which of course it had not - (time, shortage of tools, higher priority work)
But I think the key point for me is the really very sudden and nasty shock that he had when that attack came out of the orchard and damned nearly took the hospital compound. He knew then he had to act immediately - my castle 'keep' analogy if you remember - and so it was one of those do it and do it now moments that sometimes come in battle, when the commander accepts that everyhting else is subordinate to what has to be done and he will have to sort out the consquences of his decision later.
2. Spelling. Hell dunno. I tend to go along with the crowd. I made a mistake with Mr Pope's subaltern which is spelt incorrectly in HCMDB and correctly in LWOTF!! Likewise Francis MacDowel (known as Frank to his family I believe). I try to avoid mistakes and will always aim to correct in my next piece where I have got something wrong. But I don't go around digging out people's birth certificates. So I'd rather you wait for someone who is a nitty gritty AZW researcher rather than me, (military historian and writer after a fashion), to make an authoratative pronouncement.
3. Yes. I have been hard on him but there is a reason. That is because the fantasy Durnford invented by Edward and Nel and accepted by Don Morris and Hollywood, and most recently by Ron and Peter too for that matter, exerts such a strong grip that it was necessary to challenge it with really detailed argument. I would much rather be able to say in three or four sentences that this bloke wasn't actually up to much when you cut all the nonsense away and look at the evidence of his military performance dispassionately, but if I had left it at that who would have believed me? The motive for trying to put his character and talent defects across in detail, is purely because it leaps out of every piece of evidence I have ever considered, as the truth. I think it leaps out at me quite so strongly because as a soldier one can see a little bit more than other people when it comes to the acute detail of mil history - the nuances if you will. Everything I look at about Isandlwana is with the idea of reconstructing exactly what happened - and Durnford is just part of that, though a very significant part - he was the senior man at what military men call the decisive point - it was all his call and had he behaved differently there might well have been a different outcome. So we need to get to the bottom of that - not be taken in by a man galloping around with a feather in his hat.
Ed, I'm not really sure I understand your detailed question about his motives - but if you'd like to re-word it to make it a bit easier for a simple infantryman like me to understand, I'd be delighted to have a go. One thing that you touch on - I don't agree at all, that the reason he went out had anything to do with the general. He arrives thinking he is meant to go to Mangeni and will get further orders at the camp - but it doesn't happen and he then accepts that he is meant to stay at the camp - besides why go anywhere - remember that the expectation is that the camp is about to be attacked. He is at where he wants to be. Only when Higginson turns up and reports 'the enemy is retiring everywhere' does he decide on his foray. That is the moment of madness when he spins out of control. How does the 'enemy (an enemy 5 miles to the NE) is retiring everywhere' translate into a threat to the general 10 miles to the SE? No that's the excuse. The real reason he actually tells us - 'my idea is that whenever Zulus apear we ought to attack'. And there you go. Just another one playing the underestimating the enemy game.
Regards as ever
Mike
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Ed Coan
| Joined: 26 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 6:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mike - had a long day at the office, so will run your reply off and have a good read and come back with any queries. Off the top of my head on Durnford, I've always thought the fact that he died makes him a sympathetic figure, and he did need looking at in the cold reality of military decision-making. So ta for that!
But somewhere I'm recalling some stuff I read in Droogleever's book about his orders/lack of them, and his subsequent decisions, so need to re-look at that.
Overall from what I've read over the years, he's struck me as a psychologically damaged man, who needed a cathartic experience to rid himself of the Bushman's Pass demons - and Isandlwana looked like it might provide that. But then that gets mixed up with his regard and sympathy for the Zulu nation's plight, which must have caused him some inner angst on the day - i.e. not the ideal opponent for him personally.
On Scanlon/Scanlan, am looking at the pic of the Rorke's Drift memorial and it's definitely Scanlan on that. But having worked as an editor of various publications over the years, I do know what a pain it is when people point out minor errors - I often used to say to people - yes, but what about the 20,000 words I spelt right?!
Away from all this, wanted to see when our paths might cross as I bought a signed copy of 'How Can Man Die Better'. (Sorry for this again, but shouldn't that have had a question mark after it?) and then left it in an hotel in Bristol. Have since bought a replacement, but would like to get it signed. You likely to be at the Firepower exhibition later in the year (Aug 19/20)?
Btw, was with Ian Knight most of the weekend before last - he did a complete weekend on the A-Z War at an adult education centre near me, and then set off for SA to guide a Holt's Tour. By my reckoning he's currently in the bar at Isandlwana Lodge having a sundowner. I am as green as the battlefield!
Will have to content myself with a visit to your former Regiment's Museum this weekend, en route to The FA Cup Final.
Which reminds me, talking of regimental matters. I've never been clear of what happened to the colours - Queen's and Regimental of the 2nd Battalion. Is the flagless pole in Brecon Cathedral the remnant of the Queen's Colour 2/24th, and if so was there a regimental colour to the 2nd Battalion - or does it not work like that? Either way, what happened to the 2/24th colours at/after Isandlwana.
It's still been a long day in the office; hope this all makes sense.
Cheers
Ed
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
| | |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
All times are GMT
Page 2 of 4
|
|
|
|
| |
) Doing some time motion study on Isandlwana that might raise me some interesting questions, which when i write them, will no doubt sound stupid 
