rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:34 am

So it could have evolved, the same way slang evolved, from the speech of the ordinary man and then become accepted into general speech? Leaving us with no official change of name, just the use of it in the reports mentioned.

Dawn

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:39 pm

Keith
Thank you. The post-Isandhlwana reports of the NNH officers of course mention themselves as NNH but more significant I think is the Durnford return of troops dated 6th January referring to the NNH. That may well be the clincher.

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:15 am

Officially or unofficially, when N.N.H. Troops were under the command of a particular officer, were they ever called after the officer, as in, the 5 Troops at Isandlwana being referred to as Durnford's Horse, although this term itself not being used in written reports ?

Coll

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:14 pm

Coll

I don't recall the mounted men of Durnford's 2nd Column being called Durnford's Horse. In fact, five of the six troops were unofficially named after their chiefs: the Hlubi troop, Zikhali's Horse (three troops) and Jantze's troop (left at Kranskop). The other was known as the Edendale contingent, from the christian location where they lived.
KIS

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:37 pm

Julian,
In your posting of 2 October you mention that ' camp orders were given to the senior officer remaining in the camp. These were shown to Durnford on arrival. ( Cochrane)
Would you be kind enough to let me have the primary source for the statement that the written orders were handed to Durnford.
Regards,
Peter

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:56 pm

Peter
Paton, Glennie, etc., quoting Cochrane on p. 240. England's Sons, Section M, p. 32 fn 22.

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:46 am

Julian,
" Paton, Glennie etc quoting Cochrane" are, in my view, secondry and hearsay source material, not primary.
The only person who can be regarded as primary source is the survivor of the battle who was present at the conversation held between Pulleine and Durnford, namely Cochrane himself. He records events differently. His report to AAQMG written on 8th February 1879 specifically recorded that after Pulleine gave Durnford a state of the troops, he followed by stating:
" .... and the VERBAL orders, which were, ' to defend the camp.'"
Clearly no written instructions were ever handed to Durnford, this anomaly being discussed at length in Zulu Victory. Why indeed would Cochrane use the word verbal? His English is quite plain and one is left to wonder why Pulleine did not produce his purported written instructions?

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:44 pm

Keith

The reason I asked about the term Durnford's Horse, was after reading an account on page 61 of 'The Zulu War: Then and Now', it is used (by Chard ?) -

" Shortly afterwards an officer of Durnford's Horse reported his arrival from Isandhlwana........"

If this is right. Could it be that those in the British forces unfamiliar with the native units, may have used this as a general term for the mounted men under the command of Col. Durnford ?

Coll

PS. It is also mentioned on page 118 of 'The National Army Museum Book of the Zulu War ' by Ian Knight.

' Shortly after an officer of Durnford's Horse arrived and asked for orders......'

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:08 pm

Coll

I have checked both of your references and you are perfectly correct. Both citations are in reports by Chard, one being his official report and the other his report written for Queen Victoria. Looking at the context, I believe that Chard was not using the official name of the unit but rather a generic term to describe mounted African soldiers. As I think I mentioned earlier, a similar description was used for the three troops of Zikhali's men, or Zikhali's Horse, a term used by Captain William Barton, their commanding officer.
KIS

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:22 pm

Peter
Cochrane states in his own account that the orders were repeated verbally by P to D on D's arrival. In Paton, etc., Cochrane states that during lunch when the conversation about sending men out of camp arose the orders were brought out and shown to D.
Two separate occasions.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:56 pm

Julian,
Paton is not primary source. His record of the events therefore cannot supercede Cochrane who, as you agree, reported that that Pulleine gave the verbal orders that he had received over to Durnford.
If written instructions were shown to Durnford, then surely it is inconceivable that Cochrane would not have mentioned a matter of such crucial importance in his official report. Unless you disbelieve Cochrane, primary source supercedes secondary.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:42 pm

And, absolute precision is essential, viz:
- Who issued the orders.
- To whom.
- When, on whose authority, and in knowledge of what.
- What exactly did they say.
- Were any limitations or conditions applied.
- Could the person issuing the orders have envisaged such a meeting, so soon, between P & D.

MC McC

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:09 am

And, nearly forgot:
- How were they issued - by which I mean exactly how?
(Verbally, on paper, in front of witnesses who left record of the event)
- What might have been the state of mind, perceptions, and relative knowledge of the recipient and issuer
- What effect was intended to be achieved, and how and by when

etc, etc etc

There might not be answers to these questions, but they are at least considerations in trying to assess what indeed did happen, or, more likely -might probably/possibly have happened.

MC McC

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:26 pm

Paton is an additional source to Cochrane's report. Paton etc interviewed many of the participants in order to write their book.

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:51 am

Paton, Glennie, etc., is also a mixture of both primary sources which have been obtained from the horse's mouth and secondary sources.
It is not inconceivable that everything Cochrane said at the Court of Inquiry was recorded in his Statement. Evidence was given at the Court verbally. A resume of the most relevant comments was made into a Statement and given to each 'witness' to affirm. Much of what Cochrane knew does not appear in his official Statement but has been gleaned from the letters he wrote and other remarks he made. Having once said that orders were stated verbally it is quite possible that it would be seen as mere repetition to state that later the docs themselves were produced for viewing. It is just as conceivable that this remark was left out as it is inconceivable that all Zulu evidence relating to the battle should be disregarded on the grounds of it being tainted.