rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:11 pm

Julian

My final word on the matter-I promise. It is almost certain that the entry in P G & PS is taken directly from the Penn Symons manuscript, in which he says (twice) that Pulleine had written orders. My problem is that he was with Chelmsford at the time. Paton was at the Cape and Glennie was on sick leave so are we left with mess gossip for the most part? I am not suggesting for a moment that these officers lied, simply that they may have been in error. I am still at a loss as to why Cochrane would not have said in at least one of his statements that Pulleine's orders were in writing, or else remain silent on the matter, rather than to use the words 'verbal' if that were not the case.

Pace etiam.
KIS

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:36 am

Keith

"pace etiam" is that Latin?

I have to show my ignorance, I'm afraid.

(My own mantra is: rather a stupid question than a stupid mistake - I've been guilty of both in the past)

Dawn

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:06 pm

Dawn

Yes, it means 'peace too", in reply to Julian's own 'pace'.
KIS

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:36 pm

Thanks, Keith

Sometimes one had to ask stupid questions to build knowledge. Smile

Dawn

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:01 am

Dear Dawn
Yes, Latin. Sorry for the delay in replying.
Dear Keith
I don't believe it does come from Symons. The Paton, Glennie remark is a quotation taken from the special-service officer (Cochrane) who witnessed the event. I have looked at Symons in detail this morning - I find it hard to countenance that Paton is paraphrasing Symons by putting imaginary words into Cochrane's mouth in this way. There is no other example of a quotation being used in this way by Paton.

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:47 am

Keith,

To attribute as you have Symons's investigations to mess gossip is hardly fair. There was every opportunity in the wake of the disaster for him and Cochrane to have discussed face to face what actually transpired on the 22nd. We cannot, in my view, entirely exclude the possibility that if the venue for Higginson's delivery of his 'retiring everywhere' report to the two colonels, (the report which triggered the Durnford foray and the demand for the 2 x coys,) was the mess tent, rather than Pulleine's tent/command post, that the SSO in question might even be Essex or Smith-Dorrien. But not Gardner clearly as he arrived too late to have participated in these proceedings.

The most compelling evidence for the existence of written orders is of course Clery. I left written orders. Unless that can be disproved then nobody can simply decide arbritarily that he didn't.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 pm

Mike

Finished reading 'How Can Man Die Better'.

Enjoyed it very much.

Coll

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:33 am

Thank you Coll. I hope my views on you know who didn't sting too much! My interpretation of his character and behaviour is expanded upon at LWOTF. Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:23 pm

Mike s
Hear, hear to Clery.

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:03 pm

Mike

The detailed description of the battle was great, giving an 'on the field' account of the events, rather than the feeling of watching it from a bird's eye point of view, or on a 2-dimensional tv screen. The way it is written felt like you were fighting alongside the participants, actually sensing their experiences during the fight, the discipline, the impact of the Zulu advance on the camp, and the last stands.

Are you sure you don't want to attempt a screenplay ?

Looking forward to 'Like Wolves On The Fold'.

Coll

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:17 pm

Coll,

Thank you. I'm really glad you enjoyed it. I have a screen play 3/4 finished! But we need a director, a producer and a whole lot of dollars first!

Don't hold your breath!

Regards as ever,

Mike

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:26 pm

I am almost finished with HCMDB. Mike, this is turning out to be one of the finest books I've ever read on the conflict. I'm not exactly sure since I'm not as fully versed in all the sources of the AZW but yours has to be if not the best one of the best on tactical dispositions of the battle. Your point on understanding ground is spot on and I've learned so much from the book on that score. I will be gathering my thoughts a bit because I do have a few questions and would like to eventually throw them out here.
Just one thing. I did see a reference to the board of inquiry after Isandhlwana. Now are the minutes of that available? Have they been published in Britain or South Africa? I would love to go through it.

PS. After the debacle at the Little Big Horn, there was an inquiry looking at the behavior of commanders Reno and Benteen. That has been published and I thought gave a good indication of their thought processes trying to function after the destruction of Custer's command. I thought it was good reading. I'm sure the Isandhlwana inquiry would do the same.

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:36 pm

R,

Thank you for your kind remarks, and I'm very glad that you're enjoying HCMDB.

I have a copy of the Reno court of enquiry which is a very weighty tome. Sad to say Isandlwana was never subjected to the same level of rigour. The Reno affair was conducted very much as a deliberate operation, some considerable time after LBH, in a formal court-room setting, and all salient witnesses were heard. The Isandlwana BoI was held only a few days afterwards, inside the barricades at Helpmekaar - hardly conducive to a full examination of the facts. Not all witness testimony was recorded and many relevant witnesses were not called (many had fled further afield). In short it was something of a token gesture.

It is very much the fashion to see conspiracy and deception everywhere these days - but when the three colonels comprising the board said they had not recorded all the evidence, as much of it was of a repetitive nature, I am inclined to believe that this remark was essentially true. Clearly they were pre-disposed to listen to what the regular army survivors had to say, rather then the 'colonials' - and they were predjudiced on the basis of rank - but this is merely a norm of the day, and we should not be too judgemental about it from this distance.

You will see that my interpretation of the battle has the survivors leaving the field within '8 or 9 minutes' of the bugles sounding retire. This I estimate to be the transit time for the guns and limbers from the rocky ridge to the saddle, going at the best lick they could muster across quite difficult ground, and detouring around the head of the Mpofane donga. This is because the fleeing guns recur in the survivors accounts. If you juxtapose the survivor's escapes with each other, their relationship in time and space, you will calculate that most fugitives were even quicker than that. That is why survivor's testimony becomes very similar in terms of its utility to a BoI examining the reasons for the loss of the camp. So the BoI members were not covering up for Lord C as some have charged - the survivor's testimony just wasn't of much use to them. The men best qualified to address the reasons for the defeat were dead. Then of course there is the bsuiness of speaking ill of the dead, which just was not done in those days. So even if Essex and Gardner, say, had opinions on this they were not going to express them candidly. Additonally there was the uncomfortable fact of their survival (HCMDB refers at length) - they were hardly in a position to begin casting stones.

Probably the best, quickest and cheapest way to access the BOI statements from the USA is to acquire Ian Beckett's book, which is called simply Isandlwana, and from memory was published by Brassey's. It is an inexpensive glossy in the mould of Osprey type publications. I'm sure a scan of Amazon will turn it up. I'm not sure if it has the proceedings in full but I think it might, (others will advise here perhaps) and it certainly contains all the key witness statements in their full length form.

Hope that's of some use.

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:11 pm

Thanks Mike. You know in context of the disaster I'm sort of surprised that a much more rigorous inquest would have been made by the British military establishment on the debacle. I guess they were a little more laid back as opposed to the way the inquest went with old Admiral Bing, eh? For his efforts, he was shot.

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:20 pm

'Pour encourager les autres'!

And look at what effect it had. Naval supremacy for the next 250 years! (Apart from when you lot ganged up on us with les Francais! Laughing

M