rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:20 pm

Mike

Regarding your last post, it seems that you still find it necessary to cast aspersions about the five Imperial officers at every given opportunity. In a private E-Mail sent to you in October (for which I never had the courtesy of a reply or acknowledgement) I did mention the following points :-
1. lord Chelmsford stated in writing that it was perfectly acceptable for a staff officer to leave the battlefield once it became obvious that he could do no more. If the commanding officer of these men could find it acceptable, by the standards of the time, why do you have to snipe at their behaviour?
2. If you consider the five surviving officers to have behaved badly, then why do you praise the behaviour of Ltn. Coghill in H.C.M.D.B.? He left the battlefield without orders and also abandoned the soldiers of his regiment.
This sounds like double standards are being applied.
3. Why do you include Ltn. Curling in your group of officers and their conduct unbecoming ? If the guns of the Royal Artillery are considered to be their colours, then he was trying to do exactly what Ltn. Melvill was doing - trying to save them. It is totally unacceptable for you to praise the actions of Melvill whilst you belittle the behaviour of Curling.
Whatever any of us think about the survivors of the battle, they all performed brave deeds on that day in question. You mentioned about speaking ill of the dead - none of us have the right to make jibes about the behaviour of these men. Who knows exactly how they will behave or react given similar circumstances.

Graham

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:00 pm

Mike..Just a point....
I'd tend to think that survivor testimony would perhaps give a very good indication of the "immediate" cause of the destruction of the Isandhlwana command. On the other hand, why wouldn't the British military establishment seek to enage in a more profound investigation into the overall strategy and tactical dispositions prior to the battle? Does it follow that we could note that the British attitude to the disaster would be one of arrogance since a more in-depth and lengthy cross-examination of those who managed to live was never done? You know after Kasserine in WWII the US army surely didn't want to it's field army as simply fodder for the German juggernaut in future campaigns. They surely used the battle to get themselves back in the saddle by noting deficiencies and how to learn from the experience. I'm not sure if this was the British army experience after Isandhlwana or was it?

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:20 pm

Rich

I'm not in a position to comment on Mike's work, not having yet read it, but there was a most serious enquiry of the nature you suggest, albeit very quietly. This was undertaken by HRH the Duke of Cambridge, Commander-in-Chief of the Army. It took the form of a letter from his Adjutant-General, General C.H. Ellice, with a number of extremely pointed questions to which Chelmsford was asked to respond. This caused a number of ripples through the SA field force in Natal, when officers were asked to respond to aspects of these questions. The result was that HRH was dissatisfied with Lord C.'s answers, and this was communicated to him in August, long after his departure to England. Perhaps this is covered in HCMDB?

KIS

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:46 am

Keith
The letter is covered in Zulu Victory in Chapter Nine headed "Horse Guard's Interrogation and Verdict."

Dawn

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:33 pm

Keith, Rich and Dawn

Greetings all. The Duke of C's directed letter under Ellice's signature appears in LWOTF. This is the C-in-C's judgement on Lord C's responses to the questions Keith refers to. But this is all closed military corrrespondence and cannot be regarded as an enquiry in the true sense of the word. I think the disaster, Rich, was used in the same manner as Kasserine as a learning experience - the contrast in Lord C's tactical style pre and post disaster is marked. So he certainly learned - but too late for the many deceased.

The gentleman above.

You have your views. It doesn't mean that you may angrily demand that I should conform to them, precisely as you did on the earlier occasion that you refer to. Whether one gets a reply or not to unsolicited correspondence, I would suggest, rather depends on your tone. Here, as on that earlier occasion, you are hostile and abrupt, which is not, what this forum is about. You are also totally misinterpreting and misrepresenting my writing, which I would like you to stop doing.

Here is a one sentence extract from book:

'Nobody in the succeeding waves of fugitives, the likes of Smith-Dorrien, Smith, Curling and so on, can be considered to have behaved improperly.'

M

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:23 pm

Thank you all for directing me to the citation. Boy, I guess I just can't get it through my thick skull but I can't help thinking why the inquest was so seemingly perfunctory. Perhaps I don't have a good feeling for the times (circa 1879 UK) and I'm stuck in 20/21st century thinking believing that a much more rigorous public inquiry should have occurred with the Isandhlwana disaster. With so many deaths under the circumstances, it looks as if the military and the public looked more at propriety rather than an extensive investigation that could have ruffled a few feathers. From all this though, I can see that England at the time was not in a cynical or skeptical age with regard to its politcial and military establishment.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:16 pm

Mike

I have a copy of the book you mentioned.

Isandlwana. by Ian Beckett. (Battles in Focus series)

There is a section near the back (pages 105 - 121)

Appendix 1 - The Court of Inquiry.

Appendix 2 - Supplementary Statements of Evidence.

Although I haven't yet read this title, it does appear the above section(s) do cover the subject quite thoroughly.

Coll

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:16 pm

Hi Coll

Yes, that's the one. I think it's all there (brief though it is - as Rich so rightly points out). I think from memory it was sent to London under a covering letter fm Lord C.

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:33 am

All

Isandlwana Battles In Focus can be found on eBay. I just picked up a copy on eBay for $5.75! Just search for Isandlwana, that will turn it up. Just thought I'd let everyone know!

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:11 am

Mike Snook,

Hi,

I've just finished reading your book which I found most impressive and extremely readable. There is one small observation I'd like to make and I apologise if it seems trivial and to those with a good memory,repetitious. Some time ago I suggested that Colonel Durnford bore a strong resemblance to George Custer and was it conceivable that he may have based his "style" on that of Custer - not, I stress, his tactics. I came in for a certain amount of flak for the comment. I was interested in your remark in your book that Durnford was looking more and more like Custer. I would be interested if you have any further views on the point. Once again, congratulations on your most scholarly interpretation of Isandlwana.

Tony Ashford.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:21 pm

Tony,

My apologies for not replying sooner. What I mean to suggest is that there is a certain commonaility between them in their attraction to being thought of as rough-riding men of the frontier. Both liked to dress the part.

Africa is a wonderfully romantic place and if I read Durnford right, he had been captivated by it. Given the unhappiness in his private life he had found a new home from home in Pietermaritzburg. I think his hat and his red pugaree were designed to say to the generally much more recently arrived regulars, I know my way around this part of the world. I belong. I'm part of the furniture. In a sense he is drawing a distinction between himself and the new boys blundering about the place, always asking how far is to such and such a place. How will we know the road? What is the ground like? What are the landmarks?

He was keen not to be thought of as a straight sapper, but as a wider soldier. I believe he had a terrible yearning for success as a wider soldier, like his dad, like Chinese Gordon, and like many other sappers of his age and seniority. It just hadn't come together for him - and his one fleeting opportunity fell apart with a volley from the amaHlubi in the Bushman's River Pass.

He was successful in creating this image - Chelmsford gave him a column - an independent field command of brigade strength - even though there was nothing in his background to suit him for higher command. Chelmsford of course had realized he made a mistake, well over a week before Isandlwana - the sacking letter.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:06 am

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply and the interesting observation. I'm not what you would call a pro-Durnford person and he certanly was culpable at Isandlwana. But I do appreciate peoples' empathy with him. Had he some how turned things round in the battle and survived, even saved the day, would we be discussing and dissecting his every intention now? He does seem to have had a charisma, which reaches us now across the years - his death in those circumstances and with so many unanswered questions, guaranteed this sort of legendary status. Similarly, would Custer have been remembered as he is ( in America anyway ) had his encounter ended differently, or would we sympathise with Harold at Hastings as we do, had he won? There are many examples littered through history. That is all very subjective of course, but when we look at the cold facts and beyond the image it is hard to defend him with any conviction.

Best wishes,

Tony.

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:07 pm

HCMDB: Mike Snook brings us an immense number of details collected through extensive research which throws new light on events as well as complementing and sometimes amending our ideas about a great historical event, Isandlwana.

Paul

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:25 am

I just would like to say that I finished reading How Can Man Die Better recently and that it was one of the best if not the best book I have read on the Battle of Isandlwana.

It was so detailed and it was made easy to read and understand by chapter divisions. I'm looking forward to Like Wolves On The Fold!

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:55 am

Thanks chaps for the last two posts - you're very kind.

Regards

Mike