rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Peter

As you know full well I am not intending to make a literally true statement - to the effect that nobody was killed. I am making the point no combat grouping (and particularly not E and F Coys 1/24) took significant casualties up there.

The issue is if people were killed how were they killed. They were not killed by the right horn which made no attempt to close and passed on into the approaches to the Manzimyama. (see Essex).

So the only fire directed at the spur came from the skimrishers/advanced guard of the uNokhenke. So there may have been a few gunshot casualties. On the other hand the range from Mkwene to the spur is long so fire is hardly likely to have been heavy or accurate. There was definitely no close quarter fighting up there because Essex who arrived with Mostyn would certainly have mentioned it.

I don't have Barker immediately to hand but will have another look in a few days - off the top of my head I cannot recall him saying anyhting about Tahelane and I am generally cautious of Barker. Remind me what year does his account date from?

Essex made his statement only a few days after the event and it was given as evidence. Now while I have criticised his covering his tail on his departure with his remark about time no time even to fix bayonets - a manifest piece of hyperbole - the early part of his account to do with the Tahelane spur looks entirely measured and sound.

Now he definitely was there.

I never met George. I have not seen any written record of his findings to judge their worth. If they were more extensive surely you would have quoted them more fully. I have not spoken to David about it but will make a point of doing so next time I am out. But remember we have had people stating until that they are blue in the face that a party of 24 sappers was killed by the side of the road, when there were only 2 & 5 sappers at the battle.

Fortunately your volley has sailed overhead as usual!! I will look at Barker and return fire.

As ever

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Mike,
You have really got me confused. First your statement," Not a single man of the 24th was killed on the spur."
Then, " As you know full well I am not intending to make a literally true statement- to the effect that NOBODY was killed."
Now which is it? The first statement in absolutely unambigious.
Let's talk about George Chadwick. He was a Zulu linguist of renown, who held the position of Chairman of the National Monuments Council. He was also on the Board of Trustees of the Voortrekker Museum.
The Monuments council was responsible for mapping, dismantling and rebuilding of cairns resulting from the AZW.
He, in a converstion with Ron Lock and myself, personally told us that he had made numerous visits to Tahelane Ridge to supervised the Monuments cairns project that resulted in the discovery of buttons, boots and bones of the 24th killed on the ridge. Chadwick's statement was today confirmed by Arthur Konigkramer, the current Chaiman of Amafa, the latter being the successor of the Monuments Council.
What can be more conclusive that that?
And it would be wrong of you to compare a man of George Chadwick's stature to your reference of " we have had people stating ----."

Now to Barker. Quote:
" The Witness followed up with the publication of a private letter on 7 February 1879, portions of which read, ' Barker ( Tpr,NC,) [ sic] who escaped, says HE SAW one company which was sent on to the high hills to the left of the camp, [quote Barker,] " to keep the Zulus back; they shot hundreds of them, but in five minutes there was not a man left."
Now are we to believe that the 24th took, as you put it, ' no significant casualties up there?'
Barker is primary source and from his evidence, together with Lord Chelmsford's, together with Chadwick's confirmatory discovery, it seems conclusive that the 24th did suffer casualties of significance on the ridge.
To boot you have not quoted a single primary source in rebuttal, yet chose to ignore the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, that includes the actual discovery of bones.
Yebo; blinkers off time, Sahib.
Hope your body armour firmly in position to deflect you from this telling volley. Next time it will be Kukris!
As ever,
Peter
Keith Smith


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 540
Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Reply with quote
Peter

While hesitating to intrude in what seems to be a most interesting debate between yourself and Mike, might I pose a question related to the Mthonjaneni Museum which you mentioned in an earlier post. Can you tell me the individual(s) involved in setting it up, and is it associated with the nearby motel whose name has slipped my mind? I ask because once upon a time I visited a private house in Vryheid to see a very extensive collection of AZW matrial collected from the battlefields, principally, but not exclusively, Khambula. The guy who owned this collection, which was a mighty fine one, had collected the stuff himself over some twenty years and he mentioned something about opening a museum at Mthonjaneni at some time in the future. I wondered if the two were connected, and perhaps you might now be able to enlighten me.

KIS
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Mike,
And talking about Essex, your remarks are noted; so how much reliance can one place on Essex?
Does one believe in agreeing with primary source views recorded that coincide with ones own, and discard those portions that one disagrees with? Selective reasoning?
Certainly Symons casts doubt in his report written at Rorke's Drift March/April 1879, (and read by Queen Victoria,) on the movements of Cavaye and Mostyn. Quote:
" They [ Cavaye and Mostyn] advanced in echelon in attacking order a mile to the left, and soon became engaged. The movements of these two companies of the 1/24th DO NOT QUITE AGREE WITH THOSE GIVEN BY CAPTAIN ESSEX 75th. His account, athough most clear and circumstantial, is not the same as given by MANY other survivors."
What Symons is clearly alluding to, is that the movements of Cavaye and Mostyn are not exactly as described by Essex.Thus the reality of the situation is clouded with question marks that create doubt, simply because the opinion of the 'many,' (presumably both primary and secondary), outweigh that of Essex. More the pity that Symons did not make clear the difference, but difference there was.
Regards,
Peter
P.S. I still believe that the ball bags, hammering against the right thigh, held twenty rounds. There is little point in a satchel holding a mere ten rounds as the latter would not create weight problems to the extent highlighted by the likes of Newdigate etc. So twenty it is, but not for long. A wee bit of doubling would soon lighten the load. Ask Neil!
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Hi Keith,
The collection belonged to Tim van der Berg and is vast. The circumstances of the collection over the years was such, that my understanding is that amnesty was asked for and granted, provided that a trust was formed to control the collection that would neither leave the country nor be sold.The trustees are van der Berg, J.Goosen and the owner of Mtonjenei Lodge, Nico Harris. Amafa keep a close watch.
Well worth a visit if you are in the area. Tim will keep you entertained for well over an hour, at least.
Regards,
Peter
Adrian Whiting


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Dorset, England
Reply with quote
Peter,

For clarity, the relevant regulations are quite clear, the expense pouch/ball bag held ten rounds if two bundles of each soldier's seven were carried in the valise (which may have been substituted by the Haversack if the valise was carried on transport) or thirty rounds if all seventy were on the man. The waistbelt pouches can only hold two bundles, 20, rounds each.

The only realistic way of cramming 25 rounds into each waistbelt pouch so that 20 would be carried in the ball bag would be by opening every bundle and compressing 25 loose rounds into each waistbelt pouch - there are no references that I am aware of that this practice was adopted.

_________________
Hope this assists,
Adrian
View user's profileSend private message
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
I am very much enjoying this discussion and do not wish to intrude, but between the volley fire, can I make the following points.

The evidence of Captain Essex has been discussed before on this site, but I am still at a loss to discover how his testimony differs so greatly from numerous others. To pinpoint his statements, he says that:-

1. He advises Cavaye that Mostyn is moving up on the left (normal proceedure)
2. He finds Cavaye's company in extended order ( this must have been the correct formation?)
3. The enemy is moving to the left at 800 yards range.( confirmed by others)
4. Mostyn then arrives and fills in the gaps in the line ( standard proceedure surely)
5. The line is extended by a body of native infantry (Barker's arrival)
6. Enemy is observed moving at rapid pace to the left ( confirmed by others)
7. Melvill arrives within 5 minutes and advises that the enemy were appearing in force in the rear ( confirmed by others)
8.Melvill tells Essex to withdraw the left of the line, keeping up their fire (standard proceedure in a withdrawal)
9. Essex does this and then returns, but finds that the rest of the company has already retired (not confirmed but plausable)
10. On arrival at the foot of the hill, he finds " the two companies,
( Cavaye's and Mostyn's ?) drawn up in extended order.
11. The enemy descends the hill and their fire then begins to cause a "few" casualties.

There is nothing said by Essex which is wildly controversial, unusual or strange. He confirms standard proceedure in the deployment and movement of the troops. His report is merely confirming what he saw and what would normally have been expected to have taken place.

Barker stated that he saw " Hundreds of the enemy shot ", Essex in a private letter home suggested that although the line blazed away, very few casualties were incurred amongst the Zulus at 800-1000 yards range.
Which point sounds the most plausable?
Barker stated that " within 5 minutes not a man was left", if that was the case then who were the troops which Essex withdrew with and later reported as being drawn up at the foot of the hill. Essex implies that casualties did not occur until this point, surely if the company had been wiped out in 5 minutes, then he would have seen this when he returned to the spur. I am not convinced by the wild claims of Barker and would rely more on the evidence of Essex during this operation.

Chadwick stated that he discovered remains on the spur. How many men's bodies did he find? It seems very unlikely that the Zulus could have inflicted very many casualties given the extreme range and their poor marksmanship. Possibly some men were killed during the withdrawal, but their locations would have to confirmed. Does the evidence of Chadwick give the exact locations of his discoveries ?

Graham

[/i][/u]
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Peter

Good Lord! It's that bit of Barker you are referring to. You can knock me down with a feather. Well sorry to break it to you old chap, but it's arrant nonsense, and any historian worth his salt would identify it as such. Barker was not on the Tahelane Spur. Essex was. Symons was at Mangeni. You are quoting 'sexed up' accounts from troopers, reported in a newspaper, at a time when just about the whole colony had collapsed into a fit of hysteria.

It is extraordinary that you could cite such a foolish, second-hand and off-the-cuff remark from Barker - even if it is in context and genuinely represents what he actually said - which it probably is not.

In a situation where sources contradict each other, the historian must go through a process of 'weighting' the evidence. To accept every source at face value gets us nowhere except confused. If it does not 'fit' the jigsaw, then one should not take a hammer and attempt to smash it into place.

Symons raises imprecise objections to Essex's testimony. In my view he is objecting to what I have called Essex's 'white-lie' about fixing bayonets - which relates directly to E and F Coys. This is the part of his testimony which Symons is saying does not accord with the testimony of survivors. (Nor with the great multiplicity of Zulu bodies which were found on this part of the field. Read Browne writing of the morning of the 23rd). The last sightings of E and F Coys by survivors were recorded by Curling and Higginson. For example Higginson:

I saw that they [the 24th] were retreating also, but very slowly.

Does that sound like the same body of men that Barker is 'writing' about? No, because Barker's reported remark is part of that body of 'evidence' which Curling accurately encapsulates in his famour letter home as 'any number of lies'.

So here is an example where Essex outweighs Barker because Essex was there and Barker was not. And perhaps 30-40 mins later, Higginson outweighs Essex because Higginson was there and Essex was not. Now that is a glimpse at the historian's art. Look and learn. Seek and ye shall find.

And you know what you can do with your kukri. Cool

Mike

PS. Don't put words in my mouth please. I said nothing to disparage or cast doubt on George Chadwicks' credentials. It is unfair of you to suggest that I did.


Last edited by mike snook 2 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:23 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Graham

I agree with every word - a masterly summation.

Except that as is Peter's wont, he has confused the issue by suggesting that Barker was on the Tahelane Spur.

Barker was not in the NNC. He was a Carbineer. I am not surprised that you made the inference that he was NNC, because you are wise enough to know that none of the Carbineers were on the spur, and yet Peter is prepared to cite him as a gospel-like source for the events there.

Barker was one of the two men sent by Scott to warn Durnford - in the Qwabe Valley! Could he have been any further from the Tahelane Spur?!! It is clear to me on the basis of this evidence that he saw absolutely nothing of what was going on with E and F Coys.

Regards as ever

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Graham,
You are quite right in saying that there is nothing wildly controversial or seemingly strange in the report of Essex.
Notwithstanding that, it is clear that Symons catagorically stated that ' His [Essex] account ------ is not the same as that given by MANY other survuvors.' [ referring specifically to the MOVEMENTS of Cavaye and Mostyn.] This implies that the 'many' were all in agreement with what occured and that this differed from the report of Essex.
We shall, of course, never know what Symons was alluding to. But clearly the word ' movements' is key.
So where was the possible difference? Conjecture on the points you mention:
1. OK
2. OK
4. OK
9. ?
10.?
We are all guessing, but it cannot be denied that there was a body of opinion that differed from Essex.
Whatever your opinion of Barker, he made a catagorical statement that a company was 'wiped out.' As he was present, he must, from his description, seen considerable casualties occur on the ridge to make such a statement.
Chadwick's description on record, together with his conversation with us left us under the impression that he was not referring to 'one or two.' But the answer to your question is that we do not know. Ron and I plan to visit the Killie Campbell museum during October to see if they hold his papers. It is common cause that there exists a map with exact locations. The bodies were on the ridge not on the plain. Mike raises the good point of how they were killed? One must possibly look at the presumption of a portion being overwhelmed prior to withdrawal. Dyson's section seem likely candidates (conjecture.) These are all imponderables.
What we know for a fact is that Barker's primary source on casualties, embelleshed as it is, combined with Lord Chelmsford's statement that could only have been taken from survivors reports, stating that a company went over the hills never to be seen again, and Chadwick, a person of considerable reputation and position, who found boots, badges and bones.
Peter
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Mike,
My, we are getting a tad touchy. Need to lighten up, may I suggest. Did I say that Barker was on Tahelane Spur? Look again and there is no reference to such a statement. Clearly you chose to act selectively. Come on Mike, phrases like'arrant nonsense' and ' foolish, second-hand and off-the-cuff remark from Barker ' are not called for.
So let's look at the 'jigsaw' that you mention. Barker was not in isolation. Can you explain Chelmsford's statement relating to the loss of a company? Easy, I suppose;was he too was talking 'arrant nonsense' and 'making foolish off-the-cuff' remarks. Yet think, why did he make that statement? It would almost certainly not have been as the result of a single survivor's report, rather a consensus view. So cognisance has to be taken of the GOC's view.
Symons does not raise 'imprecise' objections to Essex's testimony. To the contrary, they were very precise, namely he was referring to the movements of the companies, and that word rules out your interpretation on 'fixing bayonets' unless this was done at the double!
Now all of a sudden Higginson becomes a reliable source to quote. Well we all know that his testimony was more than inaccurate in many instances. (He who commandeered a horse to leave the owner to his fate.) And because the last sightings of E and F company, according to him, were 'retreating also, but very slowly,' does not by any means infer that they were intact or had not suffered casualties.
Chadwick's evidence? More grist to the 'jigsaw' puzzle? Seek and ye shall indeed find.
The last thing that I would do is to attempt to put words into your mouth regarding Chadwick's credentials. You had implied, and let me remind you of your earlier posting, that you had never met him or seen any written records of his. You then went on to add," But remember we have had people stating until they are blue in the face that a party of 24 sappers was killed by the side of the road, when there were only 2&5 sappers at the battle." I took that to be an indirect reference to Chadwick's views being similarly catogorised. If I am in error, I apologise. You will also notice that I referred to Barker as 'trooper' and quoted NC. Any inference that he was NNC was not deliberate, rather a slip on my part.
So let us not 'confuse the issue.' Chelmsford, Barker, and Chadwick, particularly the latter, is good enough for me.
David Rattray only gets back from Russia on Sunday, when I will again canvass his recollection.
Still smiling,
Peter
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
Mike and Peter

Thank you both for your interesting and different replies to my queries.

There is certainly a wide difference between the observations of Barker and Essex. If one noticed a company being wiped out and the other assisted with its withdrawal, then clearly one of them is observing another battle!

I agree with Peter that Dyson in a more exposed position could have attracted the attention of Zulus, but there is a major difference between a company and a section of men. If it was Dyson's section involved, then it must have occured as soon as the two companies started to pull back. Essex makes no mention to close quarter fighting, which if it had happened, must surely have been worth a mention in his report. He does not even state that the Zulus were close enough for hand to hand fighting when he left the top of the ridge.

Clearly, the record of the remains of soldiers on the ridge cannot be discounted and I for one am fascinated by the prospect of a map and details of the remains being found. I hope that the visit to the museum brings forth a successful result.

Regards Graham
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Peter

You want to show that Dyson was overwhelmed. He was not. Essex went out to get him. Essex then returned to where he had left Mostyn and Cavaye. He was the last man to leave the spur.

Let's leave it like this. Next time I'm out. You and I will go and do a long walk over the spur and look at the ground together.

I'm also still smiling.

By the way, I too have a kukri from my days in 48 Gurkha Infantry Brigade. But you are probably handier with yours than I ever was with mine - and definitely more handy than Private M***** a member of my tac HQ who half cut one of his fingers off a split second after I looked up and said 'watch what your doing with that bloody thing, M*****'!!

As ever

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
P

By the way, yes I can explain Chelmsford's very early statement to the effect that a company was cut off. He probably read it in the papers!

If I had the time or the energy I could find a letter of Lord C's to Horse Guards which post dates your quote and says something to the effect of - even now we're not really sure what happened.

M
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Mike,
I can find no reference to Essex returning for Dyson. Can you refer me?
But we agree, Pax vobis.
Regards,
Peter
Ball bag question
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 3 of 4  

  
  
 Reply to topic