HCMDB |
Julian whybra
|
Mike
I've just finished your book. It took me two days. It is a very good book, well-written, and a very good read. I'm sure it will do well. It coincides with much, but not all (obviously), of what I believe to have happened. The reconstruction of the final moments is plausible and one of the most likely of end-game scenarios. There are very few errors of fact, thankfully, none of them serious (which I shall e-mail you about separately and privately if I may) for example, p. 212, on which you ascribe Pope's battlefield remark to Gardner. This was in fact to Essex (see England's Sons, p. 33 , Section M 28F), which is significant in itself, and obviously comes from a source you had not seen. If there is a criticism, it will be lack of footnotes, in that the general reader will be unable to tell fact from literary licence, and the devotee/experienced reader will be unable to tell whether a piece of information has come from a newly-found primary source or is an educated guess, like, Erskine's coy's presence on the spur for example. Again, I would like to e-mail you separately and privately about those. All in all, I feel it is too good a book to inquire about publicly on this forum as it may be taken for negative criticism and detract from it. A very worthy contribution to the AZW canon. I'm now going to re-read it, more slowly, before contacting you. Well done. |
||||||||||||
|
Mike Snook
|
Julian
Thank you. Passing the Whybra test is about the most exacting standard in this field!! If I can get a tick from Ian Knight and John Laband I'll die a happy man!! Let me explain about referencing. First, not that many people are that bothered about it - they want the author to have done the work for them (entirely reasonably in my view) and to be able to trust what he says without having to check every fact for themselves. I took the decision at an early stage not to adopt a purist academic approach - the reason for this is that I am not an academic - (not beyond an honours degree in history anyway!) and I set out to write an honest and frank soldier's eye view - because that is what was missing from the genre. The other problem is that following the classic academic template might have addded anything up to 50% to the time needed to write up my conclusions - and of course I have a proper job to worry about too - the consequence might have been that the book never got finished. [Even so I have included some footnoting of sources where I thought that it was absolutely necessary to support a point. ] What I wanted to do was to push out a book that brought the real battle of Isandlwana to life for people - rather than another rehash of the entirely unsound Narrative of Field Operations version (adopted by Morris and re-hashed many times since as you well know). Time will judge whether I have been successful but some kind words from Whybra is a very good start!! All deployments presented as fact in my version of the battle are grounded in the sources - Erskine was on the spur. Not speculation. It'll give you something to do to find the reference!! And on that note I have to bow out for a while as promised - or there'll be no time in my life for the copy-edit of Like Wolves on the Fold!! Thanks again, Julian. Regards as ever Mike |
||||||||||||
|
Martin Everett
|
Dear All,
As Mike has indicated, we do now have the reprinted copies of his book and are processing the orders which have been placed with us. |
||||||||||||
_________________ Martin Everett Brecon, Powys |
Julian whybra
|
Well, thanks Mike, certainly 'someone' was on the spur after Barry's coy left, I'll try to track a definitive reference to Erskine's coy in the meantime and I'll get back to you.
|
||||||||||||
|
Julian whybra
|
Well Mike, that didn't take long...but if I'm looking at what I think you used then the single word 'Erskine', surely, given the context, is more likely to apply to Lieut. Wallie Erskine rather than Captain Edward Erskine's company?
|
||||||||||||
|
Mike Snook
|
Very good - once you've got the definitive reference to a NNC coy being on Cavaye's right (OK - it's in Essex, as I'm sure you've worked out, and, importantly, it is very nicely defined in time and space relative to all other activity) - you then apply a process of elimination to the NNC coys to see who it can and cannot be. You will come up with only one possible answer - Capt Erskine. If he's there at the time in question - how, when and why did he get there - and why is it not specifically recorded in the sources - that will take you back logically to the moment when Barry is dragged forward by Shepstone and Mkwene Hill - a crucial vantage point - is left unoccupied. A gap is created at a vital point (in terms of surveillance/picketing) - and Pulleine does what any bn comd would do - he deploys another asset to fulfil the same role. From the perspective of the survivors - it's a not very interesting, routine sort of a movement, given the high drama that will unfold within the hour - hence you get only a tantalising passing reference requiring detective work to get ot he bottom of the matter. SO - Edward Erskine's coy was on the spur on Cavaye's right, at the moment Essex and Mostyn arrived. How did he get there - he withdrew from Mkwene to marry up with Cavaye, because he could see the attack of the chest, had seen Barry's coy disintegrate, and knew his position on Mkwne was untenable.
Not all the answers are stated openly in the sources as we all know only too well. But the clues are there, requiring a bit of second order thinking. But Julian you've got me doing what I don't want to do just at present!! At some point in the future, when I've got both the books out and have had a breather - I'll be delightedto go through all the logic behind the reconstruction - but can I have a couple on months off first please??!! Regards as ever Mike |
||||||||||||
|
Dawn
|
And give us who haven't had their copies a chance to read it and join it. I'm intrigued already.
Dawn |
||||||||||||
|
diagralex
|
I agree with Dawn - It's very frustrating not yet having received a copy of the book and seeing the questioning begin. I hope that Mike lets us know when he is again available as I am sure that his book will raise a great number of questions to be answered and start some good old fashioned debating.
Graham |
||||||||||||
Last edited by diagralex on Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Julian whybra
|
But Mike, before you go...the reference could be to a remnant of Barry's coy or Stafford's (hence Wallie Erskine)...anyway, save your response, I'll be contacting you in depth in a fortnight or so.
|
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Dawn/Graham et al,
My copy came today, so I haven't done much since it arrived! I have only had a chance to read a small part altogether and have been dreadfully guilty of jumping forward & reading ahead, an awful fault of mine. I'm certainly enjoying it, although it will take several complete readings & comparisons with other works - Jackson comes most readily to mind - before some of Mike's points are clear in my head. And one has no endnotes to check, although for most of us this usually comes down to having to rely on those who have examined the primary sources themselves anyway and, even then, reliable historians will sometimes still differ with each other on intepretation, as we've seen above. It is certainly very different in approach & many of the problems which have tested historians so far - i.e., the gaps in the primary sources - have been tackled by the author from a completely different angle, by using his detailed military knowledge & experience. Unlike some of the recent stuff offered to the public, one can already say for certain that anyone genuinely interested in the Battle of Isandlwana and its mysteries will certainly want to read this book. Some bits are "un-put-downable." As I said, I've nowhere near finished it & like most detailed accounts of Isandlwana it will need to be read several times & compared with others, and I suspect the nearest work with similar conclusions (chiefly re the comparatively steady retreat of several coys) will turn out to be that of Jackson, although the approach is different to his & the style very different. It is going to stimulate some very, very interesting debate of high quality, there is no doubt of that - I hope some of it appears on this forum eventually. As Julian says, it will certainly take its place among the works on Isandlwana regarded as worthwhile. Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Julian whybra
|
Yes, Peter, it is as you say basically a Jackson with soldier's eye view plus 'bits'. Because of the lack of footnotes it is difficult to gauge the historical veracity of the 'bits' - and these are the most interesting part. I'm working through them to create a list for MS to respond to (there are also some things not referred to which need answering). There are some annoying misspellings like MacDowel and Godwin-Austen, mistakes in the appendix, and basic errors of fact - but these pale into insignificance beside some of the gaffs of recent popular works. It's not an historian's book, but, to be fair, that was never MS's intention. Nevertheless, all in all, a very worthwhile read.
|
||||||||||||
|
LT COL SNOOK |
Rich
Guest
|
Just received HCMDB over the weekend. I want to thank the Lt Col for his John Hancock. Good to hear that it is a "worthwhile read". I'll be tearing into it shortly. ( I hope I can keep Burt out of my mind for at least a little bit to understand behavior especically the Major's under such "pressurized" circumstances).
Keith: Just to ask..Is your book listed in DP&G? |
||||||||||||
|
Mike McCabe
Guest
|
Julian,
I've been carefully reading Mike's book for some time now, prior to composing a review, but have only just looked into this site out of broad interest in how it might be being received by a cross section of 'enthusiasts' - including 'the usual suspects'. I'm intrigued at the harping by several contributors over the lack of rigorous footnotes in the book. As any soldier knows official and eye witness recorded material is not in itself utterly reliable as if intrinsically certain or factual. Anything recorded is essentially subject to the perceptions and powers of observation and judgement - and integrity - of its author. There is also the occasional strong whiff of hearsay, and many sources appear motivated by the need to maintain or redeem reputations - and often their own. There have been writings recently that have tried to 'over-factualise' as there have, also, been writings that very much prefer some 'facts' to others. Or, in at least two cases readily invent 'facts'. If footnotes are provided from an exhaustive list of primary and secondary sources then that might indeed indicate a rigorous thoroughness of research by an author. It might not, and might actually simply indicate selectivity and judicious garnishing. Few of us can these days accumulate large libraries of these sources. It is, however, useful to know of them for another reason, in that knowledge of their existence can stimulate wider reading. I'm enjoying reading Mike's book, though I do not necessarily agree with quite a lot of what he says. However, I think that any new readers on this fascinating subject should still be able to enjoy it , and, it should inspire any sensible or intellectually curious reader (not always the same thing) to read more - which is always a good thing. The problem with 'factualists' is that they base their platform on inviting us to find merit in their selection of 'facts' (as if indestructable absolutes) and assessments based upon them. In military history, there are generally few incontravertible facts, or (latterly) an information field of too many, and information recorded in sources is invariably tainted by opinion - if only the opinion leading to it being selectively chosen. Fine, there may be few alternatives and something must be accepted as likely or probable if any kind of start is to be made. But, I am no more or no less persuaded by a book due to the presence or absence of footnotes. So, it might not be as important as commentary along those lines suggests. MC McC |
||||||||||||
|
diagralex
|
There will never be a perfect book written about the Zulu war or any other war for that matter. The perfect book would have reliable witnesses, official orders and all documentation would be reliably cross referenced.
Mike Snook has written his account of Isandlwana from a proffessional soldiers point of view. He traces the battle as a soldier would have seen it unfold. Many of the points made are probably what would have happened, but not neccesarily what did happen. Place ten men around a battlefield and you wil certainly get ten different accounts of what took place. Are these men telling the truth - probably- but it is the truth as they interpret it. A book can tell a good story, (t.w.o.t.s. is a good example) but remember the disappointment when after a little study, you discovered that to make it readable, many points were exaggerated or even invented. As Isandlwana is that perfect enigma, historians can and will disagree over it for years to come. Mike Snook has attempted to fill in some of the enevitable gaps with logic, but cannot hope to be correct in 100% of his scenarios. That is the fun of this campaign, we all have our own ideas and love proving them to others. Is anyone correct - I doubt it, but any contribution shoulf be considered just that - an attempt to understand a battle that none of us lived through and have only formed our opinions from many, many sources. |
||||||||||||
|
HCMDB |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.