rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:26 am

It is disturbing to read of the difficulties and delays being experienced in obtaining copies of Z.Vanquished despite, for instance, Brecon having ordered as soon as the book was published - Martin and Celia, thanks for your support. And to those who have ordaeared, thanks for your patience.

David and Melanie; Some years ago I wrote an article about the part Norman Magnus played in the taking of Sekhukene's Stronghold in November 1879. It was titled "MacLeod of the amaSwazi." ( Military Illustrated, No. 126, Nov. 1998; they do have back copies). MacLeod led a Swazi army, 8000 strong, in the attack. There is no doubt that he and his warriors carried the day for Sir Garnet Wolseley, their casualties being six hundred as opposed to white troops 8 killed and 40 wounded. Wolseley, who didn't hand out praise lightly, wrote ".. the conduct of the Swazis ... was exemplary, MacLeod accompanied them throughout, and he managed them well and is to be commended". Thus MacLeod played an important role in the capture of Sekhukune, the Pedi king, and his subsequent internment.

It is of interest, and I found it very rewarding, that the article moved John MacLeod of MacLeod , athe present chief, to visit the present king of the baPedi, both parties exchanging gifts in an act of reconciliation. I thought that might interest you.

Someone recently mentioned trying to obtain, without success, "Blood on the Painted Mountain". The battles of Hlobane and Kambula, which were the subject of the book, are covered in greater detail and with much new evidence in Z. Vanquished plus some pretty stunning coloured pics of both battlefields and Devils Pass. So hang on for Vanquished for a more informative read.

Dawn and Keith: I shall be visiting Oz and NZ in Jan and Feb next year. If you would like to make contact, let me know.

Ron

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:00 am

Ron
I would be delighted to meet up with you when you visit NZ, not only as a fellow enthusiast but also as an ex-South African. We don't hear much about the old country here.
When will you be in NZ? Hopefully by then I will have read Zulu Vanquished.
Smile

Dawn

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:33 pm

Ron

Let me know when you have finalised your dates for Sydney and I shall arrange to see you then.

KIS

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:27 am

Martin

Both Celia and yourself do a superb job and I for one will continue supporting the SWB Museum, my thread to Clive was only meant to be light hearted joke between us.

All the best Team

Andy

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:37 am

Hi Tusker,
Many thanks for your additional information on Norman Magnus MacLeod. I will try and obtain a copy of the magazine. Thank you very much.
David

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:39 pm

Many thanks to the RRW Museum, Brecon. I have just received my copy of "Zulu Vanquished" today.

Dewi Evans.

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:12 pm

Must admit to having got my copy of 'Zulu Vanquished' in Foyle's earlier this week.

Haven't got got stuck into it yet, but couldn't understand the sentence in David Rattray's foreword:

'At last we now have a book that completes the tragic saga.'

Er, how about all the books which cover the entire war and therefore the entire 'tragic saga', including the post Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift period - such as Ian Knight's Brave Men's Blood, his National Army Museum book of the Zulu War, and various histories going back to Washing of the Spears?

I know from previous exchanges on this site we'll agree to disagree, but I don't understand how Ron and Peter can say with such certainty on the first page of the first chapter that '...at dawn on 22 January 1879, Chelmsford had been decoyed into leaving the British camp at Isandlwana...'

This makes the alleged lure of Chelmsford from the camp seem like an established fact, which it can never be. No problem with anyone having a theory, but moving from a theory (however well researched) to a statement of fact is rather misleading in my opinion.

But to be fair, haven't turned over to page 2 of the first chapter yet.

Ed

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:51 am

Hi Ed,
I agree with you about the theory of Chelmsford being lured out of the camp. I had this very discussion with John Laband in London earlier this year. He supports the theory, but I have my doubts, and they are only doubts at this stage.

My reasoning? For one thing, Chelmsford was apparently renowned for changing his mind, therefore, if his own officers didn't know what he may do half the time, how could the Zulu commanders? How would they prematurely know that he would split his force? The report came early in the morning when most were asleep, including possible Zulu spies, I venture. Also, if he was deliberately lured out, as many believe he was, and who am I to argue, we will probably never know for sure, it makes a nonsense of the Day of the Dead Moon theory doesn't it? The Zulu people were and are, very superstitious people and I feel sure they would not interfere with their beliefs, without good cause. Mind you, the temptation of perhaps, and I say perhaps, discovering the reduced force next morning would no doubt have proven irrisistable. Who knows? This will no doubt go on forever. Zulu scouts may well have infiltrated the NNC ranks and sent word back to the Zulu high command, but I believe after the decision to reinforce Dartnell had been taken, not before.

Did the Zulu army actually witness Chelmsford's departure from camp? I am sure I have read Zulu statements where they were surprised at seeing the redcoats return to Isandlwana, they thought they had killed them all. Oh to have been a fly on a shield in the Ngwebeni Valley!

Also in the same book I was interested to learn of the possible cover-up by Evlyn Wood VC of the Hlobane debacle. Blaming Weatherley and his Border Horse and Lt. Col. Russell. Very interesting theories, which, because of Wood's sparkling military career, I had not previously pondered. I will be interested to hear the viewpoints of some of our more learned scholars on this particular topic.
Regards to all
David

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:58 am

Thanks David - must admit I'm surprised by John Laband's stance on this, but as you have eluded to, I've no problem with the debate - it's how the 'Chelmsford was lured out of the camp' theory suddenly becomes fact that I have a problem with.

Then these 'facts' get picked up be people either new to the subject or writing a book, and before you know where you are, they get repeated and it all gets further and further away from the startpoint.

As I've said before on this forum some months ago when this was debated, I just can't see how the 'lure' theory can be sustained, but that said, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree - as long as the 'non-lure' theory is also accepted as a hypothesis.

Ed

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:18 pm

David

For a comprehensive review of Hlobane, might I recommend a paper published in 1997 by Huw M. Jones, �Hlobane: A New Perspective�, Natalia, No. 27, 1997. This was, I believe, the first publication to bring the Hlobane cover-up theory, and Captain Dennison's account of the movements of Weatherley's Horse, to light. Certainly very well written and researched and packed with foot-notes! I believe that Huw was an infrequent contributor to this forum, and one who hides a very bright light under his bushel.
KIS

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:30 pm

Hi Keith,
Thanks for that. I'll try and get a copy of Natalia. I didn't know about this account. Very useful.
Many thanks.
David

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:09 pm

I, too, have only just acquired my copy of Zulu Vanquished & certainly look forward to reading it. (A good title, even if it does prevent us from abbreviating it to "ZV" in these postings because of confusion with Ron & Peter's earlier offering!)

Like others, I suspect, as it'll be several days yet before I have a moment to sit down with it properly, I've only spent a few minutes glancing first at the photos, acks, foreword, index & endnotes. One can't tell from these alone how good the book will be, but I was a bit startled immediately to come across a couple of (minor?) errors which one might have expected a proofreader to pick up. Sigananda's photo caption indicates a death in 1903, whereas 1906 would be correct. As it's such a good photo & a worthwhile, lengthy caption, this was a shame. I also see that endnote number 83 mentions a Boer War of 1891, allowing a margin of error of a decade either way!

I was much more surprised, however, to see the credit for the discovery of (but not for the first analysis of) Dennison's memoir (although L&Q describe it as a "missing chapter" of his book) given rather anonymously, it seemed to me, to a "Mr H. Jones", as if this were someone other than Huw M. Jones, the leading scholarly authority on many aspects of S African history, particularly of Swaziland, and many very detailed fields of the 2nd ABW, but also of the AZW, as his highly regarded papers in Natalia or the MHJ - including the most recent issue - would testify. His paper on Hlobane - which I now notice Keith Smith has highlighted above as I write - should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in that battle and how news of it was, perhaps craftily, mixed with the announcement of Kambula, as well as for Huw Jones' original treatment of the Dennison memoir.

Given the standing in which that paper is still regarded, I am puzzled to find no reference to it at all in the bibliography of Zulu Vanquished, as it is the only account I know which deals in detail with the version found in Dennison's memoir, other than Ron's own much shorter article in the AZWHSJ a little while back, and (given their own reliance on Dennison's writing) I would think it inconceivable that Ron & Peter have not read the Jones paper and considered it very carefully. (Unless I've missed it somewhere - I only started looking for it when I noticed the strange looking "Mr H. Jones" credit).

A rather pedantic quibble from me, perhaps, given that I've not read the book itself yet, but I do look forward to it and if Z/Victory is anything to go by, I know there will be plenty to get one's teeth into in Z/Vanquished. The only real worry, given the simultaneous launch of so many tempting publications recently, is the awaited credit card bill! Oh well, buy 'em all & be damned!

Peter

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:23 pm

Peter

To quote you ' I was much more surprised, however, to see the credit for the discovery of (but not for the first analysis of) Dennison's memoir (although L&Q describe it as a "missing chapter" of his book) ..'

It is of course quite possible that Ron made his own observations from Dennison's missing chapter!, in which case no credit is due - apart from to Dennison for writing such an interesting chapter! - I've read the missing chapter several times myself and it would be nice to think that it could be added to Dennison's book at some time if reprinted as its facinating

Cheers
Justin

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:37 pm

Justin

You're quite right & I'm sure Ron has indeed made his own observations, & quite right too. It just seemed - for a book which naturally concentrates a fair bit on Hlobane & which makes a point of the two alternative versions (Wood's & Dennison's) of the Weatherley affair - to be a very puzzling omission from the bibliography, as I would think (but am happy to be corrected here) that it is still the "standard" work (if there can ever be such a thing in AZW research these days!) on the Dennison/Weatherley/Hlobane affair. At the very least, it cannot be gainsaid that it is a superb piece of research & writing & the sort of paper the authors would presumably want to point to the reader to for "further reading" alone.

Yes, if Dennison's book is ever reprinted, it would be appropriate to publish also his separate memoir, to provide balance and complete his account, perhaps with remarks on its known provenance.

I wouldn't want my comments on the above minor shortcomings to unbalance what I'm sure is going to be a very good read.

Peter

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:49 pm

Peter,

A brief explanation of the omission of Huw Jones'Natalia" article from the bibliography of Vanquished. Twelve years ago when I was researching Hlobane for 'Blood on the Painted Mountain' I came across Dennison's book 'A Fight to the Finish' and was astonished and mystified to find that there was only a passing reference to Hlobane. It was as if a whole chapter of the book was missing - as indeed it was. I have guessed at the reason for its omission in Vanquished (P.86) but its only a guess. Two years after the publication of 'Blood' , Huw Jones article appeared in 'Natalia' the missing chapter - and it was indeed just that, the document being headed "Chapter 5" - having come to light in the Transvaal Archives. I obtained a copy of the document direct from the archives and, intending one day to rewrite on Hlobane and not wishing to be influenced by H.J., I did not read his 'Natalia' account and have not done so since.

With regard to referring to Mr. H. Jones', I have, in fact, taken the lead from Huw. Shortly after the publication of Blood, HJ published a scathing attack on the book in 'Soldiers of the Queen' in which he made reference to 'Mr. Lock' not less than 30 times. Bit petty on both counts but there you are!