rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:54 am

Ron

I admire your single-mindedness in refusing to look at such a well-known article for such a long time, knowing that it discussed in great detail the very topic you were to write about in the future!!!

I've been separated from my copy of ZV2 since last week but look forward to diving into it properly rather than just dipping in. The photos on and around Hlobane, especially the coloured ones, certainly remind me of the mountain (brief visit only) & make a return trip as soon as is practicable an absolute priority.

Peter

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:06 am

There has been much discussion on the new and especially the old forums of the recent THEORY re a Zulu planned attack on the 22nd and luring Chelmsford out of camp in the face of the EVIDENCE of the large number of Zulu accounts (from all regiments and covering 1880 to 1906) saying the attack was planned for the 23rd and in the face of the total DEARTH of evidence to support the 22nd planned attack. Are we seriously being asked to believe that the Zulus came up with a mass conspiracy theory regarding this ...? And what for, one might ask... they'd won hadn't they? I find it increasingly galling (and Zulus from the Royal Family I've spoken with find it insulting) that the wide variety of Zulu contemporary evidence is ignored. I know that this has been aired many times on the forum but the constant emphasis on the theory whilst failing to mention the evidence is both biased and ahistorical. Where's the balance?

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:13 am

Julian,

Some months ago, after a prolonged running battle on this web site, we agreed to differ. It now appears that, like Chelmsford, we were decoyed whilst you gathered an arsenal of Zulu evidence with which to support your outdated contentions and renew hostilities. However, you really have got it all wrong. Perhaps you found our "theories" so galling that you did not read Zulu Victory. Had you done so you would know we agree that the attack was planned for the 23rd. Page 151:

"In order for the events of the day to unfold as they did, it had been necessary for Ntshingwayo, commander of the Zulu army, to make two momentuous decisions. both within the last few hours. He had decided, contrary to the instruction of his King, to discontinue any attempt to negotiate with the British and to ignore the implications of a deep spiritual belief, held sacred by the Zulu, that it was inauspicious to fight on the day of the dead moon (the day before the appearance of the new moon in the night sky). And, in all likelihood, if Fynn's predictions were correct that the Zulu army planned to attack via the Mangeni valley, Ntshingwayo had also decided to change his plan of battle.

When news had come of Dartnell's reconnaisance, Ntshingwayo had sent a detatchment to distract Dartnell from returning to the camp, whilst the remainder of the main Zulu army had made its way, unseen, to the shelter of the Ngwebini valley. From there, despite it being the 'day of the dead moon' , it would launch its attack on the camp whilst 1800 of the enemy were distracted ten miles away to the south east. That was probably as far as Ntshingwayo's plan had evolved on the night of the 21st January. Then, as dawn broke on the 22nd, the Zulu lookouts, already in the hills above the camp, had sent messengers racing to Ntshingwayo with the news that another column, greater still than the one at bay above the Quedeni track, was seemingly marching to its support. It was a glorious opportunity, one that no general worthy of the name would not sieze, and no doubt Ntshingwayo recalled King Shaka's famous exclamation when he had outmanoeuvred the Ndwendwe army: ' A partridge is about to settle in my hand' "

During our earlier encounter on this website, we quoted a number of primary source statements, ranging from correspondents with the column to Chelmsfords own staff officers, propounding their belief that Chelmsford - indeed the whole column - had been decoyed. Julian, how many statements from British or Colonial sources can you produce propounding the belief that the column was NOT decoyed?

As for the members of the Zulu royal family, who you allege "find it insulting", could you please reveal their names as AMAFA find your statement curious, to say the least.

In his foreword to Zulu Victory, Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi wrote:
"I am pleased to introduce the work of Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill who have researched the history of the battle of Isandlwana in order to tease out the truth of an event which remains emotional for my people and myself."

Prince Mangosuthu said a great deal more and with foresight remarked "undoubtedly, some may find the dispelling of long-held myths uncomfortable and even unpalatable ..."

Ron Lock.

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:56 pm

Ron/Tusker
1st para. Yes, I have.
2nd/3rd para. The ideas are not outdated (as you well know) and there are no hostilities (at least on my part) but simply writing this in ZV does not mean it happened. No evidence is presented for anything written about Ntshingwayo's decisions before the battle. These are merely suggestions.
4th para. The number of primary source statements, ranging from correspondents with the column to Chelmsfords own staff officers, propounding their belief that Chelmsford - indeed the whole column - had been decoyed, wre suggestions (without evidence) and resulting from the shame of the defeat. How could they have believed that the Zulus had won if it hadn't been for, in their minds, a trick? Also the natire othe development of the day would seem to indicate that there had been a decoy (on that I shall agree). That of course was before anything had been heard from Zulu witnesses. And from that source nothing was. But, Ron, how many statements from Zulu sources (you remember the Zulus, they're the people who are supposed to have carried out this decoy) can you produce propounding the belief that the column WAS so decoyed?
5th para. I cannot reveal the names of the individuals concerned as I do not have their permission to do so; neither would it be seemly for me to do so.
6th/7th paras. I have no idea to what Chief Buthelezi was referring in the foreword as he was not specific and although the man is a politician he is not an historian. I wonder if he's sifted through the complete James Stuart Archive for instance?

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:48 am

I'll take advantage of this lull to say my copy of Zulu Vanquished arrived down under this week, thanks to the fantastic people at the museum, so I should have it well read by the time you visit, Ron.

Dawn

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:13 pm

Julian,

You say you have read Z. Victory. How then did you get yourself so vexed, believing we did not subscribe to the Zulu attack being planned for the 23rd.?

I used the word "hostilities" in the lightest vein and in the sense that we would be crossing website swords again. Now, if the fact that Dartnell's force, and later Chelmsford's advance, were led by the nose by Zulu skirmishers is not evidence enough of their being decoyed, what additional evidence is required? Are you suggesting that in order to be convinced, you would require a written statement from the Zulu commanders? We know that to be impossible but we do have numerous statements from those who were decoyed admitting that they had been duped. We quoted various accounts earlier this year but if, inexplicably, they did not convince you, a couple more have since some to light.

Capt. Penn Symons, 2/24th, and present on the day with his lordship, prepared a report dated 21 January 1880, headed "Private" and stated that it had been read by H.M. the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, Sir Charles Ellice. Sir A. Alison and the Intelligence Dept. It also mentioned that at the desire of Her Majesty the account should not be published until after the death of Lord Chellmsford. Penn Symons wrote:
"... First to follow the main body, which I accompanied, we marched twelve miles. We then saw the enemy, scattered bodies of from ten to 500, dispersing and retreating in front of us in all directions. We followed them. It was hunting a shadow, or worse than a shadow as the men who well knew the Zulus and their tactics declared at the time that the cattle that had been seen and the retreating bodies of men, were simply decoys to entice us away from the camp. Be this as it may, the enemy that we went out to look for were at this very time, marching in a direction parallel to our line of advance, behind a range of hills, three miles only to our left, to attack the camp.."

Would Penn Symons have dared to disparage Chelmsford to H.M. had he the slightest doubt that Chelmsford had been duped? As for your suggestion that the British excused their defeat by blaming the Zulus of trickery, well, that's a strange one. I would imagine that, for a general, the next worse thing to being defeated would be having been decoyed. And, one other account, written sixteen years after the battle by Brig. General H.G. Mainwaring, a Captain in the 24th at the time of Isandlwana:
'Our route lay south east, and on some hills to the right, I pointed out to Colonel Clery two mounted men, thinking they were our videttes. He, however, declared them to be two of the enemy's men, and I have no doubt now that they were placed there to watch our force depart preparatory to the attack on the camp ... The Mounted Infantry reported the Zulus to be retiring from hill-top to hill-top, and it must have been their plan to draw us away from the camp".

And, Lt. Milne, RN is worth repeating: "He (Lord Chelmsford) was led away by the Zulus who decoyed him from the camp" Source: Royal Archives, Windsor.

Julian, you did not answer my query: " .... How many statements from British or Colonial sources can you produce propounding the belief that the column was NOT decoyed?"

In the absence of an answer, I assume there is none. And if you cannot reveal the names of the "insulted" members of the Zulu Royal Family, I think it would be fair to retract that particulat allegation.

As for you having no idea what Prince Mangosuthu was referring to, he was obviously referring to the contents of the book, Zulu Victory. You came over as being rather disparaging, referring to him as Chief Buthelezi rather than his royal title. He is also traditional Prime Minister of the Zulu nation and is, I can assure you, a keen historian and especially knowledgeable in regard to the history of his people. I would be very surprised if he has not sifted through the Stuart Archives several times.

In fact, I'm sure everyone will be interested in reading the following, an extract from the Prince's speech on the occasion of an Honour Function at the Nodwengu Royal Palace site, Ulundi, Dec. 6 2003. It illustrates the Prince's deep regard for the history and traditions of the Zulu people.

"A lot was bestowed upon me at my birth and yet, I could only fully accept, understand and been able to pass on the wisdom I received after I myself, had performed a great length of the same journey of those whose wisdom I had the honour of receiving.

I feel that my late mother, Princess Constance Magogo Mantitha Sibilile Ngangezinye ka Dinizulu, who was King Mpande's great ganddaughter, has been rightly honoured this week because she was, indeed, a depository of the wisdom and traditions of the Zulu nation. Tonight I feel that this honour which is being bestowed upon me gives me the perception that I have fulfiled the purpose for which my mother intended to bring me to life, and for which she brought me up. In fact, my mother grandmother, Queen Silomo died when she was still very young and my mother was brought up by some of her grandmothers, who were King Cetshwayo's widows, namely Queen ka Magande and Queen ka Mkhayiphi, who were themselves very knowledgeable about the history of our people. The two elderly Queens conveyed to my mother ancient history and traditions which my mother treasured throughout her life. apart from her own great intellect, during the time of her life, Princess Constance Magogo became the virtue and effective repository of many of the stories of the unfolding Zulu tragedy. She heard most of such stories, not second or third hand, but directly first hand from the very protagonists of the whole drama of our tragedy. A clear example of her achievements was in the fact that she could recite praises of how her forebears, from Jama right up to her two brothers, King Solomon ka Dinizulu and Prince Mshiyeni ka Dinizulu, which I had the honour of witnessing myself on many occasions when I was a child growing up at Kwa Dlamahlahla Royal Palace.

Usually it was the task of men to praise our forebears in such a manner but, because of her accomplishments and status she would perform such a task herself, and in my lifetime I have never seen any other woman accomplishing such a momentous task. She knew and sang with us songs that are in our Zulu narratives. She sang and taught all of us hymns of the Royal House and dirges which she sang even at Kings' funerals. She taught us songs which she sang as a young woman which were traditional Zulu love songs. She spoke to us about many sacred rituals of our people and other songs and rituals of our people and other songs and rituals which embodied the most secret quintessence of our Zuluness.

I mention these things because they give perspective to my own achievement, for which I am being honoured tonight, not only by explaining my inner motivation but also by giving a dimension of the length, breadth and magnitude of what I tried to preserve and of my own knowledge and qualification to do so. In fact, I remember that after I was installed as the young Inkosi of the Buthelezi clan, my mother was recognised to be so knowledgeable about the history of the Zulu nation that there was a real stream of highly reputable people who would come to visit her to learn from her lips, including academics, musicologists and historians who frequently frequented our home a Kwa Phindangene to sit at the Princess' feet to learn. Amongst them I can remember the great anthropologists such as Professor Jack Krige and his wife, Professor Eileen Krige, the author of "The Social System of the Zulus". I remember Professor Harriet Ngubane when she was a young academic coming to stay with us to learn about our past from the Princess.

I also remember other great anthropologists such as Profesor Otto Raum of the University of Fort Hare who was the author of "Zulu Taboos". They all came to drink from the fountain of knowledge of our traditions, from which I, myself, drink. My mother was, indeed, the common source of many of the accounts of our past history and present traditions and customs. I also remember Professor Fhula Marks and, later Doctor David Rycroft, of the School of African and Oriental Studies of the London University who came a few times to consult her, thereby spreading her knowledge and understanding of our Zuluness at the international level. These are just a few of the many people who came to see her.

With this background, it was obvious to me that our liberation struggle had to be rooted in the whole life experience of our people. I have conducted our liberation struggle as a genuine African experience which I intended to be able to bring our African history from the periphery of our life and which was relegated by apartheid into the forefront of a liberated South Africa.

For me, our liberation has always been about merging the past with the present and the future and our Zululness with the other components of what makes South Africa a great and rich country. In fact, those who are familiar with the history of the Zulu nation know very well that we have always been open to other cultures and traditions which we have embraced within our own, or side by side with our own. Also in this respect, my mother was an example of what Zuluness is all about, as she embraced Christian religion without foregoing our ancient customs, cultures and traditions. Our very essence of being Zulus and, indeed, being Africans, is that of going beyond many of the European ideological dogmas which prevent people from embracing different aspects of different cultures and relgions, rather than pursuing a synthesis which enables them to coexist and enrich one another, for the truth at all levels is always multi-faceted. My own mother gave us the key to our spiritual, culture and religious richness by indicating the need for a synthesis of different elements. In fact, whilst being a devout Christian she maintained her life and practiced our ancient culture a religion which she found to be deeply compatible with one another.

It is against this background that when I became Chief Minister of the erstwhile KwaZulu Government I launched a bureau for Zulu language and culture which was the precursor of the Heritage Foundation. '

However, all this has little to do with the contents of Z. Vanquished, the original subject of the discussion. Only the first couple of pages and the end notes have been mentionned as yet; there are another 260 pages in between. Not about Isandlwana or Rorke's Drift but about events and battles equally as stirring. Julian, I await your scrutiny and valued opinion with some trepidation. Looking forward to further tussles.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:22 pm

Julian,
I think it is common cause that Professor John Laband is arguably the leading AZW historian.
It is of interest to quote from pages 220/221 of his outstanding work 'Rope of Sand.' published in 1995.
' While the main army moved from Siphezi to the Ngwebeni valley, Matshana led a small detatchment into the hills about the Mangeni valley, where it was reinforced by its own adherents. Subsequently, the British were to have few doubts that his movements were a deliberate ploy, devised by the Zulu high command to trick Chelmsford into committing the elementary error of dividing and widely separating his force.'
This statement is backed by source material note 13, quote:
"J.W. Shepstone Papers, vol 10: Reminiscences of the past, p 107, conversation with several of the chiefs on the late war; BPP (C.2260)
no. 10: Statement of Ucadjana, 3 February 1879."
Note the words 'Zulu high command.'
So it would seem that we are not alone in our hypothesis of Chelmsford being decoyed and, in this instance, Zulu source provided.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:10 pm

Peter Q.

I cannot speak for the Shepstone interview which is given in fn. 13 on p. 221 of the Rope of Sand, since I am not familiar with it. However, I am not sure that you read Ucadjana's statement either, since he makes no mention of the alleged deliberate policy of Ntshingwayo to decoy Chelmsford's force. I have read it again a moment ago, no less than three times, in search of your evidence and found nothing.

The Laband quote, taken in context, makes it clear that the 'British were to have few doubts that the movement was a deliberate ploy' but I am not sure that Laband himself thought so. The last sentence in the paragraph reads 'If so, Matshana played his part to perfection'.
KIS

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:31 am

Keith,
John Laband, in various conversations Ron and I enjoyed with him, did indeed think so, as is evidenced elsewhere on the forum.
We are not in possession of the Shepstone Papers referred to, but intend to locate them. It would appear that the statements of Ucadjana that you refer to differ from the Shepstone Papers, but I will revert if we have any luck in locating the latter. The entire quote from Rope of Sand, it seems, is based on the Shepstone Papers interpretation of Ucadjana's statements and clearly indicate a ploy by the Zulu high command to outwit Chelmsford.
Julian,
As a matter of interest, apart from Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, neither Ron nor I have any problem in identifying Prince Gideon Zulu as source material for confirming that he identifies with our decoy theory, based on his interpretation of Zulu oral history. Perhaps we are getting closer to a balanced perspective of the battle?

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:36 pm

Peter Q.

I found your last response rather muddled but it seems that you have simply regurgitated something from "Rope of Sand' and used Laband's references without checking either of them. How remarkable!

I have today received ZV2 and am mid-Chapter 1. I now can't wait to read more.
KIS

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:34 pm

Keith,
Regurgitated I would suggest is not the right word; neither was the response meant to be muddled. I never claimed to be in possession of the Shepstone Papers nor thought it untoward to quote from 'Rope of Sand.'
However to simplify matters the intention of my post was to refer to Laband's views on matters decoy or ' deliberate ploy' to use his words, and to add that he does not disagree with our contentions. I never indicated analysis of his source material as we do not have it.It is possibly either at Killie Campbell or Natal Archives and I am following up. It does not detract from me quoting from text and giving the source, and this I do not consider regurgitation. You will also see from the notes on page 462 that reference is made to 'conversation with several of the chiefs of the late war,' thus indicating Zulu primary and secondary confirmation of the 'luring' of Chelmsford, (aside from Ucadjana's report.) I do not know if Julian is in possession of the Shepstone papers referred to but he may take note of the above.
In short, we are of the same view as Laband, who, in his readers report on Zulu Victory, prior to publication wrote:
" My own suggestion in 'Kingdom in Crisis' that the Zulus were pursuing a deliberate strategy of dividing the British forces is taken even further.'
We however arrived at our conclusions through ample British primary source material,( in our possession and analysed) together with Prince Mangosutho Buthelezi's and Prince Gideon Zulus oral interpretation of events handed down to them.
Hope you enjoy Vanquished with nothing too contentious!

Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:22 pm

Peter Q.

What I found rather surprising is your admission that the footnote was simply lifted from Laband's work, without checking the relevance of either of the two references to your argument, which Ucadjana certainly is not. This is not what I would call adequate research into a matter which is important to the validity of your subject matter. I repeat, Ucadjana makes no mention of the 'deliberate decoy' theory which you propound. Since you are not familiar with Ucadjana, I quote the beginning of the paragraph(s) referring to Isandlwana "I saw Sidungi, one of Seketwayo�s sons, of the Nokembe regiment, he had been at the attack on the General�s Camp at the Sandhlwana, he told me ..." Hardly a primary source, even supposing that he had mentioned the decoy.
KIS

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:15 am

Hi Keith,
The footnote I referred to was Laband's authority for his statement. Why indeed should I check it? It would seem that you have examined Ucadjana's statements which may possibly be different to others found by Laband? As Laband offered the Shepstone Papers as source for his text quoted in my previous posting, I was certainly not going to argue or indeed locate. So our discussion may be at cross purposes. What we now in view of our differences need to locate is Vol 10 and BPP(C 2260) Laband would hardly make a crucial point in his text backed by source reference that was both inaccurate and incorrect. Killie Campbell are reverting and Natal Archives will be approached. This still does not detract from confirmation of ' luring' by ' several chiefs,' nor that Ron and I are alone in advancing the decoy theory.
Peter

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:02 pm

Peter Q.

Since my last post, I have checked out Laband's work and found that in 'Kingdom in Crisis', p. 76, he offers the views that Chelmsford was either deliberately lured out or was not. He then says that they were and 'the dispersal of the British forces was of Zulu making'. Laband is not infallible and in this matter I do not agree with him. There is not one iota of Zulu evidence that this was the case. The British commentators at the time made this suggestion, I believe, to explain their own crass move from the camp.

There is only one statemnent of Ucadjana, to be found in BPP C. 2260, No. 10, p. 63. I have both the BPP and a copy of his statement. For a third time, I repeat, he says nothing about a deliberate decoy. In mitigation of Laband's use of the statement in his reference, if any is needed, I rather think that it (and perhaps the Shepstone Papers reference ) was used to illustrate the earlier part of the paragraph, and not the sentence to which the footnote was attached.
KIS

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:50 pm

Hi Keith,
No one is infallible, but Laband's views, an acclaimed historian, are noted with perhaps more care than may be the norm. We agree with him and therefore must, with regards to this debate, agree to disagree with you.
The good news is that I have located the Shepstone papers. They are at the Natal Archives. Ron and I will be paying a visit, hopefully at the latter end of next week to digest and analyse.