rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Ron,
First I must apologize for not responding immediately. The �silence' was not deliberate. I have been busy and have only managed to snatch quick peeks at the forum. I felt your posting deserved more than just a rapid, off-the-cuff, ill-thought out reply. I�m also aware that we�re not going to change one another�s minds � that�s not what this forum is about � but it is about setting out considered viewpoints for others to ponder. So, my reply is as much to all the contributors as to yourself. I also intend to make this my last posting on this topic so that a line can be drawn under it (there seems little point in continuing to �argue the toss� as outlined above). I shall also try to avoid repeating myself unless absolutely necessary in order that sense may prevail.
The suggestion that "Dartnell�s force and later Chelmsford�s advance were �led by the nose� is evidence of their being decoyed" is simply an interpretation of events which is aided by the use of persuader-words/phrases like �led by the nose�.
Another interpretation might be that a numerically superior British force was chasing a numerically inferior Zulu force which was trying to get away. It may well be, and I am prepared to accept, that the leader of the Mangeni Zulus used the opportunity to draw Chelmsford�s men away from where he anticipated the main impi was but this would have been an ad hoc decision and not part of any pre-planned strategy.
To be convinced of your suggestion I would require a statement from a Zulu, any Zulu, that Ntshingwayo had placed a force on the Mangeni for the specific deliberate purpose of enticing a large portion of the British force away from Isandhlwana in order to weaken the defence of the camp when the main impi attacked. And there isn�t one, not a single word of that ilk. In fact, the Zulu statements take the opposite view.
You say that we do have �numerous statements from those who were decoyed admitting they had been duped�. This remark presupposes that they had been decoyed - you are pre-stating the remarks you want to hear.
Setting this to one side, there are of course two sorts of decoy or lure � deliberate and accidental. In looking at those British officers and colonials who made such statements is it possible to decide to which sort of decoy they are referring? Are they speaking literally or figuratively when they talk of decoys? To me, though, whichever sense they mean is irrelevant. They were not in a position to know. They were not privy to the Zulu strategy or the Zulu plan of attack. Did they interrogate a captured Ntshingwayo? No. Are they relaying the views of any number of captured inDunas? No. What evidence do they provide to prove they were duped? None. Therefore their opinions (for whatever reason they made them) are worthless (and this includes the Symons, Milne and Mainwaring accounts you quote). They may have believed or wanted to believe they were decoyed for their own reasons. I�m not persuaded by opinions.
There is an analogy here with the retreat to Dunkirk in 1940. As far as the British were concerned at the time it was a fighting retreat and a brilliant evacuation against overwhelming odds. The overstretched German supply lines and Hitler�s personal interference in not wanting to destroy the British army entirely are conveniently ignored or overlooked. The British were not responsible for the German battle plans in 1940 and neither were they responsible for the Zulu ones in 1879.
So, explicably, I am not convinced.
You ask how many British statements can be produced propounding the belief that the column was NOT decoyed. The answer is why should any British officer write a statement including something which they did NOT believe or did NOT happen. That is illogical. By default there is an answer too in that I cannot find a single British survivor�s account from Isandhlwana who stated a belief that Chelmsford was decoyed away.
Everything else I have given answers to previously to the best of my ability and within the compass of what I have been permitted (or rather, not permitted) to say.
Re the Zulu Prime Minister I have not seen his c.v. but I don�t believe he has a BA in history (but I�m willing to be corrected). Prime Minister, astute politician, leader of his people he may be, but I see no reason why his opinion should be regarded as sacrosanct any more than Tony Blair�s on Waterloo or David Cameron�s on the Somme (or Prince Charles on architecture). His speech, of course, is very interesting (thank you for quoting it) but , I�m afraid, for me, has no bearing on the cold light of a Zulu dawn the day after Isandhlwana.
Yes, Ron, long may the discussions continue, but please do not forget the many points we are agreed upon, nor the numerous occasions when we have helped one another in obtaining sources or correct identifications of photos. I gather from others that it does seem as though we go hammer and tongs at times � they are unaware that that would be a misrepresentation. And so I look forward to continued amicability and a decent argument from time to time.
Peter,
Laband writes that the British in the wake of the disaster believed Matshana�s movements were a deliberate ploy. His concluding remark makes it clear that he, Laband, did not regard this as conclusive evidence. Ucadjana�s C2260 account contains no reference such as you have stated nor can I find any reference in Shepstone�s Papers (though I do not have a complete set; a second account from Ucadjana would an interesting revelation if it is different from C2260). Let me be absolutely clear though, Peter (and Ron), I would be willing to consider, if evidence were forthcoming, that Ntshingwayo, on the day (i.e. the 22nd) took advantage of the situation in which he found himself. That is, with certain amabutho champing at the bit in the face of the provocation from Raw and Roberts�s men, he allowed the attack to develop, albeit in an uncontrolled fashion at the outset, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that Chelmsford�s force had left the camp. Where I draw the line is in the contention that the whole thing was pre-planned. There were too may imponderables. There were too many options for Chelmsford, for Ntshingwayo to have gambled on the British choosing one which would have suited him. It was just too complicated to have succeeded by design. Oral interpretations made by C21 Zulu politicians and royal persons (received as children from those who heard a second-hand account of events) are just unacceptable as primary sources in just the same way as Asquith�s grandson�s interpretations of the Retreat from Mons would be. This is not disrespectful (at least it is not meant to be); it is trying approach the scenario from a professional perspective.
Keith,
Thank you for endorsing the Laband comments. I also am of the opinion that Laband is not infallible. I await Peter�s visit to the NA to view the complete Shepstone Papers.
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Julian,
I fear that the trip to the Natal Archives was somewhat disappointing. Ucadjanas statement/s were not located. The Shepstone papers were there, but did not amplify anything further than that mentioned in Laband's R of S. Certainly no statement that several 'chiefs' had admitted to a pre-planned attack, although Laband eludes to it. Our case rests with British primary source statements that have been argued and counter-argued until, exhaustively, we have agreed to disagree.
What was of interest, and again I do not wish to be drawn into the ammunition controversy that has been so often aired, not only in ZV, but on this forum where again we have agreed to disagree.
However, here is what Shepstone wrote when interviewing ' several chiefs and certain Zulus.'
Quote:
" Your people ........would stand back to back & defy us to approach & while the ammunition lasted we did not approach them - but took advantage of them when the ammunition had failed."
This is one area where consensus will never be reached, but I thought it worth a mention.
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Peter


With regard to your final aside in today's posting (and mindful of your understandable reluctance to be drawn yet again into the ammunition question!), surely the accounts expressed to Shepstone by "several chiefs & certain Zulus" refer to the final stands of various isolated companies or groups which found themselves surrounded during the latter stages of the battle on or near the saddle? If so, then at this stage of the fight I understand there is no argument at all about ammunition re-supply, as each group was largely cut off from further supply by then - their reason for a back-to-back stand.

As for the argument over the decoy possibility, thanks are due to you, Ron, Julian and Keith etc., for patiently going over your stated positions for the benefit of all of us.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter,
You are quite right. The groups referred to first ran out of ammo, then only did the Zulus close, according to Shepstone's report. This however in no way alters our view that an overall ammo shortage did exist.
However the shortage theory as opposed to their not being a shortage will never be resolved by the followers of either theory.
We feel that in the special chapter devoted to the ammunition shortage in Zulu Victory, together with lengthy debates on this site, we have a strong case, which in turn is disputed, I believe by Julian and Colonel Mike and perhaps others. It may be too tedious to those who have followed both arguments to reopen the issues, hence the boring stance of "agreeing to disagree."
I would reiterate what Julian has stated. The perceived spats on site in no way reflect the help that Julian, (or indeed Mike, Mike McC, Keith and John Young have given us) in the direct messages that have passed between us. Long may they continue.
Ron has been unable to respond to matters Hlobane and others as he and Brenda are in the throws of moving home after fifteen long years in Assagay.
Our next work? How does " Sgt Harry Potter and the Isandlwana Quest" sound?
That may give the copyrighters a field day.
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Brilliant, Peter. Aerial views of a Quidditch game with Harry zooming around the summit of the Lion Rock ...

Your debates on Isandlwana with the others are certainly valued. Because of the nature of the argument, only those few who have examined the primary sources (as well as virtually every relevant first hand published account) can really make a pertinent contribution and back it up, so it is understandable when the protagonists (I use the word lightly!) finally draw breath and say "that's it" - one can wade through one's notes only so many times in search of one reference after another.

The arguments I particularly appreciate are those which focus on how much weight or reliability (or otherwise) should be placed on any particular source or reference, vis-a-vis another. Evaluation of the evidence and how it has been treated, both previously and today, is obviously crucial and it fascinates me. Much of it is poor, not as first hand as it may look or was not even fresh when originally published, and yet it is all we have, barring the odd primary source still awaiting discovery.

I find the debates stimulating & not at all negative - quite the reverse: civilized, informed and restrained. Email postings always do look more abrupt than they are often intended to appear. (And we can always use the "emoticons" now...!)

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Zulu Vanquished
David Glynne Fox


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 59
Location: Nottingham
Reply with quote
Wow,
All this debate, and I only asked about Norman Magnus MacLeod! Still, it has created yet more interesting debate and I thank all who have taken the trouble to respond. Marvellous stuff.
Regards to all
David

_________________
David Glynne Fox ZuluVentures.co.uk
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Peter Q
Sorry that there were no Ucadjana docs to be found - I wonder whether Laband was mistaken?
Peter E
I totally agree with your interpretation of the remarks made by certain Zulus to Shepstone. These were not meant to reflect on the overall ammunition availability but on the final moments of each square when of course ammunition MUST run out!
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Julian,
No, Laband is not mistaken. The staff at the Archives are now all "rookies," a 100% turnaround from a year or so ago. What should have been half an hours work took a couple just to produce the Shepstone Papers. Lunch break and guess what. Will make another attempt at some stage.
You are, it has to be said, whetting my appetite on the ammo issue.
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Dear Peter
Re Ucadjana, time will tell.
Re ammunition, Mercy! No! I really don't want to revisit that in the absence of any new information coming to light.
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Peter

My own PMB contacts echo word for word your own frustrations at the current problems at the archives there - especially the lunch breaks!!!

Over here too, archives all too often these days are at the back of the queue for resources, which is obviously understandable to a degree when public money is involved, but a good attitude on the part of the staff can work wonders. County Record Offices and the PRO/TNA have undergone an amazing revolution during this last decade or so, with the customers' needs prominent in most developments.

Is it simply a case of the new staff in PMB eventually becoming more experienced, do you think? Or is it more deep-seated? Are resources apparently stretched to the limit? I've also heard that doc production times are not good! Nothing more frustrating ...

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
AMB


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 921
Reply with quote
Dear All,

I have clearly come late to the party! A hugely enjoyable debate. Well constructed and thought out viewpoints that have had me reaching for various works from my library. Great fun!

Many thanks.

AMB
View user's profileSend private message
John Young


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 1020
Location: Lower Sheering, Essex
Reply with quote
Zulu Vanquished faux pas spotted!

Ron & Peter,

I have just noticed "a howler" in ZV2.

Why does Captain Alan Garder's image appear above a caption relating to J.C. Russell? Can't you two tell a hussar from lancer? Twisted Evil

Regards,

John
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
John,
You have been a tad slow picking that up. There is a well trod nit-pickers path to that one! We do know the difference but captions do get shuffled about at the publishers, especially if we get to see ( due to distances?) the final proof sans maps and pictures. However the buck does stop with us and we acknowledge this.
As ever,
R&P
John Young


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 1020
Location: Lower Sheering, Essex
Reply with quote
R. & P.

Tad busy when I initially received the book, hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere, hence my late appearance on this one!

Regards,

John
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Zulu Vanquished
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 4 of 4  

  
  
 Reply to topic