The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
15th February 2002	'Isandlwana ' and Adrian Greaves Part 2 By Julian Whybra from the 32 entries beginning 6th February listing erors major and minor in the above-mentioned work 72) p.61 The Transvaal Treasury contained 12/6d. 73) Either on p.208 or p.6 or both there should be an acknowledgement to the R.E. Museum which houses the Durnford Papers (Chelmsford�s Instructions, the 19th January Order, and Pearse�s letter). There isn�t one. More tomorrow.
Date	Replies
16th February 2002	Julian Whybra 74) p.127 �The Zulu did complete their encirclement�, etc. This and the following remarks are not annotated. There is no Zulu or British account which endorses this �view� in the form Mr Greaves presents it. The available evidence suggests the opposite. Academics do not present new theories without providing supporting evidence. Where is it? 75) p.116 �the undefended rear of the British position�. Why has Mr Greaves ignored evidence demonstrating that there WAS a defence, albeit belated, at the rear of the mountain which held up the junction of the two horns? Certainly, once the horns closed, there was no way out, but before then...... . To ignore evidence because it doesn�t fit in with a theory (see Error 74) and to use only selective information is not acceptable history. 76-114) p.167 Lord Chelmsford�s Instructions according to Mr Greaves �are reproduced in Appendix E in their exact form , using the original, unabridged and grammatically uncorrected text�. The Appendix E appears on p.202: given the above statement it is difficult to comprehend the number of errors made in their �reproduction�. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that Mr Greaves has ever worked from the original document at all! The number of words/part words which are missing through disintegration in the original document which have not been �exactly� recorded by Mr Greaves total 37. I am not prepared to list them here (at the risk of boring the reader senseless), unless demanded so to do, in which case I shall. He has further recorded 1 word as disintegrated when it has not. 115-125) Now for errors in the reconstruction of the same document! Of course, one can argue about what was once there, but one can make an academic case for stating what was not! In para. (6) �must� is preferable to �will�. In terms of giving orders rather than supplying them, �must� is a must. In similar situations (as further on in the same para.) Chelmsford preferred �must�. In para. (11) �may always� is preferable to �always�. Anyone who had worked from the original document would have seen that there is too much space for just the one word �always�; �may� is also consistent with usage elsewhere in the text. In para. (13) �practices� is preferable to �practice� - first it makes more sense; secondly from a graphological viewpoint the spacing is consistent for an extra letter [Chelmsford�s spacing is extraordinarily regular]. In para. (14) a phrase has been left out completely. It should read: �instead of a single sentry - will be on the alert - Supports will be required equally in both cases.� In para. (15) �to their outpost� is preferred to �to their post�. Anyone who had worked from the original document would have seen that there is too much space for a mere four-letter word. It also makes more sense. In para. (15) �should also� is preferred to �must also�. Anyone who had worked from the original document would have seen that there is too much space for a four-letter word. In para. (18) �inline� is an error. The original text says �in line�. In para. (18) �in line and in front of� is preferred to �in the forefront of�. Anyone who had worked from the original document would have seen that there is too much space for the words Mr Greaves uses; it also makes more sense. In para. (18) �round the flanks, and rear, of the enemy.� should be followed by the sentence �British infantry in reserve well in rear of the centre.� For some reason, in Mr Greaves�s text, this appears in red as a title to the diagram following. He also leaves out the word �the�. In the diagram of para. (18) the �(guns)� appears in Mr Greaves�s text. it is not in the original. 135) p.162 �D company and the 1st/1st NNC under Captain Nourse�. I think Mr Greaves means D company of the 1st/1st NNC under Captain Nourse. 136) p.162 �Captain Barton who had been attached to Durnford�s column for general duties� Another popular fallacy (almost) perpetuated! It�s the wrong Captain Barton. Mr Greaves has referred to Captain G Barton, a regular army officer attached to Durnford�s column for genral duties. The man who accompanied Raw and Roberts was Captain W Barton of the NNH, a colonial. 137) p.154 Colonel Glyn...was not permitted to attend or give evidence� to the Court of Inquiry. Wrong, he was. Read the Blue Books properly, Mr Greaves. 138-9) p.154 �..the Court..recorded the evidence of...Crealock, Captains Essex, Cochrane, Curling, Smith-Dorrien� Wrong again, it did not record the evidence of Crealock. Furthermoe, Cochrane, Curling and Smith-Dorrien were lieutenants. More tomorrow.
16th February 2002	John Young Julian, Reference your point No. 136, sadly Dr. Greaves is not the only to perpetuate this error. Donald Morris did so in 'The Washing of the Spears'. As did Professor John Laband & P.S. Thompson in their revised edition of the 'Field Guide to the War in Zululand and the Defence of Natal 1879' and again in its revamp as 'The Illustrated Guide to the Anglo-Zulu War'. Obviously they are blissfully unaware of the fact that Captain William Barton, an Irishman, and his part at Isandlwana. I strongly suggest all parties read 'The Times' for 1879, or obtain membership of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society, where we have already discussed this point. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
17th February 2002	Julian Whybra I think I've proved my point. I still have 104 errors; I don't know how many John Young has found but I';ve no intention of rewriting Mr Greaves's book for him. I will finish with just one more error: p.161-2 The 19th January order has been reconstructed using exactly the same wording as appeared in the article on the Durnford Papers by myself and David Jackson (SOTQ Issue 60 March 1990, a copy of which is kept in the RE Museum). There is no acknowledgement to our work in his book. However between 1990 and the date Mr Greaves first saw it (1998), large sections of the text had disintegrated such that, in 1998, it would have been impossible for him to read the centre section (because it had vanished). It has not been published anywhere else. How is it then possible for Mr Greaves to have reproduced our exact wording for the Order unless he saw and used our original article?