rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Peterw.
As Keith correctly points out, Hillier was not there.
I have his statement written for the Telegraph and Eastern Province Standard dated 28 February. Perhaps we should have made clear that Hillier was quoting Sergeant Major Williams, for he begins the relevant part by saying:"I now send you an account given by Sergeant Major Williams of the attack on the camp at Isandhlwana." it then gore
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Sorry Peter, pressed the wrong button. It the goes on to say " At half past seven" etc.
And of course, not trooper Whitelaw, as here we are dealing with the western front. Whitelaw's report relaying events on the eastern front (about 0800 hrs) is not to be confused with, in my opinion, the immediate happenings on the Western front, that commenced at 0600 hrs or therabouts. Vereker was positioned, confirmed by Higginson, with Barry on Magaga Knoll.
Peter
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Coll,
Not sure, but I understand from Alan that it is possible. It is in pdf file. Unfortunately the pages have not come out numbered.
Please, if printed, have a look at the copyright.
Peter
Galloglas
Guest

Reply with quote
Well, well, 'Drums along the Buffalo' again!

Going back to posted item one here, I can find things to agree with and disagree with in what Mike Snook 2 says, but in making allowances for the imperfections of short 'posts' as a medium for discussion - which we always should when something complicated is being debated - I just cannot see how it might reasonably deserve such steamy 'boxing on the bell' responses.

The TMFH piece is long and involved and makes a particular interpretation of a broad range of source material. Let us please all discuss that as the main effort rather than resort so soon to the familiar hurling of daggers and darts. Has nothing been learned from past frictions...........

G
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Keith/Peter

Thanks for the responses.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Denton Van Zan
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter Q

Many thanks for the reply.

It was both the possibility of being able to accomplish this, but also copyright issues I was concerned about, in using this method.

It appears to be 27 pages in length, so I'll need to acquire printer inks first.

Having it available on sheets of paper, will make it easier for me to study.

Thankyou

C.J.
Simon


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 95
Reply with quote
Hi Peter,

Is your paper available to read on the forum website - if so where?

Cheers

Simon
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
View user's profileSend private message
Simon


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 95
Reply with quote
Many thanks, PeterW (not the author) Very Happy
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Peter
There has been much debate regarding the decoy theory on this forum and, indeed, you refer to the decoy connection in your paper and, of course, to support that theory it is essential to prove that it was an intended, planned attack that was under way when Raw made contact.

I have no problem in accepting that the Impi was on the move when Raw discovered it. Equally, I have no problem in accepting that Raw precipitated the battle by the discovery of the Impi in the valley. This is because in either scenario there are simply no implications for the remaining stages of the battle. The Impi was either in the valley or it was on the move. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the outcome. The battle would have ocurred on the 22nd regardless and with the same result.
There is no applicable "What if?" scenario unlike (as I said earlier) a debatable "What if Durnford had not gone walkabout?" etc, etc.

The much debated primary sources remain as inconclusive as ever but it is feasable that Raw pointed out the ridge to Wood in conversation at Isandlwana. You have now shown that Wood annotated the maps. Over to the experts?

PS,
I cannot see how you can try and exonorate Durnford (page 9) on the basis of some undated letter from Horse Guards. In my very humble opinion he just might have saved the day if he had acted differently, but that's another topic for a new thread. (Perhaps over the Christmas period when we should all be in the spirit of Goodwill to all men?) Wink Smile


Last edited by Mel on Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:16 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Denton Van Zan
Guest

Reply with quote
Mel

With the possibility of me being set-upon yet again, by one or more members, I feel compelled to post this enquiry about both your recent post and one from earlier in the topic.

You are saying that you don't understand why Peter Q. & Ron L. have spent so much of their (valueable) time researching and writing this hugely interesting thesis based on facts, instead of a debatable 'What if ?' scenario, which in simpler terms, means talking about something that didn't happen.

What kind of replies are these ? - as they are not progressing the original topic, but rejecting the purpose the authors' had in pursuing these latest findings, due to the fuller picture of how the battle went.

There is a thesis by Keith Smith mentioned in said paper (not aware of its availability though) - 'Isandlwana: The Discovery Of The Zulu Army' - are you then suggesting he also wasted his similarly valueable time researching this particular aspect based on facts ?

You'd rather discuss something that didn't happen. Confused

Maybe we should go 'over to the experts' as you say, because this/these paper(s) deserve better and more informed reactions than I've just read of yours.

C.J.
Johnny Hamman


Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 208
Location: Dundee, KZN
Reply with quote
Hi guys...

I have not participated on this forum for some time now, for many reasons, all of them boring. I do drop in now and then, just to eavesdrop...

This is fascinating, and I like to 'watch' this jousting, especially between Peter Q and Mike..

Have not seen you in a while, PQ...just read your Missing Five Hours, and Mike's reply on it. Fascinating stuff, to be sure...

I am not going to participate, as I am sure between the lot of you there are enough experts here, with me adding to the fun. I will be monitoring, to be sure.....

Saw Mike S with the 132th anniversary, with, among others Mike McCabe...how is he, by the way...? Your flowers were there for a long time, Mike....its gone now, but Amafa had painted much of the cairns and the memorials again now....looking good....

_________________
Johannes N. (Johnny) Hamman (KZN 0897)
Treasurer of the KZN Tour Guide Association Battlefields Region
History's Walk Battlefield Tours
Dundee
KZN
"Where Past and Present comes together..."
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Denton Van Zan
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter Q

On a lighter note -

Now that I've read your paper several times, it's time to do what was discussed a while ago, when talking about it being put forth by yourself.

This was to open a bottle of whisky and have a few drams, whilst you were doing the same where you are at - with a bottle of red, if I remember. Wink

I'll be partaking of said drams about 11 o'clock tonight, don't know what time it'll be in your part of the world.

Cheers.

Excellent work.

C.J.
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Coll/CJ
Unfortunately, you have misunderstood parts of my post.

Of course I value Keiths work. His books reside on my bookshelf alongside other emminent authors including Ron and Peter.

The "what if" scenario I refer to is a discussion on an event which could affect an outcome. There have been many "what if" debates on this forum. That is what debate is all about is it not?

The point I am making is that the location of Raw's contact with the impi (either in the valley or at Peters "x marks the spot") does not affect the outcome of the battle. If you disagree then please explain why.

Be under no illusion. In order to support their decoy theory, Peter and Ron need to demonstrate that the attack was underway and that the impi was not still languishing in the valley at midday.

I feel that this paper just rehashes the very much debated sources and is, again inconclusive. It also simply does not address the "missing five hours".

It is interesting to see that Ian Knight, in his latest book, describes Raw discovering the Impi in the valley.

The authors themselves do not do justice to their paper or previous debates, in trying to exonerate Durnford by reference to a single undated letter.

However, this paper alludes to a meeting between Raw and Wood at Isandlwana. It also seems to prove that Wood annotated the map. It could be that Raw took Wood to the "x" location. It could also be that Raw merely pointed roughly in that direction from Isandlwana. I think it is significant that Wood wrote "I believe....", which indicates, to me, slight uncertainty.

I am not a historian or expert and maybe it now needs some one to track down the actual conversation between Raw and Wood, hence my "over to the experts" comment.

Is this post informative enough for you?

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Denton Van Zan
Guest

Reply with quote
Mel

Oh, I understood your posts perfectly well.

I'm saying that you have made certain comments about this paper that you now have to follow-up with details, to give Peter Q. and/or Ron L. something to give answers to - instead of just you thinking this, you thinking that.

You can't just remove yourself from the equation, with the parting words of - 'over to the experts'.

Instead you need to stay exactly where you are, and answer any and all questions directed to you, in a clear and logical manner, including those asked by members.

I had to do it in the 'Zulu Rising' topic, so you have to do here and now.

So, back up your opinion(s) against, with specific details.

C.J.
Missing Five Hours
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 2 of 21  

  
  
 Reply to topic