 |
 | Apologies |  |
|
Chris
|
|
No problem
Just the excitement running away with me Will send you the material under separate cover. You may then have the pleasure of sifting the wheat from the chaff. and Deciding what to put in "chit-chat" In the mean time I will desist and refrain |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
| |
|
Mike McCabe
|
|
Chris,
Please do not 'resist and refrain' on my account and do not feel obliged to send me anything. My very small house has no threshing floor, nor (I seldom regret) space to winnow. Mike |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Ron L
|
|
Mike: As I am going on holiday in three days I am claiming an honourable withdrawal and hope by the time I return, ten days, an armistice will have been declared. As I now live at Port Edward on the lower shouth coast, there are many things like deciding beside calamari and chips or scampi and chips, both with cold beer, as I gaze in the shade at the Indian Ocean, that ademand my attention.
You say it is illogical that Mehlokazulu's testimony , whilst in prison, should not be trusted. In other words, he had nothing to fear, or as you infer, he knew he was not going to be hanged or ill treated. Apart from King Cetewayo, he was the most wanted Zulu of them all. It could be said that he, on the Zulu side (just an amateur compared to the opposition), had more to do with instigating the AZW than anyone. He was a wanted man before a shot had been fired. After the general Zulu surrender at Ulundi, he was recognised, arrested, sent to Pietermaritzburg and imprisoned. I would say he had a lot to be worried about. British hands were hardly snowy white. How about the "spy" hanged at Rorke's Drift and the treatment of the Zulu wounded at the same place, not to mention the treatment of Cetewayo's emmisaries who attempted to liaise. No, there is every reason to suppose that if Mehlokazulu wanted to be out and about in Zululand again, he would be wise to tell his interrogators what they wanted to hear. One other point, Mike you have suggested that Scott may, at some time during the morning, been up on the Plateau. It seems most unlikely. Quoting from ZV page 188, we wrote to the effect that Durnford had ordered two carbineers to return to Scott with the order that he was to give Durnford his best support whereupon, to his surprise, one of the carbineers replied "Lt. Scott would not leave his position on any account whatsoever as he had strict insturctions from Col. Pulleine, not to leave his post on any pretext". Durnford replied he was Pulleine's senior and Scott was to do as he was told. However, at that moment the Zulu left horn appeared at a jog trot and they all had something else to think about. Nor can I go along with your contention that a carbineer patrol had possibly looked into the southern end of the Ngwabeni valley. The carbineers were thin on the ground, only 19 carbineer corpses plus twenty NNP were later found in the camp. It is between seven to nine miles to Scott's outpost to the southern end of the Ngwabeni valley, a round trip of 14-18 miles over steep terrain littered with stones and rocks. I don't think so. By the way, the carbineers and NNP horses were not released prior to Durnford's last stand. They were later found close by the corpses of the carbineers: "a line of horses lay killed on the picquet rope. Nineteeen horses in all. Not many - in fact, surely not enough for the varied duties of the mounted men that day , to in addition send a patrol miles away into what would have been then seen as territory actively occupied by the enemy. With suitcase at the high port I leave the field. Ron |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ Battlefields Africa Tours
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
mike snook 2
|
|
Ron
I hope you have an excellent time. All you say on Mehlokazulu is quite true. What I am saying is that he was either going to get chastised for his perceived crimes, (unrelated to the battle) or not. What he was not going to be was chastised for anything he did at Isandlwana or anything he said about it. Hence illogical to divide his testimony into in prison and out of prison categories. It is all Mehlokazulu testimony of comparable reliability. Scott came into camp to report during the first alarm. Who knows where he was sent back to. The obvious inference from the words you cite is that he had been face to face with Pulleine at some point between 08.05 and 11.30-ish at the latest, (most likely near the front end of the bracket), and had been given new orders. We have no idea what might have passed between them. We can speculate that in a scenario where the vedette officer reports that he didn't actually see any of this stuff his men are reporting himself..... because Amatutshane isn't actually as good a vantage point as it appears from here colonel....that the said colonel would have sent him to find a better one. Up the notch is obvious and, if it was me, my eye would fall on that big hill on the end of the escarpment - iThusi Hill. The gallopers did not come from Durnford's rear, which they would have to do if Scott was back on Amatutshane, but from his left, which if he is in the Qwabe valley, puts them above the escarpment, somewhere behind iThusi. I am waving you good bye now Ron. See you later alligator. As ever Mike |
|||||||||||
|
Last edited by mike snook 2 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
mike snook 2
|
|
Mike
I was thinking about you yesterday afternoon (in a nice way you understand) as I was driving around, en route to calling on another old sapper, funnily enough, and I thought to myself, 'I bet the old McCabe dog is going to put Mostyn and Cavaye on Mkwene Hill'. Here's why not. As you know I think Pulleine sent Cavaye out, not long before Durnford arrived. The trigger for the deployment, I believe, was whatever it was that Chard saw (a right horn regiment?) at around 0930-45, on the Tahelane spur, and which then disappeared Manzimyama-wards (dash at the drift and all that). I fancy the sudden appearance of a regiment that close in would have given Pulleine a bit of a start. Once it had gone, his determination, it seems to me, was not to allow that to happen again; thus to cover that due north approach with imperial firepower. Hence the position was on the spur, with Dyson detached to the left as we know. A position on Mkwene, of the sort you postulate, would have had its rear turned to the enemy regiment which had just disappeared into the Manzimyama Valley (and thence into cover who knows where, but somewhere nearby). There is a high degree of logic to the spur deployment. Of course it also serves to cover the (likely) future withdrawal of the Mkwene picket company (NNC). You can't just run down off the back end of Mkwene (well you could in a rout scenario)- you pretty much have to come via the spur if you are intent on getting away in tactical good order. As ever Mike |
|||||||||||
|
Last edited by mike snook 2 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Mike/Mike/Peter
Two brief thoughts: 1. As far as the physical description of the intervening topography beyond or behind which the Zulu concealed themselves (whether at "x" or in the easternmost Ngwebini valley), would it be reasonable to assume that a British officer trained in recognising and sketching specific topographical features from all distances & angles, whether hill, hillock, brow, ridge, crest or escarpment, would know the difference and describe it as such, but that a (possibly only recently recruited) colonial officer in the NNH or Carbineers without this training (if such training was indeed absent) would be more likely to describe the relevant prominence much more loosely and be less distinctly specific in the term he used? Thus, hill, ridge or crest, for example, might easily mean roughly the same thing, and that "roughly" was quite sufficient for the speaker? If so, ought we to be additionally cautious about how tightly we latch on to the actual description used, in case the difference between the two that may be clear to us was not necessarily so clear or different to the beholder? Just a small point, but perhaps relevant? And yet one more "approximation" among the eye-witnesses which remains infuriatingly vague to ourselves 130-odd years later? 2. The Anstey & Penrose maps reproduced in The Narrative, published in 1881, obviously re-appear in the reprint of 1907. Was there any difference in the second version? (I ask this apropos Mike McM's comments above about possible alterations in the early years). According to the Publishing History entered on the copyright page of my Greenhill (1989) reprint, this modern edition used the original volume. Does anyone use the 1907 version? Enjoying the discussion. Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
mike snook 2
|
|
Peter
I couldn't agree more. Hamer wasn't even a fighting officer; he was the NNMC commissary (should have been in the camp sticking coloured flags on his ammunition wagons if you ask me!). He might have said anything by way of description. Similarly, if I was to form a little Indian file of a dozen well-trained regular subalterns of today, call them forward one by one, point at Mabaso and say 'What's that?', the answers 'hill' and 'ridge' would be used interchangeably; it would be anybody's guess in what proportion they would divide. If I took them to X and said 'What are we standing on?', I'd wager a proportion would say, 'Grass, colonel.' Hey ho. As ever M |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Mike/Mike/Peter
Two brief thoughts: 1. As far as the physical description of the intervening topography beyond or behind which the Zulu concealed themselves (whether at "x" or in the easternmost Ngwebini valley), would it be reasonable to assume that a British officer trained in recognising and sketching specific topographical features from all distances & angles, whether hill, hillock, brow, ridge, crest or escarpment, would know the difference and describe it as such, but that a (possibly only recently recruited) colonial officer in the NNH or Carbineers without this training (if such training was indeed absent) would be more likely to describe the relevant prominence much more loosely and be less distinctly specific in the term he used? Thus, hill, ridge or crest, for example, might easily mean roughly the same thing, and that "roughly" was quite sufficient for the speaker? If so, ought we to be additionally cautious about how tightly we latch on to the actual description used, in case the difference between the two that may be clear to us was not necessarily so clear or different to the beholder? Just a small point, but perhaps relevant? And yet one more "approximation" among the eye-witnesses which remains infuriatingly vague to ourselves 130-odd years later? 2. The Anstey & Penrose maps reproduced in The Narrative, published in 1881, obviously re-appear in the reprint of 1907. Was there any difference in the second version? (I ask this apropos Mike McM's comments above about possible alterations in the early years). According to the Publishing History entered on the copyright page of my Greenhill (1989) reprint, this modern edition used the original volume. Does anyone use the 1907 version? Enjoying the discussion. Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Chris
|
|
Seeing as I do not have to "cease and desist" 
My material is an eye witness report of someone that was present at the "discussions" between Pulleine and Durnford whilst waiting for instructions to go on Vedette duty with his half section. Arthur Adams of the Buffalo Border Guard I would humbly submit that this testimony could change everything ( something ) ? |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
| |
|
mike snook 2
|
|
Chris
Col McCabe is a world class exponent of what the English call 'whimsy'. It doesn't always translate that well south of the Equator! He doesn't mean to put you off. Go on ahead with what you've got to say won't you. Regards Mike |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
mike snook 2
|
|
Oooer...now that is interesting. 'Send, over', as they say.
M |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Sorry about double post. Tried to delete without success. Clicked the edit corner which purports to allow deleting, but can't find delete button!
Chimp/Luddite  |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Mike McCabe
|
|
Hmmmm!
If 'traditional' assessments of the actual and relative positioning of Cavaye/Mostyyn/Dyson/the NNC on the Mkwene-Tahelane feature are not based on the camp map published in The Narrative, then on what sources are they based? The Narrative map detail is visually suspiciously flaky in several respects. So, how credible and reliable is it? I ask this as one fully aware of the way in which source material tends to be selectively evaluated as if 'bedorock' or questionable, depending on the particular argument in play. Seems to me that The Narrative Map lacks soundness. MC McC PS Better whimsy than recreational pie throwing of the familar kind! |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Quantrill
Guest
|
|
Good morning Mike 2,
Quote from your previous posting: "if I was to form a little Indian file of a dozen well-trained regular subalterns of today ..... took them to X and said 'What are we standing on?,' I'd wager a proportion would say ' Grass Colonel.' In which event I would wager that this is a ridiculous deduction and a poor reflection on the current standard of subalterns. Send the lot back to their Training Depots. Sorry to shout again, but certainly the standard of subalterns that I knew would respond " A ridge, Major." And I am standing to attention, saluting you, Colonel Sahib. As ever, Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Mike McCabe
|
|
Presumably, the observational qualities of subalterns in his own Regiment are being held in mind here.
However, PQ, shrewdly and wittily observed. MC McC |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
 | Missing Five Hours | |
|
||
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.