rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
'Nodwengu bivouac (underlined, bold, exclamation mark)'....we are on common ground here are we (?) - to the effect that these are my points of emphasis on the use of the word bivouac; I am not suggesting that they physically appear on CC2, where the only original emphasis is the underlining of the expression 'I believe....'

I am looking at CC2 which appears, first, unadapted at your Appendix A and, second, in an adapted form with regiments names in block capitals at your Appendix C. I don't know what more I have to do other than look at a bound thesis with your name on the front! I am constrained to repeat the question 'Are you sure you don't mean CC 3 at your Appendix B?' which does feature regiment's names in somebody's handwriting, but is not the same underlying map as CC2 at Appendix A. Are you able to look at your own thesis or not?

As ever

M
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Now now, a little bit less sniffyness please.

I have not previously mentioned Appendix B, although it contains the same regiments as in Appendix C. Guess what? I'll wager the same handwriting.
However,you have raised an interesting point in that A and C differ. I had not given this any consideration as the key map for us, was Appendix C, with roads superimposed, together with the designated Zulu regiments annotated.
If Mike Mc. can comment with the RE museum maps, this may help.
I shall be making an appointment with CC to review the Wood Papers that contained the map/s and will revert next week.
As ever,
Peter
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Peter

Hah, that's not sniffiness; that's what they call attention to detail! The handwriting at Appendices A and C (both showing CC2) is indeed the same because at the bottom-most underlay the traces are identical. But at the bottom-most underlay seen at Appendix A only three regiments/corps are labelled, in the handwriting, those three being Nodwengu, uVe and Undi. The others are wholly unspecified. [The handwriting is also common to all three appendices. But that is not the point].

The three outfits identified above are again labelled in the handwriting at Appendix C. In addition, however, Appendix C also labels a number of additional regiments in block capitals; namely NOKENKE, UMCITYU, UMBONAMBI, INGOBAMAKOSI and UDHLOKE [sic in all cases]. Thus in three cases, Nodwengu, uVe and Undi, the regiments/corps are labelled at Appendix C twice, once in handwriting (in precisely the same way/spots as Appendix A) and once in block letters. In no case does the second repetition aid understanding. They are superfluous. The block case used also directly corresponds stylistically with the labels MABASO, ITHUSI, CONICAL HILL, TAHELANE CREST, Isandhlwana HILL, MAGAGA KNOLL, TARANTALA MOUNTAIN, NQUTU RANGE. None of these terrain annotations appear on the bottom-most underlay as seen at Appendix A. The title you have appended to Appendix C is 'Campbell Collections Map No. 2 superimposed with modern roads and topography.' The topography labels (superimposed) are in precisely the same block font as the names of the additional regiments; I thus infer that the latter are also 'superimposed' by some other unknown hand than that which earlier labelled the three (duplicated) regiments/corps.

As ever

Mike

PS. Note that for some reason the word Isandhlwana [sic] in my typing box is in upper case but is appearing in lower case when posted. On the map it too is in upper case.


Last edited by mike snook 2 on Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
And on that note, that's enough from me I think for the time being. I'm sure Peter would like a break too. We've both said our piece.

Regards to all

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Mike McCabe


Joined: 05 Sep 2013
Posts: 20
Location: UK
Reply with quote
I have always taken the view that both the Chatham and KCL map sets were largely pre-marked before (in the KCL case) being taken to South Africa by tracing from a body of word prepared by Anstey/Penrose and lodge in the Intelligence Branch as preparator field notes for The Narrative. The important differences being the last stage of marking in the form of manuscript annotation in the margins, and ED somehow becoming aware of 'X'.
If we only take Wood's 'Midshipman to FM' texts into account then his visits to the Isandlwana area appear to be of fairly short duration. It seems unlikely that 'blank maps' could have been fully inscribed that way. He might, of course, have tasked Fraser (RE) or Bigge (RA) to have compiled the detail by staying longer or visiting on another occasion, but that also seems unlikely (to me anyhow). So, the 'added value' by Wood is the marginal annotations and the explanation of 'X'. And, not much else. If more was done, then the explanations of 'How' and 'When' are not yet forthcoming it would appear to me.
MC McC
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
Mike S.
We have been discussing the Zulu regiments designated in Map 2, Campbell Collection, Durban, in which Ron and I have maintained that the Zulu regimental annotations were from Wood's original. The regiments are named, in our copy, along the dotted line of advance shown on Map 2 . You have indicated that the original only reflects the Nodwengu and Undi. This I have countered by stating that it was neither Ron nor I who were responsible for the naming of the regiments, but our copy has the regiments named.

Your legitimate contention has been of some concern to me, and I accordingly paid a visit on Friday to the Campbell Collections,where they gave me complete access to the 'Wood Papers.' The two original maps are marked Map 2 and Map 3, the latter showing designated regiments, left to right, with lines of attack. Map 2, however, only shows 'black dashes' to indicate the position of regiments without designating them, to the south of which is point X. You are therefore correct, but the mystery remains as to how they were annotated in capital letters and by whom? This is something neither Ron, nor I, in our dotage, could remember doing some four years ago.(2009, the draft work on TMFH.)
I then contacted our Land Surveyor Barry Bechard, a friend, and posed the question to him. He had surveyed and inserted the roads that were not in the original No. 2. He recollected that we had given a drawing to Clive Phelps, a Draughtsman who was duly acknowledged by us in TMFH. Phelps lives locally and I communicated with him yesterday. He confirmed the designation of the Zulu regiments shown in our copy of Map 2, were in his hand and taken from instructions from us, (presumably data from Map 3) and then placed by him in the positions reflected.
In our view it does not materially in any way effect the thrust of ones view of TMFH, rather a lack on our part, without excuses, of recalling the circumstances.
Both Ron and I would therefore unreservedly like to tender our apologies to you, which we hope that you will accept. When we placed the roads onto our Map 2 to help readers with the topography, we should also have, with an explanation, placed the regiments accordingly. This we did not and, unforgivingly, was an error of judgement on our part. This will also, hopefully, correct any historical misconceptions on the issue.

As always,
Peter
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Peter,

A genuine mistake, which this plainly was, is not a matter requiring personal apology. Pas de problem.

Mike McC

I earlier indicated a hunch that the narrative map is No 4 rather than No 1. I will leave it to you to judge but I believe there is evidence to support this notion at pp. 309-310 of Colonel Edward Durnford's book. (I presume you have a copy). Read at the bottom of p. 309 from 'Captain Nourse says...' onwards. If I read this passage correctly Nourse makes reference to a map which Durnford then describes for clarity as '(Plate IV)'. According to Durnford's footnote, which appears at this point, the map in question is to be found at Parliamentary Blue Book C 2260, p. 81. (I don't personally own a copy of that particular blue book so can't immediately check myself. Perhaps somebody else here does?). If the map at the PBB reference is the same as that in the Narrative then that would suggest that 'No. 4' is the latter's correct designation. The passage of Nourse which Durnford quotes says, '''The infantry were stationed on the rising ground at F* (Plate IV.) [the C 2260 reference follows from the asterix] only, that is, in so far as Pope's company and the one next is concerned; the field beyond is out of sight from station E'' (where Colonel Durnford was holding the donga.' If you look at the map in the Narrative this is indeed annotated with an F on the rocky ridge and an E in the Nyogane Donga.

And, addressed more generally...It is interesting that CC Map No. 3 bears three xs, two of which are labelled and one of which is not. The latter roughly approximates to Durnford's last stand at the foot of Mahlabamkhosi. Fine. From there, however, things go rather awry in the 'x marks the spot' game, which, for reasons I have already given, I do not personally think has much validity in the context of a fast moving battle of manoeuvre. (All the xs on both maps 2 and 3 are in the same hand, by the way). A second x on Map 3 is annotated '1 Co 2/24?'. Once again uncertainty in the original annotator's mind is indicated by the presence of the question mark. But perhaps more significantly it is marked in a location on the lower slopes of the escarpment, just to the east of where Isandlwana Lodge stands today. No imperial infantry went anywhere this location and certainly not G Coy 2/24. In other words the x is 'miles out' (metaphorically speaking). The third x on Map 3 is annotated 'Last stand 1/24th'. It is so far to the south that it can only be an attempt to portray the position of the forty men who broke clear under Anstey. These men we know fell on the line of retreat in the Manzimyama valley, a route which lies well to the south-west of Mahlabamkhosi. The annotated x, however, lies due south of Mahlabamakhosi, in such a fashion as to be in front of the Isandlwana-Mahlabamkhosi range of high ground, whereas in reality the point at issue lay well to the left rear of the very obvious (in mapping and physical terms alike) feature. These xs, then, are, in one case, both incorrectly annotated and in entirely the wrong place, and, in the other, in completely the wrong place only. Are we then to believe that despite the obvious inaccuracies reflected by the xs on Map 3 (same hand remember), the x on Map 2 is to be treated as gospel and all interpretation of the course and location of events is to flow from it ?

It might be added that the annotations purporting to show Durnford's delaying actions on the right place him way too far to the south. These annotations, then, are also inaccurately plotted by some considerable margin - about a quarter of a mile in my estimation.

There is another point of note with maps 2 and 3. In the former case Zulu movements are indicated by dotted lines drawn free hand. In the latter, with only one exception, they are shown with dead straight lines, drawn along a ruler. Curious methinks. If one takes Map 3 and studies the relationship, in terms of positioning and points of origin, between the dead straight lines and the names of the regiments, annotated in handwriting, there is very little consistency from one to the next and nothing like the neatness one would expect from somebody of, shall we call it, a 'straight edge mindset'. To my mind it looks as if the straight lines were drawn in by somebody else, over the top of an original overlay which only positioned the regiments very approximately in an arc around the high ground and in the mouth of the Qwabe Valley; in other words that there were no lines originally. So, in my opinion at least, there seem to be two pairs of hands at work. My guessimate, given the obvious focus on Dunrford's operations, is that the straight lines might have been drawn by brother Edward.

There is a certain resonance between the arrow heads on both maps, whether they spearhead a wiggly line (at Map 2) or a dead straight one (at Map 3). However, as far as I can see, there are no arrow heads on the easternmost regiments annotated at Map 2: thus some regiments have them and some do not. Is is too much to suggest that, that being the case, probably none of them had them originally and that those which now do must have had them added later by the same person that did the straight line annotations at Map 3? I am no expert in this particular field but that's how I see it.

As to the whole Hamer thing it would be an interesting experiment if somebody up that way went to the NAM and obtained a copy of the letter he sent to his father, (the archival reference for which was given earlier), perhaps then posting it here, so that his handwriting can be seen. I'd do it myself but have no plans to be in the capital in the immediate future and plenty of more pressing research conundrums in other fields to be getting on with.

Speaking of which....

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 436
Reply with quote
I feel I've arrived a bit late at the party...I've just read through these 21 pages and feel quite exhausted. I shall try to digest it all before commenting fully but in the interim would say:
1. DH does not stand for Durnford's Horse. It stands for Davies and Henderson.
2. Pulleine did not send Cavaye up the spur. Durnford did this (Essex's supplementary evidence recorded by LC).
3. I have not seen the 'Arthur Adams' report before. As far as I am aware both the escaped Adamses, senior and junior, had John as a Christian name, but it could be that one of them was John Arthur or Arthur John.
4. As it happens I do have a copy of Hamer's handwriting and will have a look at it and the maps and report back.
5. Re Hamer's missing maps - watch this space...
View user's profileSend private message
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Julian,

Good to see you back.

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

Reply with quote
To set matters right, we would like to amend the caption in Appendix C of TMFH to read:
" Campbell Collection Map 2 superimposed with modern roads, topography and designated Zulu regiments."
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 21 of 21  

  
  
 Reply to topic