rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Still 'Meat' In TMFH And The Durnford/Pulleine Subjects ?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:19 pm

Peter Q. - How are you now ? I hope fit and healthy enough for a chat.

You mention there is still 'meat' in these subjects, but do you mean as a single topic or 2 maybe 3 individual topics ?

TMFH thesis I've read several times, of which I'm completely content with the conclusions, but the discussion on the forum appeared to be at an end, due to not many being able to see this area of the battlefield firsthand, so couldn't question it one way or another in order to take it further.

Durnford/Pulleine have been debated on an immense scale over the years, what do you feel is still to be said ?

Could you please expand on what may have been missed in all the previous topics, regarding TMFH and the Durnford/Pulleine subjects.

Thankyou

Coll

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:00 pm

Poted on behalf of Peter Quantrill.

Coll, (and Mel.)
Still recovering but on the mend, thank you.
Both TMFH & the Durnford/Pulleine debate may be a bit �tired and old.� Perhaps members feel this as well?

TMFH: Here, a major issue has in my mind has now been �put to bed,� namely that of the discovery of the Zulu army by the NNH outside of the Ngwebeni Valley as shown and evidenced by Wood and reflected in Appendix C (TMFH.) I take the liberty of adding that Keith Smith�s paper on the subject titled �Isandlwana: The Discovery of the Zulu Army� together with Julian Whybra�s comments posted on 16 October 2010 would also seem to support the view that the contact was outside the deep Ngwebeni Valley. To refute or rebut this issue, it would, in my opinion, be essential to prove that the handwriting depicted in the margin of both the Chatham and Campbell Collection maps was annotated by someone other than Wood. We, as evidenced in TMFH, commissioned a professional Forensic Document Examiner to undertake an opinion, which opinion was, after careful scrutiny of letters bearing the original handwriting of Wood (and other suspects) confirmed as that of Wood. I am are very happy to go back to the Campbell Collection, obtain copies of the original Wood letters and let someone else commission a professional Forensic Document Examiner to once more ascertain the handwriting origin of the annotated maps. Until such time, we are satisfied with the conclusions drawn in TMFH with regard to the discovery of the Zulu army (regiments identified and named) outside the Ngwebeni Valley, in position as marked by Wood, together with the general area of the NNC�s contact with the Umcityu regiment.

Durnford/Pulleine:
Here the intent is not to look for �blame,� rather the analysis of primary source material with the object of assessing whether the �Command/Control element of the camp correctly assessed the pending Zulu threat in light of the incoming reports from first light (approximately 0530) to the time of arrival of Durnford. (Approximately 1030 hrs.)
In short, the missing five hours.

Peter

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:03 pm

Peter Q.

Thanks for replying so quickly. Very glad to hear you are on the mend, as well as pleased to be chatting to you again on the forum.

TMFH - I agree, as it'd be a difficult task to prove an argument against. I've yet to see Keith's thesis, but if you say it supports your view, then that is confirmation enough for myself.

Durnford/Pulleine - 'Not to look for blame' is absolutely the way ahead. The analysing of all primary source material instead of just the much quoted orders, is the only course to be taken, if trying to get away from discussions/debates already held about liability.

I spent all of 2011 trying to find different approaches to various aspects of Isandlwana, but the downside of which seemed to be the lack of access to most primary sources not often in printed works available to the public, unless able to get to any archives personally, or being unable to afford books where the information is. However, Harold Raugh's bibliography lists a great deal of information sources, so if it was known which of these should be studied carefully, if able to be obtained by us, then there would be the opportunity to discuss TMFH in more detail.

As it is, there may be only a few able to comment at the moment.

Due to these reasons, it is likely that the well-known and much repeated orders will continue to take the discussions in one direction, being the blame for the disaster, an outcome very hard to escape, in order to follow a different path.

Thanks again

Coll

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:31 pm

Peter Q.

Having just re-read TMFH topic, the 'Durnford Is Vindicated !' quote was by myself, if I remember correctly, based on the book title 'Custer Vindicated' by Jack L. Pennington, which I've only just started reading.

Apparently, Pennington wishes to use his book to re-assess the opinion by many previous authors, about what he terms the 'accepted history', rather than following a path outside of this neat box, and in doing so, show Custer not to have been the incompetent officer that he has been depicted, which due to the 'result from the Reno Court of Inquiry, (was) the desire of the court to prevent further investigations.'

Referring to your 'not look for blame' sentence, but following another path, namely TMFH, is it your aim to prove a similar vindication, by this paper, or am I jumping the gun with my conclusion from reading it ?

Thankyou

Coll

PS. Interestingly, he writes something that 'sounds' similar to what I've said on the forum on many occasions, being -

'I am not an authority on courts of inquiry or court-martials that have taken place in our history, but I am aware of many of the official lies, distortions, and cover-ups that have taken place'.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:41 pm

Coll,
TMFH primary aim was to clarify that, following the proven established fact that the Annotations in the Chatham and Campbell Collection maps were in the hand of Wood, that the initial contact with the Zulu army was not in the Ngwebeni Valley, but at least a couple of miles west, straddling the small Ngwebeni stream. This accounted for the speed of the attack. It also gives additional credit to the Zulu high command for deploying its regiments out of the valley, (the initial assembly point) and on to the Nqutu Plateau on the night of the 21st and the very early hours of the 22nd. Amongst those who gave the details of the battle, was Raw. When Wood escorted the Empress Eugenie of France to visit the site where the Prince Imperial was killed, the Empress and Wood spent two days in June 1880 at Isandlwana. Raw was present and met both the Empress and Wood.
On the balance of probability, there is no reason to disbelieve that amongst all those Zulu izinduna and colonials who Wood said showed him over the battlefield, Raw was also present. Hence the precise detail of the NNH contact with the already deployed Zulu regiments.
It is our speculative view, that the plethora of primary source reports made directly to the camps command and control element between 0530 � 1030 hrs, 22 January, (listed in TMFH) and the inaction thereof before the arrival of Durnford, would have resulted in the loss of the battle irrespective of Durnford�s arrival or actions.
This seems to be the official view as confirmed by a War Office memorandum, undated and unsigned, but it nevertheless bears the authentic seal of the War Office. The writer was obviously, judging by the contents, aware of source reports detailing the battle. It puts to bed Crealock�s mischievous lie in which he recorded that he ordered Durnford to take command of the camp on arrival 22 January. The memorandum�s final paragraph reads: � Doubtless finding himself [Durnford] senior officer on the spot when the action had already commenced he, according to the custom of the service, took command, but this was too late to remedy the fatal errors of position selected before his arrival.�
The final sentence speaks for itself. A relatively senior officer (speculation) at the War Office has given a contemporary opinion that Durnford was not at fault.
More conclusions are drawn on the actions of the camps command and control by Major The Hon Gerald French�s work titled �Lord Chelmsford And The Zulu War,� published in 1939.� Should you not have the book I will elaborate if you wish.
Peter

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:28 pm

Peter Q.

Many thanks for your detailed reply.

Yes, I do feel your conclusions about the Zulu army and its discovery, as well as the inaction in the camp beforehand, does go hand-in-hand with vindicating Durnford - as I always felt the trap was already sprung before he even appeared at the Isandlwana camp.

I've found also, through my LBH books, that the indians, same as the Zulus, were not believed either in their accounts, or were altered to suit a set scenario.

Therefore, I agree that Durnford rode into Isandlwana, which was already doomed, due to circumstances set in motion several hours before his arrival.

I do not have the book you mention, but if considered a worthy source to study regarding this matter, I'll try to obtain it.

Thanks again

Coll

PS. Good to see you back on the forum.