rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Degree Dissertation on Isandlwana Part 2

Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:09 pm

George

As Keith has suggested, Furneaux's little work will not add to your knowledge and is unlikely to present a picture of how the battle was being portrayed by academic or popular historians at any particular time, because it was no more than a "potboiler" produced by an author known for his wide variety of very general works, such as his books on crime, popular history and "faraway places." Although, as I mentioned above, he may have been the first to publish a book on Isandlwana (& R/Drift) since Coupland fifteen years earlier, his book does not stand out in any way.

Jackson and Morris were researching for many years contemporaneously and published their versions of Isandlwana at almost the same time (1965/1966). One (Jackson's) was a detailed reconstruction of the battle using all known sources (many "lost" or forgotten up to that time) & weighing each carefully, and was published in a specialist journal which obviously had a limited readership. It became very well known to a wider audience only when the emerging AZW historians of the next decade or two continually sung its praises and demonstrated how it had influenced their own researches. It would be included in all decent bibliographies published in AZW books over the next few decades. It was completely fresh, new and entirely overhauled the current understanding of the battle, which at that time followed, if anything, the then standard history - Coupland's (which underwent a reprint in the 1990s).

The other (Morris's) formed a chapter or two (long ones, admittedly) in an overall history of the Zulu people and presented not only a very different story (yarn might be a better description) of the battle, but put forward a version which has not (unlike Jackson's) even remotely stood the test of time. As is the way of the world, the well-written yarn sold well and therefore, even today, one could come across it before Jackson's and continue to remain in the dark. Most of the debates which involve anything written by Morris would appear to have been "put to bed" many years ago.

When you read Jackson, you might compare it with what had gone before - Coupland, French, Clements, Moody, Ashe & Wyatt-Edgell - and then see how the battle has been presented by the major works on Isandlwana since (Knight, Laband, Lock & Quantrill, Snook). I suspect you'll recognise the difference between the pre- and post-Jackson watershed.

Best of luck

Peter

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:57 am

You should not forget the subsequent articles written by Jackson that appeared sporadically up until 1990 in SOTQ which supplement The Sources Re-examined. Although Hill of the Sphinx updates The Sources Re-examined it does not include everything which may be of interest re Isandhlwana.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:21 pm

Peter:

Many thanks for providing such a comprehensive historiographical background on Jackson and Morris, it's really embellished my understanding of the whole debate. On that note, I burned through Hill of the Sphinx last Thursday afternoon, the most impressive aspect about the work was it's fastidious use of references and footnotes - a huge divergence from TWotS. I can really see where more recent historians have gained their inspiration.

May I call on your advice again and ask which pre-Jackson text you'd recommend me read as an example of earlier secondary historiography? I've still got all of my primary texts, I'm just grasping for something to fit in-between? (Coupland, French, Clements, Moody, or Ashe & Wyatt-Edgell?) Once again, I'm indebted for your help.

Julian:

Thanks, I'll have a look, they may well be accessible as online articles through JSOR, which I have ready access to from home. Smile

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:53 pm

George

Without wishing to preempt anything Peter Ewart might have to say, I might comment on your pre-Morris reading list. The best bet is Coupland, an historian who wrote very concisely and, for the period, got it pretty well correct. French wrote his work as a defence of Chelmsford against Clements, which Morris described as 'a battleship to sink a rowboat'; ignore both!

I think you might mean Moodie? This was largely based on newspaper reports many of which were wildly inaccurate. Finally, Ashe and Wyatt-Edgell. The latter's name was included only because he had died on the battlefield at Ulundi so he made little contribution. You might be advised to ignore this too. The best pre-Morris stuff is Coupland and Jackson's original articles. As I have already mentioned, the Jackson articles are sold as a small pamphlet published by the RRW Museum at Brecon.

KIS

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:03 am

Well Peter, since you stole my thunder in suggesting Sir Reginald Coupland's "Zulu Battle Piece," I can perhaps suggest another more contemporary title that may be of help to you George. That would be "Lord Chelmsford's Zulu Campaign, 1878-1879," by professor John Laband, copyright 1994 for the Army Records Society. I doubt anyone will argue Professor Laband's credentials and record for impeccable research.

Lest we forget, and perhaps I have just not seen it mentioned, but our own John Young put out a great piece of research in "They Fell Like Stones."

Hope that helps George.

Cheers,

Steven

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:37 am

George

I think it is fair to say that the very first AZW researcher was Major General Sir Wm. Penn Symons, KIA Battle of Talana Hill Oct 1899, and originally a captain in the 2/24th. You should therefore gets lots of Brownie points for going back as far as him. When you come and see me I will advise on his role and how to access his stuff.

We were talking about slip ups elsewhere on the forum and how everyone makes them. I was amused to read in Thomas Pakenham's outstanding book on the ABW that Symons was an Indian Army general with no experience of Africa - or words to that effect. Of course he knew Africa intimately and especially the area where he was killed, Dundee, just down the road from Isandlwana. I also noted en passant that the admirable John Laband got his Hamiltons mixed up in his recent history of the Transvaal Rebellion - where he confuses Bruce Hamilton (Lady Colley's brother and serving on Sir George's staff), with Ian Hamilton, then a subaltern in the Gordons, and later of Elandslaagte/Ladysmith & Gallipoli fame of course.

But Symons is interesting and like us was clearly intrigued by what actually happened at Isandlwana. I'll tell you all about him when we meet.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:33 pm

Mike

Wish I could be a fly on the wall when you hold forth on Penn Symons. If you talk as well as you write I am sure it will make a fascinating tale.

Best regards
Peter

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:28 pm

George

Absolutely agree with Keith. Clements and French are mentioned above only because their works on the AZW appeared during that period between the memoirs of retired officers writing up until the 1920s and the attention paid to the battle by Coupland in 1948 - which was, to all intents and purposes - the only book available on the battle when Jackson published his own work (ignoring Furneaux, of course). You were asking for secondary sources which would give you an idea of how the battle had been portrayed at various times throughout a long chronological period, and there was a large gap in your period after Victorian times.

Mike's post above reminded me of the first proper attempt at assessing the causes and development of the battle - that of Symons, which I completely overlooked in the list I offered. Many military men included Isandlwana in their memoirs and many books included a chapter on Isandlwana but I can't think of anyone other than Symons and Coupland who sat down and tried to get to the bottom of it - nearly 70 years apart. (I walked past the churchyard in Dundee where he's buried but didn't know that at the time - blast!)

Mike - The two Hamiltons confuse many, including me. My grandfather served under Dartnell (the same!), French, Broadwood (whom I usually confuse with Birdwood) and Ian Hamilton in S Africa, but I usually have to look up which of the Hamiltons Ian was!

Peter

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:49 pm

Peter S

You are too kind - in real life I can't string a sentence together! Laughing

Regards

Mike

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:31 pm

Mike
Re: Major General Symons..

Interesting that Symons is regarded as the first Isandhlwana researcher. I've read that when he died of his wounds it apparently shocked and took the British off guard in their battle with the Boers. True? Didn't seem as if they expected how the war was going...shades of Isandhlwana.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:13 pm

Keith:

Coupland, eh? Thanks very much, I'll have a look for that one ASAP. I also intend to visit the RRW museum in the Easter holidays, so I'll have a look out for the articles, too - thanks very much

Steven:

I've heard of Laband's piece, and without wanting to cast aspersions on his research it's (perversely) texts lacking in historical accuracy and rife with controversy that I'm currently after. As the study is historiographical, the more diversity I have in my material the better. In this respect, does "They Fell Like Stones" have anything unique to add which my other texts (mentioned on the last page) don't? Many thanks. Wink

Mike:

Fantastic, that's just the sort of authorial context I'm after, and it'd do wonders for my chronology as you say! I look forward to our meeting; it'll certainly be highly productive. (I've already drafted an initial structure for my dissertation based on my reading so far, I'll bring that along as well as the questions which I've planned to ask you.) Thanks again! Smile

Peter:

If there really was a large gap between the Victorian period and the 40s as you and others have said, then it'll make my reading a bit easier, but conversely, pose a question of why this was so. (And a crucial question at that, seeing as the dissertation is focused on historiography and authorial context.

Many thanks again, guys! Smile

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:17 pm

George

Try minor distractions for the history industry - like the First and Second World Wars!!

As ever

Mike Very Happy

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:37 am

George,

When I read your question, my first reaction was I probably should have remained silent on the issue as any reply I give will be certainly subjective in nature. And if one is not willing to have a strong opinion regarding suggestions, they are absolutely of no use to you.

However I will defer to the author of the Introduction to "They Fell Like Stones," for an answer. That chap was Kenneth Griffith, certainly a controversial figure in the eyes of some and sadly as most know, recently deceased. Mr. Griffith states in the last paragraph; "One last point. John has refrained from being subjective in this book. He has confined his writings to the hardest of facts. I want to see his next work push out into his invaluable opinions."

That being said, I am reticent to trod too much from that line, especially when there is someone infinitely more capable of providing a further answer for you right on this forum. I do know John is a gentleman that refuses to "toot his own horn," but perhaps he may see his way clear to weighing in.

Again, apologies for not being very helpful;
Cheers and good luck,

Steven