The Curling Letters of the Zulu war |
Johnny_H
|
What do people here think of this title?
I have recently read it and although very short ( only like 158 pages ) I found it fascinating, almost a trip into time. You very very rarely get anything resembling a "First hand" account of any military activity of that time period, much less a insignificant yet incredible officer in the Royal artillery who was only one of a very small lucky handfull to survive the battle at Isandhwana. His letters combined with Adrian Greaves Narrative really kept me on my seat, the start was kind of slow, but once it picked up which didn't take long in the least I literally could not put this title down. Anyone else read this? Thoughts on the book? http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844151425/qid%3D1140335106/026-5352892-2797229 |
||||||||||||
_________________ "It looks, er, jolly simple doesn't it? (Bromhead to Adendorff) Jolly deadly old boy! (Adendorff) " |
Johnny_H
|
being somewhat new to this subject, I have to ask. What about Greaves must I be cautious about? I picked him because he seems to be able to write history in a very smooth easily read manner, I cant stand Text Book reading, something that is purely academic. So Greaves from what I have seen seemed like the obvious choice. and "Across the Buffalo" seems like an excellent introduction to start reading about this subject. |
||||||||||||||
_________________ "It looks, er, jolly simple doesn't it? (Bromhead to Adendorff) Jolly deadly old boy! (Adendorff) " |
Martin Everett
|
It's to do with the quality of his research and (not) checking of facts.
|
||||||||||||
_________________ Martin Everett Brecon, Powys |
Mel
|
Page 177 "Crossing The Buffalo":
Chelmsford and his Staff ride out from RD to PMB on the 23rd. "At this point it is unlikely that Chelmsford realised his good fortune in splitting his force; had he not done so, it is probable that the Zulus would have attacked the sleeping Isandlawana camp either before dawn on 22nd or when it was strung out on the move to Mangeni. It would be a few more days before he realised that his decision had saved half the Centre Column." Now that's a new angle on it! |
||||||||||||
_________________ Mel |
Dawn
|
Quite so. What about his actions condemning the other half?
I haven't read Greaves and it doesn't look like I should. Dawn |
||||||||||||
|
Robert John
|
Dawn,
You should make up your own mind on who you should read--although Adrian Greaves books [Isandlwana & Rorke's, Drift] are not up to the standard of Ian knight or John Laband they are both a hell of a good read. Yes, he makes mistakes but who doesn't when it comes to these two battles---even a lot of the work of the experts is sheer guesswork. Robert |
||||||||||||
_________________ R J Jones |
John Young
|
Robert,
But you'd think the author would know in a book entitled 'Isandlwana', who the Zulu commander in said battle was, wouldn't you? John Y. |
||||||||||||
|
Johnny_H
|
Does it count if you don't know this persons name? I havent read enough about the subject yet, and I'm horrible with names in general. there were a few things I noted as Odd in the book though, namely the bit about Chelmsford unwittingly saving the entire column from being destroyed by splitting his forces that was a wtf moment? then again it is possible? I mean in theory? fire power alone already proved it wasn't enough to defend a bad position, against a highly disciplined and vastly numerically supirior enemy. |
||||||||||||||
_________________ "It looks, er, jolly simple doesn't it? (Bromhead to Adendorff) Jolly deadly old boy! (Adendorff) " |
John Young
|
Johnny H.,
It does when said author apparently holds a doctorate in the subject and is marking other peoples' work. But manages to state that Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande was the Zulu commander at Isandlwana, rather than Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza. I'm referring to the author's Isandlwana, rather than any of his other works. John Y. |
|||||||||||||
|
Johnny_H
|
Mike Snook's Book just shipped, So I should be expecting that befor the end of the week, I will be done "Across the buffalo" which despite some misgivings I have about some of the points made, I am really enjoying reading.
One thing I am getting confused on, It was my understanding that there were NO martinis being used against Imperial troops during the Battle of Rorke's Drift, although portrayed in the film, I was of the understanding this was not the case. In across the buffalo however it is stated that there were Zulus using Martini's This is backed up by a rather long referance note stating that these rifles were "from not the main battle of Islandlwana, but when 4,500 zulus sweapt behind the British lines and overan two small groups of British soldiers stated as "Dyson's troop and RE detachment " this was related to the BBC from Colonel Bourne in 1936" - noted that there is much more to this note I only summed up what I read. I could take the painstaking task of typing the whole ref note, although I would rather not hehe ( lazy i know ) But is there truth to this? I thought it was just a myth that infact the Zulus only had antiquated arms and were just as poor shots as their equipment? any info? This is of course in relation to "Across the Buffalo" not "The curling letters" I just figured I would save space and not make a thread for one simple question. |
||||||||||||
_________________ "It looks, er, jolly simple doesn't it? (Bromhead to Adendorff) Jolly deadly old boy! (Adendorff) " |
Keith Smith
|
The current consensus is that no MHs were used at Rorke's Drift because the attacking Zulu regiments were the reserve and took no part in the fighting at Isandlwana. It also depends, however, on the route taken by the reserve to get behind Isandlwana hill. Most accounts suggest that the reserve crossed the plateau behind the right horn. Personally, I believe that they crossed the plain behind the 'head' (and I have the primary evidence to back it up). That being so, some few of them might have picked up MHs as they passed over the battlefield, although they would have been very few, if any at all.
KIS |
||||||||||||
|
Johnny_H
|
Well that is essentially what Greaves says, and there is a rather long foot note for that statement So, could it be I learned something new ? |
||||||||||||||
_________________ "It looks, er, jolly simple doesn't it? (Bromhead to Adendorff) Jolly deadly old boy! (Adendorff) " |
Michael Boyle
|
I believe there were upwards of 20,000 firearms in Zulu hands prior the war, a small percentage being M-Hs so there could have been some non-Isandlwana rifles represented as some favoured ibutho were present. ( I don't have my notes on hand but I believe we discussed this on the old forum and references should still be there.)
MAB |
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Although the balance of probabilities and accepted wisdom suggests no MHs were used by the Zulu at R/Drift, it would still appear to be just possible that a very small number may have been present (although perhaps hardly provable at this distance in time). Very careful evaluation of any sources which may suggest it remains just possible will obviously be important.
Obviously, if any were used they must have been either (a) captured or picked up in the aftermath of Isandlwana, or (b) already in Zulu hands before Jan 1879. I'm not aware of any RD defenders reporting any MHs found on dead Zulus afterwards nor were any of the injuries on dead or wounded defenders described, as far as I can remember from the docs left by Reynolds & others, made by MH bullets. Which, again, is obviously not proof of a complete absence of MHs. Do the MH experts here consider a soldier would have known the difference between the sound of an MH bullet whizzing past or "finding its billet" in a mealie bag compared with a projectile from an older weapon? That would be interesting, as although I'm not aware of any RD defender reporting such, there is, I believe, an account of one of the survivors of 1st June claiming that the bullet which he heard bring down Abel was definitely from a Martini - so perhaps this sort of thing was discernable, but I'm out of my depth there. If Bourne mentioned in his 1936 interview the above point about Dyson & the RE, how reliable is it? Not very, I'd have thought. Any knowledge he had of which Zulu force moved where round the back of Isandlwana or who was in their way at the time can be nothing other than hearsay - second-hand, third-hand or whatever. And to mention it nearly 60 years later also surely detracts from its acceptability. I don't think you can latch on to claims made about things by people who weren't there - and Bourne can only have known Dyson's position from hearsay or later reading. I'm sure I have a reference somewhere of MHs being sold to Zulus before 1879. I think the source is a missionary one & I'll try to dig it out at some time, but whether the original statement predates 1879 or was reported afterward I can't recall. It may be among Edward Wilkinson's wife's letters. EW provides plenty of info on the gun-running of the early/mid-1870s, by which time he believed most Zulus had a gun of some sort. Most came from PEA but he does hint that missionaries themselves provided some, often disabling them in some way first or withholding the caps and powder. Some traders were apparently flogging nothing more than gas pipes attached to a piece of deal and passing them off as guns! In fact, Cetshwayo's first two decent guns were traded or given to him by the Bishop of Zululand (in c1871/2 from memory). Michael's mention of the 20,000 guns estimate above reminds us that Mike Snook makes the point that the British were not only outnumbered at Isandlwana but also very heavily outgunned numerically! Peter |
||||||||||||
|
The Curling Letters of the Zulu war |
|
||
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.