I came to the AZW as an amateur. I must say I have begun to feel uneasy as there appears to be numerous camps in this game. Some of these camps seem to indulge in a degree of clandestine warfare. I a not sure whether some of this has to do with a degree of financial involvement in publishing or running tourist enterprises but it does concnern me. I sometimes feel that all is not as it seems.
I hope I have not offended anyone with this post.

Eric, an unusual topic. I'm not sure I quite understand. Can you add a bit more info on what is making you uneasy ?

An author publishes a book then another author seems to imply that there are inaccuracies in the book but will not be drawn on what they are. Some-one states that source documents are incorrectly reprodued others state that they are accuratey reproduced. I find it all very confusing.

Hi Eric,
This is a link for where the order is
http://www.1879zuluwar.com/t4256-isandlwana-message-from-pulleine-to-cavaye-is-it-a-fake?highlight=message+from+pu.

Mr Whybra sent me his document where he explains how this order is a fake.
It is very well writen and explains how the order can not be real.

If you send Julian Whybra a PM he will send you his document.

Cheers
DB14

Eric, I'm afraid you'll discover it happens more than just in Zulu War books, as in any subject, no two authors will necessarily agree on everything. The more books you get on a subject, the more times there will be disagreements on photos, maps, primary source interpretations, conclusions, etc., etc. The list goes on. That's when discussions, debates and sometimes heated arguments occur.

Gent's this has nothing to do with the AZW. Can I suggest we leave this issue well alone, nothing can be achieved in the blame game. "Admin" has clearly stated, there are no Camps in this forum. I really would leave it there. Let's say an attack for whatever reason has been made on this forum, to what's ends who knows. But let's just agree it was successfully repelled. So let's move on.

Hi all.
I dont believe for one minute that there are Sectarian camps at work here , EVERYBODY and I mean
EVERYBODY has a right to say or what they think to be tried and true. This is the whole reason behind
forums , its a place to air your views one way or another . No doubt some people will think black is black
others will think its Grey and others again will swear its white !. Each to his own I say and if people are
able to back up their thoughts / Statements all well and good . Eric you are correct , it is confusing but
that is why its so popular ( The War ) , everyone has a view and so they should . People shouldnt take it
personally if one Author has a differing view form another . Thats what Author's do !. Some no doubt use Artistic Licence whereas others rely solely on the facts from Archives , Accounts , Diaries etc etc . Give
me the Primary sourced documents on every occasion . I hope I haven't offended anyone as that wasn't
what I've set out to do .
cheers 90th.

I will agree with 90th, everyone has an opinion and prejudices and preferences. Sometimes opinions can be changed by reasoned arguments and, (hopefully) facts.

I always rely more heavily on primary source material, my main area of interest is the US Frontier Indian Wars and most of the books and info I rely on are officers memoirs and those of the officers wives, which in a lot of causes are more enlightening and interesting than their husbands.

A friend turned me on to TWOTS by Morris and Evelyn Wood fascinated me, so I found 1st editions of From Midshipman to Field Marshall and Winnowed Memories and am still trying to get them in the rotation to read.

Eric, looks like you've got your answers as best as can be given. As an aside, 45govt - U.S. Frontier Indian Wars ? Does the 45govt represent the .45 calibre U.S. Cavalry sidearm, rather than British ammo ? I ask because I've not long read the Reno Court Of Inquiry, as well as Custer's actual Court Martial in 1868.

Hello ColinJ

45govt refers to the .45-70 cartridge, the original 45govt.
This is one of my rifles and carbines.

Eric
No the Cavaye orders are not true.
Yes the Durnford orders are true.
Because the Cavaye orders are forged (demonstrably) they cannot affect our understanding of the battle. ( Assuming of course any one can understand the battle that is)

All sorts of reasons that some one may have forged the orders, financial gain, influence history or probably my favorite excuse jst being an absolute Pratt.

I agree with 90th, I dont believe there are sectarian elements at work, obviously there are sides, for and against various participants in the war etc. Thats as it should be, everything to do with this infernal enigma is open to interpretation.

Some time back I welcomed a new guest with the phrase 'welcome to the eternal debate'. And thats what it is, take part and enjoy.

Regards


PS There are people on the forum that arent who they say they are, just trust your instincts.

45govt, nice images, are they working models ? I've not long purchased a book called Trapdoor Springfield by M.D. "Bud" Waite & B.D. Ernst. Do you know of it ?

I've received an avalanche of e-mails (mainly directly) over the last few days asking me to reconsider contributing to this site (and none asking me to stay away). It showed me what an open-minded and free-thinking membership it has. So I am prepared to return but not at the expense of not being able to state the truth. I've not broken any forum rules and don't intend to. I note the tenor of this particular thread and must add that any idea that this site has 'seen off an attack' is ludicrous (we are not at Rorke's Drift and I am not a Zulu I hasten to add).
Those of you who asked for copies of my Fake Order article and 1990 Durnford Papers article should all have received them by now. More generally I shall be publishing fairly soon a reprint of my earlier articles which are no longer so easily available and some new ones (including the two just mentioned). My intention is that any profit will go the RRW Museum.

Mr Whybra
I am asking out of ignorance and that is why I may need things spelt out.
I have been assured that the Durnford orders as they appear in Dr Greaves book are accurate.
I did not remember much of the discussion around the alleged Cavaye Pulline orders but I now understand that they are demonstrably forged.
I will re look at Dr Greaves book and if he has passed them off as true then that is not good to say the least.

Hi all.
I'll start the ball rolling , Julian kindly sent me his article dealing with the ' Pulleine - Cavaye ' message
and on reading his evidence I'm happy to think its not an original . Each member will need to make up
THEIR OWN MIND , not yelling , just wish to emphasise this point . You cant possibly have an opinion
unless you read the article !!!.
cheers 90th.

Does the order Mr Whybra sent out, read the same at the one that he claims to be a forgery

Hi Littlehand.
Yes , ask Julian to email it to you then make up YOUR own mind . As I said you need to read the article !.
cheers 90th.

Hi 24th.
The supposed '' Forgery '' is in the Greaves book , it being the order to Cavaye from Pulleine . There is ' NO ' correct one , ' for the simple reason 'it doesnt exist ' . What I'm trying to say is the order featured in Greaves
book seems to have legitimate doubts on its authenticity , according to Julian Whybra's evidence which he has brought forward. As I've stated ask Julian to send it to you and make up your own mind . Adrian Greaves may
have thought it to be an original , nothing wrong with that !. I dont have any issue with him thinking that .
Read the article from Julian and see what you come up with . Hope this helps to clear this affair up one way
or another .
cheers 90th.

I quite agree Eric. All writers make mistakes. I'm not accusing or attacking anyone. Errors easily happen. But unrectified errors get repeated and become the norm. Like Morris's confusion over A/E coys, Lieuts. Davies/Newnham Davis, and many others, which were endlessly repeated and took years in some cases to refute. The alleged Pulleine-Cavaye order was first published by Edmund Yorke in his 2001 book. I wrote my article in 2001. Yorke realized the order was a fake and it was deleted from the 2nd edition of his book in 2005. It misleads badly and needs to be unequivocably dustbinned.
I am happy to e-mail the article to named individuals through pm. I will not post it generally - I'm very careful over matters relating to intellectual copyright especially as it's due to be published soon anyway.

Don, many thanks for the answer and suggestions.

Hi
Saul David. You are wrong. If this is a democratic site, then people should be able to express their opinions on any authors they choose. As long as it's not abusive . Some books are indeed confusing with certain authors getting some facts completely wrong. If a member feels like commenting on the fact, then he should be allowed to do just that! It's that person's opinion, simple! It doesn't mean it's an attack, whatsoever, it's just, and I say, just, their opinion. Watch the debates in the house of common's. Now, there's real back-stabbing, dirty attacks by the members in that place. But it's allowed ,because we all live in a democratic country. Freedom of speech, that's what it is.

Would those who have indicated they'd like a copy of the 2001 article PLEASE ask me DIRECT thorugh the pm and supply their e-mail addresses.
Thanks.

Runner 2

Your quite right, this forum is based on the princles of robust debate and honesty. I dont have a problem with being critisized for my theories or statements as long as those critics are backed with source material not nebulous quotes from third or forth generation rumours.
I doubt there are any of the members that would take pleasure in curtailment of freedom of speech.
Enjoy the forum.

Regards