WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

Film Zulu Dawn:Lt. Col. Pulleine: His Lordship is of the cetain opinion that it's far too difficult an approach to be chosen by the Zulu command.Col. Durnford: Yes, well... difficulty never deterred a Zulu commander.
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
» Rorke's Drift
Today at 2:54 pm by xhosa2000

» Farnborough Hill
Yesterday at 2:10 am by 90th

» Captain Walter Stafford NNC medals
Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:04 am by 90th

» Gerald French, liar or not?
Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:24 pm by Frank Allewell

» A bit more fun research!
Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:22 am by rusteze

» Trooper H. Boik (NMP) and Dartnell patrol Isandlwana, 22 January 1879
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:55 am by whizz-bang

» Norris-Newman
Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:52 pm by Kenny

» Some fun research
Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:47 am by Frank Allewell

» Isipezi Hill
Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:19 pm by ALLENG

» Zulu shield question
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:03 am by SRB1965

» Buyer beware!..
Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:47 pm by xhosa2000

» Colonel Farquhar Glennie
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:48 pm by SRB1965

» A number of SAGS for Sale at C Dixons
Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:38 pm by xhosa2000

» Zulu Arts & Crafts Event.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:50 pm by 24th foot

» Sir Henry Evelyn Wood VC, GCB, GCMG
Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:37 pm by xhosa2000

Captain Ronald G.E. Campbell, Coldstream Guards. killed at Hlobane
[Mac & Shad] Captain Ronald G.E. Campbell, Coldstream Guards --killed at Hlobane (Mac and Shad) (Isandula Collection)
Rob Caskie at a Showcase Event 2014
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Top posters
90th
 
littlehand
 
Frank Allewell
 
ADMIN
 
Chelmsfordthescapegoat
 
John
 
Mr M. Cooper
 
1879graves
 
impi
 
rusteze
 
Fair Use Notice
Fair use notice. This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website. If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution.
Top posting users this month
90th
 
xhosa2000
 
Frank Allewell
 
rusteze
 
John Young
 
Tee
 
SRB1965
 
24th foot
 
ALLENG
 
Kenny
 
Most active topics
Isandlwana, Last Stands
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
Durnford was he capable.5
Durnford was he capable.1
Durnford was he capable. 3
Durnford was he capable.2
Durnford was he capable. 4
The ammunition question
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
The missing five hours.

Share | 
 

 Sectarian camps

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
90th

avatar

Posts : 9274
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Sectarian Camps .   Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:47 pm

Hi Pete.
No doubt the purchaser bought the item in good faith , just glad it wasnt me . I wouldnt imagine it
would be a cheap buy so more than likely he thought ( Purchaser ) it was legitimate .
cheers 90th.

Ps. The purchaser has admitted he may destroy it in front of witnesses , I for one wouldnt have a problem
with that , or he could store it away listing it is a fake so this doesnt happen again in the future . I feel very
sorry for the original purchaser if he did buy on good faith .
Back to top Go down
ADMIN

avatar

Posts : 3578
Join date : 2008-11-01
Age : 58
Location : KENT

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:38 pm

Quote :
Ps. The purchaser has admitted he may destroy it in front of witnesses , I for one wouldnt have a problem with that , or he could store it away listing it is a fake so this doesnt happen again in the future . I feel very sorry for the original purchaser if he did buy on good faith.



Hi 90th.
I personally would get it confirmed by professional body that knew about the authentication of documents. Like you say if it was genuine it would be worth a great deal.
But I would need to know for sure. I personally could not destroy a possible historic document based on a forum discussion.
Back to top Go down
http://www.1879zuluwar.com
Dave

avatar

Posts : 1606
Join date : 2009-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:57 pm

Just out of interest.

"Determining the date of creation of a document is rarely possible. There is certainly no general method for dating ink or typescript. It may be possible to find indirect evidence of age,"
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:48 pm

Springbok

No, you don’t get selective. You accept that at the time of writing there was a lack of information regarding the two ‘missing’ companies and he was unable to make any progress in that matter. That would be in perfect accord with verbatim acceptance. He’s not trying to say there ARE two missing companies – he’s simply saying he has no information received on them.
Cavaye’s posting to the ridge as a picquet is a different matter.

90th

Thanks too for all the additional items re French, etc. Though all perfectly true and valid, they are ‘accessories after the fact’. They may colour one’s opinion or affect one’s acceptance of the facts, but they cannot in themselves alter the fact that in the summary in a passage attributable to Essex it stated that Cavaye was ordered on to the ridge by Durnford. That is one’s point of departure. Many historians and writers have missed it, some do not like it, others have chosen to ignore it. It may at some future point be proven to be false but one cannot at the moment refute it.

The fake order's owner in 2001 (at the time of my writing the article) offered to destroy it in front of witnesses. I cannot speak for the current owner.

Admin

Yes.

Colin J

If Durnford-Pulleine decided they wanted a stronger more reliable picquet on the ridge then it does make sense.
The Melvill conversation was relating to Durnford’s request to TAKE two Imperial coys with him(!) – which would clearly exceed Pulleine’s orders.

Dave

As I said, I’m not at home at the moment and don’t have access to my notes. From memory I believe the ‘others’ were the CoI members – Hassard, Law, and Harness – as convened on the 23rd. Perhaps 90th who quoted the passage has that info more readily to hand. I should be back midweek.

Oldhistorian2

I can categorically state that the framed picture of the 8.05 genuine order at the exhibition as per the photo on this website was NOT the original. Someone may have told you it was but they were incorrect. If you had ever seen the original or had read my article then you would know that from the evidence of your own eyes.
I do not know whether the framed picture of the fake alleged order was the original. I have seen framed copies of it for sale. The original is in a private collection. You would have to ask the current owner directly if he'd let it go on display at the exhibition.

Chard

No-one is saying the 8.05 order is a fake. It lies in the RRW Museum.
It is the alleged Pulleine-Cavaye 11.30 order which is a fake.
I suggest you read from the beginning of this thread to avoid any further confusion.

Admin

I would say that the fake should definitely not be destroyed. It. may be key in identifying other fakes in the future.

All (incl Colin J)

So, no-one wants to make comment on my challenge about provenance?
And no-one wants to make any comment about the total lack of any record of any Wilsone-Black Archive or Wilsone-Black Papers? Try googling them.
The above are the two single most important questions one should ask. I have in fact asked them earlier on this thread.
The answers to these two questions are:
No-one has offered a single word on provenance apart from the fake order having come from the mysterious 'Wilsone-Black Papers'.
And...
there is no such thing as the Wilsone-Black Papers.
I challenge any of you to disprove my two answers.
It's quite ludicrous that this fake order ever saw the light of day let alone be reproduced and be placed on display.
Back soon.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:15 pm

Julian. Perhaps you could answer, no one else seems to know.

"A company of the 1-24th was now ordered to advance on to the eastern neck of the Isandhlwana Hill, where it joined the ridge on which the Zulus were, and it also came into action with the right wing of the enermy which was advancing anlong the northside of Isandlwana.
Would this have been Cavaye's company and others."
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:34 pm

Here is the whole text.

"At about 10 o'clock Colonel Durnford's mounted men reappeared on the crest of the hill, closely followed by the Zulu's who are describe as swarming over the centre ridge like bees, "A company of the 1-24th was now ordered to advance on to the eastern neck of the Isandhlwana Hill, where it joined the ridge on which the Zulus were, and it also came into action with the right wing of the enermy which was advancing anlong the northside of Isandlwana."

I recall reading that Durnford had rode into camp between 10:00-10:30 can't recall exactly, and the discovery of the Zulu Army was around 11:30hrs

If Durnford had been seen at 10, o'clock retreating back to the camp. where would Cavaye's company had been around this time.
Back to top Go down
old historian2

avatar

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2009-01-14
Location : East London

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:01 pm

Not sure where he would have been at that time. But its stated that the withdraw down the spur would have started around 12:30. So that would be 2.5 hours when the Zulu's were chasing Durnford. That's going by your 10'oclock article.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:03 pm

Julian, yes the conversation between Durnford and Melvill was about the former's wanting to take two companies that is clear. However, not wishing to strip the camp of these two companies to begin with, I don't see them allowing Durnford to request a 24th company away from the camp at all, even to the ridge, as if he had done, it is this we would have seen Melvill objecting to, as he did with the former request. With them having denied Durnford the two companies in the first place, with Melvill speaking up, why would they then send Cavaye's company to the ridge followed by Mostyn's, the very thing they were actually preventing Durnford from taking, albeit further from the camp ? It can only have been by Pulliene's order backed up by Melvill, who must have been content with this alternative, particularly with it being made by Pulliene, not Durnford. Many appear to assume that when Durnford said 'Very well then, I'll take my own men' he meant only those in No.2 Column, not including native units from No.3 Column, but he did take Barry's, so he must have wanted a similar native unit as a replacement, therefore, not using Pulliene's Imperial soldiers (which were his men). So why wasn't Krohn's company sent, as they would have been in the role of a lookout, not an isolated company of regulars, that risked being cut off, depleting the camp of vital professional soldiers, to maintain cohesion, as a solid definsive wall. I don't think we've had the full conversation from the HQ tent at all, regarding this issue, only bits. Your other point, which includes myself, is that the topic has been so 'chewed up' and entangled with some mysterious posts supplying misinformation, has just lost us in confusion. It's a pity there is no way to remove the detailed posts required to make any conclusions of worth, that way, excluding the ones which are hindering clear thought.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:23 pm

The mysterious posts being by kwaJimu. Suspect
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:34 pm

Little hand

You’ve just caught me before I return to duty.
You have quoted an extract presumably from a secondary work – it is certainly not from a primary source. And it is of course perfect nonsense. It either contains a typo or it’s from a contemporary newspaper that was printing everything and anything that came its way.
At 10 am Durnford was still on his way to Isandhlwana, so you can see how badly awry your extract is.
Until you tell me the source I am unable to comment on it.

Colin J

But it wasn’t ‘stripping the camp’. It was ten minutes away up a slope to a point which commanded a view and could protect and forewarn the camp.

Whilst it was perfectly reasonable for Melvill to object to Durnford’s taking two companies off on a couple of hours’ march across the plain (as he did) I can not see him objecting to a sound strategic move of a coy to a ridge (where there was already a company on picquet duty, and had been all night when the camp was under Chelmsford’s orders) which was viewed as PART OF THE CAMP’S DEFENCE.
It was not the very thing that they were preventing Durnford from taking. It was precisely the opposite.

Shepstone did take Barry’s coy on to the plateau and therefore a replacement for Barry’s men was essential. Remember that one of the last moves the Zulus were reported to have made was that a column had moved to the north-west? Well, an eye needed to be kept open for that mobile and mysterious column lest it take the camp unawares. There is no earthly reason why you should write “he must have wanted a similar native unit as a replacement”. If anything a professional eye was required at the top of the ridge.
You are also contradicting yourself. First you say Pulleine and Melvill would never have agreed to sending out two companies. Then you say it was Pulleine’s order backed up by Melvill to send out two companies. You can’t have it both ways.

You are also half-quoting Pulleine. He relented and promised to help Durnford “should he get into difficulties”.

You wrote that the move to the ridge created “an isolated company of regulars, that risked being cut off, depleting the camp of vital professional soldiers, to maintain cohesion, as a solid definsive wall”. But Cavaye was not isolated (he got back to camp within 10 mins didn’t he?), he was not in a position whereby he might be cut off (he retreated in good order; an NNC coy might not have – look at Barry’s coy!); the camp was not depleted of soldiers (they were swift enough to return quickly and they formed part of the camp's perimeter); cohesion was maintained; and the solid defensive wall was created (albeit facing the plateau and utterly uselss).

You wrote “Your other point, which includes myself, is that the topic has been so 'chewed up' and entangled with some mysterious posts supplying misinformation, has just lost us in confusion.” I’m sorry but that was not me. I did not post that comment. That can be laid at somebody else's door.

You wrote “It's a pity there is no way to remove the detailed posts required to make any conclusions of worth, that way, excluding the ones which are hindering clear thought.”
I agree

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:52 pm

Julian, they didn't get back in good order, but were intermingled with other units at a run. Even Essex ended up separated. The speed of Zulus could have cut off the two companies, if they hadn't the N.N.H. delaying to Zulus crossing the palteau, as well as the Colonial mounted force that could have been at the top of the spur, as Pulliene wouldn't have known the N.N.H. would return in that direction in the first place, when first placing Cavaye then Mostyn on the ridge, as Mostyn hadn't been in action but 5 minutes, before being ordered back. Why send himm, to bring him back again, immediately ? Surely, best to withdraw Cavaye not support him ? Mostyn could instead have been placed in a similar fashion as Younghusband near the bottom of the spur. Yes, Pulliene at first never agreed with Durnford's request, as did Melvill, but as an afterthought could have sent a 24th company to the ridge instead, with Melvill agreeing. Better a decision made by 24th officers in charge of the camp, not compelled to by an Engineer officer, which I'm sure they would have found objectionable to begin with. Durnford wasn't going to interfere with Pulliene's command, as he stated. Durnford wasn't in difficulties then, nor, I don't think, did Pulliene expect him to be, or many more actions on the latter's part, would have taken place before his arrival. The second last sentence in your post referring to the other point, was badly worded by me, as it was meant as an explanation of my lack of input, not quoting you. My apologies. I never was good at writing as I'm bad enough at talking. :)
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:18 pm

Colin

“Julian, they didn't get back in good order, but were intermingled with other units at a run.”
I MUST ASK YOU TO GIVE A PRIMARY SOURCE FOR THIS COMMENT. ACCORDING TO ESSEX’S OWN WORDS, WHEN HE REACHED THE FOOT OF THE SPUR HE FOUND CAVAYE AND MOSTYN’S MEN DRAWN UP IN EXTENDED ORDER OVER 400 YARDS AWAY WITH YOUNGHUSBAND EXTENDED ON THEIR LEFT REAR. DOESN’T SOUND LIKE THEY WERE NOT IN GOOD ORDER TO ME.

“Even Essex ended up separated.”
HE DID NOT. HE HAD DIFFICULTY IN CONTROLLING HIS HORSE.

The speed of Zulus could have cut off the two companies, if they hadn't the N.N.H. delaying to Zulus crossing the palteau, as well as the Colonial mounted force”
BUT THEY WEREN’T CUT OFF. NOTE THAT IT WAS PULLEINE’S DEPLOYMENT OF THE TWO GUNS AND A COY WHICH COVERED THE RETREAT DOWN THE SPUR. THE NNH REMAINED A FEW SECONDS MORE ON THE RIDGE TO FIRE A LAST FEW VOLLEYS INTO THE ZULUS AND THEN FOLLOWED THE SOLDIERS.

“Why send them, to bring them back again, immediately ?”
BECAUSE WHEN THEY WERE SENT OUT THE ZULUS WERE NOT YET VISIBLE. IT WAS AT THIS SAME TIME THAT THEY SUDDENLY BECAME APPARENT MASSING ON THE SKYLINE. JUST BELOW THEM WERE TWO LARGE HOLLOWS WHERE THE HEADWATERS OF THE DONGAS WERE. IF OCCUPIED THE ZULUS COULD MASS IN DEAD GROUND AND, YES, MAYBE, CUT OFF THE COYS ON THE RIDGE. THAT DANGER AND THE REALIZATION OF THE TRUE STRENGTH OF THE ENEMY CAUSED THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE RIDGE.

“Yes, Pulliene at first never agreed with Durnford's request, as did Melvill, but as an afterthought could have sent a 24th company to the ridge instead, with Melvill agreeing.”
BUT HE DIDN’T. PULLEINE’S OBEYING DURNFORD’S ORDER TO SEND CAVAYE TO THE RIDGE WAS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PULLEINE’S DEMURRAL OVER GIVING HIM TWO COMPANIES AS AN ESCORT ACROSS THE PLAIN.

“Better a decision made by 24th officers in charge of the camp, not compelled to by an Engineer officer, which I'm sure they would have found objectionable to begin with.”
THIS IS YOUR IMAGINATION IN OVERDRIVE, I THINK (NO OFFENCE). THESE WERE PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS. DURNFORD REALIZED HE WAS SUPERIOR IN TERMS OF COMMAND BUT DIDN’T PUSH IT. HE WASN’T STAYING IN CAMP.


Last edited by Julian Whybra on Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:04 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:41 pm

Julian, I feel as though I've just been reprimanded for misbehaviour in class. Shocked I'd be wrong to try and question you further on this matter, or add my own conclusions, as I do think historians deserve historians in some debates. Best to get back on the subject of the forged order now. Idea Perhaps the starting of a new topic ? However, I fear it might have run it's course somewhat, due to the distraction of several confusing posts. scratch I wish I was able to give more input on this latter subject, but lack any sort of proper knowledge on how to discuss it, even with my complete agreement about the conclusions in your paper. I'm well out of my depth now. All the best.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Quote :
It either contains a typo or it’s from a contemporary newspaper that was printing everything and anything that came its way

Well, bang goes that line of thought, but I guess your right.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:53 pm

Can we really rely on Essex. Didn't I read somewhere on this thread that the next day he changed his story in front of witnesses when interviewed by Chelmsford, was there any chance he was spoken to prior to the meeting with Chelmsford. Not to happy with someone changing there story.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:58 pm

Colin
Not at all. Profuse apologies. I didn't mean to give that impression. With so many quotations and questions coming at me, I found it difficult to manage the logistics of replying clearly - I thought upper case would help - I didn't mean to shout!
The trouble with whole Durnford-Cavaye-ridge question is that so many early writers/historians missed the summary/Essex statement altogether except Jackson of course (he's so THOROUGH that man!) and he published in the little-known JSAHR and was overshadowed by Morris, more's the pity.
My starting point is always primary sources. If negations are proven or evidence of alternatives presented then I revise accordingly. Durnford ordered Cavaye to the ridge according to Essex. That's where I start from until someone proves it otherwise. Arguments and opinions and suggestions aren't enough.
I hope to post more regularly from Thursday morning.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:01 pm

Little hand

Source please! Quoting what someone said on this thread just doesn't cut the mustard! Essex didn't change his story. You can be happy with him again!
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:02 pm

Julian, between 12:00 & 12:30 where would put Cavaye, what would he had been doing around that time.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:08 pm

Little hand

At 12 E coy is firing to his front on the ridge. One section was detached 400 yards to the left. It was joined by F coy at about 12.15-12.20. At about 12.25 a VERBAL message from Pulleine was delivered by Melvill to Cavaye to withdraw the line to the foot of the spur. This was completed 12.30-12.35.
That covers your timings.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:13 pm

Quote :
Little hand
Source please! Quoting what someone said on this thread just doesn't cut the mustard! Essex didn't change his story. You can be happy with him again!

I will have to re- read some of the posts, I might have read the comment wrongly. But it was you that said it, along the lines, that Essex was called to RD.


PS. Colin. Pull yer trousers up, and wipe your nose. :lol!:
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:20 pm

Little hand

Doesn't sound like me because Essex wasn't "called to RD".
On the escaping officers thread I stated where the five Imperial officers went and didn't go. I might have mentioned that Essex did NOT call in at RD.
Puzzled.
Back to top Go down
24th

avatar

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:22 pm

Sorry gent's. I can see this discussion is in full swing. But have to say, Littlehand's comment to Colin, did make me laugh. He's such a tw** he just throws them in at a point when needed. Anyway carry on with your mud pies.
:lol!:
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:35 pm

LH, I want my mum ! :lol!: Thanks for lightening the subject a bit, as humour is always welcomed.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:40 pm

Little hand

I recall now. Essex was called to RD on the 23rd to give verbal evidence - to answer specific questions put to him.
His statement to the CoI is dated the 24th. There is no discrepancy between the two. There are simply some extra details in both - but NO discrepancies.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:03 pm

So Durnford arrives at Isandlwana around 10am takes over command.

A disagreement relating to Durnford wanting two companies of the 24th develops, which results in Dunrford leaving at 11:00am with just his own companies.

Just before he leaves, Durnford orders Cavaye 1st/24th to move to the heights some 1,500 yards North of the camp. 

At 12:00 Dunford is still outside the camp. The rest of the camp were not doing  much mostly standing idle and arranging dinner.

Raw's troops come across the Zulu army.

Capt: Shepstone and Hamer Bring the news of the Zulu Army  approaching.

Cavaye's company engages, firing from the ridge into the Zulu crossing in the  valley below.

Mostyn was sent out to support Cavaye's company on the ridge.

About the same time Mostyn, arrived a company of NNC arrived.

About 5 mins after Mostyn had joined up with Cavaye's company which would have been around 12:20 pm Orders were received for the troops on the heights to retire slowly, because the enemy appeared to be threatening the front if the camp it would now be around 12:45. 

Hopefully some of you will understand where I'm going.
I'm now struggling to see where the 11:30 order would come in to it. Nothing was really happening to warrant this order. If Cavaye arrived on the heights around 11:20 that's giving him time to climb to the ridge that was 1'500 yards away.  The 11:30 order would have been received by him 25 mins later at 11:45 but there was still nothing happening. So again I say I cannot see the reason for the 11 :30 order. 

Hope this make sense. 
Please remember, I only normally contribute to the reference side, but i'm willing to have a go.

My own conclusion. "Fake"

Back to top Go down
Dave

avatar

Posts : 1606
Join date : 2009-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:33 pm

I know it been said it was verbal order. But was to say it wasn't a written order and the persons to whom it was given to take to Cavaye signed it as received at 11:45am. ( Just a thought)
Back to top Go down
24th

avatar

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:54 pm

So the messenger would have 35 mins to carry the order to Cavaye. Not forgetting Cavey would have been fairly busy up there.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:02 am

LH, well done for having a go. You've inspired me to give a straight answer regarding my own conclusion about this written order, but with nothing to back it up on my part. Therefore, I'll start by saying, this written order is definitely a fake, but not only that, I think it is a bad fake. Why ? It is almost like it's creator has deliberately got facts wrong in the written message, though presented it in an apparently original piece of paper, for people to puzzle over. A sort of April Fool's joke that not only lasted a day, but a year, and every year after. I call things like this 'mischief history', which are intended to create a ripple-effect in the study of historical facts, by presenting something that bizarrely, goes full circle to the point of being believed to be fact, due to it continually appearing. I end by saying that I think this order was not created to be a forgery, but as a red herring by a joker, that has went too far. How's this for a fly in the ointment ? Suspect
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:43 am

Little hand
Your conclusions are correct. Now you can see why I wrote the article.
Two small points of information - Durnford was at the camp from 10.30 to 11.30 (not 10-11).

Dave
The recipient (Cavaye in this case) would ALWAYS have to initial to show receipt. There are no initials. another mistake by the forger.

24th
No. 5-10 minutes. Read the article.

Colin
Exactly.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:17 pm

Hi all

Littlehands comment to Colin had me in stitches, very funny indeed, and Colin took it in the same light heared way, well done Colin mate.
I am still chuckling at it even has I write. It brought back to mind a time during my schooldays when one of the 'naughty boys' in the class got his cheeks reddened with the pump, the look on his face was a picture when he stood upright again, and littlehands comment brought it all back, very funny, thanks LH.

Colin
You have got it right when you say that the order was not created to be a forgery, but as a red herring by a joker which has gone too far and put a fly in the ointment. That is what I meant when I said earlier that it had thrown a spanner in the works and had lead folk up the garden path. Kwajimu said that he had witnessed this document being taken away and re-dated, then returned to the glass case with the date changed from 1897 to 1879, which to me says that it must be a fake.

Regards

Martin.
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2554
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:24 pm

Of course, this doe's not prove the order is fake, is just opinions on a discussion forum. Some other documents may come to light that proves the document to be genuine. I personally have never had much faith in the timing given by certain individuals relating to events at Isandlwana. Good thread but not conclusive.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:29 pm

Martin
His memory was a little at fault. It originally said 1889, the second 8 was altered to a 7. This is clearly visible in the first edition of Yorke's book.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:53 pm

Hi Julian

Thanks for that, much appreciated.

Regards

Martin.
Back to top Go down
Dave

avatar

Posts : 1606
Join date : 2009-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:31 pm

After this rather lengthy debate,as to wether or not the 11:30 order is fake. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would be in the form of a poll. Even though it was asked by Julian to request a copy of his document from him, many of us got them from other members, but i'm fairly certain Julian guest that. Has Julians evidence convinced us it's fake.
Back to top Go down
24th

avatar

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:11 am

No need for a poll. I think now Littlehand has simplified the issue some what, by saying the 11:30 order had no reason for being written at that time, because at that stage, nothing was happening. Why it was written and pushed in to circulation who knows. I obtained a copy of Julian's paper and it does read well. But like everything else connected with the Zulu War, you just never know was going to be found next.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:47 am

I hadn't guessed that my article was being passed around. I had specifically asked for that not to be done. When you see this framed fake on sale at fairs I would urge you to brave the stallholders' jeers and point out that it is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Little hand
I would be interested in knowing the source of the quotation you made that was so off the mark. It might be useful in the future to know from where this sort of wild error emanates.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:47 pm

Quote :
I would be interested in knowing the source of the quotation you made that was so off the mark. It might be useful in the future to know from where this sort of wild error emanates.

Which one.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:58 pm

LH, I had an answer here regarding your last post, but removed it as it wasn't related to your question after all.
Back to top Go down
24th

avatar

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:20 am

Quote :
Pulleine ordered Degacher to send Mostyn's F Company scurrying up the ridge to reinforce Cavaye, and a mounted orderly to the camp for extra ammunition
At what time would this have occurred.
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:18 am

24th
About 12.15-12.20
Little hand
I'd like to know the origin of this quotation that you supplied please. It's so drastically wrong it must either come from a second-hand 1879 newspaper account or a modern paperback throwaway history:
"At about 10 o'clock Colonel Durnford's mounted men reappeared on the crest of the hill, closely followed by the Zulu's who are describe as swarming over the centre ridge like bees...A company of the 1-24th was now ordered to advance on to the eastern neck of the Isandhlwana Hill, where it joined the ridge on which the Zulus were, and it also came into action with the right wing of the enermy which was advancing anlong the northside of Isandlwana."
Back to top Go down
24th

avatar

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:53 am

Littlehands, source, was from one of the newspaper articles he posted from 1879,
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:20 pm

Little hand
I'd like confirmation from you - the text doesn't sound quite right from the 19th century.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:43 pm

Julian. Apologies for delay.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:08 pm

'The Wanganui Chronicle' - well, I might have guessed!
Back to top Go down
Drummer Boy 14

avatar

Posts : 1905
Join date : 2011-08-01
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:09 pm

Does anyone know how this order suddenly came to light??

Was it found in a museum or was it put on ebay??



Cheers
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:22 pm

Drummer boy - if you are referring to the order to send F coy up the spur - then it is known about through the testimony of the various escaping officers.
Back to top Go down
Drummer Boy 14

avatar

Posts : 1905
Join date : 2011-08-01
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:26 pm

Hi Julian

I ment the fake order

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Cheers
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2309
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:17 pm

It has not been proven that this document is fake. I think we should wait until Julians publication comes out at the end of the month. Idea
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:45 am

Drummer boy
Your question has already been answered earlier in the forum (and in the article I sent you).
Impi
Really! It is an obvious fake! One only has to read its content.
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6422
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:50 am

Impi
Its about as genuine as the letter sent to Durnford by Cetshwayo

Regards
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Sectarian camps   

Back to top Go down
 
Sectarian camps
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM  :: GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA-
Jump to: