The missing five hours.

Sorry senile moment. Was looking at one thing and replying to another.
Broad outlines yep, it could have been that type of co ordination and yes it is possible that both battles were a result of accident ( hapanstance? is that a word).
Its just that I believe isandlwana was more a result of oportunism from ntshingwayo, he saw, he modified, he conquered. With appologies to Julius.

Cheers

Les. Your Probaly not aware, but just thought it a good idea to bring to your attention. Click on link below!

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

The problem would be solved if PeterQ and Ron Lock. Join this forum. TMFH topic on here can only go so far without the authors. There are many on here who would like to go deeper.  

"TMFH topic on here can only go so far without the authors"
Very true John!

If they were located at X markes the spot, how closer to the camp would the Zulus have been, compaired to the original valley.

Hiya john,24th,please dont worry, i post of my own
volition,if Alan or Peter have a problem with my
honest dissemination of knowledge which is in my
opinion in the public domain then they can contact
me..and if im legally OBLIGED to, i will desist.

No axe to grind..the topic has invited debate on
both forums, and people here who would not know
that even non members can view topics in that
' other place ' but dont feel comfortable to do so
can follow the debate and stay up to speed on
what all are saying..do you think its a coincidence
that interested parties have come out to play..

admin i will of course be advised by you, and thats
called democracy. cheers xhosa

Les I would post tne link rather than the text? The RDVC is a public domain. So no real problem with a link!

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

With reference to the delayed attack, would this have not been the most sensible form of attack. It's possible that the Zulus delayed their attack to ensure LC column couldnt return to assist to quickly. When they did attack LC was to far away to do anything. And let's face it, there was so much activity in the camp, no one really knew what the Zulu were up to.

And with reference to the cattle chasing, are the cattle not taken into the laagar for protection before a battle. Infact it possibly adds weight to the argument, that the Zulu had planned to attack.

I don't think Mike Snook really has added anything, that shows TMFH has being incorrect! It's just personal observations.

Les, stick with the links, It's easier to follow for those that wish to.

Good point regarding, letting LC get far enough away to be unable to reinforce the camp!

But come on !!. Peter Q's reply, is of pure excellence! Whatever argument is put up against the evidence, L & Q have a good argument to suggest otherwise. I think it was Pete (Admin) who stated when TMFH first came about, that a simular document would have to be created to show TMFH to be incorrect! To-date no one has!

john,24th,admin. thank you.
although i will do and say
what i want to,and anytime,
i will do that. i hear what
you are saying,and out of
respect will withdraw from
this highlighting.trusting
that all who wish to part-
icipate in this popular red-
herring have the knowledge
that they can see all that is
being said.the two (three)
but really two main sluggers
have just rode into town and
fired their latest salvo's.

sorry..not..democracy.not self
advertizing. cheers xhosa

If they were going to delay the attack to allow LC to get far away enough to not being able to come back, they were doing a bad job. If Pulleine had put the actual number that was reported, LC might of turned around and could have had plenty of time to make it back. I like Lt. Col. Mike Snook's theory and to me makes the most sense.

Commander Howse

CH wrote:

"I like Lt. Col. Mike Snook's theory and to me makes the most sense."

But it's just a theory?

Mike Snooks HCMDB is a brilliant book, however he errs in atributing his own words as fact, the book suffers badly in terms of footnotes. But look at it as a more than plausible explanation of the battle itself and its brilliant. Just dont take it as gospel, it aint.
TMFHT on the other hand uses pretty hard fact to bolster its argument, it does at times delve into fantasy but thats more about the so called decoy.

read the two as one and you have a pretty damned perfect battle scenario............oh yes keep David Jackson on the side while you do.  

Cheers

The fact that no one has yet put forward a counter argument! That disputes the excellent work complied by the two authors says it all! 
It works for me. 

Perhaps we should obtain permission to add TMFH to the essay section, as mentioned before. 

To nobody..Loose Lips Sinks Ships...

Hi littlehand no permission needed,
its in the public domain..counter
argument..Snook.
cheers xhosa

Littlehand,

I'll e-mail PQ and RL see what they think about their work appearing on the forum.

Before it gets out of hand.

'Jimu

kwajimu1879.out of hand.really.
cheers xhosa

Les,

If you read what Peter and Ron explicitly written regarding the reproduction of their piece you can see what I mean.

Just because something appears on the internet does not make it 'Fair Use' see Peter's advice on the sidebar below.

I have made them aware of the parallel debate which is going on this forum.

I have e mailed them both so let us see how they respond and hopefully they will get involved in the debate.

'Jimu

Jim, good thinking. However before posting the TMFH I did seek permission from the authors. 

I'm more than sure, they would have no problem with us debating their work! 

I can't see a problem with members posting links to the RDVC in line with the discussion! After all it's free advertising for them! 

We are all fighting the same battles albeit 134 years on!

Les,

If you read what Peter and Ron explicitly written regarding the reproduction of their piece you can see what I mean.

Just because something appears on the internet does not make it 'Fair Use' see Peter's advice on the sidebar below.

I have made them aware of the parallel debate which is going on this forum.

I have e mailed them both so let us see how they respond and hopefully they will get involved in the debate.

'Jimu


kwajimu1879. " just because something appears on the internet does not make it fair use "

Its in the public Domain..Pandora's Box.no wish to offend, what you suggest is entirely fair.
and in the current climate ' to hold fire ' seems to have the consensus. warm regards xhos
admin and ALL welcome aboard the good ship free speech and democracy.

That's it Les, they can take away our land, but they can't takeaway out FREEDOM !!!!

All those takeaways has made me hungry  

old historian2 lol.Les cheers.

mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 871

Post Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:07 pm Reply with quote

Ron and Peter

Dropping by to acknowledge your responses but nothing further from me until (probably) tomorrow as I've promised myself an early night! And look at the time already.

Regards as ever

Mike

P.S. Except to say, immediately, that I have in no sense disparaged Evelyn Wood. Naughty.
View user's profileSend private message

Les, it seems to me that you are missing the RDVC. Why keep do you keep copying their posts and putting them on here can't see the point.
Freedom of speech and all that, but you ain't saying nothing. Anyone can read the information on that site.

You mean " Why do you "  good point though, les, why do you copy their posts 

ctsg/john.good morning,i would of thought
that was obvious..my only thought was to
bring together the debate.why do i KEEP
copying their post i DONT..i am totally
against censorship under any disguise. i
selected a few posts from RDVC as part
of a stratagem in order to widen debate.

there is such a thing as the bigger picture
the big guns are coming back, and i for one
welcome that. miss the other place.nah im
emotionally detached from such feelings.
im not into personality's just the AZW.

finally, john what is it you wish me to say,i
have a comfortable all round knowledge of
the AZW..so will continue to stick my neb
in from time to time..if thats alright ..
cheers xhosa

sorry john..the last was for ctsg.

Les, Just post the link, rather than the text.  

Hiya Pete, no problem, my exercise
is over, i have stood down.lol.
cheers xhosa

" Four miles away from parallel to the east, the Carabineers had discovered the right tip of the impi climbing up one of the slopes leading to a stream crossing the second valley. They had been watching a group of about 200 warriors retreating towards the Ngwebeni Valley. This had made some men nervous, thinking that it was just a Zulu manoeuvre to lead them away from the camp and then ambush them. Baker, a soldier of the Carabineers and member of this group of scouts was among them.”

He writes.
“ Approximately two hundred Zulu headed towards us from some three hundred paces away; but as we advanced, they disappeared out of sight. One of our men climbed up the hill where they had disappeared and on a hill further away; at approximately 600 paces, we saw an enormous army sitting down. We returned with Lieutenant Scott, covering what were then the three miles back to camp and informed him about what we had seen.”

There was a third witness who said he saw an enormous impi before one o’clock in the morning, without be sighted by them. He was a rider from the mounted unit known as the Buffalo Border Guard, by the name of Arthur Adams. He had been galloping along the outpost watches and by climbing about five miles from Isandlwana, which he descries as a high hill, overlooking the deep valley, he saw an enormous Zulu Army that he estimated to be at least 25.000 to 30.000 warriors. He returned to camp and informed an imperial officer, whose name is unknown, who ignored him completely. He must have thought that the colonial volunteer had told him something crazy.

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

It's a pity this can only go down as speculation! Of course in the real world, wouldn't you go and speak to another officer, just to get your point across! Sir I would like to report 25-30,000 Zulus coming our way!!!

impi wrote:

" Four miles away from parallel to the east, the Carabineers had discovered the right tip of the impi climbing up one of the slopes leading to a stream crossing the second valley. They had been watching a group of about 200 warriors retreating towards the Ngwebeni Valley. This had made some men nervous, thinking that it was just a Zulu manoeuvre to lead them away from the camp and then ambush them. Baker, a soldier of the Carabineers and member of this group of scouts was among them.”

He writes.
“ Approximately two hundred Zulu headed towards us from some three hundred paces away; but as we advanced, they disappeared out of sight. One of our men climbed up the hill where they had disappeared and on a hill further away; at approximately 600 paces, we saw an enormous army sitting down. We returned with Lieutenant Scott, covering what were then the three miles back to camp and informed him about what we had seen.”

There was a third witness who said he saw an enormous impi before one o’clock in the morning, without be sighted by them. He was a rider from the mounted unit known as the Buffalo Border Guard, by the name of Arthur Adams. He had been galloping along the outpost watches and by climbing about five miles from Isandlwana, which he descries as a high hill, overlooking the deep valley, he saw an enormous Zulu Army that he estimated to be at least 25.000 to 30.000 warriors. He returned to camp and informed an imperial officer, whose name is unknown, who ignored him completely. He must have thought that the colonial volunteer had told him something crazy.

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

I would say Adams. Spoke to Pulleine , when he returned to the camp?

Did these 25,000-30,000 Zulus travel as one, or did they arrive from various locations.

I have been following McCabe and Snook debate on TMFH. 

There doesn't seem to have been any new ground covered, it's two Historians giving their opinion, but providing no evidence to prove their statements  Going back to when TMFH I believe Admin mentioned something along the lines, that if TMFH was to be disproved, a document simular to TMFH would have to be produced. Todate this has not been done. Springbok says the missing five hours works for him, and he has possibly cover the Battlefield more than most. Mike Snook can't and will never agree with TMFH. His books are based on what he thinks took place in some cases with no evidence to substantiate what he says.

Never heard of McCabe. But again his debate, is his only personal observations as to why it didn't happen. For me L & Q have nothing to prove, they have done that. It's for those who dispute their finding to prove it ? 

TMFH is still one of the most important documents relating to the Battle of Isandlwana.

Impi
Well done.  
I dont believe TMFH is chapter and verse, BUT it takes things forward. Unfortunatly Mike Snook has put his personal opinions on the table. He still has not in anyway come close to disproving the basics of TMFH without a pretty childish display of petulance sarcasm qnd downright rudeness.
Its the same now with his attempts to justify the positioning of the troops on the ridge, masses and masses of suado military strategems boiling down to one major major assumption that the right horn was coming around the knoll. Ruin that assumption and his argument is really only hot air.
Mike Mc is an ex Engineering officer and a brilliantly analytical mind. He has questioned the theory with some very penetrating questions based on the predicants not on supersision.
What is completely baffling is on that site there are an amazing amount of 'Anoraks' and fundies yet none of them, apart from Mike Mc, have the balls to take Col Snook, sorry that should be Lt Col Snook, on.

Cheers

 

impi,springbok.well said,you really do
need to question the motives of the
authors in question,to boil it down.
for HCMDB to stand then TMFH must
fall and vise versa.the reason..the
prize..whoever is perceived to come out
on top in this tussle will no doubt in
future publication's, advance their
theory's as FACT.

Lieut Col ( retd )Mike McCabe is an
Engineer.his Knowledge of this sub-
ject is vast. i listen to his views with
the deepest of respect.
cheers xhosa

Retired "

Lt Col Snook

I have not visited for a while. Been busy with lots of other things. Good to see such robust debate. I spoke to Peter Quantrill last year. I am totally convinced of the accuracy of his point of view. I suppose though it will never be resolved.

Couple of things for and against. Purely to stir the pot and ferment discussion, or mayhem maybe.

The 'Woods' map shows the Nokhenke moving down to attack the camp whilst Uguku says they ran around to attack RD, thats confirmed by Mehlokazulu.
There are a couple more issues there but I wont spoil the members fun.

In support of TMFHT is again Mehlokazulu, often used to slam the theory, however in his own words: " Presently I heard Tsingwayo give orders for the Tulwana and Ngyaza regiments to assemble. When they had done so he gave orders for the others to assemble and advance in the direction of the English camp. We were fired on first by the English etc etc etc............
This says a couple of things to me. First there was intention by Tsingwayo. Second I assume this conversation took place in the Ngwbeni Valley, he moved his regiments forward ( an essential part of TMFH ) to the LUP alongside the present Nqutu Road ( Close to point X ).
so a point in favour of the maps and a point against.

A favourite expression of one of the protagonists is Time and Space, Hoist by his own petard at times in relation to the left horns movements. Keith Smith has done a number of excelent breakdowns in terms of timing, not guessing or asking us to trust his military experience, but based on hard hard fact, one is of Durnfords movements the other is of the movements of the warriors down the Quabe valley. Combine those two and they give a true Time and Space scenario. Its a pointer towards the theory.

In terms of the other argument raging on the position of the troops on the plateau. In searching through the eye witness accounts, there is not one that places Cavaye and Mostyn in the traditional spots. The current discussion argues reverse engineering ergo because the right wing came down that route the troops must have been there to stop them. But what if the impi didnt take that route? What if they came down the opposite side of the knoll? There again is not one shred of evidence to locate the Western side of Mkweni Knoll as the attack route, not one.
As one or two forum members know I have studied this particular aspect for years, Ive walked it Ive mapped it Ive photographed it. I really never intended to discuss it as yet but the subject has come up so: I can make a damned good case for the troops being in a different position, and that changes the whole aspect of that space, It puts Younghusband in a different position and starts to make sense of the Essex map and also the Gardner map.

If this tirade sounds like an attack on the good Lt Col, it isnt, I have enormous respect for him and the way he built up the battle itself. However I do object to theory and innuendo being touted as fact. Unless Im mistaken the front of his book does say "The truth revealed?"

Ok Taking cover.  

springbok..wow.please hear the sound
of sustained applause, stunning adi-
tion to the debate. cheers xhosa

Is it not evident from the eyewitness account regarding the movements of the Zulus way before Raw found them, that they were moving into to position to attack. Wasn't Raw more likly to have found them at X than the valley where first thought? As Springbok points out, they came from the valley to X 

"

I heard Tsingwayo give orders for the Tulwana and Ngyaza regiments to assemble. When they had done so he gave orders for the others to assemble and advance in the direction of the English camp.

Do we have any indication what time Tsingwayo was heard to say the above? 

Just out of curiosity. What did the British think the Zulus were doing, with all these reports coming in, and not that long after LC had left. Nothing had happened prior to the 22nd. We're they really that naive to believe they wasn't going to be attacked. And was it not obvious that the Zulus were infact surrounding the camp. Some members have said, we should get into the mind-set of the Victorian Soldier of 1879. They may have been brave, but was stupidly the order of the day? 

Was it the Battle of Isandlwana or Battles of Isandlwana, each company fighting its own little battle, in it's own little corner of the battlefield. 

Nothing done from the first report of Zulus?
No fortifications of any kind established?
Wagons that could have been used as a form of defence left idle?
Messages being sent to LC which didn't really indicate anything that would make him return?
No supply lines?
No ammuntion stations?
No Chain of command?
Two Commanding officers working against each other?
Tents not struck?
Riders being sent to get a resupply of ammuntion, only to find the boxes hadn't been opened.?
Men sent 3 miles from the camp?
Lines becoming over extended covering a fall back?
NNC being expected to hold their ground, when British and Colonial men were leaving?

chard1879..outstanding points. is it
not interesting that very little has
been said about the relationship
between Pulleine and Durnford. one
i have recently read, relying on many
primary and secondary sources,does
maintain that Durnford did indeed
assume command of that camp.
cheers xhosa2000

thank you 24th,well done that man.
cheers xhosa2000

Chard
Re: no ammunition plans made.
TNA (PRO) Inclosure 4 in No 96: No 13, Private Wilson. Ist bat 24th
"The Bandsmen where told of as stretcher Bearers, ammunition carriers ......."

A few posts back a mention was made of a Carbineer complaining that he gave a report to an officer and it was ignored. I have a reference from the statement of Davies, "he and Durnford were taking to a carbineers who remarked a lot of Zulus were seen on the hills. But disappeared when they saw us ( Durnfords force)? Told by a Carbineer called "Bullock", the name is not clear.

Possibly this was the report mentioned?

Cheers

Chard

Even if they knew the Zulus would attack them they wouldn't make forifications, standing orders ( given by LC ) stated the British would go out and engage them.

Ammo stations were the waggons, no need for others is there ? There also plenty of refrences to an ammo supply line being up and running during the fight.

You have always missed the whole concept of the battle. 
Chelmsford was not at Isandlwana. The officers on the ground should have evaluated the situation and acted on that. LC didn't fortify Isandlwana because the ground was far to rocky and hard to dig. Confirmed by Springbok, who has seen the terrain for himself. 

As for supply's of ammo. You have always produce very little in the way of evidence, what you did produce, was counted argued successfully.

Going by this post you are still basing your arguments on Jacksons book. The be and end all in your eyes.

springbok9 wrote:

Chard
Re: no ammunition plans made.
TNA (PRO) Inclosure 4 in No 96: No 13, Private Wilson. Ist bat 24th
"The Bandsmen where told of as stretcher Bearers, ammunition carriers ......."

.

Possibly this was the report mentioned?

Cheers

Pte Wilson may have heard this or was told it. But there is nothing to say that it happened. There are very few accounts of ammunition being supplied Essex, Smith- Dorrient ect. But there are others that said they rode into camp, to find ammo boxes not opened? 

I would very interested in any accounts that state stretcher bearers and Drummer boys were seen distributing ammuntion to men in the firing lines.