Sectarian camps

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

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.

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

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Hi Eric,
This is a link for where the order is
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Thank you DB
So that order is fake but the Durnford orders are the real McCoy?
Just trying to clarify my thoughts.
How would the Pulline Cavaye order if it were true have affected our understanding of the Battle.
Why would some one have forged it. Just to be mischievous or was some one deliberately trying to provide a particular perspective on the Battle.

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.

Quote :

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.

Eric. I would wait until conclusive proof, and been established.

Quote :

Julian "Those of you who asked for copies of my Fake Order article and 1990 Durnford Papers article should all have received them by now"

if this is the case, then surly those who have them are at liberty to state what they think, as this has now been brought to ahead on a public forum. Of course' there could be implications. So the Administrator would have to make that decision,and if Julian is willing to let those who have the orders state what they think.

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.

Quote :

ask Julian to email it to you then make up YOUR own mind . As I said you need to read the article !.

Apologies. But am i missing something here. An accusation has been made, with regards to an article being posted in a book, where someone is claiming it’s a forgery. The supposed forgery has been posted on the forum, so why can’t the supposedly correct one be posted on the forum. That way, both will be on the forum, which will enable discussion to take place. Why make public statement and then e-mail to individuals. And if it doe’s contain the same text what’s the issue at the end of the day; we only want to know what the order says.

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.

Colin J. wrote:

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 ?

Hello Colin J
Yes, they are both working models, in fact I used the rifle almost every Sunday for years at 200 yards and longer distances.

I have a copy of the Waite and Ernest book, it is a good book. The other is "Springfield Trapdoor" by Al Frasca and Bob Hill which is the bible of trapdoors, there is a lot of good info and conversation on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the bulletin board.

Don

Admin wrote:

"Members are held responsible for their own postings and any repercussions that occur if you should damage an individual, organisation, business, service or supplier of goods. The owners of ZULU WAR 1879 Discussion & Reference Forum. nor any of its associates will be in any way held liable for the content of any postings".

"Members are responsible for any decisions that they make based upon advice given within forum postings, and cannot proportion blame to the instigator of the posting if that advice does not prove to be correct."

Admin
It surely cannot be "actionable" for academics to disagree with each others findings.
That would be censorship.
So disputing the authenticity of a piece of primary evidence or even questioning the conclusions of an author is all part of the academic game. It beomes actionable if you accuse an author of illegal behaviour.
On the issue of camps and points of view, I am currently reading Tim Jeal's new book Explorers of the Nile. I am a big fan of Richard Burton the linguits and explorer (aso a big fan of the greta actor but that is another story) However all my readings have always portrayed Burton as a great man and Speke as a bit of a non entitty who got it all wrong. However Jeal takes a very different point of view. So the same with the AZW. I admire Col Durnford for a number of reasons but understand that other authors using the same primary evidence come to different conclusions. That is what makes it interesting. One must however be open to new opinions either way.

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

Springbok, not wishing to restart arguing, but you didn't appear too keen about my own conclusions in a topic, which weren't 'nebulous quotes from third or fourth generation rumours'. These were my own opinions, not involving anyone else, but constructed on logical facts taken from primary source material, historical and reference books involving battle studies, fighting techniques, command structure, rules of engagement, as well as military law itself. As I say, I'm an amateur enthusiast, but consider myself deserving of some credit for putting forward my own conclusions in a serious debate on matters, without being accused of lacking some authority on given subjects. This is just a point I wished to point out, to prevent it happening again. I'll discuss, debate, even argue within reason, but don't like to be judged personally. However, I will balance my posts on an even basis with any member I'm debating against, as that is the only right and fair way on my part, with no-one trying to get the upper hand.

Colin J
Im sorry if you took offence at my last post. I will state it was in responce to a genuine queery by runner 2, my comments were in no way directed at or against you. The fact that I ask for repudiation using source material is no more than correct academia.
If I have given cause for offence I appologise unreservedly.

regards

Admin
Thanks for the round-up. Let me take your comments one by one.

"I don’t agree with the graphologist’s conclusion regarding the conditions “Pulleine” was under when he wrote the messages. We all know he had no combat experience prior to Isandlwana."
You seem to be implying that he should be showing stress in his writing. The conclusions were that the writing in the alleged order shows no signs of stress but by your own reckoning it should do.

"And to say the writing is not from the same person is ludicrous."
Ludicrous. Why? Look how the alleged order uses ONLY combinations of letters and words/phrases from the genuine one.

"The message he wrote timed 8:5am would have been under near normal conditions, just various sighting of the Zulu’s. The message timed at 11:30 would have been written under very stress conditions, so is it know wonder the writing appears to be different."
That's precisely the point. The differences are minor and do not exhibit the changes one would expect. Re-read the conclusions carefully.

"I can’t see the relevance of Slant’s, Rhythm’s, flows, and Margins"
But then you're not a graphologist. These things are the hallmarks by which authenticity hangs. Men have been hanged for less.

"Pulleine could have been sitting at a table when he wrote the first message, and standing up with the Battle raging around him when he wrote the second."
Pulleine would have been in the HQ tent. It is where the writing materials and the paper would have been. It is where his staff and orderlies were ready to take messages. Before 12.30 there would still be no Zulus visible to those on the plain. It's true that volleys would have been heard - but there certainly would have been no battle raging around him. Even those who feel the message is genuine will tell you that at 11.30 there was no battle raging around him.

"(Date) Pulleine himself could have done the alteration mentioned."
But he didn't. There was no alteration to the 89 when the message was first put on show. It appeared subsequently.

"With reference to the timings being wrong, regarding the positions of the men mentioned, we only have to look at the court of enquiry statements to get a good understanding of how most of the times given in statements were very different."
Not so. Perhaps the one set of times we can be sure of are Gardner's arrival (simultaneous with Shepstone's) at 12.00 - and remember that both these men met with Pulleine at that time. AFTER that meeting Mostyn was sent up the spur. Time passes. Then the order is given to withdraw from the spur. The alleged order's written timing of 11.30 is just not possible and are we to assume that the alleged recipient's watch was also misaligned with Pulleine's so he could write an 11.45 time of receipt? Pulleine's 8.05 order was timed correctly after all. If anything the textual content is of too great a significance to be lightly dismissed. A commanding officer writing to Cavaye to tell him that his own company is supporting him on the right simply beggars belief. So, does the non-existent NNC on his left. Pulleine could SEE what was on the ridge. It is immediately obvious to any professional historian viewing the alleged order for the first time that something is amiss in terms of the message's content.

"The “Hypothesis” Section of the document can only even be an Hypothesis. This is what the author personal conclusion’s are."
Correct but one has to try to account for the obvious discrepancies once one accepts that the alleged order is forged.

"For we know one of Chelmsford’s party could have found Pulleine’s note pad during their stay that night and made various alterations for what ever reason. (Just another hypothesis)"
When this was found, assuming it was by an OR, it would have immediately found its way into the hand of an officer. Before reaching Chelmsford/Glyn, knowing how important such a find would be to any subsequent Court of Inquiry, is it really likely that an officer would have altered a message. And anyway what alteration are you referring to? There weren't any visible on the first showing of the alleged order.
Point of information: there was no notepad. It was a sheaf of foolscap.

"And with regards to the original message being in the Museum of the Royal Regiment of Wales. How can we be sure that the bequeathed papers are the originals? (We can’t)"
Do you mean to say that a forger has been at work for over five decades and that the Glyn family cannot be trusted? What's their motivation? This suggestion really is not tenable.

"I have sent e-mail to a graphology expert with regards to the handwriting under stress. (Will post reply when I have it)"
That will be of value. Ensure that the scene is set in the same way: are the two written by the same person without stating that one might be a forgery but that one might be written under stress. Give the expert NO preconceptions or it will not be a fair comparison.

"This is another order written under stressful conditions. Look at the C in "Come" and the C In "Cook""
Very similar aren't they? But these appear in the same message not two different ones. And it was not written in a tent but probably against a saddle or someone's back. And the stress is obviously apparent by the misaligned words and letters. What's your point here? How does this aid your argument? It aids mine!

Lastly there are certain technical specifications re the watermark and other factors. But, thank you for the comments. They are gratefully received as will any others be.

Gent's can this be colour co-ordinated, so its clear who saying what. We are not all young men.

Admin
One more thing, your graphologist friend will need full-size copies of the originals for a fair comparison.
Dave
I'm sorry. I did put Admin's comments in inverted commas and then followed each one with my response, and then divide them into separate paragraphs for an attempt at clarity.

That's precisely the point. The differences are minor and do not exhibit the changes one would expect. Re-read the conclusions carefully.And what changes would one expect. We all have different personalities and hand writing.

But then you're not a graphologist. These things are the hallmarks by which authenticity hangs. Men have been hanged for less.
Or authentic orders could be called fake.


Pulleine would have been in the HQ tent. It is where the writing materials and the paper would have been. It is where his staff and orderlies were ready to take messages.
We can only assume this was the case. Not sure any commanding officer would have been sat in a tent writing orders with what was going on at the time in question.


Before 12.30 there would still be no Zulus visible to those on the plain. i'm fairly sure the Missing Five hours would dispute this.


There was no alteration to the 89 when the message was first put on show. It appeared subsequently.
Is it not possible that the original date had faded, and someone had just tried to make it readable once again.

You need to take all the evidence as a whole, not just the evidence that builds your case. My conclusion is, that three Zulu War Historian’s and an ex- museum curator have got together and taken what they feel is necessary and come up with this. No one can make a decision purely because you are deliberately withholding part of the evidence on the pretence of preventing further forgeries. When trying to show facts as the fundamental key, hypothesis should not be used within the same document. (This method is used to divert the reader’s attention)

Chelmsford
"And what changes would one expect. We all have different personalities and hand writing."
These appear in the article.

"Or authentic orders could be called fake."
But not proven to be so.

"We can only assume this was the case. Not sure any commanding officer would have been sat in a tent writing orders with what was going on at the time in question."
Absolutely not. Another point in favour of my argument!

"i'm fairly sure the Missing Five hours would dispute this."
And at 11.30....?

Is it not possible that the original date had faded, and someone had just tried to make it readable once again.
No. The 89 is clear. someone would not try to make a legible date clearer by turning it into 79.

I'm finding the whole thing quite confusing. I thought all along Col. Pulliene sent Lt. Melvill up to the ridge to order a withdrawal (in Pulliene's name) but verbally, removing the necessity for a written order, due to the urgency of the situation. It is interesting that Custer's order to Benteen is included here, as after reading the Reno C.O.I., as well as other sources, I got the impression that a combination of written and verbal orders existed prior to and during the engagement at LBH. It appears to me that it depended how close the company officers were to the senior commander, that if in the near vicinity of the latter, the orders could be verbal, issued by Pulliene (or Custer) through their Adjutant or other available officer not connected to a company. However, if the company was a distance away and no officers could be spared to take the message, a written order was given to the dispatch rider. I know there are methods to date and identify paper, handwriting, even types of ink used. It is truly unfortunate there is absolutely no way to get fingerprints from it now, with something valid to compare with Pulliene's as this might have given something a bit more solid.

Reply to my E-Mail. "and this cost me a Tenner.... I was only trying to establish stress conditions.

My question,

" Diane, Just a quick question. Would you say a written order, written while in combat conditions would be the same as if the writer was sitting at home. Make sound a silly question but if you could answer it would be appreciated"


Reply.
"Very unlikely ...in exactly the same way as the writer might speak differently in such varying conditions.
 
(assuming of course that he/she did not feel threatened in the home situation)"

Quote :

I'm finding the whole thing quite confusing.

Me to.

So are we trying to work out if the order in the book mention is fake.?

If it proves to be, then there is nothing to say, that the author of this book is aware. Or is this going down the road of suggesting he is aware. ?

Colin. Ibelieve the Custer order was posted to show, that even within the same order, a single letter can be written differently under stress situations.

Colin
I agree. Melvill's order was verbal.

Quote :

So are we trying to work out if the order in the book mention is fake.? Yes

Or is this going down the road of suggesting he is aware. ?

No I don't think so.


Admin. Thanks posting the reply as promised. But we can hardly consider that as conclusive. It's just an answer to a question. No different than asking if someone's hand writing would be the same as if they were blindfolded.

Admin
Thanks for the posting. I hope you feel it was worth the tenner - it proves my point. There is no stress demonstrated in the alleged 11.30 message and there should be.

Chelmsford
I haven't sent you a copy of my article. On what are you basing the remarks in your posting?

Saul David
I have not sent you my article. On what are you basing your posting?
However...
I am beholden to a promise to the RRW Museum curator. I cannot reveal technical specs of the message which is why I have built my case around historical-graphological-scientific evidence. As for your 3 historians and ex-curator and I can match that. However why has no-one asked any questions about the so-called Wilson-Black Papers - there's been no provenance offered whatsoever. And why has the rest of these papers sunk without trace as soon as questions were raised about authenticity?
As for -"When trying to show facts as the fundamental key, hypothesis should not be used within the same document. (This method is used to divert the reader’s attention)" - this is not a given! Who says so! Once a case is made for a forgery it is beholden on the writer to suggest circumstances by which it has come about. I make no apology for attempting to do so.

So let me get this straight.
Mt Whybra believes the order from Pulline to CAvaye to be forged but others here namely Admin and Saul David seem to think it may not be. IS that correct or am I misunderstanding the posts.

Hi All

Having now read Julian Whybra's article, I would like to ask the following questions.

Quote :

11.30 A.M.

Received
11.45 a.m.
22.1.79

Why would the above on the order have faded where the rest of the order has not?
Can this be explained?

Have the ink in each order ever been compaired with each other?

Regards

Quote :

I have not sent you my article. On what are you basing your posting?

Julian. Let's not start being being naive.

If your not prepared to provide all of your finding, then how can we take the document seriously. You say the present owner is is willing to destroy his copy of the order in-question. This to me suggests there is doubt in his mind. The question is, who is causing this doubt and to what means.?

I'm struggling to see the why anyone would go to the trouble of re-producing this order on paper from the same year. How many people had access to this paper, we are talking thousands, officers soldiers, possibly even civilians. Was the date on the original order wrote down wrongly and not noticed, and when it was, it was corrected. If someone was going to take the time to create this copy, why on earth would they put a line through the date and then add a 7 it would have been done discretely.