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
Colonel R.T. Glyn, 1/24th Regt. kwaSokhexe, Ulundi
[Mac and Shad](Isandula Collection)
Secrets Of The Dead The Mystery Of Zulu Dawn
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
Drummer Boy 14
 
Frank Allewell
 
90th
 
rusteze
 
ADMIN
 
Julian Whybra
 
SRB1965
 
ymob
 
1879graves
 
xhosa2000
 
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 | 
 

 Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:01 pm

It is quite clear that Lt Charlie Harford believed that the Zulus that Darnell's reconnaissance spotted and reported to LC were a decoy and that Dartnell, and so Chelmsofrd had been tricked. First thing in the morning of the 22nd:

"The Contingent were ordered to sweepover the Isilulwane Hill where the Zulus had kept their fires burning during the night and then work onto Matyana's stronghold to the right of it. Not a Zulu was to be seen when we got over the rise and as we were to find out afterwards, their fires were only a blind to mislead us as to their intentions, and the few men that we had seen exposing themselves and moving about had been left there to make us imagine the place was occupied by a large force."

In addition to this, on the morning of the 22nd, Chelmsford's interpreter Mr Longcast learned fron interrogating some Zulu prisoners that "an immense army was expected that day from Ulundi. He immediately reported this to Chelmsford." During this interrogation, on hearing the sound of artillery fire from the camp, these Zulu prisoners said "Do you hear that? There is fighting going on at the camp."

Doesn't this lend weight to the argument that Chelmsford was deceived into splitting his force by a great Zulu deception? It seems like the intelligence, strategy and communications of the Zulus were highly sophisticated, doesn't it?
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7050
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:29 pm

Harford's not the only one to think this.
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:34 pm

One can imagine that Chelmsford must have felt a right **** on realising that he had not only been duped, but that the deception had succeeded with terrible effect.
Alternative explanations needed, PDQ!
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Zulu deception   Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:52 pm

Hi tasker.

"Alternative explanations needed, PDQ!"

You are correct there my friend, hence the 'blame game' initiated by Crealock and Chelmsford.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:50 am

Hello to all

Which decreed that the Zulus had wanted to draw out the 3rd column of the Isandhlwana camp?

Zulus in front of Dartnell, are an army of local defense, which has nothing to do with the Zulu royal army and there is no evidence that the two armies were in connection ...

LC has mostly been duped by himself and by Dartnell ...

Cheers

Pascal
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

The main impi spent the night of the 20th on the Northern Flanks of iSipezi, Forms the Northern Barrier to the Mangeni Valley. Without doubt they would have had skirmishers out protecting the column its highly possible that these skirmishers were the initial force the Dartnel ran into. Tshingwayo would have wanted the maximum protection to his column and would have probably been concerned that Dartnels forces would find him, the distance is not huge. I believe that he would have put out sufficient warriors to deter Dartnel from an all out attack (it did) and as the impi moved along the top of the Quabe valley into the Ngwebini the skirmishers withdrew. Possibly it was this withdrawl that therefore was seen as the troops being lead on , on the morning of the 22nd. The direction of that Zulu withdrawl was away from from the direction the impi took. The only part of the army that came close was Russel and he was enticed onto the slopes of iSipezi, away froy Silutshane and the Quabe mouth.

Just a thought.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:04 pm

these skirmishers were the initial force the Dartnel ran into. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Impossible, they were too many in front of Dartnell, for beings the scouts of the royal army ...

In addition, none of the first Zulu sources from the warriors who were present in the zulu royal army at Isandhlwana not talk about it ...

Dartnell had to deal with the warriors of a local irregular clan of the kind of the abaQulusi in the northwest zululand ...
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:51 pm

Pascal MAHE wrote:


Which decreed that the Zulus had wanted to draw out the 3rd column of the Isandhlwana camp?


Zulus in front of Dartnell, are an army of local defense, which has nothing to do with the Zulu royal army and there is no evidence that the two armies were in connection ...


Pascal, your first point, no. But the Zulus were opportunists, and once Dartnell had arrived and found them, the Zulu may have decided to trick him into thinking there was a large army there, for the purpose of misinformation. (See my original post).

Your second point I disagree with. Again, see my original post:-
In addition to this, on the morning of the 22nd, Chelmsford's interpreter Mr Longcast learned fron interrogating some Zulu prisoners that "an immense army was expected that day from Ulundi. He immediately reported this to Chelmsford." During this interrogation, on hearing the sound of artillery fire from the camp, these Zulu prisoners said "Do you hear that? There is fighting going on at the camp."

What more evidence do you need? These prisoners were well informed. To assume there was no evidence that these 2 armies were in connectioin as you say, is doing a dis-service to the ability of the Zulus. You are being complacent, in assuming the Zulus did not have an effective communications system, complacent in the same way that Lord Chelmsford was.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:55 pm

But after the war , none of the first Zulu sources from the warriors who were present in the zulu royal army at Isandhlwana not talk about it ...
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:45 pm

Not many would have known about it and there were other more important and immediate things that interrogators needed to know. In relation to everything else, this was just a small detail; but the captured prisoners that Mr Longcast reported on provide some evidence regarding the strength of the Zulu communication and strategic planning.
We will never have proof for every incident that occurred prior to, during and in the immediate aftermath of iSandlwana.
We get fleeting glimpses, if we are lucky.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:07 pm

Yes it's that ,none have proof for every incident that occurred prior to, during and in the immediate aftermath of iSandlwana. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:10 pm

Pascal MAHE wrote:
Yes it's that ,none have proof for every incident that occurred prior to, during and in the immediate aftermath of iSandlwana. Very Happy

Proof no, glimpses yes.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:16 pm

Never any evidence of this is though, in a war like this there ...
Back to top Go down
24th

avatar

Posts : 1837
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:27 pm

Capt. Penn Symons, 2/24th, and present on the day with his lordship, prepared a report dated 21dt January 1880, headed "Private" and stated that it had been read by H.M. the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, Sir Charles Ellice. Sir A. Alison and the Intelligence Dept. It also mentioned that at the desire of Her Majesty the account should not be published until after the death of Lord Chellmsford. Penn Symons wrote:

"First to follow the main body, which I accompanied, we marched twelve miles. We then saw the enemy, scattered bodies of from ten to 500, dispersing and retreating in front of us in all directions. We followed them. It was hunting a shadow, or worse than a shadow as the men who well knew the Zulus and their tactics declared at the time that the cattle that had been seen and the retreating bodies of men, were simply decoys to entice us away from the camp. Be this as it may, the enemy that we went out to look for were at this very time, marching in a direction parallel to our line of advance, behind a range of hills, three miles only to our left, to attack the camp.."


Lt. Milne, RN is worth repeating: "[i]He (Lord Chelmsford) was led away by the Zulus who decoyed him from the camp" Source: Royal Archives, Windsor.

"From Laband's Rope of Sand.' published in 1995.
' While the main army moved from Siphezi to the Ngwebeni valley, Matshana led a small detatchment into the hills about the Mangeni valley, where it was reinforced by its own adherents. Subsequently, the British were to have few doubts that his movements were a deliberate ploy, devised by the Zulu high command to trick Chelmsford into committing the elementary error of dividing and widely separating his force.'
This statement is backed by source material note 13, quote:
"J.W. Shepstone Papers, vol 10: Reminiscences of the past, p 107, conversation with several of the chiefs on the late war; BPP (C.2260)
no. 10: Statement of Ucadjana, 3 February 1879."

Quantrill.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:21 pm

It is all very pretty this, but these stories do not come from Zulu and any ways we can not rely on the testimony of Zulu prisoners or not, in the war or after the war ...

Forces facing Dartnell were certainly not in connection with the Zulu royal army, it was a force of local defense ...
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:24 pm

Thanks 24th.
So it appears we have HC Harford, Penn-Symons, Milne and Shepstone who formed the impression that Chelmsford's force were duped in the early hours of the 22nd.
And, according to Mr Longcast, Chelmsford's interpreter, some Zulu prisoners (from the actual force that faced Dartnell ) who actually knew and informed him during interrogation, that the camp was at that moment, under attack by the the army from Ulundi.
Back to top Go down
Drummer Boy 14

avatar

Posts : 1957
Join date : 2011-08-01
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:27 pm

Tasker

The account from Chelmsford's men don't prove anything, it would have seemed to them that they had been decoyed but there is no hard evidence that they were, read the Zulu accounts, none of them make mention of one.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9341
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana    Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:18 pm

Hi Tasker .
To be reasonable those you mention Harford , Penn - Symons , Milne & Shepstone are all speaking after the battle which to them gave the impression that they were duped into splitting their force , because that is exactly what they did and lost the camp because of it ! . As DB points out , there has never been a zulu account that I'm aware of , stating that was their intention , to lure C'ford out of the camp and split his force , as the zulu , I dont think had any idea what LC was proposing to undertake in the first place . Maybe it was a ruse , maybe it wasnt ! . I personally dont think it was a planned ruse , but you may think differently .
Cheers 90th. Salute
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:06 am

Hi Tasker

All the evidence or interrogation of any Zulu warriors do after or during the war were referred by their interrogators ...

These Zulu warriors interrogators built the legend of Isandhlwana already at that deceived so many people before the onset of this forum Wink .

Last year, I launched many subjects on the responsibility of Dartnell for the disaster of Isandhlwana and nobody was interested ...

So read well:

1 / Zulu were facing Dartnell were very numerous, but it was a local defense force, such as the Abaqulusi in the northwest of Zululand ...

2 /There is no connections for the preparation of a comprehensive plan to attract LC outside the camp ... because it did not serve in any way the Zulus who had more interest, to have a maximum of prey in the camp .

In fact, we can even say that Isandhlwana is a half strategic victory for the Zulus as half of their prey escaped...


3 / The presence of LC would not have changed the result at Isandhlwana.
If LC ​​had remained in his camp with all his troops, even with the reinforcements of Durnford,Zulus would nevertheless triumphed, the battle would only a longer duration and there were more deaths in each armies, the human disaster would have been huge and the désatre of Isandhlwana worse for British ago...

What happened is very simple:

1 - Dartnell had so many opponents in front of him he thought it was the Zulu royal army.

2 - He warned LC.

3 - LC joined him in mind to deliver the decisive battle.

That is why I often say that Dartnell was responsible , he was completely deceived by itself and misled LC.

But on the other hand it would not have changed ,the Isandhlwana camp was already lost in front of almost all of the royal army Zulu ...

To win, it would have taken defensive positions as RD, Kambula, Gingindlovu or Ulundi ...

Which was impossible because without the massacre of Isandhlwana, never defensive positions as RD, Kambula, or Gingindlovu Ulundi would have been taken ...

Cheers

Pascal
Back to top Go down
sas1

avatar

Posts : 628
Join date : 2009-01-20
Age : 39

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:12 pm

But who sent Dartnell to look for the Zulus!!!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:26 pm

He who has never been defeated, who thought before Dartnell, what believed Dartnell ... Wink
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:58 pm

sas1 wrote:
But who sent Dartnell to look for the Zulus!!!

My guess is that you don't mean that reconnaissance shouldn't have been conducted. So are you questioning the idea of sending out a "reconnaissance in force" composed of colonial rather than Imperial forces?
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:16 pm

Pascal MAHE wrote:
He who has never been defeated, who thought before Dartnell, what believed Dartnell ... Wink

Pascal,

Rather than getting into a blame game that comes perilously close to mimicking the (ludicrous) argument that Durnford is responsible for the defeat at Isandlwana simply because his troops stumbled on the Zulu main body first, there is a much more direct way to make your argument.

If the 25,000 strong main body had been behind the campfires witnessed by Harford et. al., then Chelmsford's half of the Center column would have been defeated in detail rather than Pulleine's half.

So, after allowing the main body to position itself so close to the main camp, Chelmsford compounded the error by dividing his force in such a way that WHERE EVER the enemy main body was located, it could deal him a strategic setback.

I understand your argument that the Zulu might have been better served by not allowing Chelmsford to withdraw his force from the noose that became Isandlwana, but it requires a further assumption that the combined force could not have stood off the Zulu main body. Many would argue that point vehemently.

I also think it is much easier to believe that Chelmsford simply could not imagine an army of 25,000 motivated attackers was out there anywhere. Otherwise, why would he have split his force? - 6pdr

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:30 pm

Recognitions are beings made ​​by people how they should be doing ...

Another instead of Dartnell, would beings can not, if hasty conclusions and LC remained in the camp ...

Me instead of LC, I would have gone with my own eyes with a small escort, what it was ...

Not with half the troops in the camp.

And if I had felt, even if it was it a mistake, that the Zulu army was there, I sent a message to Pulleine to join me there as quickly as possible, and I would have sent the same message to Durnford ...

Suppose I was wrong, well the Zulus have found two times more troops in the camp they have found in reality
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:47 pm

I believe that no members of the British army could be imagined the Zulu mass and fury, despite all the warnings ...
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:56 pm

Pascal MAHE wrote:
Me instead of LC, I would have gone with my own eyes with a small escort, what it was ...

Not with half the troops in the camp.

Right, well, it's arguable that he sent too large a force with Dartnell to begin with. Contending that that depends upon what you believe Chelmsford was really up to... Personally, I think he'd made his mind to move on to the next camp and was simply screening the area to make it safe for his supply train to relocate. Keep in mind that Chelmsford had reconnoitered the area (himself) twice in the days before and found nothing of any note. One thing we cannot accuse him of is being a sedentary commander.

There was a fly in the ointment however. Gamdana's (one of "the two Matyana's") men had not come in and kissed the ring by surrendering their weapons. It is pure speculation, but arguable that when he did come in on the day before the battle with a few antique firearms, it was to take a good look at what forces remained there.

Just for fun: in the movie ZULU DAWN (and I should look up whether this is consistant with the book it is based upon,) there is a strong suggestion that the British were being duped. It's a bit subtle but the two Zulu boys who were beaten by Maori and his men ALLOW themselves to be captured in order to spread disinformation. I take this as a tip of the cap to the perceptiveness of Charlie Harford.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:15 pm

Armstrong

In life as in war, the best plans are the simplest ...

Dartnell has misunderstood the actual Zulu number and drew LC outside the camp, a chance for the Zulu of the royal zulu army ...

Well now with the history, troubleshooting, is that people want absolutely everything always complicated, it is the complotistes the revisionist and the negationist, but as I said, in life as in the war, the best laid plans are the simplest ...


So why get always abradacabrans scenarios?
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:14 pm

Hi 90th, DB.
I do not think that Harford et al are saying that Chelmsford was deliberately lured away from the camp by the Zulus at all.
What they are saying is that once Dartnell had stumbled upon the Zulus, they KEPT Dartnell pinned there by lighting numerous fires which they kept burning through the night; probably to prevent his force returning to iSandlwana, which evidently, they knew was to be attacked the next day.
Whilst the few Zulus kept those fires going, the main Zulu force slipped away from the hills that Dartnell was camped on that night, and joined up with the main impi, as planned to attack the camp.
The fact that LC joined up with Dartnell was a piece of luck, a bonus - it left the camp weaker.
(Or perhaps, the fortune was Chelmsford's?!?!?!?)
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:27 pm

tasker224 wrote:

What they are saying is that once Dartnell had stumbled upon the Zulus, they KEPT Dartnell pinned there by lighting numerous fires which they kept burning through the night; probably to prevent his force returning to iSandlwana, which evidently, they knew was to be attacked the next day.

It would be nice to have some Zulu testimony about why those fires were lit. Is there any? One thing seems certain -- the main body behaved VERY differently. I believe it was Mehlokzazulu who explained that the regiments there were not allowed to cook their food, presumably to prevent their position being given away. That marks a suspiciously sharp contrast to the behavior of the men (pretending to) confront Dartnell.

That said, I'm not familiar with the evidence that says they slipped away and joined the main body for a battle the next day...especially since the prevailing evidence is that the Zulu command group did not plan to fight under that moon.
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:21 pm

6pdr wrote:


It would be nice to have some Zulu testimony about why those fires were lit. Is there any? One thing seems certain -- the main body behaved VERY differently. I believe it was Mehlokzazulu who explained that the regiments there were not allowed to cook their food, presumably to prevent their position being given away. That marks a suspiciously sharp contrast to the behavior of the men (pretending to) confront Dartnell.

That said, I'm not familiar with the evidence that says they slipped away and joined the main body for a battle the next day...especially since the prevailing evidence is that the Zulu command group did not plan to fight under that moon.

It would be very nice to have Zulu testimony, but we don't so we have to look at what we do have. We do have the testimony of Charlie Harford, Milne, Penn-Symons, Shepstone etc and they were right there; they were reliable, they were experienced and they were no one's fool.
As 6pdr says, if the Zulu knew to go on hard rations - no cooking - to not give away their position, then they also knew that lit fires would give the (false) impression of their presence. Harford acknowledges this.
The Zulus were opportunists, and whilst superstitious re the eclipse, they were not naiive or superstitious to the point of not looking a gift horse in the mouth. They did undoubtedly, originally plan to attack on the 23rd, but the situation developed and changed; the opportunities to attack the camp a day earlier presented themselves (pinning Dartnell, Chelmsford joining Dartnell) and the Zulu were smart enough to not turn the opportunity down.
Back to top Go down
Ray63

avatar

Posts : 636
Join date : 2012-05-05

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:30 pm

Norris-Newman, wrote in his book In Zululand with the British (1880).

"The idea did not seem to have occurred to anyone that the enemy were carrying out a pre-constructed plan."
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:41 pm

Ray63 wrote:
Norris-Newman, wrote in his book In Zululand with the British (1880).

"The idea did not seem to have occurred to anyone that the enemy were carrying out a pre-constructed plan."

Still doesn't Ray, for many students of this conflict. It is called "complacency" or underestimating your enemy.
Chelmsford was certainly guilty of it.
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2306
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:47 pm

Chelmsford wanted to defeat the Zulu as quickly as possible, Dartnell thought he had found the main Zulu Army. Chelmsford responded by going to assist. Dartnell was only doing what he was ordered to do he found the Zulus. What happen after that was down to Chelmsford, it was he who led his forces on the shadow hunt.
Back to top Go down
Drummer Boy 14

avatar

Posts : 1957
Join date : 2011-08-01
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:48 pm

Does it not bother anyone that Chelmsford sent Darnell out into the middle of Zulu land, hours away from help with
something like only 200 guns ? And most the guns had only 5 rounds, if they had been attacked by the main army they
would have been destroyed !!




Cheers
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2306
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:52 pm

Why should we let It bother us, we weren't there.

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:
Does it not bother anyone that Chelmsford sent Darnell out into the middle of Zulu land, hours away from help with
something like only 200 guns ? And most the guns had only 5 rounds, if they had been attacked by the main army they
would have been destroyed !!




Cheers


Last edited by impi on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:55 pm

tasker224 wrote:
The Zulus were opportunists...

Maybe, but the most convincing testimonies I have read on the start of the battle describe the senior leadership as more or less being unable to prevent the attack from developing when the rank and file realized that the Brits had discovered them. This does not mean the regiments didn't follow predetermined roles as the attack developed -- by all accounts they did -- and it doesn't mean that Zulu "officers" didn't belatedly get their troops in hand. But the initial surge forward was more or less spontaneous and the tactical leaders had to scramble to keep up with the developing situation.

I'm reviewing all this because while it's usually fine to generalize by saying, "The Zulus were X or Y..." but in this circumstance the Zulu military leadership had its hand forced by the enthusiasm of their army.

Anyway, if we are to posit a finely tuned plan to keep the Dartnell & company distracted it raises the question of why the diversions wouldn't have continued for another day since that was supposedly the overall plan. I'm not saying there aren't some plausible answers to that questions...but I personally haven't encountered them (yet!)
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:31 pm

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:
Does it not bother anyone that Chelmsford sent Darnell out into the middle of Zulu land, hours away from help with
something like only 200 guns ? And most the guns had only 5 rounds, if they had been attacked by the main army they
would have been destroyed !!

This is why I was pointing out that Chelmsford sent Dartnell's force out to SCREEN his intended move to a new campsite. He had already visited the general area of the Malakatha and Hlazakazi range twice over. (One could argue that was potentially foolhardy in itself but he apparently believed in leading from the saddle.) I don't think Chelmsford EXPECTED Dartnell to discover the Zulu army but he was aware that an entire army COULD BE hidden up there. Lacking any Imperial cavalry it made sense for him to deploy his light troops which were the mounted colonials and (some of) the Natal Native Contingent. To me, that was an intelligent use of those troops and perhaps the best role for the NNC.

Where Chelmsford made his second major blunder was impetuously rushing forward with half his Imperial forces when Dartnell ignored his orders to return by nightfall and instead sent messengers saying that he believed he'd found the main body. This is at least as impetuous as what Durnford did by leaving the camp, but less justified by circumstances IMO.

IMO it's also worth considering that Dartnell was quite experienced so his assessment of the situation may have indeed been consciously manipulated. Lonsdale on the other hand had a more limited track record.
Back to top Go down
Drummer Boy 14

avatar

Posts : 1957
Join date : 2011-08-01
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:45 pm

Impi

What was the point in writing that ? Rolling Eyes

6pdr

I agree, but he did have a lot of horsemen, Natal Carbineers and NMP he could have sent.



Cheers
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:57 pm

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:
I agree, but he did have a lot of horsemen, Natal Carbineers and NMP he could have sent.

Yes, the NMP and Volunteers is exactly who went on the extended foray with Dartnell into the hills (along with the 1/3rd NNC.) One company of the 3rd NNC was left in camp along with some of the mounted colonials who were retained for piquets...but the majority sallied forth on the reconnaissance.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:08 am

Hi all

The Zulus had a plan very simple:

1 / Attach the third column and destroy ...

They had planned to do this on 23, put they were prevented by the reconnaissance missions launched by Durnford, which caused the zulu attack the 22.

There is nothing complicated or subtle from the Zulu, it's just a unfortunate concour of circumstances for them and the British in the camp , thanks to Durnford.

2 / Zulu opposite Dartnell are not an decoy, they are just there to defend their homeland, it is a local defense force ...

Dartnell has confused the local defense force with the main army and reported his discovery to LC. (LC could make the same mistake, if it was, in the place of Dartnell)

Makes mistakes is human.

LC will join with hundreds of men and 4 guns, without prior check.

The stupidity is human

There is nothing complicated or subtle from the Zulu, it's just unfortunate concour of circumstances for the British.

The result is known

All the rest is literature and all is unfortunate concour of circumstances ...

And remember, in war as in life, the best plans are the simplest

Cheers

Pascal
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:35 am

A point that has been consistently overlooked is that in Dartnels original communication, received late afternoon by Chelmsford when he was scouting the Nyoni ridge, Dartnel suggest that he will attack the following day. He doesnt mention anything about wanting reinforcements. His second communication early morning of the 22nd was written after he realised that his NNC did not have the ability to take on the Zulu. This evinced by the repeated false alarms and desertions of the NNC.
The main impi had moved from behind iSipezi on monday its dissingenuous to believe that the movement would not have been screened by a considerable force. The impi was in Matyana territory and would have no doubt been escorted by them. When Dartnel appeared very close to the main Army a force would have been deployed with sufficient strength to keep him occupied. And thats what happened. The NNC played their part in the comedy of errors by stampeding during the evening and really induced a self administered fear factor. The force on the oposite hill did exactly what was required of them, they kept Dartnell away from the army, bare in mind that the Zulu commanders did not know what Dartnels or Chelmsfords plans were. Even if there were Zulu spies in the camp Im fairly confidant that Chelmsford didnt discuss issues with them, hell he didnt even discuss them with his own staff.

The next day when Chelmsford arrived in the Mangeni area he chased a fairly small zulu component that really had no wish to give battle and kept withdrawing untill the Brits literally gave up chasing them ( See Russells route to the bottom of iSiphezi). Hence the belief that it was a deliberate ploy from Harford etc. It was a deliberate plo but not in the way Harford Symons believed.

When Milne climbed the hill to observe the camp he also passed comment on the positions of the Zulus being chased: They had congregated on the top of iSiphezi, the largest hill in the area and positioned at the head of the Mangeni valley. From that point they could have struck of to the head of the Quabe valley and been in touch with the main army for the upcoming battle on the 23rd. Incidently once you leave the base of iSiphezi headind towards Ngwebini the mountain is in full view as is a large portion of the plain.

Tie that in with the sightings of Whitelaw et al and the bigger picture starts to form.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:48 am

Everything beyond is very pretty and Dartnell NNC have the broad back ...

To do, after the war, the British interviewed Zulu generals present at Isandhlwana ?

Only generals who commanded the Zulu at Isandhlwana, know what they were scheming.
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:39 am

Pascal you state the obvious. But with some deductive reasoning and examining of the ground and sources considered opinion can be ventured. And that is really what this forum is about, the proposal of ideas and the discusion of those ideas, thats why we are here.
There is very little proof one way or the other of what actually occured but if we are to dismiss ideas and thoughts put forward we may as well return to our knitting.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:57 am

Yeah, a forum is to discuss, but in fact we do not know what happened and those who were not aware also ... Very Happy

The problem with the story 'is what is written by the victors and even survivors and that all liars, for reasons of propaganda Wink

Yet we continued to talk with passion like me or per vice like other or because they are masochists , stubborn , obtuse for some, ect ... But it's normal, this is the kind of wildlife that can be found on all Forums ...

Otherwise springbok9, I hope that this year, I wish you a super healthy ...

Now you must be springbok9 000 000 000 000 000 Wink

Cheers

Pascal
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:24 pm

springbok9 wrote:
The main impi had moved from behind iSipezi on monday its dissingenuous to believe that the movement would not have been screened by a considerable force. The impi was in Matyana territory and would have no doubt been escorted by them. When Dartnel appeared very close to the main Army a force would have been deployed with sufficient strength to keep him occupied. And thats what happened...<snip>...The next day when Chelmsford arrived in the Mangeni area he chased a fairly small zulu component that really had no wish to give battle* and kept withdrawing untill the Brits literally gave up chasing them ( See Russells route to the bottom of iSiphezi). Hence the belief that it was a deliberate ploy from Harford etc. It was a deliberate plo[y} but not in the way Harford [and] Symons believed.

Very interesting post Springbok. Even those of us who do get the chance to visit the main battlefield seldom have the opportunity to walk around the area you are talking about here. I agree that the Zulu seemed to be quite adept at screening tactics so it's quite possible that was what was occurring. It also makes intuitive sense that they would have detached a unit with familiarity of the local terrain to do so. I have read that was more or less standard practice for a Zulu army on the march. Can you be more explicit about what you mean by "not in the way ...Symons believed." Harford I have read but I am not familiar with what Symons had to say on this topic...

TIA,
- 6pdr

* Perhaps that should read, "no real wish to give battle EXCEPT ON THEIR OWN TERMS" in light of the failed attempt to encircle the colonials. Noggs and Harford seemed to take that attack fairly seriously and did not regard it as a faint.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:42 pm

Yeah springbok9, a forum is to discuss, but in fact we do not know what happened and those who were not aware also ... Very Happy

The problem with the story 'is what is written by the victors and even survivors and that all liars, for reasons of propaganda Wink

Yet we continued to talk with passion like me or per vice like other or because they are masochists , stubborn , obtuse for some, ect ... But it's normal, this is the kind of wildlife that can be found on all Forums ...

Otherwise springbok9, I hope that this year, I wish you a super healthy ...

Now you must be springbok 9 000 000 000 000 000 Wink

Cheers

Pascal
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:36 pm

6pd
Symons expressed exactly the same thoughts as Harford, as did others. For so many to have the same thoughts I would believe that there has to be a 'meeting of the minds'. It had to have happened. Their interpretation of it was the zulus were trying to entice them forward, for once the benefit of hindsite assists us to reach the conclusion Ive outlined below.
So there was a gradual withdrawl of the Zulus, untill they got to iSiphesi there they met up on top of the hill.
That meeting was witnesed by Milne and Russell. I did post some time ago a succesion of photos from the Mangeni falls back towards iSiphesi. f it would assist I can resend them to Pete for a reposting.
The Zulus after lighting the fires on Magogo would have had a ring side seat to the shenanigans across the Nek to Dartnels camp, its really very close. They would have also been able to see the column crossing the plain from iSandlwana, a very clear view. I think, and it really is a personal view point, that they started to withdraw down into the valley with but were partially intercepted and a portion were forced back onto the Eastern slopes of the hills and into the caves. That was the major area of fighting. The balance retreated over the ridge at the end of the valley, actually counter attacked from there, and then over the silutshane neck to iSephesi.
It must have been a fair sized force and this 'fighting retreat' was exactly that a slow withdrawl so they could get to a position they could break of and join the main army for the projected attack on the 23rd. As it was Chelmsford splitting of his forces into the Mangeni area stopped a fast withdrawl and disapearance, the Zulu had to fight there way out.
One of the sentries posted in the Quabe area reported a large force before he was chased from his post. Its conceivable, seeing the short distance involved that this could have been the same force. Sorry its a bit of a pain to try and describe without a map. I will have a look and try and download something fromm Google Earth and annotate it if it would help.

Hope that helps

Cheers
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2306
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:41 pm

But even if Chelmsford had admitted they were led away from the camp, what could they have done if they had realised this, they still could not have assist the camp at Isandlwana.
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2104
Join date : 2010-07-30
Age : 50
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:57 pm

springbok9 wrote:
When Dartnel appeared very close to the main Army a force would have been deployed with sufficient strength to keep him occupied. And thats what happened.... The force on the oposite hill did exactly what was required of them, they kept Dartnell away from the army,
Cheers

Thanks Springbok, yes, I agree with this.
This is exactly what Harford is saying as I read it.
The Zulus kept a huge number of fires burning all night from tuesday to wednesday, to trick Dartnell into thinking a big old army was over there.
This succeeded - which ever way you look at it and whatever else happened next.
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:33 am

impi wrote:
But even if Chelmsford had admitted they were led away from the camp, what could they have done if they had realised this, they still could not have assist the camp at Isandlwana.

True. But that's why if we are going to apportion it at all, the primary responsibility for the disaster must be laid at the feet of Chelmsford. He had ultimate authority AND he put himself in a checkmated position. There was literally nothing he could do. He was without any good options even though the Zulu hadn't intended to attack until the next day. And I suspect that if their army was camped near the Mangeni instead, they would have overwhelmed his half of the column.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana   

Back to top Go down
 
Zulu deception of Dartnell at Matyana
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

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