Uniform Study Zulu Dawn

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Now now Frederic.   

The swb were NEVER the 24th, they were just the swb.  

They might like to THINK they were, and they might have even called themselves the 24th, but however, the numbers were OFFICIALLY ABOLISHED on the 1st July 1881 along with the old title of 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, and a 'NEW' name was given, making them a virtually 'NEW' regiment. The 'NEW' name for the virtual 'NEW' regiment was just the swb with 'NO NUMBERS', meaning that the swb were NEVER the 24th regiment of foot, and any reference made by the virtual 'NEW' regiment to the 24th regiment, or 24th foot after July 1st 1881 is totally unofficial and purely wishful thinking.   

The swb NEVER fought at iSandlwana and NEVER defended Rorke's Drift, the swb NEVER were, NEVER have been, and certainly NEVER will be 'THE NOBLE 24th'.   

 

Bonsoir Mister Martin COOPER,

Thank you for your knowledge on the subject.
As i had said previously, it was a teasing / a joke (I.E: 24th: the South Wales Borderers).
One other, specially for you: the 24th (2nd Warwickshire Regiment): a Welsh Regiment.
Do you understand?

Wink
Bonne soirée.
Cheers.
Frédéric

Bonsoir Frederic

The way it works is this. On 30 June 1881 Gonville Bromhead VC was a member of the Noble 24th. On the 1 July 1881 he was a member of the South Wales Borderers, and he had NEVER been a member of the Noble 24th.  C'est simple, logique Anglais  

Martin   

Steve

Bad Men! hold onto your hats.   

rusteze wrote:

Bonsoir Frederic

The way it works is this. On 30 June 1881 Gonville Bromhead VC was a member of the Noble 24th. On the 1 July 1881 he was a member of the South Wales Borderers, and he had NEVER been a member of the Noble 24th.  C'est simple, logique Anglais  

Martin   

Steve

Bonjour Steve,
Thanks for your kindness
Nevertheless, with the many many many posts on this subject by Mister Martin COOPER, i think that i have finally understood with the years his reasonning...
In particular:
-the South Wales Borderers is not the 24th Regiment;
-the 24th (2nd Warwickshire Regiment) is not a Welsh Regiment
As i said previously I was not serious, it was just a teasing, a kindness provocation, a bad joke against Mister John Young (I.E: NNH or NNMC ? as The South Wales Borderers is it the 24th? as the 24th a Welsh Regiment?)

Mister COOPER:    

I.E: The "logique Anglaise"...i confess that i do not still understand the Bristish monetary system: £, Shilling, Pounds... It's a mystery for me, indeed!!!!
Cheers
Frédéric

Frederic

I too was not serious.

4 Farthings make a Penny, 12 Pennies make a Shilling, 2 Shillings make a Florin, 2 Shillings and 6 Pennies make a Half Crown, 20 Shillings make a Pound, 1 Pound and 1 Shilling make a Guinea. But its all gone!

Now 100 pennies make a pound. Ennuyeux.

Steve

Bonjour Frederic.

Yes my friend, I now understand, sorry, I must have misread or misunderstood what you had written, however, I am glad that you have understood my reasoning about all this.   

Steve.

I think you should read my post again, I said the regiment not its individuals.

Gonville Bromhead fought at and was awarded the VC for his action at RD, his regiment at the time was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, NOT the swb. On the 30th June 1881 he was an officer in the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, on the 1st July he was an officer in the swb, his former regiment was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment (The Noble 24th), which he HAD formally been a member of.

Put it this way, the day before she married she was known as Miss X, the day that she married she was NO LONGER Miss X, she is NOW Mrs Y, and NOT Miss X anymore because she now has a new name. She now calls herself by this new name (Mrs Y), and no longer refers to herself as Miss X because she isn't Miss X anymore.

Some years ago I lived in Manchester, but I no longer live there, if I still used my old address in Manchester do you think that the post man would understand anyway, and deliver my mail here?

Hope you understand my reasoning.  

Martin

I don't really understand your reasoning at all I'm afraid.

On the day preceding the change of name every individual in the regiment was a member of the 24th and entitled to claim its heritage. On the day after, they were all SWB and, according to your logic, no longer entitled to claim that heritage. Nothing had happened other than someone (wisely or not) had changed their name. They had not got married, or moved house, or taken any action themselves. They had no say in it.

You cannot deny the SWB the heritage of the achievements of the 24th.

But I do hope you don't agree, because that would mean we could no longer argue about it!

Steve

Steve.

Read the following and maybe you will see my point about all this.

(Quote).

The South Wales Borderers are perhaps best remembered for Marlborough's campaigns when the Duke was their Colonel, the American war of independence, in the Peninsula at Talavera, and in the Sikh wars at Chillianwallah. Its involvement in the Zulu campaign was both tragic and glorious, Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift are likely to be remembered for a long time.

Now, don't tell me that you can't see anything wrong with the statement above, and where is the recognition for the actual regiment that was involved, as I cannot see its name anywhere, can you?

The day after the other is NOT the same day, is it? Likewise, the day after the 30th June 1881 was no longer the 30th June 1881, it was the 1st July 1881, a new day, a new era for a virtually new regiment called the swb. The reforms of 1881 altered everything about the British Army, and the old regiments should have been allowed to retire with all their honours, awards, and dignity intact, but this did not happen, and regiments found themselves all over the place and with new titles due to the new reforms. The old regiment ended on the 30th June, the new regiment began on the 1st July. All honours and awards acheived by the old regiment are theirs and theirs alone, they do not belong to the new regiment as they were not awarded to them, however, the new regiment inherit and take care of them on behalf of the old regiment. The new regiments (swb, rrw, rw) should not 'lay claim' to these acheivements as they are not theirs by default they belong to the old regiment, you have said it yourself that they are the acheivements of the 24th, and one only has to look at the name on the colours to see that the regiment that acheived the honours is different from the one purporting to have acheived them.

If the post 1881 regiments (swb, rrw, rw) want to honour the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and its acheivements, then they should do it properly and give the public its proper title and stop trying to fool the public into believing that the swb 'did the business' when they didn't (as implied in the swb statement above).

Not very keen on the word 'argue', it implies unfriendliness, 'debate' is a much better term.

Cheers.

Martin

Your right, debate is a much better term old friend.

For me, I don't much care what they are called, the people who made the history remain the same and they are honoured by their successors. There has to be continuity, which is what the spirit of the regiment is all about. I think it would be terrible if the old regiments had been retired and all was started over again in 1881.

Now what I agree with you is wrong, is when people are misled because authors and commentators get the original titles wrong, or don't bother to mention them at all.  

I think though you are much more concerned with the "Welsh" in the regimental title than anything else,  because of the "make believe" of the film.

As far as your quote is concerned, had Marlborough been described as Colonel of, lets say, "The Midlands Regiment"(ie it had never come to be called the SWB), I think you would have been less exercised, even though it would still have been wrong (but English).  And even though the film raises your hackles I guess we would probably not have a forum on which to be debating now had it not been made.

It was the British Army that was involved and it was the 24th that was honoured. Those self same men carried on the tradition when they became the SWB, and their counterparts have done so ever since.

The sins of Baker should not lead to the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater!  

Your turn.

Steve

Hi Steve.

The statement I posted is from the web page for the history of the RW. Now I wouldn't say that in  the statement the pre old 1881 regiment was being honoured by their successors, and that the continuity only seems to start with the SWB, who, it appears, are being credited with the campaings of Marlborough (and to say that he was the SWB's colonel is rather a bit of a blatant piece of bluff). Also the SWB are getting the credit for fighting in the American war of independence, the Peninsula war at Talavera, the Sikh war at Chillianwallah, and the AZW at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift, now if that is not a blatant form of misrepresentation then I don't know what is. The SWB did not come into existance until the 1st July 1881, so how on god's earth could they have possibly fought alongside Marlborough, and how could he have been their colonel. Also how could they have fought in the war of independence, Talavera, Chillianwallah and the AZW at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift when they did not even exist at the time. Why wasn't the correct history of the regiment given in the statement, and why wasn't the real name of the regiment mentioned in the statement, is it to make it appear that the SWB had been around for longer than they actually were, or could it be to hide the regiments English origins and also to hide the title that it held the longest in its entire history, ie; The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.

I am glad that you agree that it is wrong for people to be mislead, and that it is wrong for the old regiment not to get even a mention, and the way that the statement is worded it appears that it was done that way to deliberately cover up the regiments pre 1881 English history and name. So with that in mind, I wouldn't say that their traditions were being carried on by their counterparts, especially when their name or English origin is never mentioned.  

Yes, it does annoy me that the regiment always seems to get called a 'Welsh' regiment when it was not. It was raised in 1689 in England, it was raised for the defence of England and it was later given an English county title, now in my book, that makes it an English regiment (the date being a very good clue). It was an English regiment for far longer than it has ever been a 'Welsh' one, yet the way it has been portrayed is nearly always as being 'Welsh', especially its portrayal in Bakers big Welsh hoax film, and later in Ken Griffiths doco. And this is still going on today in statements like the above, and by others who cover up, disguise, hide, leave out, misrepresent or otherwise do not mention the English origin or the real title of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, it is as though it never existed, however, its past glory and honours are mentioned and seem to be credited to the then none existant SWB, who, it would seem, liked to call themselves 'the 24th', what a farce.

Cheers.

My turn

In 1689, when the regiment was raised, the Kingdom of England included Wales. In 1706, the Act of Union meant that the new United Kingdom included Scotland as well. So the regiment was always in the service of Wales as well as England and a little later the United Kingdom. It was never confined to the defence of "England" in the narrow sense you imply.

You see the RW as being in the same camp as Baker and Griffith, in that they are all deliberately over egging the Welsh connection. With Baker and Griffith that was true. But I don't think the regiment is doing that. It is simply setting out its heritage without going through all the name changes. It isn't a Welsh conspiracy! You object if they call themselves the 24th, yet that is another acknowledgement of their heritage.

I rest my case m'lud.

Steve

Yes Steve, the Kingdom of England may have included Wales at the time, however, NONE of the regiments that now make up the RW were actually raised there. One of the antecedent regiments that now make up the RW may have recruited in some of the Welsh counties, but NONE were actually raised there. Also I think you will find that it was the treaty of union that was in 1706, the act of union was in 1707, and it then became the Kingdom of Great Britain, and after that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was in 1801.

Yes, the RW do appear to be in the same camp as Baker and Griffiths, as they also seem to go along with the 'myth or hoax' in over egging the 'Welsh' bit, you only have to read their statement on their web site to realise that. You say it is setting out its heritage without going through all the name changes, don't you mean it is setting out its heritage but deliberately avoiding certain things. Just take a look and see for yourself, there is no mention whatsoever of the regiments English roots, and there is no mention whatsoever of the name that it held for the longest period in its entire history (almost 100 years). Yes, I do object at the SWB calling themselves the 24th, as they NEVER were the 24th, they were just the SWB, line numbers being abolished at the time they came into existence.

If they were actually acknowledging the regiments heritage, then they would also include its English roots and its old English county title, however, these are avoided like the plague and deliberately left out so as to give the appearence to the general public that the regiment as always been 'Welsh', yet it was an English regiment for far longer than it has ever been a 'Welsh' one, but again, this is never mentioned. It looks like they are quite content to claim a regiments pre 1881 history and call it their own, and they seem perfectly happy to steal its identity (calling themselves the 24th), but without acknowledging the regiment who's history and line number it belonged to.

You yourself said that it was wrong for people to be mislead and for the old regiment not to get a mention, but it now seems that you have changed your mind about this, as you now appear to be condoning it.

Cheers.

Martin, give it a rest. You claim only relates to the film " Zulu" every other source to RD mentions the 24th Warwickshire regiment.

Martin

No, I don't condone it when people have been deliberately misled - as is the case with Baker and Griffith. But we disagree about whether the RW and SWB were/are doing it deliberately too.

It prompts a wider thought though. It seems to me that only Wales and Scotland lay claim to individual regiments (Ireland too I suppose). The English do not seem to bother. With Scotland it is perhaps because they were much more recently a separate country (and may be again). But with Wales you have to go back very much further.

Has the English reticence got something to do with the Civil War, with English regiments pitted against each other? I don't know. What do you think?

Pete

I realise we are straying well of topic, do you want to split this?

Steve

Steve, I think you have hit the nail on the head my friend with your comment "The English don't seem to bother".

There, I think, is the problem. We have been brainwashed into not caring anymore about our history, it is not the done thing to say that we are English anymore, we are supposed to say that we are 'British'. Well, I have a got news for the 'mind controllers', I am English through to the marrow in my bones, and no one on God's earth will ever take my birthright nor my heritage from me. We seem to be programmed to not care anymore about our rich history, and what is the old saying, 'A Nation that forgets its past has no future', well I for one care, and that is why I will not let the English history of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment be forgotten.

I can't see how Wales can lay claim to any of the regiments that now make up the RW, as none of them were actually raised in Wales, ie; 23rd Shropshire, 24th Kent, 41st Chelsea, and the 69th was the old 2nd Batt of the 24th. However, I suppose that the Welsh could apply for the 23rd as they recruited in some of the Welsh counties, but the regiment was formed at Ludlow, Shropshire, England, so it's not a Welsh regiment at all really.

cheers.

I think it's not brain washing. You say you are English to your bones and I believe you.

But having researched my own family history I can tell you that my children have roots in England, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Portugal. They were Protestants and Catholics and Jews. The wider family resides in GB, USA, Europe, Canada and Australia. In the Great War, which we commemorate tomorrow, they fought on both sides. And all that only covers the last 300 years or so! What mixing happened in the 700 years before that I wonder ?  

Interestingly there are no Welsh and no Scots that I know of.

I think the "English" are nearly all like this in reality and, consciously or otherwise, thats why they don't make too much of it.

Steve

Ha ha, figure of speach my friend, figure of speach.

Believe it or not, I do have Welsh connections, and I suppose if we could all go back far enough we would find some strange concoction of ingredients in each and everyone of us, perhaps we should all be called Heinz, as we would all have 57 varieties in us.   

It stands to reason that all British people have a similar european root, as there used to be a land bridge between what is now Britain and Europe. People could come and go as they wished, however, when the waters rose and the land bridge was no more, the people who remained here evolved separately from other people on mainland Europe, and many, many years later some of those people came over to Britain, some friendly, others not so friendly, but all in all, after the dust settled, it was like the getting together of a long lost family, but like in all families, there were, and still are squabbles.

Cheers.

Ah, so finally we get there. It's a squabble, and in the great scheme of things, has no significance.

What a relief.   

What can we talk about next?

Steve

Ummm, perhaps we should talk about the uniforms in the film Zulu Dawn.   

I'm afraid that as soon as I see Burt Lancaster and hear the cod Irish I can bear it no longer. Apologies to those who like it.

Steve

Steve.

I rather doubt that Colonel Durnford actually spoke with a strong Irish accent, well, at least nothing like Burt Lancaster's attempt at it, and he did attend school in Germany, and he seems to have been out of Ireland more than he was in it, so maybe he would have lost most of any Irish accent he had by the time he was in SA, maybe fellow forum member John Young could throw some light on this.

I am not very keen on either film, however, ZD is at least a little nearer the truth, which is more than can be said for Baker's hoax, but both films could do with a more factual remake, this would at least set the record straight as to what the real name of the regiment was that fought at both iSandlwana and RD.

Cheers.

Martin,

The real Anthony William Durnford was only born in Ireland, he was only an 'Irishman' by birth.

I doubt very much that he ever had any trace of an Irish accent in his entire life.

Even if he had been actually Anglo-Irish I doubt very much if he would have had an accent the like of Burt Lancaster's.

John Y.

Hi John.

Thanks for that my friend, I did doubt that he would have had an Irish accent. It would seem that poor old Burt got it wrong.

Another famous 'Irishman' (if you could really call him that, as he didn't like it), was Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (The Iron Duke), what was it he used to say when people called him an Irishman, "Jesus was born in a stable, but he wasn't a horse", ha ha, he really didn't like being called an Irishman did he.

Thanks again John.   

John Young wrote:

Frédéric,

Don't get me started or I will tell you what my pet hate is amongst designations in the British force in campaign!

John Y.

Actually John, speaking as a naive and confused American, I wish somebody would set me straight on the proper name(s)/designation(s) of the black colonial forces. Are the latest designations a tip of the hat toward political correctness or do they also have a historical validity? I am thinking in particular of those units lumped (perhaps pejoratively) under the rubric of "Durnford's Basutos" etc... I know you do not regard yourself as an "expert" in this area but as a matter of practice what were they really called then and how do historians speak of them now?   

6pdr.,

According to Ian Castle in his work Zulu War - Volunteers, Irregulars & Auxiliaries he states:
...At the outset of the campaign these units operated under the collective name of Natal Native Mounted Contingent, not the Natal Native Horse as is often erroneously reported. First published by Osprey in 2003 (ISBN 1 84176 4841).

The designation Natal Native Horse was apparently first officially in February 1879.

As well as Durnford's Basutos, I have seen them listed as the Natal Native Cavalry or simply Basutos.

The designation that ticks me off is Imperial Mounted Infantry, why the prefix? It does not appear in the Narrative of the Field Operations... or any contemporary history that I can find, so why it become accepted as the norm?

John Y.

John Young wrote:

The designation that ticks me off is Imperial Mounted Infantry, why the prefix?  It does not appear in the Narrative of the Field Operations... or any contemporary history that I can find, so why it become accepted as the norm?

My guess is that IMI is used because mounted infantry, even capitalized, sounds too generic.  But that begs the question why not British Mounted Infantry or somesuch...  Would the IMI be regarded as an ad hoc force?  They seem to have had no lasting designation...

John Young wrote:

The designation Natal Native Horse was apparently first officially in February 1879.

As well as Durnford's Basutos, I have seen them listed as the Natal Native Cavalry or simply Basutos.

Splitting hairs here, but just curious. Could the Edendale contingent, strictly speaking, be classified as Basutos? (That is, if they were not known as "Durnford's Basutos.")

John Young wrote:

6pdr.,

According to Ian Castle in his work Zulu War - Volunteers, Irregulars & Auxiliaries he states:
...At the outset of the campaign these units operated under the collective name of Natal Native Mounted Contingent, not the Natal Native Horse as is often erroneously reported.  First published by Osprey in 2003 (ISBN 1 84176 4841).

The designation Natal Native Horse was apparently first officially in February 1879.

As well as Durnford's Basutos, I have seen them listed as the Natal Native Cavalry or simply Basutos.

The designation that ticks me off is Imperial Mounted Infantry, why the prefix?  It does not appear in the Narrative of the Field Operations... or any contemporary history that I can find, so why it become accepted as the norm?

John Y.

Mister YOUNG,
As you, the designations in the British force in campaign are not "my cup of tea...
Neverthess, it seems to me that Mister Ian CASTLE had made a mistake...
I am sure that I have read somewhere (by Julian Whybra?) that in January 1879, the correct designation for the natal native cavalry is the "Natal native Horse" and not the "NNMC".
Unfortunately, i don't find at present "the source"....
Sorry.
Cheers
Frédéric

6pdr wrote:

John Young wrote:

The designation Natal Native Horse was apparently first officially in February 1879.

As well as Durnford's Basutos, I have seen them listed as the Natal Native Cavalry or simply Basutos.

Splitting hairs here, but just curious.  Could the Edendale contingent, strictly speaking, be classified as Basutos? (That is, if they were not known as "Durnford's Basutos.")

Bonsoir 6Pdr,

It seems to me that you have a copy of "Black soldiers of the Queen"by P.S.THOMPSON
"The reputation of the mounted baSotho was such that Britons and many colonists used the term "Basutos" for mounted levies in imperial service, even though historically and linguistically Hlubi's pepole had little in common with the mounted fellows, the amaNgwane and the Christians". (p.20)
See also for more explication p. 19 (ed.2006)

Cheers

Frédéric

F

Mister YOUNG,
As you, the designations in the British force in campaign are not "my cup of tea...
Neverthess, it seems to me that Mister Ian CASTLE had made a mistake...
I am sure that I have read somewhere (by Julian Whybra?) that in January 1879, the correct designation for the natal native cavalry is the "Natal native Horse" and not the "NNMC".
Unfortunately, i don't find at present "the source"....
Sorry.
Cheers
Frédéric


Rorke's Drift forum 22 September 2005  "HMCDB" (extracts)
from Julian Whybra
"Mike [SNOOK]
3I received your book in the mail only yesterday and have not had time to read it through in detail. I would like to do this first before entering the above debate (I have something to say on it now but don't want to prejudge the issue before I've read the book). One thing I (pedant as ever) noticed was your use of NNMC instead of NNH (I noticed that there was an annotation in your book saying that NNH was a later appellation) and I assume that you got the NNMC title from Ian Castle's paperback Osprey book where he states the same thing.
However, I know of no documentary evidence or contemporary reference to the NNH being called officially NNMC. Some time ago I checked the memories of David Jackson and John Young and neither had any evidence of such an appellation either.
Neither am I aware of this unit receiving the appellation Natal Native Horse later on (though I am aware that they did later receive the title Natal Horse).
I just wondered where you got your information from regarding the use of this terminology? I did notice that the book isn't footnoted so that was of no use in answering my question. I'd be grateful for your answer (and am grateful for a mention in your preface!) as if I've missed something all these years I would want to amend England's Sons.

By Keith I. SMITH, the same day:

"Julian
The original official name of the mounted men under Durnford's command was the Natal Mounted Contingent, also known as the Natal Native Mounted Contingent. Evidence for this is to be found in several General Orders, e.g. No. 204, dated 22nd November 1878, National Army Museum, 6807/386-26-13; No. 209, dated 28th November 1878, Times of Natal 2nd December 1878; No. 228, dated 18th December 1878, Times of Natal 20th December 1878 (NNMC). This list is not exhaustive.

The first evidence of a Native Horse is to be found in GO No. 53, dated 9th March 1879, Times of Natal, 12th March 1879:

"1. The undermentioned officers are removed from the Natal Native Contingent, and posted as follows:–
Captain S. Hay, 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment, to command a squadron of Native Horse, now forming at Krantzkop.
Lieut. Evans, 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, to command a troop of the same.
Captain Nourse, 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment, to command a squadron of Native Horse, now forming at Lower Tugela.
Captain Cooke, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Regiment, to command a Troop of Horse, (non-commissioned officers of Natal Native Contingent), now forming at Lower Tugela, and Lieutenant Ellis, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Regiment, to be Lieut. in the same.
Captain Ulick de Burgh, 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, to command a Troop of Horse, (non-commissioned officers of Natal Native Contingent), now forming at Krantzkop.
Lieuts. Horatio Morant, and J.W.E. Purchas, 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, to be Lieutenants in the same."

It is clear from Paul Thomson's book on the NNC (p. 95) that the name was changed to the Natal Native Horse some time after Isandlwana, perhaps as early as February 1879.
KIS

11 october 2005 by Julian Whybra:
"Keith,
Back to the original question. I've now found references to Natal Native Horse and NNH in The Times of Natal 24th January and the Natal Mercury 25th January. I cannot believe that in the mayhem after Isandhlwana, officers would have been bothered about making an official name-change from NNMC to NNH. It can only have happened BEFORE Isandhlwana and that the units engaged at that battle would have been officially Natal Native Horse.
The last date you have referring to this unit as NNMC is 20th December 1878 - one month before the battle in which a name-change could have occurred.
I'm still delving for a pre-Isandhlwana NNH reference!"

Keith I. SMITH, the same day
"Julian
I have now done a thorough search of my documents for both NNMC and NNH. The results will confuse, rather than enlighten.

NMC/NNMC
There are two post Isandlwana references in General Orders: Cochrane appointed, GO 32, 12 Feb, and GO 59, 18th March. There are also references in the newspapers, often simply as "Mounted Contingent", cf., Witness, 30th Jan. and Mercury, 22st Jan. and 1st and 17th Feb.

NNH
There are many references here but a couple are significant. Both Raw and Davies, in their Isandlwana statements, refer to their unit as the NNH!
Further, Cochrane himself, in a statement of 4th March, refers to his unit as the NNH, (WO 33/34, Inclosure 10 in No. 96., 4th March). E.S. Browne refers to them with regard to Capt. W. Barton, dated 12th Feb, in WO 32/7387 (Wassall VC), as does Barton himself, (ibid, dated, 11th Feb.). There is also a Return of Troops in the Field showing those at Kranskop dated 6th January, in which they are referenced (PAR, CSO 681, signed by Durnford). See, finally, PAR, CSO 1926, No. 681, a report by J.E. Fannis (at Kranskop) dated 31st Jan.

I now simply would not be able to say just when, or even if, a change of name actually and officially, occurred. "

13 October by Julian Whybra
"Keith
Thank you. The post-Isandhlwana reports of the NNH officers of course mention themselves as NNH but more significant I think is the Durnford return of troops dated 6th January referring to the NNH. That may well be the clincher".

Cheers

Frédéric

F[/quote]

ymob wrote:

It seems to me that you have a copy of "Black soldiers of the Queen"by P.S.THOMPSON
"The reputation of the mounted baSotho was such that Britons and many colonists used the term "Basutos" for mounted levies in imperial service, even though historically and linguistically Hlubi's pepole had little in common with the mounted fellows, the amaNgwane and the Christians". (p.20)
See also for more explication p. 19 (ed.2006)

Frédéric,

I do have a copy...but not all in my head! Thank you for that recitation. I can see I will have to (re)read further there.

- 6pdr

ymob wrote:

Keith I. SMITH, the same day
"Julian
I have now done a thorough search of my documents for both NNMC and NNH. The results will confuse, rather than enlighten.

NMC/NNMC
There are two post Isandlwana references in General Orders: Cochrane appointed, GO 32, 12 Feb, and GO 59, 18th March. There are also references in the newspapers, often simply as "Mounted Contingent", cf., Witness, 30th Jan. and Mercury, 22st Jan. and 1st and 17th Feb.

NNH
There are many references here but a couple are significant. Both Raw and Davies, in their Isandlwana statements, refer to their unit as the NNH!
Further, Cochrane himself, in a statement of 4th March, refers to his unit as the NNH, (WO 33/34, Inclosure 10 in No. 96., 4th March). E.S. Browne refers to them with regard to Capt. W. Barton, dated 12th Feb, in WO 32/7387 (Wassall VC), as does Barton himself, (ibid, dated, 11th Feb.). There is also a Return of Troops in the Field showing those at Kranskop dated 6th January, in which they are referenced (PAR, CSO 681, signed by Durnford). See, finally, PAR, CSO 1926, No. 681, a report by J.E. Fannis (at Kranskop) dated 31st Jan.

I now simply would not be able to say just when, or even if, a change of name actually and officially, occurred. "

   Hell's bells. Is absolutely nothing about this campaign as straightforward as it seems?!    Thanks you for that encyclopedic accounting however!   

i

   Hell's bells.  Is absolutely nothing about this campaign as straightforward as it seems?!     Thanks you for that encyclopedic accounting however!   [/quote]

Sorry for "that encyclopedic accounting" but the answer to your question as you know is not easy!!!
Cheers.

Frédéric

Frédéric,

I do have a copy...but not all in my head!  Thank you for that recitation.  I can see I will have to (re)read further there.

- 6pdr
[/quote]

Sorry...
It was not a reproach! ,  It was not to "write"  the page 19 (if you have a copy of the book)!!!
Cheers
Frédéric

Frederic
Its wasn't to long ago you said of yourself you didn't have the knowledge to participate in debate. Don't knock yourself my friend you can more than hold your own in any company.
  

springbok9 wrote:

Frederic
Its wasn't to long ago you said of yourself you didn't have the knowledge to participate in debate. Don't knock yourself my friend you can more than hold your own in any company.
  

 Bonjour Springbok,
I persist! 
I have some knowledge (i am studying the battle of isandhlwana since 4 years now), but not enough to make news thesis on the battle....as Julian and you !!!
I am (yet) looking for understand the battle, "the point of view" of the various authors...
Actually, I am studying the "ground", the topography of the battlefield (thanks to 90th and you).  
Thanks for your encouragements.
Apologize to the others members, i am off-topic!  

Amitiés.

Frédéric

Frederic
Try and get a copy of 'Zulu Battle Piece" by Sir Reginald Coupland. It predates Morris by many years and was I believe the basis on which Morris grafted TWOTS. The beauty about the book however is the selection of photos which records the 'look' of the area some 70 odd years ago before the advent of all the urban development. Quite often when new theories are put forward the opponents of those theories point to the topography and cry 'impossible or implausible'. But look at those old photos and see how much the ground has changed and how much easier the access over the ridge was in those days compared with now.
Understanding the battle is so much easier when understanding the ground conditions then, not now.

Cheers

PS A good example was a couple of years back when I proposed to Mike Snook a possible situation he came back with the comment: 'I suppose they parachuted over the hotel roof.' That was a case of looking at the ground in the wrong time frame.

springbok9 wrote:

Frederic
Try and get a copy of 'Zulu Battle Piece" by Sir Reginald Coupland. It predates Morris by many years and was I believe the basis on which Morris grafted TWOTS. The beauty about the book however is the selection of photos which records the 'look' of the area some 70 odd years ago before the advent of all the urban development. Quite often when new theories are put forward the opponents of those theories point to the topography and cry 'impossible or implausible'. But look at those old photos and see how much the ground has changed and how much easier the access over the ridge was in those days compared with now.
Understanding the battle is so much easier when understanding the ground conditions then, not now.

Cheers

Springbok,
I have a copy of "Zulu Battle Piece" by Coupland.
For me, his analysis of the battle is (today) conventionnal and "dated".
But, i shall study the photos.
Thanks you for the information.
Amitiés.
Frédéric

I fully agree but the attraction, for me at least, is the photos. Have a look at page 101, last paragraph, let me know what you think about the 'circle of heads'.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

I fully agree but the attraction, for me at least, is the photos. Have a look at page 101, last paragraph, let me know what you think about the 'circle of heads'.

Cheers

The circle of heads???
I am intrigued...
At present, i am not at home...I haven't my books at hand.
The terrible testimony of the bugle of the Volunteers troops (or NMP)?
If it is the case, a passionate debate is "in front of us", is waiting for us (Torture?, mutilation, "poors Drummers boys,"qaqa", "ukuhlomula", "intelezi"...)
This evening i  shall research the information in my edition of Coupland.

Cheers.

frédéric

Its just a sentence that caught my eye a few months back and I haven't pursued it yet. It would be interesting to see where he got it from.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

. Have a look at page 101, last paragraph, let me know what you think about the 'circle of heads'.

Cheers

Springbok,

Bonsoir Springbok,
My copy: Tom Donovan Publishing (1991), introduction by Ian Knight, author of "brave men blood"

p.101 (last paragraph)
"Another visitor to the desolate camp was GLYN. He recognised the bodies of PULLEINE and YOUNGHUSBAND. DURNFORD's body was recognised by one of his men, stripped naked. Dead Zulus were lying "in heaps". Several loose wagon-wheels were scattered about; and round some of them, by a ghastly freak of fancy or savage ritual, the Zulus had laid out a circles of soldiers heads3."

Note 3: c2454, 187 (I.E: Cour of Enquiry for COUPLAND and not "Inquiry")  
 
-Quoted in "Isandlwana and RD 22-23 January 1879" by Ian Knight (the "silver book"): 'The trumpeter of the Natal Mounted Police went to his tent and returner with his boots, and a story that he had seen "several wheels lying about, and most of them with the heads of our men pushed round them in a circle".

-Trooper TABORTON (Natal Carbineers) had also his head cut off.

For me, these atrocities are not (religious) ritual.

But i think i don't answer to your enigmatic question!!!  In realty, I do not understand the question!!!!  

The description of DURNFORD body "stripped naked" was a surprise for me.

-I have found nothing on the DURNFORD's body in "Isandhlwana and the DURNFORD papers" by Julian WHYBRA (Studies in the Zulu war 1879" vol.1)

-Quoted in "Zulu Rising" by Ian Knight p.580
'Before DURNFORD's body was buried Offy SHEPSTONE searched through his pockets for personal effects to send to his family. He found a penknife in his pocket, and gently took two rings from the withered fingers".

-Quoted in "the missing and found orders" by Sam STOOPS (a brillant young member of this forum)
Sam STOPPS had written:" the orders in question therefore should still have been on Durnford's person. A pocket knife was later found in his pockets, a treasure to any warrior, clear evidence that DURNFOR's body had removed untouched (...)
From FORBES:"Captain SHEPSTONE recognized him [DURNFORD] at once and identified him yet farther by rings on the finger and a knife with the name on it in the pocket'
From LONGHURST: "I am confident that he had a blue coat", he also added "Capt SHEPSTONE searched the body, and i saw him distinctly take also a packet of letters from his coat pocket"
There are others proofs in this article (DURNFORD was not stripped naked).

Springbok, "Let me know what you think about DURNFORD stripped-naked?.  
It would be interesting to see where COUPLAND got it from.  

Coupland had made at least one  enormous error for an historian :
p.86 note "A little later,GARDINER[GARDNER]  dispatched a message to Major CLERY:"Heavy firing near left of the camp. Shepstone has come in for reinforcements and reports that ZULUS are falling back (...) "
The real testimony is "that Basutos are falling back" (and not Zulus)
This error was taken back since by other authors  CLAMMER, DROOGLEVER (sorry "Les"Xhosa 2000") Saul DAVID and others.

As Mister Whybra said: Read the sources, only the sources, not the authors.

Amitiés

Frédéric

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          :

Cheers.

Frédéric

Context, so others may follow if they wish.

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

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


  

Hmmm, i thought we was passed this nonsense!
it just does not stand today..we have Zulu oral
testimony..no mutilations for the sake of it..but,
certainly ' Muti ' harvested according to ritual..

Durnford, stripped naked?. Oxen standing alive?
" Everything was dead to the very metals ".

Thank you for the name check frederic,
but i am embarrassed to be mentioned
in that company..not flattered, embarrassed!
i just study the same as you..we are the same.
you do indeed add to debate as springbok says.
cheers mate

"No. I saw Colonel Durnford returing from the Buffalo River. I didn't see who killed him, but when I returned, Some men from the iNgobamakhosi Regiment were taking some things and they called me over to look at the strange character on his arm. I'll try to find out about the sabre and if I can obtain it, I'll return it."

Source: Mehlokazulu Kasihayo (The Battle Of Isandlwana)