Isandlwana solving the enigma

Hi Frank

Well your book is full of maps, photos, and testimony's which I love, but you have concluded the discovery took place in the historical location I would have loved some hard proof so I can follow up on it, I agree with the location of the rocket battery and the vast majority of the rest.  But I would love to say your dedication to the battle and the study of it is unsurpassed, good work mate.

I really love the 90 plus pages of testimony's their is no other book with such an extensive range of eye witness points of views.

Thanks Inky
The discovery is a whole new ballgame the level of speculation ( I know your going to REALLY disagree ) is huge in trying to pin that down. We both have our suspicions but proving it to any degree is currently beyond our reach. Ron and Pete have tried and produced an outstanding thesis but still the prophets of doom cast doubt.
In terms of the testimony's Ive only published those that I have quoted from. Just wait till you see the two volumes coming from Mike and Neil, literally 100's.
Those books are going to blow your mind.

Cheers Mate

Frank, thanks for the shout out! Aussie, I think you'll be quite excited to see what we've produced. I'm notoriously bad at responding to emails but if you need any specific accounts, please feel free to badger me and I'll send them your way!

Mike
When will your 2 volumes be on the market ? thanks for your offer I will email you with some names, I am hoping to have my website online by the end of the year trying to get permission to publish some works are proving to be a headache.

Frank
There should be no speculation when I began my research 3 years ago I was hoping to find clear eyewitness testimony which I believe I have the issue is people will always question it as goes with  interpretation and some clear errors in some testimony's.

The reason prophets of doom cast doubt is because its in all our nature to protect our conclusions, but fair understanding of the testimony  should prove itself and when it confirms it, several times over again then doubt should be removed.

In my opinion The Missing five Hours is a masterpiece which credit is due its just missing a few links which will shortly be solved. Well then its up to those to interpret in the way they wish but eyewitness testimony should be the highest standard one should reach to be excepted by the experts and by the lay.

First post… but I couldn’t resist after I just received a copy in the US.  The book looks amazing.  Thank you Frank for all of your hard work putting this together.  
Lee

AUSSIE
Here's the thing...
"clear eye-witness testimony" is of its nature CLEAR. If it is open to interpretation then it is not clear and cannot be used to establish the truth
and
"clear errors in testimonies" have to be proven beyond doubt in order to become accepted as erroneous
and
"fair understanding" does not constitute proof and certainly does not provide "confirmation" of suggested events or reasoning.
and
The Missing Five Hours whilst it can be applauded in some areas, it cannot be in others through its inconsistencies, selective use of evidence, and misquotations. As such it is flawed as an historical work and does not constitute "a masterpiece".

Julian

You and I believe in the same location of the discovery the only thing we differ is the location of Barkers discovery your half way there, the other half will take a little longer.

AUSSIE
I don't know if there's an emoji for a wry smile. If there is 'X' marks the spot.
X

Hi Lee. Hope you enjoy. Always happy to answer any questions. My e mail address is right up front if you would prefer.
Ive been told that there is to much speculation, but surely most modern works are to a degree speculative. Its really why Ive said in the introduction that the solutions I offer will not satisfy everyone but will promote some discussion.
Julian
I do admire Ron and Pete in putting together TMFHT. Again, speculative to a large degree and yes there are different ways to interpret what they have quoted but look at the huge amount of discussion and exchanges that have taken place because of it. Its really for having the courage to step outside the box that I do applaud them both. Heck David Jackson did exactly the same with his initial 'Sources'. And yes it was brilliantly backed up but it went against convention at the time.
Aussie
C'mon mate youve been playing with that web site for long enough, we were talking about it in Rorkes Drift at the 140th visit, time to get it out.
Cheers

Frank
Missing Five Hours - admirable yes, ambitious, yes, laudable, yes, but right?

Frank

Taking the photos does not take much time but the research took me forever, I tried to back all my findings with eyewitness testimony, even by doing that people will still question it, I am not to much worried what people may say, when I first emailed you my findings I said then I know I am right and I look at other possibilities nothing made sense until I found that hill.  In all the books of Isandlwana I have read very few if any mentions in detail Barkers find none has even located the hill, I remember asking you years back, I know deep down where the Zulu where discovered and can back it up.

Julian   but right ?  YES they found maps not fakes that locate the discovery why it took 130 years to find I do not know. The Location on those Maps you agree with that was the main point of the thesis.

AUSSIE
True, they did find the additional maps but that was not the main point of the essay.
Surely that was the notion of the supposed Zulu decoy.

Hi Julian
I would agree about the 'enticement' section but the army location is a different aspect. INKI and I have very similar ideas as to that.
What is of interest is when we did our ground survey nothing was found on the ridge at Mabaso. Our first lot of hits were some distance south of the main road,22 seperate pings. It does of course mean little as between there and the base of Mabaso a lot of road works and farming has taken place over the years. But climbing up Mabaso again nothing other than the residue of Coke cans etc.
Draw from that what you will.
Cheers

In mine and David's 'Durnford Papers essay' (1990) we made the point that the 'X' is very much the location from where the Zulus were first seen rather than where the Zulus were first found to be. I'm sure that's valid, don't you think? When Ron found the additional maps we exchanged long e-mails with one another discussing the variance between a vaguish point marked on a map and the actual location on the ground and the meaning of the 'X' and he was also of that opinion.

And the Hamer map endorses that.

Julian

The decoy yes TMFH implies Chelmsford was decoyed out but as you know through my research I have concluded it was Durnford, frankly it was only by accident the Zulu knew the British were at Mangeni if it was true that Chelmsford was decoyed out they would have placed scouts all along the high ground to give them early warning.  It was the sound of gunfire coming from Mangeni that alarmed the Zulu that the British divided and that happened sometime after 7am over 3 hours after Chelmsford left the camp.

Aussie
We have been discussing the 'masterpiece' epithet which you applied to L&Q's work and asserted was the main point of their essay.
1.  L&Q's main thrust was in fact the Chelmsford decoy which we know was wrong.
2.  By finding the additional maps L&Q also reinforced the X on the Chatham maps in the Durnford Papers but this was not the main point behind their essay.

As a separate matter your last post suggests that the Zulus decoyed Durnford, not Chelmsford, which as you know I utterly reject for the reasons given in our private e-mailing.  This is not something it would be fair to go into now as (a) it has nothing to do with this thread and (b) you have not had a chance to pursue all the sources, put all your thoughts in order, and place them in the public domain.

Earlier in this thread I wrote that I had skim-read Frank’s book but read in depth only three or four paragraphs which looked very good, provided provenance, etc. I liked the layout and expressed horror at the number of typos, misspellings, misplaced or omitted maps, captions and photos - all down to the printer. Text not sometimes closed up (as on pp. 7 and 34) suggests slipshod editing and could be annoying because the reader was left wondering whether something was omitted.

Afterwards I received two private e-mails saying I had no business writing a review if I had not read the book and accusing me of nepotism. One of them was really quite unnecessarily rude. First, I had made it clear that I had only skim-read most of it; secondly I’m sure that Frank will be flattered that I am accused of nepotism when I am younger than he is. Despite this troll-like onslaught, we still live in a free country (just) and I can write what I like. I did reply that I would be reviewing the book properly once I’d read it. I now have – three times in fact. So, as promised, review-wise…warts and all…here goes…

First, the preamble. The List of Original Statements contains a number of errors and omissions (Davies, Taylor, Uguku, Umtegolalo) - the result of poor editing – and is by no means inclusive of all accounts used. The Introduction is soundly presented. Frank writes why he is writing the book, what he intends to cover and how he intends to do so. That’s what I’d expect from any good history book.

The first chapter lays out the background and beginnings of the war and Column No. 3’s arrival at the camp. It is mainly for the uninitiated and contains nothing I would disagree with save for the inclusion of Arthur Adams in a footnote (but even then Frank states that this is speculation).

The second chapter deals with Durnford’s Column, his orders and the move to Isandhlwana. The paragraphs dealing with the ‘trail’ (as opposed to the waggon track) from RD to Isandhlwana I found intriguing, though the geographical description of its location would have been vastly improved by a map showing the two routes – I found the text confusing on this point. I thought the connexion made with the returning impi on the morning of the 23rd was ingenious and answered a question I had much pondered over as to how it could be in two places at (almost) the same time.

The third chapter begins by looking at the vedettes’ reports and tries to make sense of them in a coherent and orderly manner. This Frank does successfully within the narrative of events and a pleasing summary is provided putting each one into context. Personally I would only take issue on a minor point over one of the vedettes. The chapter ends by looking at the opposing forces and contains nothing controversial.

More to follow.

Morning Julian.
There is quite a back story to the errors you have pointed out but its my name on the book and so my responsibility. I do apologise for negatives but do hope it doesnt detract to much from the overall message I have tried to convey.
The e mails you received mirror to a degree the rather horrible ones i received, from the same source i believe. I dont have a problem with critisism of my thoughts and conclusions but the level of personal attack was really a reflection on the personality of the writer, now departed, and his pathological hatred of me as a person. I am sorry you were, along with a number of others, subjected to that.
I look forward to your continued review.

Frank ( Still suffering from this bloody awful Covid )

The fourth chapter explores events following Durnford’s arrival at Isandhlwana. There are the usual caveats about his arrival time and Frank has plumped for 10.45 a.m. This is probably, in my opinion, the very latest possible time one might assign but Frank makes subsequent events and timings fit the framework of the battle so he may well be right.
In the para. re picquets’ reports a line seems to be missing from the text at a crucial point which is a pity as Frank indicates this provides the impetus for Durnford’s decision on a course of action.
Frank attributes Durnford’s whole frame of mind as one of impatience and impetuosity. This was undoubtedly true but, as a professional soldier, he would also have been constrained by the limitations of his orders and I would have been interested to hear Frank’s views on Durnford’s interpretation of them such that it would allow him to behave as he did.
Frank goes on to describe Durnford’s route across the plain, departing from the traditional view of the route. This is something I agree with wholeheartedly and Frank supports his view by providing evidence from several eye-witness statements. Importantly Frank is also keen to explain why the acceptance of the traditional route and an alternative route north of Conical Koppie are not viable.

More to follow.

Hope you're feeling better, Frank.

The fifth chapter deals with the Rocket Battery and its encounter with Barker, his position and Scott’s movements.  It is masterly in its reasoning and conclusions.  The book is worth it, I my opinion, for this part of the chapter alone.  
A downside is the omission of numbered photos so that, for example, on p. 42 where the reader is referred to Scott’s position on the photo, it doesn’t say which of the three he is to look at.  Someone new to the subject would find this difficult. For most on the forum it can be worked out.  They were supposed evidently to have numbers (e.g. p. 21 the reader is referred to photos 26-29 but they are unnumbered).  
There’s a similar mini-confusion with the maps.  The text beneath Map 3 actually refers to Scott’s movements on Map 2.
These are minor irritants to an excellent piece of writing.
The second half of the chapter deals with Zulu regiments’ movements, the first encounter on the plateau and the subsequent movements of Raw, Roberts and Scott and the demise of the Rocket Battery and Nourse’s flight.  Again this is totally comprehensive – nothing is left unexplained – and everything is evidence-based.  A delight to read!

More to follow.

The short Chapter Six deals with the map drawn by Charles Norris-Newman in its various permutations.  This is the first occasion that all the various maps appear together and their inclusion and Frank’s interpretation form an invaluable resource for researchers and useful source & reference point for Frank’s remarks made elsewhere in other chapters.  
Note to correct the persistent proof-reading error of Skottawe for Skottowe.  Nowhere in any original document is the surname ever spelt with an ‘a’.
Watch out for p. 55 which contains another reference to a photo - "The site of Russell's death..." - without it being obvious which one is being referred to.

More to follow.

Chapter Seven deals with Durnford’s retreat route and some of the difficulties encountered in trying to resolve apparently conflicting statements. Frank confronts these had on and does not try to dodge or ignore them – a brave decision in itself. On the whole the subject is well dealt with, though could be confusing for a first-time reader. Any confusion that does occur is not helped by a couple of unfinished sentences which leads the reader to decide for himself what Frank intended to say. I found the arguments and the logic re (1) Johnson persuasive and (2) the timing & movement of the various colonial units beyond the rocky mound around the donga’s headwaters conclusive (and had come to much the same opinion myself).
Nevertheless this is the first time I am aware of that any writer has tried to deal with these matters in anything like a comprehensive manner and for this alone Frank deserves our appreciation.

More to follow.

Chapter Eight deals with the main Zulu attack of the battle and the attempt to stem it by the British. It would seem a pity here to spoil a potential reader’s enjoyment by revealing Frank’s interpretation of events. Suffice it to say that it is methodically worked out and comprehensive. Although there are other interpretations just as valid, Frank is at pains to provide evidence for ALL his conclusions. He is concerned with the minutiae of British and Zulu movements and leaves nothing unexplained.
Of particular note will be not just the position of the colonial units in the British defence line but how they each managed to be placed there (happenstance or design) – plenty of scope for comment there.
I found the whole chapter admirable and would recommend it.
More to follow.

Chapter Nine deals first with tactics and does so in a standard format.  He then moves on to the Reserve and its moves - what he has to say is important not so much of itself, because others have made the same suggestion previously, but because of its being set down, explained, and clarified both in terms of logic and in terms of evidence. Frank likes to tell his story as a kind of jigsaw puzzle with each piece fitting into its allotted place.  None can be left out or the jigsaw won’t be complete. This reminds me very much of the methods of Col. Graham whose work on the Little Big Horn was so admired by David Jackson (and whose method he tried to follow in his own work).  I was reminded of this yesterday when responding to an e-mail from Tellgryn (I’m sure he won’t mind my mentioning it). It is very pleasing and satisfying to read a narrative with this approach.  I’ve tried to replicate it myself but never quite seem to pull it off.  Frank manages it with the bare minimum of words – you could never accuse him of being verbose.  And it’s just enough to get across his meaning in succinct fashion.

More to follow.

Chapter Ten relates the discovery of Durnford’s body. Unfortunately it contains a large number of typos, inadequately captioned photos, textual references to unidentified photos, and apparently random text with no obvious connexion to the narrative. These can only be the result of the publisher’s poor proof reading and I hope will be corrected in future editions. Unavoidably they do mar the flow of the chapter and confuse the reader. Fortunately the chapter is not intrinsic to any understanding of the battle. It could even be omitted entirely.

Chapter Eleven allows the reader to get to grips with the allocation of blame in the battle’s aftermath. It is clear and concise, if a little brief. I feel that Frank would have liked to write more but was constrained by space. It does summarize comprehensively the story of the post-war ‘cover-up’ and the piecemeal discovery of documentation and provides excellent starting points for subsequent follow-up by the reader.

The brief Chapter Twelve allows Frank to indulge in what I imagine is a private bête noir relating to Cetshwayo.  We can allow him his digression. It’s an acceptable one.

Chapter Thirteen summarizes each of the salient arguments of the book and places them in a contiguous context explaining the relevance as he progresses.  This is a useful exercise as much for Frank as for the reader.  I also found it a valuable one.  Interestingly he also suggests where he will investigate next.
The illustrations could have been made more integral to the text.

The sources appear as Chapter Fourteen and follow the order and list on p. v of the preamble.  Or almost.  Two are missing from the p. v list and Umtegolalo requires a correct rubric in the chapter.
Some of the accounts/statements’ rubrics are incorrect or partly missing.

A (reduced?) Bibliography concludes the work.

Overall, Frank accomplished entirely what he set out to do in his examination of certain aspects of the battle.  He has put up arguments which others will have to deconstruct and disprove in a scholarly manner to be taken seriously and to have any worth.  Anything less is just hot air and blather.

I have several times alluded to production problems in the book from slipshod editing and layout to typos and missing text/captions.  It is to be hoped that Frank will be able to amend subsequent editions as he would wish them to be.

My own opinion is that the book is a worthy addition to my ZW library and is one I would recommend.

Good Morning Julian
I do apologise for not commenting earlier, today is my first day out of isolation and still feeling as I have gone through the wringer.
Thank you for your very honest and fullsome appraisal of 'Solving the Enigma.' As you have commented its not without its production problems but Im sure the overall message is still able to muddle through.
Just one or two points
Davies, Taylor, Uguku, Umtegolalo are all listed and are included in the statements section, Im not to sure what the issue is here?
The Bibliography is not truncated in that it isnt obviously a list of all the books I have read and consulted, my collection stands at 0ver 400, but rather the titles I consulted to confirm or deny points.
Kate Birbecks 'With Rifle and Spear' was analysed to death looking for her analysis of Alan Gardners movements around the battlefield. As it is she, as it is a history, has used confirmed sources whereas I have speculated that he, Gardner, was unduly modest in his reports of his actions.
The same would of course apply to your own publication.
My inclusion of the two death sites, Durnford and Cetswayo were really paying homage to, what I believe, were the two highest profile names that run through the AZW threads.
I have been asked many many times why the steel cross exists on the Colonial grave area. That particular chapter was an attempt to describe where it first appeared and how it migrated. unfortunatly as it was getting towards the end of the book it was rather rushed, against my wishes.
Cetshwayo is something different. In my own, very biased, opinion he was the last of the Zulu monarch's, not Kings, there are a plethora of those.
He was without doubt badly mistreated by Frere etc. He was a man who captivated London and Victoria and yet his end marked on a dingy traffic island ( the monument has subsequently been upgraded) and his dismissal almost as an afterthought over soup in the mess was typical of the outlook at the times. So without any apology at all I included him as a full stop to the essay.
I did as well give myself a tad of advertising for my next essay, 'The Western Slopes', put onto hold for a while untill other projects are out of the way.
Again thank you for taking the considerable amount of time in giving your review, some hurt, some really hurt but a lot pleased.

Hi Frank
No apology necessary.  Convalesce and recover.  Rest assured that your overall message in the book does more than muddle through.  It all follows logically and seamlessly through from A to B to C right through to Z.
I deliberately didn’t list every typo etc, to do so would have been pedantic and nit-picking.  The list of accounts on p. v of the preamble I did mention because I thought it worthy of your subsequent attention.  Readers like to know the source of original docs and you thoughtfully provided these in the list after the name of the individual concerned.  In my edition apart from other minor typos…
Against Taylor you have TNA (PRO) WO 33/34.  Inclosure 4 in No. 96.  This is incorrect.
Against Umtegolalo (misspelt) the source is absent.
Against Uguku the source is absent.
Against Davies Edenvale (sic) troop you have The Daily Telegraph 7/3/1879 (on p. 44 this becomes 17/3/1879).  In fact Davies’s letter first appeared in full in the Times of Natal 27th January 1879.
Statement made by Natives is missing from the list
Incomplete (Anonymous) Newspaper Cutting is also missing from the list.
The above is intended for your future reference when revising and is not intended to constitute a criticism.
I made no comment re Kate’s book and Gardner’s movements in my review. Perhaps you’ve confused this with someone else’s review. Similarly I make no objections to the inclusion of the Durnford / Cetshwayo homage chapters.  They make for interesting diversions from the main thread.
I am really sorry that anything in my review hurt (although perhaps post-covid everything hurts at the moment) – that was never my intention.  I did want to answer my detractors who accused me of favouritism and deliberately praising a book before I’d read it thoroughly, which had not been the case.
I enjoyed your book (more, I confess to being a little in awe of its scholarship) and add it with pleasure to my library shelves.

Hi Julian
Quite right, I was asked why I included Kates book and also your England Sons, by another source. So I have conflated my answers.
Again It was mentioned, by others, that the Durnford/Cetshwayo sections seemed out of place, hence my explanations.
Going back to bed..........

Regards

Frank

Sleep well!

Frank
Your anonymous letter writer on p.149 can by a process of elimination be identified as Trptr. Horne NMR.
It was in fact Paul Naish who found the cutting (1929) not Ron Lock.
Julian

Hi Julian. In the survivors narratives I have bracketed it with Horne's statement, pages 148 and 149.i had a suspicion it came from Horn hence the bracket. The statement itself was given to me some years ago by Ron Lock, good to know where it did come from. Could I ask why you believe it came from Paul, is it from him?

Ron Lock told me about it, quoted from it in his letter, ages ago and told me he got it from Paul and was dated to 1929 (a logical presumption I reckon).

Frank,
My opinion matters little, but I think your work on Isandlwana is one of two works that will help with solving the enigma of this battle.

I only have some concerns about Pope's company's movements.

This work lays out some firm ground to work back in the battle and to the later stages of the battle.

Hi Tellgryn.
Im more than happy to discuss Pope and my hypothesis on his movements/positions.
Thanks for the comments on the books relevance, most gratifying.

Frank