Take out the Officers

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Dundee Evening Post - Saturday 07 March 1903

Poppycock at best !
90th

An early example of Fake News!!

Now wait a minute, don't be to hasty as to brush this aside.
Remember Cetshwayo had a military advisor of European origin in the name of Adulf Friedrich Schiel. This as some know, was the German military advisor and Information minister.
He knowing European warfare and British military formations , could have briefed Cetshwayo of these formations, and how to distinguish officers from foot soldiers, even today we are taught to take out the leadership.
As the article states, "even at the Sacrifice of their own lives", they certainly did that.

Eddie,

At the time of the Zulu War the twenty-year old Adolf Schiel was farming in Natal. Having only arrived in the Colony the previous year. Schiel had briefly served as a junior officer in the Braunschweiger Husaren prior to leaving Germany.

He was not an adviser to King Cetshwayo, he quit Natal and moved to the Transvaal after the 1st Boer War. Whilst there he was appointed a border agent for the Transvaal. During the course of 1882 he made the acquaintance of Prince Dinuzulu kaMpande, and it was to him that Schiel acted as an adviser, rather than his father.

He would later be appointed to the Transvaal’s prison service, and formed a Commando in the 2nd Boer War.

Schiel published a book on his experiences in South Africa titled 23 Jahre Sturm und Sonnenschein in Südafrika.

JY

Thank you John, I have read somewhere he was involved during the Zulu war, in advising the Zulus on the battlefield, right or wrong. I will look it up again.

With that said, this article is probably not rubbish. It happens.

Eddie,

You read it in one of the many newspaper snippets that Kate put on the forum.

It is certainly an inaccurate report.

JY

Sorry with respect John, I don't believe so, 20 or 50, he is still capable of what Kate's articles suggest he was involved in. We know he moved elsewhere with money on his head, ask yourself why?

Eddie,

It is fake news. If King Cetshwayo had a European military adviser then why doesn’t Cornelius Vijn mention him?

It is complete bunkum.

JY

£5,000 reward on Schiels Head.

This unscrupulous scoundrel throughout the Zulu war acted as Cetshwayo's military advisor, and in that capacity displayed the bitterest hatred and most questionable tactics towards the British forces. (This probably him advising how to identify officers uniforms, my post above) Consequently, after the battle of Ulundi the reward mentioned for his capture. ( He was still around at the end of the battle of Ulundi, and capable of advising on Bristish and European tactics and identification of officers).

Hamilton Daily Times, Sat 06 Mar 1915.

Eddie,

If you want to believe that then go ahead and believe it. Be assured I am unconvinced by the so-called evidence that you present from a 1915 newspaper.

Schiel stirred up the USuthu faction during the 1888 “disturbances” and there is a reference to this in the National Archives of South Africa. There is also a 1899 resume of Schiel’s biography held in the archives.

JY

Eddie
This whole episode is just not borne out by the evidence, I'm afraid.

John please don't think I am saying this for arguments sake, I'm not.
With respect, it is well known what he got up to later and after the Zulu war, plenty is written about it. I also knew he wrote a book and has a sports stadium named after him in Germany.
That doesn't take away the possibility that he did what has been suggested. He had money on his head as a Captain in the Boer war, was that false too?
I'm not saying I disbelieve what your saying, I am saying that it is possible that what is said in the article could have taken place.

Eddie,

Then prove it to me, citing all your references.

JY

Eddie
As I said earlier .....POPPYCOCK at Best , if they were wanting to take out Officers why didn't Dabulamanzi do so at Rorke's Drift ? , DaBulamanzi was an excellent shot and had decent guns , quite possibly his weapons were later models , as he was very friendly with John Dunn , it was Dunn who taught him and others how to shoot , as John Young mentioned why wasn't Schiel mentioned by Vijn ??? , Vijn himself was held at Ulundi throughout the war , he wasn't allowed to leave , surely he would've seen another white man in the camp ! ? . You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers from that time , and the same applies today !
90th

90th.

Schiel wasn't held at Ulundi due to his injury, and later he was kept on her majesty's ship Penelope in Simon's bay. I believe.
If we can't trust what we read in the papers at that time or now, then we would not have as many Rorke's Drift defenders as we currently have.

John.

First peace of evidence - Admins thread "The German officer of the Boers", Tuesday, March 05, 2019, 5:38pm, and all the newspaper articles within it.

Kate's post on the same thread, Sunday July 17, 2022, 6:26pm,
Gloucester Echo 27 October 1924.

Earlier in date - 1899.

Headed Col Schiel Boer Advisor - talking about prisoners, South Wales Daily post, Tuesday, November 14, 1899.

Among them as I have already stated, is the notorious "Col" Schiel who, besides being the chief strategist on the Boer side, is also credited with being the man who instigated the Zulus against the British in 1879.

There is also my thread, "Adolf Friedrich Schiel" Wednesday, August 03, 2022, 9:18pm, and all articles within it.

Also:
Evening Express, Saturday, October 28, 1899.

Heading: A Good Capture.
From the "Daily Telegraph"
Special Correspondence
By Special arrangement for simultaneous publication in the "Western Mail"
Capetown, Thursday evening.
I learnt on good authority that Captain Schiel, the German Randite, who was wounded and captured at Elandslaagte, is the same individual who acted as Cetewayo's military advisor during the Zulu war of 1879, when he displayed bitter hatred towards the British.
THE EVIDENCE OF HIS IDENTIFICATION IS COMPLETE.
After the battle of Ulundi the British government offered 1000 Guineas reward for the capture of Schiel, who has since been an officer in the Transvaal state artillery.
Schiel recovered from his wound.

Eddie,

You have been misled, simply because you are believing what you reading in newspapers.

Two of your so-called sources are merely repetition of the same article.

You are confusing yourself - in my opinion - with this statement:
Schiel wasn't held at Ulundi due to his injury, and later he was kept on her majesty's ship Penelope in Simon's bay. I believe.

Schiel was wounded at the Battle of Elandslaagte, which was fought on 21st October 1899, twenty years after the end of the Zulu War.  He was taken prisoner and subsequently transferred to the Penelope which in 1899 was being used as a prison hulk in the Cape.  Schiel was subsequently transferred to a prisoner-of-war camp on Saint Helena.

Over the several decades I have studied the Zulu War and the Zulu people, the only time of note that Schiel’s name comes to the fore is when the Nieuwe Republiek declares Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo as King in 1884.  

As to having a price on his head - there is an 1881 document held in the Pietermaritzburg Repository that identifies a man by the name of Schiel as being guilty of desertion.  A crime which would warrant a reward.

So I am totally unconvinced as to the evidence you have offered.

JY

Thank you John.
I am mistaken over the Schiel injury.

I know newspapers can get things wrong at times, but why would the government issue a reward for his capture.
It is not a statement of repetition, it is in several newspapers, of different dates.
I don't think they would write such a thing if it weren't true, why would they, and where would they have got that information and idea.

Eddie,

Look at the dates for some of the newspaper reports, they are from 1915, then ask yourself if there was any anti-German feeling in 1915.  It was a propaganda exercise at best.  Schiel cannot vindicate himself to the British press, because he died in 1903.

The truth is that Schiel as a representative of an anti-British government - that of the New Republic - was an adviser to King Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo.  In that role Schiel undoubtedly fought alongside the uSuthu faction against the forces of Zibhebhu kaMapita to seek revenge for Zibhebhu’s attack on King Cetshwayo.

As I mentioned previously there is available documentation in the South African National Archives that Schiel was responsible for rebel-rousing the uSuthu forces in 1888, the last throw of the Zulu Royal dice against British forces.

So contained in my answer are the facts regarding Adolf Schiel and his involvement with the Zulu people. He was not, nor had he ever been, an adviser to King Cetshwayo.  He was however an adviser to King Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo.  

He was an immigrant to Natal, yet he deserted it in favour of the Transvaal and “The New Republic”.  Therefore he was a wanted criminal in the Colony of Natal.

Now armed with those facts can you see where the “Chinese Whispers” have started?  Or are you blinkered to the truth as spouted by an uninformed press?

JY

John.

Your statement on 1915 is plausible under those circumstances, however there are reports in newspapers of 1899, that wasn't because of anti German feelings at the time. How do you account for that.

Why was Schiel presented with a gift of land from Cetewayo for assisting and advising him, with others, on the uniting of tribes. What else via Dinuzulu did Schiel advise Cetewayo on.

According to newspaper reports he was also rebel-rousing in the Zulu war, as well as in 1888.

Eddie,

Which country do you think was supplying the Boer Republics with the Mauser KAR 98?  Answer that question and then rethink about anti-German sentiments in 1899.

Once you have resolved that one, then consider the movements of King Cetshwayo kaMpande after his capture on 28th August 1879.  Then tell me what opportunity arose for Schiel to meet with him?  Why is it that in all the time I have been associated with the Zulu Royal House, that the only time he rated a comment related to his role in installing Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo as king.

The land grants that you mention relate the founding of the New Republic with its “capital” in Vryheid, in what was formerly referred to as the disputed territories.  

To put it mildly the reports that you are choosing to believe are at best works of fiction, and not of fact.  You have been misled.

JY

Eddie
JY is absolutely right. I have never encountered the name Schiel with respect to any aspect of the Zulu War. There is NO known, backed up by a primary source, connexion.

Hi John

We are not discussing what happened after Cetewayo's capture, we are discussing what happened prior to and during the war.
I know about Schiel assisting Dinuzulu to become king, I have stated that in a previous thread.
We have had a good debate over these articles and you maybe completely right, but I think there is something to it.
Why on earth would so many newspapers be implying such a thing and the government of the time not challenge them on it.

Thank you John, I know it's frustrating when someone challenges the facts as they are shown, buts that's how we get to the real truth. We chose to believe them or we don't, but if something comes up like to these articles, it's worth debating, right or wrong.

Julian thank you.

I respect your opinion on any connection, and perhaps in publications there isn't, but you can't rubbish anything that contridicts those publications without debating and deliberating over them.

Eddie
You can debate as much as you like but if there is NO evidence to back up your argument then you don't have a leg to stand on. There is no contemporary mention of Schiel's involvement prior to or during the ZW. Those newspaper reports you cite from 30-40 years later do not provide any corroboration for their stories either.
Hearsay is not history. Conspiracy theories are not history. What you're suggesting and the way you're suggesting it is ahistorical. You've written about 'challenging the facts' but with what...? You haven't presented anything to challenge them with. Unprovenanced newspaper stories are not evidence and can be 'rubbished'.
If you're that interested in connecting Schiel to the ZW then do some research into it and then post the results. You'll find everyone on the forum including JY and myself is always open to new evidence.

Thank you Julian, I will take that on board. I take it papers are only to be believed when it suits the narratives. The newspaper reports were not 30 - 40 year's later, the originals were in 1899.
I understand your point about evidence and will keep that in mind. No offence.

Eddie
OK, one related to 20 years farther on, fair enough.  This has nothing to do with suiting the narrative.  It has to do with evidence-based historical analysis.  Newspaper reports which do not name sources, quote individuals or evidence their reporting cannot be relied upon.
Think about the Second World War.  The papers were full of Hitler's real name being Schicklgruber, his job was a paper-hanger, he was never a front-line soldier in the First War - none of which were true.  All very understandable in a propaganda-pumped up conflict.  The Germans did the same to Churchill.  It's never enough just to be the enemy and the bad guy, insult has to be added to injury.  And so it was earlier: it wasn't enough that Schiel was being a thorn in the Empire's side in the 2nd Boer War - he had to have been involved in the Zulu War too.  The ultimate bad guy.  But not a shred of evidence which would stand up in court. I ought to say that I spent many months years ago going through every copy of every SA paper from June 78 to March 1880 in Colindale.
There is probably only one other person on this forum who has done likewise. In my notes and in my memory I can come up with NO printed reference to Schiel from that time.