The missing five hours.

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Hi all

Hi all

Julian's excellent too, like me, does not approve the thesis of the missing five hours ...


Pascal

Pascal, I am sure that Julian will be delighted to learn that he is excellent too, like you!

Hi all

Stop the delire please , with this invention of the 5 missing five hours...

There are no Zulu decoys, during the campaign of Isandhlwana.

Mpatshana of the Zulus were marching to join the main impi when Dartnell found them.

They were obliged to remain where they were to prevent Chelmsford to discover the location of the main impi ...

And Durnford, except him, no one has duped ...

Pulleine was not unfit and thesis of missing five hours is a stupidity

invented to absolve Durnford, who was really an .........

PS : Sorry Tasker ,but Julian agree with me ...Julian is excellent ,not me .



Pascal

Pretty sure Knight doesn't agree either.


Cheers

Hi DB14

Knight would not agree with that ? with me ?



Pascal

Hi Pascal.
DB14 means that Ian Knight doesnt agree with the missing 5 hrs .
cheers 90th.

Pascal, you are not obliged to believe or disbelieve something just because Julian Whybra believes or disbelieves it.
Read the missing 5 hours for yourself and think it through for yourself. Make your own mind up. You are entitled to do so as there is no right or wrong answer. I don't want to hear you tell the forum what Julian thinks, he can do that himself. I would like to know what YOU think when I read your posts. Like which bit of the TMFH theory you think is "stupid."
Lock and Quantrill are also renowned historians and they DO believe the theory.

Tasker , sorry but I did not need, from Julian to this to get an idea on this or that ...

If we are sometimes in agreement, it is a chance for me ...

Because , given his level of knowledge on the zulu war , one must be a genius or a ...... not to be in agreement with him ...

The theory of five hours is a missing ........ I did not have to Julian, or to have his knowledge, to perceive that. I sent him my conclusion, posted last Sunday on the forum, and it is in agreement with me ...

Like what ...



Pascal

The deliberate attack theory has holes in it a mile wide. If Ntshingwayo was going to attack on the 22nd his best chance would be to attack with the dawn. Why would he wait until it had been broad daylight for three hours before making his move. Secondly, what on earth, having already wasted three hours of daylight, did Ntshingwayo then do between 0730 and midday. Durnford's contact was 2 miles plus 1500 yards beyond Itusi Hill - and came some time after the firing had broken out on the plateau, be that on top of or on the reverse slope (British side) of Mabaso. In other words Ntshingwayo had not actually used the 4.5 hours allowed to him in L and Q's reconstruction to do anything. If he used 4.5 hours merely to gain the general vicinity of the plateau behind Itusi hill, then the whole army must have crawled there on their hands and knees, and stopped a couple of times for tea. L and Q have never explained the three (or is it more) Zulu sources, who say the attack was due for the 23rd.



Cheers

The TMFH theory is based only on facts from primary source reports from the pickets, patrols and vedettes.
It is not based on conjecture.
It is easy to speculate and find holes by asking the questions Why? What? and When? Especially when the answer to those questions will and can never be known.
Read about what actually IS known in TMFH and accept that what isn't known, is just that.

The fact that the Zulus had originally planned to attack on the 23rd is not in doubt. However, like any other individual, or army, they reserved the right to change their minds. Which they did, when the opportunity of attacking the camp with half its defensive force elsewhere, presented itself in the early hours of the 22nd. (The Zulus were opportunists).

Hi all

The fact that the Zulus had originally planned to attack on the 23rd and not the 22 nd , is not in doubt.

However, like any other individual, or army, they reserved the right to change their minds and this is what happened when they were provoked to attack...



Pascal

The missing 5 hours are a modern invention, for to lay the blame to Pulleine by the defenders of Durnford ...

Pascal if thats what you get out of it,then enjoy.

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Hi all

The fact that the Zulus had originally planned to attack on the 23rd and not the 22 nd , is not in doubt.

However, like any other individual, or army, they reserved the right to change their minds and this is what happened when they were provoked to attack...



Pascal

A good counter theory!

Pascal MAHE wrote:

The missing 5 hours are a modern invention, for to lay the blame to Pulleine by the defenders of Durnford ...

Not such a good theory.
Where is your evidence to suggest that the eminent historians, Lock and Quantrill are anti-Pulleine and pro-Durnford? What do you base this on?
And which bit is the "invention"? They use primary source material. Please clarify specifically, the bit that you believe Lock and Quantrill invented.

Pascal, you imply also that there is something wrong with a "modern theory." Please explain.


Remember, the more modern the theory, the further removed it is from Victorian spin, cover-up, prejudice and excuse.

Q says on the rdvc that due to pulleine the fight was lost before 10:30 and isn't Durnfords fault.


Cheers

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Q says on the rdvc that due to pulleine the fight was lost before 10:30 and isn't Durnfords fault.


Cheers

This is a considered opinion based on primary source evidence, that Q is entitled to state.

It is not based on bias, prejudice or any other agenda.

He (they) may have come to this conclusion AFTER researching the subject. They had no opinion before writing TMFH and so their opinions are more objective than those who made up their minds before reading the work.

Hi Tasker and other

This means that during those five hours, so-called missing Pulleine has necessarily done anything ...

And if he did nothing, at least it's not him that caused the Zulu attack ...

I prefer a guy who does nothing, rather than a guy who does stupid things like that Durnford...

Without Durnford in the camp at Isandhlwana , no battle the 22...



Pascal

The Zulu did not want to fight anywhere on 22 ...

Twice they were forced by reconnaissance of the colonial troops ... At Nyezane and After at Isandhlwana And the missing five hours ... it's a joke.



Pascal

Pascal

You say that the zulus had no intention of attacking on the 22nd, and also say that if Col Durnford had not been there, that there would have been no battle on the 22nd.

Captain Gardner returned to Isandlwana with some other officers from Chelmsford's part of No3 column. They had returned to pass on orders from Chelmsford to Pulleine to pack up the camp and move to join Chelmsford. Are you seriously saying that they would have remained where they were and allowed this to go on without attacking the camp? Because if they had waited until the 23rd, the camp would have moved and gone to join Chelmsford, and they would have had no camp to attack on the 23rd.

When Gardner returned, there was already firing going on, but the inept Pulleine did not even take the trouble to emerge from his tent.

Let's face it Pascal, Pulleine did very little to try to find out anything about the reported movements of large bodies of zulus in the area, he should have at least attempted to form some better defences before Col Durnford arrived, and at least Durnford had the sense to realise that the zulu movements needed looking into, especially when he was told that they were moving in the direction of Chelmsford.

Even if Col Durnford had not been there, are you seriously suggesting that the zulus would have sat back and watched the men pack up the camp, and let it move to join Chelmsford, without taking the golden opportunity to attack it when it was so vulnerable?

Why do you insist on blaming Col Durnford when you know that it was through the totally inept Pulleine being left in charge of the camp by Chelmsford, and by Chelmsford himself disobeying his own orders on Laagering the camp and splitting his force?

Even if the zulus had not planned for an attack on the 22nd, they saw their opportunity when Chelmsford moved with over half the column to join Dartnell, they could see that the camp was now a sitting duck, especially when Pulleine had not arranged any better defences after Chelmsford had left. They were getting into position before Col Durnford arrived, and their move towards Chelmsford drew him from the camp to protect his general, they could see that this was an opportunity that they could not refuse, and they attacked the camp, besides, with the camp being so vulnerable, they would have done so anyway, even if Durnford had not been there.

Martin.

Up till 11am Pulleine kept his forces consentrated and ready for immedate action.
He was obaying his written orders.


Mr Cooper

What " Defences " should Pulleine have built that would have defended the
whole camp, all the tents, wagons, stores, cattle, oxen ??



Cheers

Hi DB

You are missing the point my friend. Pulleine was not obeying the written orders.

Chelmsford's written orders were to laager when at camp, so it was Chelmsford who was disobeying them.

Chelmsford had disobeyed his own written orders by not laagering the camp, and Pulleine could have corrected those orders and laagered as soon as he took command, he would not have been disobeying orders by doing this, he would have been obeying the written orders, and also correcting the mistake made by Chelmsford by not obeying his own orders.

Martin.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

You are missing the point my friend. Pulleine was not obeying the written orders.

Sorry Mr Cooper, he was.

He was told to act on the defensive and fight compact if attacked. Well up till 11am, he acted on the
defencive and had his men compact on the parade ground.

Pulliene couldn't Laager.


Cheers

Chelmsford's own written orders were that camps should be laagered, but he chose to disobey them and not laager the camp. Therefore Pulleine was also disobeying them by not laagering when he took command.

Pulleine had many hours to organise this when he took command of the camp, especially when the reports of large bodies of zulus were reported in the area, but he blindly chose to follow Chelmsford's example, and ignore the written orders about laagering.

When Durnford arrived at the camp at 10.30 a.m, he was very surprised to find that very little had been done to make the camp more secure than it was, and I think that this was what the argument was about in the tent. Then when Durnford was told that the zulus were retiring in the direction of Chelmsford, he didn't have much choice other than to find out where they were retiring to, just in case they were attempting to cut Chelmsford off.

Pulleine could and should have done a lot better than he did between Chelmsford leaving and Durnford arriving, but he did very little. He was the instrument of his and the camps downfall by blindly following Chelmsford's example, and should have realised that something was going on when all the reports of zulu movement were coming in, but through his dillying and dallying he played right into the zulus hands and condemned the camp to doom.

Martin.

Hi Mr Cooper

The waggons were being packed on masse into the saddle and loaded up
ready for the camp move. It would have taken hours to form a laager, all the cattle, stores, oxen
tents would have been lost to the enamy.

I repeat, if Pulleine obayed his written order for the defense of the camp.

His reaction to the 7:30 alarm was sound with the infomation avaible.

Cochrane was present during P and D meeting, he mentions no argument.



Cheers

Hi DB

The wagons had arrived and had been unloaded, they were parked empty ready for Smith - Dorrien to return to RD for more supplies, however, Chelmsford had decided to march with over half his force to Dartnell at Mangeni. This was about 3 a.m, so the wagons could not have been being packed up ready for moving the camp at that time of the morning, and this is the time when Pulleine (who was now in command of the camp), should have observed Chelmsford's written orders about laagering the camp (which Chelmsford himself had chosen to ignore), and ordered the camp to be laagered. Chelmsford could not have said that Pulleine was going against orders by doing this, as it was in Chelmsfords written orders that this should be done. But because Chelmsford himself had disobeyed his own orders and chosen not to laager, Pulleine just blindly followed Chelmsford's example and also disobeyed the written orders, but conformed to Chelmsford's verbal orders on the defence of the camp.

Mounted patrols were sent out about 4 a.m, and zulus were spotted by some of these around 7 a.m, so if Pulleine had started laagering at 3 a.m, the job would have been done by the time Durnford arrived.

There were others that over heard the discussion between P and D, one of them being Smith - Dorrien, and he said that Pulleine argued that his orders were to defend the camp, so there must have been some dispute or other in the tent.

Martin.

Hi Martin .
Hope all is well , Pulleine couldnt have laagared the camp as they were going to be on the move in the next 12 hrs or so , others had mentioned to The Good Lord C'ford to laager earlier ( 19th from Memory ) and he replied , '' no , its not worth it '' . What Pulleine should have done was possibly set up some sort of entrenchments , at least barricades when the reports of the zulu presence started to filter in . I think the discussion between Pulleine & Durnford wasnt really an arguement , it was a case of Durnford asking for a couple of Co's to leave the camp with him , but Pulleine and a staff Officer said that that wasnt in their orders of '' Defending '' the camp .
cheers 90th.

Hi the Zulus

Martin ,Martin, please, what day and what time it was Pulleine break camp? It's the 22 !

If Durnford did not initiate the battle with his unnecessary reconnaissance missions , and it's the excellent Pulleine and this sacred Durnford have raised the camp the 22,they are joined the brilliant Chelmsford and the Zulu had attacked the 23 the troops of Chelmsford, Dartnell, Pulleine and Durnford, without concern for losses as usual ...

They were beaten and the Plan of Chelmsford was made ​​...

Deliver and win a decisive battle in January ...



Pascal

Hi Gary (90th)

Yes thanks mate, all is well, and hope all is well with you.

Chelmsford disobeyed (or ignored) his own written orders on laagering, this was mainly through over confidence, under estimating the zulus and complacency, he didn't make the same mistake again.

I can see what you mean about laagering (the camp might be on the move in the next 12 hrs), but like you say, Pulleine could have made some effort at making some sort of entrenchments or barricades.

You may well be right about the discussion in the tent, Pulleine did refuse to loan Durnford 2 coys of infantry, but I have also read somewhere that Durnford wasn't very happy with Pulleine's defences for the camp (it might have been on the forum where I read it, I just can't remember off hand).

Best reagrds mate.

Martin.

Pascal

Read my post yesterday (Wed 14th March, 2.25pm), this will explain all to you.

Pascal before euologising Chelmsford and condeming Durnford, take cognisance of the fact that long before Durnford arrived on the scene there was mass movement of the Zulu army, read Popes diary, Chards Account and many more then ask yourself the question, 'what were they doing'. If you have an answer that half way fits the known facts then debate it.
The Zulu commanders were very clever men well versed in the art of war. They knew that Chelmsford had split his forces, Mehlokazulu lead a scouting mission. Probably one of many. If Pullein had started to pack and move, the potential for the impi to attack them on the plain would have been immense and I would suggest catastrophic for the column.
To blandly state that the recce missions were not required is a statement destined to be consigned to the rubbish bin. He did what Pullein didnt, attempt to gather intelligence. The correct action by any military commander through the annals of war.
Durnford wasnt blameless he needs to shoulder his share of blame and if your going to assist him to do that then at least blame him for his mistakes not successes.

Chelmsford brilliant? Theres nothing to suggest he was then, prieviously, or later. With the possible exception of Billiards, he did have a lot of time available to perfect that art.

Read what Ellis, Wolsley, Buller and Wood had to say and their candid opinions of him.

The best that could ever be said of Chelmsford was that he was a nice polite man...............the worst, arrogant sob who refused to accept advice or listen to alternate opinions.

All ment in the best possible way of course.

Mr Cooper
How could Pulleine start laagering the camp at 3.00am? It would've been pitch black! Not sure about the mounted patrols at that time either.

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

The wagons in this photo taken soon after the battle. Can anyone say for certain that this is the position of the wagon as they were left after the battle. Or is there a chance some were moved by the Zulus to the locations in the photo.

Did the wagons used by the British have canopies, like those used at the Battle of Blood River. If not I'm thinking forming a laager of those wagons in the photo would have seem pretty pointless, don't think they would have afforded much of a defence. In-fact they probably would have been ideal platforms for the Zulus to jump over the top. If they did have canopies that might have been a different matter. Can anyone confirm.

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

Hi John .
I havent read anything that says the wagons were covered or had a canopy . Happy to be corrected . :lol:
cheers 90th.

warrior3

What I mean is that Pulleine could have ordered the wagons to have been prepared when he took command at around 3 a.m. They could then have been moved at first light.

Ian Knight states in his book 'Zulu Rising' (page 375), "around 4 a.m mounted detachments were sent out to provide a forward screen as usual". So I am presuming that first light would have been early in the morning, and that if so, then laagering could have also started early, or at least when the light became bright enough to allow this.

But like 90th says, the camp would most likely have been moved, so laagering didn't take priority (which proved to be a costly mistake).

CTSG

I seem to recall reading that the Zulus did indeed move some of the wagons. Was there not some talk of the Zulus using some of the wagons to load their booty and also some of their dead and wounded? I seem to recall reading this, but can't remember if it was in a book or on the forum. Maybe other members can recall something about this.

Hi John

You have come up with a good one there mate.

Like 90th, I can't remember reading anything about the wagons being covered, it would be interesting to find out though.

was it recorded, how many wagons were left at Isandlwana and how many remained after the battle.

Hi old H

I know that there was someone sent to recover the ones that were still serviceable, but again, I can't recall which book I read it in. I will have a glance through them and try to find out for you.

Hi OH2 .
The wagon issue has been discussed on here before , but not sure where , possibly in the General Discussion Thread.
cheers 90th.

Why an earth would Pulleine think about Laagering at 3am

What danger was thier ?

Wasn't the main zulu army about to get smashed by Chelsmford some 10 miles away ??



Cheers

CTSG, OH2.

Regarding the wagons, I have found the following information in Saul David's book 'Zulu the heroism and tragedy'.

Page 80, he states 220 wagons with No 3 column. page 157, he states that an Artillery sergeant had written home and said that "wagons had been thrown down very deep precipices and smashed to bits", so the zulus must have moved them around, but whether they used them for moving their spoils might be doubtful, as on page 153 he says, those bullocks and mules that survived were rounded up and used to transport the booty. It appears that there were a number of wagons still serviceable, as on the 14th March, Wilsone Black had reported that almost a hundred were still intact on the battlefield. (page 304). Hope this helps.

John.

I still can't find anything about the wagons being covered, but will keep looking.

Martin.

Hi DB

Because it was in Chelmsford's written orders to laager camps. Although Chelmsford had chosen to disobey or ignore this, doesn't mean that Pulleine should have done the same and also disobey or ignore this written order. The thing that Pulleine was unsure of, was that Chelmsford might order the camp to follow on within the next 12 or so hours, so he didn't bother laagering.

There may not have appeared to be any danger at the time, but when the first reports of zulu movements in the area were reported, he should have acted right away and organised some sort of better defences, entrenchments, barricades, etc.

Yes, Chelmsford left to deal with the zulu army (or so he thought), but the gunfire that was heard didn't mean that all was well, for all Pulleine knew, it might well have been Chelmsford being ambushed, or in a great deal of trouble, he did not know for certain what was happening to Chelmsford. And if Chelmsford was smashing the zulu army, what were all the reports coming in about large bodies of zulus in the area, weren't they supposed to be getting smashed by Chelmsford, so what were they doing near the camp?

Martin.

Hello the Zulus

Sorry, but there were only 106 wagons in the camp and 12 scotch carts + other carts...

If the excellent Pulleine could leave the camp on 22 as planned, his column would not have been attacked (unless Durnford make of his own) as the Zulus did not attack the 22.



Pascal

Mr Cooper
Most of the oxen, mules, if not all, were killed. Believe Saul David's books at your own peril!! I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole!!

Pascal

Ian Knight in his book 'Companion to the Anglo-Zulu War' clearly states that there were 220 wagons and 82 carts.

You don't appear to be reading any of the other posts regarding the reasons why the zulus attacked on the 22nd, or the reason why Col Durnford had to try to find out what the zulus were up to. You have simply made your mind up and decided that your opinion MUST be right, and that all other opinions MUST be wrong. And as for you keep referring to 'the excellent' Pulleine, well, words fail me.

warrior3

Not just in SD's book, but also in Ian Knight's book Zulu rising.

uNzuzi Mandla of the uVe, says that, 'the oxen and mules that were left we took'. So could these not have been loaded with the spoils from the camp?

John

There are a number of drawings from the period that show the wagons either covered or uncovered. There is also a drawing that was done at Isandlwana by, I believe, a trooper called Nelson, which shows the aftermath of the battle. Amongst the bodies and debris, it shows wagons and carts, some covered and another which just shows the 'hoops' that would hold the cover over the wagon.

In Ian Knight's book 'companion to the AZW', it says that loads could be protected by tarpaulin, or covered by a canvas tent or half tent stretched over wooden hoops. So maybe these hoops, canvas sheets and tarpaulins, could be stored on the wagon and assembled whenever needed. Just a thought.

Mr Cooper

What barricades would you have Pulleine bulid that would defend all the tents, waggons, oxen, mules
stores ect. ??


P.S. He couldn't laager


Cheers