Men were killed as they came out if their tents. Isandlwana.

Sergio
Thanks. It strikes me that often on the forum members are looking for the 'quick solution', the blinding light on the road to Damascus, which suddenly reveals all. Biblical-style revelations seldom occur in history. And when they do happen it takes months of painstaking research to validate and evaluate them. I don't blame members for trying to make discoveries of this sort but you all have the nouse to take them at face value and recognize them for what they are. This NZ article is a very good example of what we were discussing on another thread - about how rumours were rife post-Isandhlwana - its worth lies in simply showing how rumours were still going strong two years later thousands of miles away but in terms of its content it has no intrinsic value.

As normal totally disagree, you have given many reasons as to why it might not be true. But that still doesn't mean it didn't exsist, you are fortunate enought to have members on the fourm that agree with everything you say, but I find you rely to much on hind-sight and looking at things in a different way. But thank god there are some, who look at various sources for what they are. The truth is you have nothing to show, that the account isn't genuine. Perhaps we should ak Admin to create another sectiion. Call it " Hind-Sight and looking at things in a different light" Remember it's easy for members to agree with you because they have got the imagination to look beyond Julian Whybra and Jackson.

Have a great New Year.

CTSG
Then, CTSG, why does every other Zulu account differ to this?
Why does every other British account differ to this?
Why does none endorse it?
You may be right in saying that the undiscovered 'Zulu account' does exist somewhere but what are the odds, do you think, realistically, on it being a fake, a poor translation, a mistranslation/misrepresentation of Intombi? You are certainly not right in thinking that the South African article, from which it allegedly came, exists. And if that doesn't exist, think about it, how do you account for the 'Zulu account'? You can't.
The account just doesn't have the right feel, fact-wise, for fitting into the Isandhlwana jigsaw.
Hindsight? How does hindsight allow for non-provenance? Looking at things in a different way? How can you look at this article in a different way other than through establishing authenticity FIRST? Imagination? History does not depend on imagination. Historians don't imagine scenarios then set out to prove them. This isn't a creative writing exercise. Historians look at the jigsaw pieces which survive and try to piece them together in a coherent cohesive way to create a picture. Several awkward pieces mean they've pieced the picture together wrongly. ONE awkward piece means it's from a different jigsaw.
I don't give a fig whether you agree or not but you must have something more than a childish "because I say so" attitude. ACCOUNT for the non-existence of the South African article! ACCOUNT for the non-existence of the 'Zulu account'! WHAT makes the article credible in the face of every other account? HOW does it 'fit' alongside every other Zulu account? Your last post was imply NOT good enough. EXPLAIN!

I sure ths has been posted before.

“At 7.30 I got the message to turn out at once and we got ready in about 10 minutes forming up by the 1/24th on their parade ground.  The companies were very weak no more than 50 in each and there were only 6 of them in all. We congratulated ourselves on the chance of our being attacked and hoped that our small numbers might induce the Zulus to come on…I suppose that not more than half the men left in the camp took part in its defence as it was not considered necessary and they were left in as cooks etc...”

Some interesting observations here. Certainly shows the camp was very ill prepaired.

Quote :

why does every other Zulu account differ to this?Why does every other British account differ to this?

The issue was, you saying the artical didn't exsist in the first instance, as though you had found the reason why.

impi
Your first post relates to the initial column call. Later Williams and others state that the whole camp was turned out. Could you remind me as to which survivor wrote this? It's not a 24th man.
Re your 2nd post Dave asked me to explain my reasoning as to why the Zulu account in the NZ article did not exist and had no historical validity. I did so in terms of its provenance and content. Read my post again - there's the reason why.

My mistake I thought I had posted his name. It's our old friend "Curling"

No doubt there be something wrong with hs account as well.

Impi. Wasn't it Curling who also mentions the men coming out of their tents..

"

Quote :

Wasn't it Curling who also mentions the men coming out of their tents.."

Bickhill.
"The Zulus took advantage of this slight break, and pushed across the gulley sharply, whilst the Zulu left horn drew in slightly towards the camp. A simultaneous forward movement was made by all the Zulus, and many of our mounted men who had ridden in for ammunition were closely followed in by them. Troops of all descriptions were now streaming through the various camps towards the Rorke's Drift nek. Simultaneously with this, the only body of soldiers yet visible rose from firing their last shot and joined me in the general flight. Panic was everywhere and no officer to guide, no shelter to fall back to"

Anyone know who's these Soliders were?

CTSG.

Curling.

"We trotted off to the camp thinking to take up another position there but found it was in possession of the enemy who were killing the men as they ran out of their tents.  We went right through them and out the other side losing  nearly all our gunners in doing so and one or two of the sergeants.  The road to Rorke's Drift that we hoped to retreat by was full of the enemy so no way being open we followed a crowd of natives and camp followers who were running down a ravine.  The Zulus were all among them stabbing men as they ran...and finally the guns got stuck and could go no further. In a moment the Zulus closed in and the drivers who now alone remained were pulled off their horses and killed..."

It corroborates the unknown Zulu account posted by LH.

DB before you say it, the solders might have finished their mouthfuls of food when Curling saw them.

CTSG
You offer nothing in the way of provenance and nothing in terms of explanation of content. You are unable to piece together an argument. You have no historical methodology. You have no knowledge in this matter.

impi/CTSG
There is nothing wrong with the Curling account but in no way does it corroborate the account posted by LHand. The phrase "running out of their tents" may well refer to the men running from the firing line to take up last stand positions as they ran through the tent area.
You also know full well that the alarm was sounded twice and that the second time Pulleine is known to have instructed everyone to be out of camp at the firing line. Pte. Wiiliams, himself a groom, confirms that he did so and joined the other servants on the line.
You understand very little of historical methodology and process. This clutching at one-liner straws followed by bold statements of 'corroboration' alters nothing in terms of the provenance regarding the third-hand NZ newspaper account and does nothing in terms of rationalizing the absurdity of the nature of the attack portrayed by it set against the total avalanche of information provided by others' (Zulu and Briton) accounts outlining the 'traditional' development of the attack.
This is getting quite laughable.

impi
Your Brickhill quotation, given Brickhill's location on the field at the time he made it, probably related to the only body of the 24th within his eyeline - Pope's G coy. He might have been able to glimpse Younghusband's C coy behind the line of tents - it depends how far up the saddle he was.

Impi

Honestly, do you really think that the men seen running out of the tents had mouthfuls of food? Isn't "TWITTER" the site best suited for you, and a few other members on this site? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's taking the p..s!