Why did Lord Chelmsford return to Isandlwana on the 22nd Jan

Mr Greaves wrote:

The Zulus that had shown them to Dartnell, could have launch an attack, Dartnell caught out in the open would not have stood a chance. The Zulus could have prevented messengers from Dartnell getting to the camp. why didn't they attack Dartnell?

It has not been proven that the Zulu Dartnell saw on the first day were from the impi...or even directly coordinating with it. In fact it's not even particularly likely.

Quote :

The next day we have eyewitness accounts from those out with LC  that the Zulu's were leading them further and further away from the camp. ?

True, but there are others that say the opposite and, in any case, correlation does not prove causality.  There is an adage that one tends to find what one is looking for.  That is very possibly the case here. "Leading them further and further away from the camp," is how it was characterized in the aftermath of the battle but the Zulu encountered might have been screening the main body...or just moving to join it.  There does not HAVE to be a trap; nor is it necessary that every action taken was part of some master plan put together by a single commander.  In fact the weight of evidence actually suggests it was not.  L&Q didn't conclusively "prove" there was a trap nor did they "prove" there was a conspiracy to frame Durnford.  They merely opened some interesting lines of speculation.  I think their latter case much stronger than the former.

Dave wrote:

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

This is a nearly perfect example of furthering an argument through both the "cherry picking" and careful omission of facts and qualifications that do not suit one's hypothesis.  An even handed evaluation does not retroactively cull through sources in order to force them into a predetermined argument. I would almost suspect Snook wrote it, but he's better than this.

He is?. ignore this, i'm not stepping between you and Dave..

xhosa2000 wrote:

He is?. ignore this, i'm not stepping between you and Dave..

Well, he was before his later books got completely dogmatic on the topic of Durnford.

6pdr wrote..
Well, he was before his later books got completely dogmatic on the topic of Durnford.



The absence of footnotes is to say the least problematic.
for a man of proven verbosity, it cant be lack of effort,
so their must have been another reason for their non
inclusion!. call me old fashioned, but i like my military
historians to demonstrate their meticulousness in
order that cross reference be enabled.. not to much to
ask, in order for one to be taken seriously.

xhosa2000 wrote:

The absence of footnotes is to say the least problematic.
for a man of proven verbosity, it cant be lack of effort,
so their must have been another reason for their non
inclusion!. call me old fashioned, but i like my military
historians to demonstrate their meticulousness in
order that cross reference be enabled.. not to much to
ask, in order for one to be taken seriously.

Agreed, but I'm talking about something even more basic. In his best book he acknowledged (even if he ultimately dismissed) factors which did not conveniently fit his thesis. There was a (usually brief) discussion of alternate points of view. Forget footnotes, the link Dave provided did not even qualify any of its assertions.

Those Zulus that were in Dartnell's location, what was their roll, if it wasn't to decoy?

John wrote:

Those Zulus that were in Dartnell's location, what was their roll, if it wasn't to decoy?

See John, this is how we get off the tracks.  If you are asserting that there was a trap being laid the burden of proof rests squarely on you.  

But for the record, as I have already said, they were more likely local men (Matshana's boys.) It also possible they were on their way from their homes to join the main impi.  It's less likely (but possible) that Dartnell stumbled into a flanking force thrown out to screen the main impi.  

Keep in mind that Darnell was out searching a wide area.  During most of the reconnaissance on the first day his forces saw few people at all.

In any case there is no conclusive evidence that the men Darnell saw were under orders from the main body to draw the British troops away.  If you feel otherwise, present it.

How does that prove a trap was laid? All it says is the enemy force split and we reacted.

Cop out. It's either a proven fact or speculation. You are trying to have it both ways and there's no logic in that.

Could you please explain the above statement, what am i trying to
have both way's?. my position on this has never wavered..

6pdr wrote:

But for the record, as I have already said, they were more likely local men (Matshana's boys.) It also possible they were on their way from their homes to join the main impi.  It's less likely (but possible) that Dartnell stumbled into a flanking force thrown out to screen the main impi

So why would they have hung around Dartnells location, what was stopping them continuing to the main Impi.

As highlighted by the 24th, ( the cut and paste has been iffy all day )
do you mean like a DECOY 6pdr? 

24th wrote:

So why would they have hung around Dartnells location, what was stopping them continuing to the main Impi.

Again, the burden of proof doesn't lay with me.  Assertions in the form of questions won't prove a trap was laid, let alone that it was being done at the behest of Cetshwayo or the command of the main body command.

Credentialed professional historians doubt it can be proved and even the more populist tread carefully. Mike Snook (a man who requires no footnotes) in HOW CAN MEN DIE BETTER wrote on page 77: "At least two ostensibly unconnected youths said that the arrival of the big impi from Ulundi was now imminent, and that it would attack the British at Isandlwana in two days time. For whatever reason, and it may well have been because he resorted to brutality to get the information, Browne was now firmly convinced that he was in possession of the Zulu battle plan. It seems improbable that such insignificant figures, in such remote homesteads, could generally have been party to the plans of the Zulu high command..."

If there is one guy I thought might be willing to climb out on that limb it would be Snook but he doesn't.

Ian Knight, in his latest work ZULU RISING does agree (p.286) to the possibility (as do I, for that matter,) of a decoy, "Had they been, as some of the Volunteers suspected, trying to draw Dartnell into a trap?" Quite possibly; they knew, after all, what Dartnell did not -- that somewhere in the hills behind them lay the the long awaited main Zulu army."

Note however that Knight is NOT suggesting they were deployed there to make Chelmsford split his force in two. "That night Matshana's followers lit campfires on the slopes of Mangeni, intending the next morning not only to continue the march to the rendezvous point, but if possible to draw the British after them."

The British he is talking about are Darnell's detachment. Those men had already split away of course.  And Matshana's people lived local to the area of the Mangeni gorge.  His force was on its way to join the main body rather than being sent from the main impi as bait to trick the British into splitting their column further.

I did'nt expect amicability, but civility seems beyond you as well! 

"It does not much matter", so you agree with Ian do you? well all
above that begs to differ, you contradict yourself my friend! this
thread stays on here for eternity..you accuse people of cherry
picking..i must say your gall is breathtaking! i look forward to the
time you stop talking rubbish and post something of substance, its
your perogative to respond, or not to me! but when i present you 
with solid material, you glide over it like it never happened, not
good enough. i can spot bluster and hot air from miles away, i
can see why your such an admirer of the late Col, kindred spirits
alas. don't bother replying..no offence intended.

can we stay on topic!

24th wrote:

So why would they have hung around Dartnells location, what was stopping them continuing to the main Impi.

BTW, did those Zulu hang around Dartnell's location? I mean maybe the fires were lit to mask their departure. That's the decoy, right? Or are we talking apples and oranges?

Understood admin, i never bear grudges, its always a fresh start with me! 
i well understand this place is more important than any individual!! i am 
always acutely aware of that, as the old saying goes...it takes a big man ect.

Possibly another reason as to why there were so many Zulus around Dartnells force.
Uguku of the umCijo

The army was under the joint command of Mavumengwana, Tsingwayo and Sihayo. It was intended that Matshana kaMondisa was to be chief in command but he had been a Natal kafir, the other three were jealous of him and did not like him to be put over them; they therefore devised a plan of getting him out of the way on the day of the battle, They accomplished this plan by getting him to go forward with Undwandwe to the Upindo to reconnoitre and promised to follow. As soon as he had gone they took another road, viz., north of Babanango, while Matshana and Undwandwe went south of it, being accompanied by 6 mavigo (companies). It was our intention to have rested for a day in the valley where we arrived the night before the battle, but having on the morning of the battle heard firing of the English advanced guard who had engaged Matshanas men..............

So pretty clear from Uguku that the forces of Matshana were the ones who engaged the column. No master plan of decoy there.

Cheers

When i think of the Zulu ' master Plan ' i think of thousands of ants
all co-operating with a common purpose, each individual supporting
the whole, all with the same objective in mind!. the result was a
foregone conclusion.