Prudent & Foolish Desicions at Isandlwana

Frank's research is always worth studying in detail. If it were possible to put the timeline onto the forum as a separate category it would provide an excellent common framework for debate.

Steve

Get's my vote

rusteze wrote:

Might have known an Aussie would be at the bottom of it!

Steve

no comment: as French, I have to be careful

[quote="rusteze"]Frank's research is always worth studying in detail. If it were possible to put the timeline onto the forum as a separate category it would provide an excellent common framework for debate.

Steve[/quote

Hi,

My point exactly, it would help if we were all able to reference certain points within a time line, that way we would all be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Waterloo

rusteze wrote:

Frank's research is always worth studying in detail. If it were possible to put the timeline onto the forum as a separate category it would provide an excellent common framework for debate.

Steve

Good idea of course.

rusteze
Or at the top of it (witness the second test)

Frank
Might one of those doors be revolving?

All
I also have timelines constructed but to be honest there's a danger.  They come with so many footnotes, question marks, cross-references, and missing times that it's pretty pointless letting anyone else see them (lest they take them as Gospel).  Before I know it, they'll be quoted back at me!  And, basically, if I can't be 100% sure of my own mental peregrinations, how can I entrust them to others?

Waterloo
That's just the problem.  We can't be sure that anyone's particular hymn sheet is the right one...which is why we're all singing different hymns.  To choose one might be to bark up the wrong tree.

Julian Whybra wrote:

rusteze
Or at the top of it (witness the second test)

Frank
Might one of those doors be revolving?

All
I also have timelines constructed but to be honest there's a danger.  They come with so many footnotes, question marks, cross-references, and missing times that it's pretty pointless letting anyone else see them (lest they take them as Gospel).  Before I know it, they'll be quoted back at me!  And, basically, if I can't be 100% sure of my own mental peregrinations, how can I entrust them to others?

Waterloo
That's just the problem.  We can't be sure that anyone's particular hymn sheet is the right one...which is why we're all singing different hymns.  To choose one might be to bark up the wrong tree.

Do we not have a definitive time line then? I was hoping that a time frame (Hymn Sheet) would help us to debate with clarity

Waterloo

Ah the joys of studying the AZW

waterloo
An experiment for you! For ten minutes just try making one of your own and you'll see what I mean.
I'm not saying don't proceed with this. I'm just saying that it's fraught with historical tripwires.

Hello Julian

In all honesty I have tried already, but just when I think I have nailed it, someone adds another piece of information or the information I put in is contradicted and I have to alter the timeline. Perhaps, a bullet point time line without additional comments would help, a kind of 'Idiots guide to Isandlwana, I could try that. I will give it a go and run it by members, they could then alter any obvious mistakes. Its going to take me a while because I will have to cross reference books, documents, documentaries and discussions on this forum. But I am willing to have a go.


Cheers

Waterloo

I think it is worth a shot.

I have to admit though that it requires members to respect the motives of the author and their generosity in making their work available. It must not be used as an excuse for personal attacks (and we do get those from time to time). If that can be achieved, it would serve to add weight to those parts of the timeline that we can agree and focus us more on those areas where there is room for speculation. I take Julian's point about footnotes and explanations as to why certain timings are shown as they are. It cannot all be included in the first instance, but perhaps there is a way of indicating which aspects have a lot of background research behind them and that can be raised separately as and when.

We now know that both Julian and Frank have timelines, there may be others. Would a way into it be for those few to collaborate first on a common timeline and then share it with the wider forum. Then it is not the sole property of any one author. As we proceed the authorship will broaden.  

It has though to be a disciplined debate. I would not stick my neck out to have it chopped off either. Perhaps we should sign a pledge!

Steve

I agree, I think that one method that would help a timeline is to make a clear indication at the end of each bullet point as to whether the time line is an accepted fact or open to discussion/debate.

A simple code

For example

(A) Accurate
(D) Debatable/Being debated on the Forum
(I) Open to interpretation
(U) Unknown
(C) Conflicting reports/Orders

These codes could then be altered when new information is established

Waterloo

Sorry Steve not in this case , I'm on top of it !!!
90th

90th

So do you have some work in progress on the timeline?

Waterloo

Hi All
I think Keith Smith's book is still available , but if it is , it will be expensive ! . I dont want to come across as a killjoy but the timeline idea is a tad fanciful , simply because very little of the times offered make to much sense , from memory Durnford arriving at the camp at Isandlwana is listed at 10 or so different times , some as early as 8.30 I think , others saying he arrived near noon ! . How can anyone attempt to put a timeline down as a timeline , when plain and simply , it's fraught with errors and misjudgements , I certainly dont wist to be dismissive of Frank's
time and efforts , but the honest truth is , it will never be known who , or what, happened a certain time . I agree with Julians thoughts , it's to difficult . I think it's best taken with a grain of salt and basically make up your own mind , the facts are as clear as mud ! .
90th

Hi
Just to be awkward I'm going to put a foot in both camps. Whist I tend to agree with 90th about the difficulty of using various authors' timings (as a point of fact I haven't, I have only used primary sourced timings in my own one), at the same time there's nothing wrong with waterloo's suggestion of a BASIC timeline with the emphasis on BASIC - the only trouble is I think there will not be much on it with (A) and it will be VERY simplistic.
If nothing else it would serve to show how difficult the exercise is.

Hi Waterloo , no I was merely commenting on Steve's post which is the final one on page 2 , just some friendly banter about who's on top of whom ! . . Also in answer to your question no , I dont really think the time and effort involved will lead to anything less than simplistic as Julian stated , you'll get frustrated and cause yourself to many headaches , it's all to hard , as the facts simply aren't cut and dried , but , hey , if you have the time go for it , all the best stepping into the Isandlwana minefield !
90th

90th wrote:

Hi All
I think Keith Smith's book is still available , but if it is , it will be expensive ! . I dont want to come across as a killjoy but the timeline idea is a tad fanciful , simply because very little of the times offered make to much sense , from memory Durnford arriving at the camp at Isandlwana is listed at 10 or so different times , some as early as 8.30 I think , others saying he arrived  near noon ! . How can anyone attempt to put a timeline down as a timeline , when plain and simply , it's fraught with errors and misjudgements , I certainly dont wist to be dismissive of Frank's
time and efforts , but the honest truth is , it will never be known who , or what,  happened a certain time . I agree with Julians thoughts , it's to difficult . I think it's best taken with a grain of salt and basically make up your own mind , the facts are as clear as mud ! .
90th

Bonjour 90th,
There is a new edition of Keith Smith book.
Incidentally, Lock and Quantrill also tried this exercice in "Zulu Victory".
Cheers
Frédéric

From memory, Keith SMITH wrote in his essay (or in his book?) all the difficulties of the exercice.
Cheers

Bonjour Frederic
Yes , Mon Ami he did just that , certainly it was interesting reading
90th

Keith Smith's book doesn't actually give a timeline (I don't know about his original paper) but it rehearses the difficulties and says quite a lot about watches and timekeeping at the time. The range of timings for Durnford's arrival at the camp are given (8.00am-11.00am) to illustrate the problem.

Zulu Victory gives an extensive timeline for Isandhlwana spreading over two full pages and is more the kind of thing we need. But we cannot use that without the permission of L&Q I think. What I would like to do is compare that with Frank's and Julian's and I think we would have a very good composite starter.

Steve

Julian Whybra wrote:

rusteze
Or at the top of it (witness the second test)

Frank
Might one of those doors be revolving?

All
I also have timelines constructed but to be honest there's a danger.  They come with so many footnotes, question marks, cross-references, and missing times that it's pretty pointless letting anyone else see them (lest they take them as Gospel).  Before I know it, they'll be quoted back at me!  And, basically, if I can't be 100% sure of my own mental peregrinations, how can I entrust them to others?

Waterloo
That's just the problem.  We can't be sure that anyone's particular hymn sheet is the right one...which is why we're all singing different hymns.  To choose one might be to bark up the wrong tree.

Makes sense.

rusteze wrote:

Keith Smith's book doesn't actually give a timeline (I don't know about his original paper) but it rehearses the difficulties and says quite a lot about watches and timekeeping at the time. The range of timings for Durnford's arrival at the camp are given (8.00am-11.00am) to illustrate the problem.

Steve

Keith SMITH wrote in his essay ("Isandlwana: a timetable" / "a battle timetable"): "(...) This paper attempts, as far as possible, to follow a reconstruction of the key events of the encounter, at the same time trying to assign more specific times to them. The time at which these key events occured may then be used to determine a critical path from which other times may also be roughly estimated".

The difficulties to determine the time by SMITH is in "A question of time" p. 11 "Dead was everything" 2nd edition.

Cheers.

Frédéric

Here's an attempt.

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

Bonsoir,
I'm interested by "the time line" of Frank for its bold and original perspective of events of the 22 January at Isandhlwana.
For example i have in mind his sequences in time of evidence relating to the band of Zulus by Cochrane, the native (on the top of the hill) and Higginson that caused the departure of DURNFORD.
With his no conventional view, he takes some risks and he is liable of course to make mistakes like Snook with its reconstruction of the battle in HCMDB.
But this is not a problem for me.The interest is to confront  new ideas  and forward in understanding of this battle.

Nothing prevents to build in parallel a more rigorous reconstruction of events.

Cheers

Frédéric

Frederic

Thank you, you are right about Keith Smith. I was looking at the wrong chapter. It would be easier to digest if the timeline was listed as in Zulu Victory though. You have to extract the times from within the text, but I shall have a go.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Frederic

Thank you, you are right about Keith Smith. I was looking at the wrong chapter. It would be easier to digest if the timeline was listed as in Zulu Victory though. You have to extract the times from within the text, but I shall have a go.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Frederic

Thank you, you are right about Keith Smith. I was looking at the wrong chapter. It would be easier to digest if the timeline was listed as in Zulu Victory though. You have to extract the times from within the text, but I shall have a go.

Steve

Steve,

See no offense, but in my humble opinion, a synthesized reconstitution has little interest. What do you think to learn?
Cheers
Frédéric

Frederic

What I want to do is compare the various timelines that we have and it will be easier to do that if they are in a common format first. I hope that will show where there is agreement/disagreement among authors about timings and where there are gaps. That will be a start and may lead us to an agreement on a basic timeline for the forum to use. If we can do that I think the discussion about a more detailed sequence will have a better focus.

Steve

Steve,
Thank you for the explanations.
Good luck my friend with your project.
Cheers
Frédéric

As Julian says and I thought I had made clear. The time lines are my own reconstruction, they aren't gospel and really represent my own thoughts and years of trampling over the battlefield on foot horseback and motor bike. There can never be a definitive time line because we don't know the various actions to attribute them to. However using a certain amount of physical science and available evidence it is possible to put together a reasonable hypothesis. Im going to clean up a basic timeline and post it under a separate heading. What could be interesting is if its then modified by members own thoughts.
As pointed out earlier any attempt at a time line reconstruction will have a myriad of footnotes, what ifs and potential variations so like most of the battle its wide open to conjecture.

Possibly as a way of explaining some of the calculation difficulties in terms of ground coverage, distance travelled I could give two examples. Keith Smiths excellent 'Time table' ruminations are based on a distance a horse can travel at a trot, walk and gallop. That's fine provided they are adjusted for fields of rocky ground a marsh area and some really horrendous dongas. Im pretty sure Keiths calculations didn't take that into consideration.
L and Q probably attempted a more accurate estimate using two runners to cover the distance between isandlwana and 'point X', but yet again they weren't being hounded by volleys from a couple of companies of horsemen, were in running gear and wearing running shoes.
My point is comparisons need to take in all conditions. And when strolling along the Quabe valley lost in thought as dusk approaches one falls into a dam, do I add the time it took to extract myself cursing and swearing from the calculation?
There are at least two reports of one 'wing' of the impi actually sitting down and waiting, once that is taken into account then the entire time line changes. Where was the reserve? Again a source of disagreement, I firmly believe it was on the plain not on the plateau ( that incidentally gentlemen would answer the question of did the Zulu at RD have Martini Henrys ).
In trying to resolve iSandlwana the first thing the student needs to do is ensure a large supply of headache powders, a large bottle of whiskey and a conveinient wall to bang ones head against.

Cheers

TODAYS THE DAY THE MIGHTY MIGHTY SPRINGBOKS ARE DO TO THRASH THE UPSTART ALL BLACKS. AND THIS BLOODY GOVERMENT HAS A POWER OUTAGE SCHEDULED AT THE SAME TIME. BUGGER BUGGER BUGGER.

Frank Allewell wrote:

As Julian says and I thought I had made clear. .

Bonjour,
Sorry but i don't understand what you mean...
Cheers.
Frédéric

Sorry Frederic, I meant that the time line I produce is exactly that, a different look, and possibly not in accordance with others.

Frank Allewell wrote:

Sorry Frederic, I meant that the time line I produce is exactly that, a different look, and possibly not in accordance with others.

Franck,
Personally that is what I expect ...
Cheers.
Frédéric

Frederic/Frank

Yes, difference is exactly what we need at this stage. I don't underestimate the difficulties at all and it may not be possible to do, but it's worth a shot at pulling different versions together. I have been thinking that the greatest problem we have is retaining the knowledge that discussion on the forum generates. It is very difficult to find again, even with the search engine, which is why we keep going over old ground. If we can develop a framework of events and timings that are agreed by most then we have a better foundation for discussion. I may be being way over optimistic but we shall see. I think the process itself will be an excellent learning opportunity though. Look forward to your basic timeline Frank.

Steve

Ive opened a separate topic to handle a timeline.

Excellent! Thanks Frank.

Steve

Pete

Would it be an idea to have a new topic for this Isandlwana Timeline?

Steve

I note the subtlety of the sentence "Durnford rides out"!!!
Cheers.

Frédéric

There are of course more 'events that could slot in and assist in establishing times; Gardner and Smiths arrival for instance. Vause arriving and leaving. Both significant as they have times attached.

Yes I agree, I think the timeline & input should be a whole new topic. I look forward to it with great interest .

I trust that my posts and queries shall meet with some tolerance and indulgence as I am not at all "well versed" with the Anglo-Zulu War. However, i have a question for those that are knowledgable.
In the great debate of the blame game, should Sir Bartle Frere not be mentioned? It is my rudimentary understanding that the whole battle was part of the war which, if I understand matters correctly, WAS NOT sanctioned by Her Majesty to start with. Or at least, the Ultimatum and the issuing of it were not sanctioned. Lord Chelmsford, if I am correct in this line of thinking, whether he acted correctly or incorrectly, acted under orders from Sir Frere. Or am I off the beaten track somewhere? I shall be most interested to read your enlightened responses.

Welcome Arthur
I've read your post very quickly as I'm off to work , but you have it correct from what I read , if I've read it incorrectly ,
someone will no doubt say so , and hopefully , someone else will bring more detail to your post.
Cheers 90th

My second question, which may or may not result in a flood of responses, is WHY did Lord Chelmsford split his force so much? and WHY did he not issue any command for the camp at isandlwana to be properly defended? Or did he give such an order? Divide and Conquer is probably the oldest tactic in the world and dividing your own forces when you are in enemy territory is not, to my mind, a very wise thing to have done.
In anticipation of informed replies to this question and thank you for your patience and understanding.

Good questions. The last is like hitting a hornets nest with a stick. Should be interesting.

Howzit Arthur
In response to your first, Yes Bartle Frere has to accept a portion of the blame, but the ultimate blame has to go deeper and look at the mine bosses for wanting unhindered access to labour. The expansionist policies of the government of the time, the needs of the Transvaal Burgers.
But yes Frere was the pointy bit.
Your second question.
Lots of errors compounded to produce the disaster of the 22nd. Chelmsfords splitting his force is a mute point really.
He is in Zululand for one reason only: to bring the Zulu to battle. He firmly believed that bringing the Zulu to charge his massed guns would be a difficult task. So picture then his intelligence received from Dartnell. He, Dartnell, has found the impi and wants to attack. He is given permission but during the night his appreciation of his powers to do so are diminished. He sends for help.
Put yourself into Chelmsfords position that early morning. He can sit back and hope that Dartnell can handle what in theory is be thrown at him: He can pack up the entire camp and hope to get to Dartnell within 48 hours or so ( it took more than that to move from RD) He can put together a semblance of a flying column and leave a force to guard the camp.

Cheers

Hi Arthur
I don't want you to get the impression I'm fobbing you off , but if you go to the General Discussion Link , or Zulu War Battles Link , you , my friend , will find much information over several years , on who did what , and shouldn't have etc etc . The threads will certainly keep you occupied for many , many days , that I can promise you ! . Some of the threads on the '' blame '' game run to over 8 pages , of , at times , heated discussion with some abuse thrown in as well ! .Would like to know your thoughts on the discussion , I for one have always thought LC was the instigator of the defeat , but there are others who have some responsibility in the demise of the camp , on the 22nd Jan 79 .
90th

Thanks for the responses thus far.

90th, No worries, I am not getting any feeling of being fobbed off and thank you for that consideration. I posed the question(s) as I am looking for the answers. One of my mottos is make sure you weant to know the answer before you ask the question, so all and any answers are most welcome. If at all possible links etc to reference material will be much appreciated as well. I can understand the heatedness of some of the discussions and have no problem with that as I personally dont find a person being passionate about such a topic offensive. Views and perspectives are often affected also by information available and that in itself has quite an impact. I shall duly follow your advice and slowly work my way through the material.

Frank Allwell, Thank you as well for your input. As mentioned above, I am slowly working my way through the info to hand and must first take into account that I have little actual resources in the way of books, letters, newspaper articles etc. At least, at this stage. I do plan on increasing this in time but the usual challenges of time and finances exist. However, that said, I quite agree with your encouragement. My first challenge, to enable myself to try to see things from Lord Chelmsford's perspective, is to gather any and all material specifically with regards what intelligence he had at the time. I am currently at work on exactly this aspect at the moment. I believe he also had intelligence from other sources such as John Dunn? I have yet to get to my ponderings and contemplations regarding the layout of the camp which seem, from an ignorant's position such as mine, to resemble more in line with a picnic or holiday camp than a military one of almost any description. Another rather controversial issue I think, but one for a little later.

In line with what intelligence was to hand, I also have to wonder about Lord C's having sent out scouts and whether or not such was done? Another aspect for me to keep in mind is also the possibility that perhaps Lord C. may have possibly been lead away on purpose? I think one often is inclined to discount or understimate the Zulu. One aspect currently amazing me is how a force of around 20 000 warriors were able to keep from prying eyes. On the other side, the British could probably have been heard from miles away. But of all of this I have much to learn and look forward to having this forum and the responses and guidance of those experienced and knowledgable.

Many thanks and I hope some more responses will soon follow.

Hi Arthur
From memory , I don't think I've ever come across a statement from a Zulu stating their intention was to lure LC away . Let's face it , how would they know the British were going to separate their force in the first place , and to be honest , I doubt they , the Zulus even thought of it . The Zulu never attempted to lure part of the british force away from their camps later in the war , I believe it wasn't part of their strategy to begin with .
Cheers 90th