Wagons at Isandlwana

Chard are you a Copper ???
90th

Ray63/Dave
The ambulance information you quoted - do you have a specific reference for that para. other than 'AMD Reports 1879'? I found it interesting and would like to see where the makeshift ambulances were allocated - Pearson, Wood, Glyn, the communications lines???

Xhosa
You posted 2 pages from a secondary work, a typescript, which contains much opinion posited as (unfootnoted) fact. I'd be interested to know whose typescript it is and the author.

JY
I have the same report , unfortunately it doesn't tell you where which Anbulances were . I assume you know it's from Surg - Gen Woolfryes' report , titled ' Medical History Of The War In Zululand 1879 ' , does that answer your question ? .
90th

90th
Thank you, yes partly. Do you have a page number and a date for this entry? It's sort of important in tying it down to pre-Isandhlwana rather than post.

Hi JW
It's a facsimile copy , the front page reads... Army Medical Department ; REPORT For The Year 1878 Volume XX , Presented to both houses of Parliament by the Command of Her Majesty , turning that page the new page says '' Appendix To Report For 1879 this page number is listed as 277 , Appendix No IV , Medical History Of The War In Zululand In 1879 , By Surgeon - General J.A.WOOLFRYES, M.D. , C.B. , C.M.G. The Ambulance summary starts at the bottom of page 280 continues half way down 281 , no date is given .
90th

"Medical History of the War in Zululand in 1879"

by Surgeon-General J.A. Woolfryes, M.D., C.B., C.M.G., which appeared as 'Appendix IV' in the Army Medical Department Annual Report for 1879. (source lee Stevenson)
Cheers

JW in reading the report I seem to think this is written pre isandlwana .
90th

Many thanks for that 90th, i have read that, the piece i'm looking for
ties in with the collapse and disintegration as the right horn swept
into the rear and every body started to look to themselves, the NNC
mounted as we know withdrew in an orderly manner when all looked
lost, but i'm thinking at what point were the wounded abandoned. i
am particularly thinking of the NNC reserve, where were they, and
at what point did they attempt to flee the field, it was only a couple of
months ago that i read something but i can't recall what or where right
now! very irritating. xhosa

From Julian.
Xhosa
You posted 2 pages from a secondary work, a typescript, which contains much opinion posited as (unfootnoted) fact. I'd be interested to know whose typescript it is and the author.

Really Julian its again just another man's opinions, no doubt you will have your own take on his
work, which will be very interesting to hear. xhosa

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

ymob/90th
Many thanks. My guess to was that it would be pre-Isandhlwana but if possible I always like to have confirmation.

Xhosa
Yes, of course, it's just that I wanted to know who that 'other man' was and where he wrote it.

90th wrote:

Chard are you a Copper ???
90th

No! I have a proper job!

Chard
Crook ?
90th

Bonsoir,

From Ian Knight "A scene of utter confusion seems to have occured" (essay).


(...) "It's interesting to note, incidentally, that the famous photographs of a burial party were taken during the June expedition, and not on 21st May, as is sometimes supposed. The photographs were taken by James LLyod, a civilian photographer based in Durban, and there are several reasons for reaching this conclusion. For one thing there is no mention of a photographer being present in May, when the short duration of the visit, and the possibility of Zulu attack, would have made it difficult for a civilian photographer to operate effectively. Secondly, the large number of wagons and conspicuous débris, mentionned by members of the May expedition and depicted in the sketches of the war-artist Melton Prior, are not evident in the photographs, while the burial party featured there is clearly a much smaller one. Lastly the British troops visible in the photos are Dragoons, who formed the basis on the June expedition. One question which continues to intrigue historians and enthusiasts alike is whether LLyod took more photographs than those which are generally known. Despite the fact that no collection, either in the U.K. or South Africa, features more than three (perhaps four; one photo, of the mountain with a small amount of débris in the foreground, might have been taken on that occasion or sometime thereafter) photographs of the expedition, the possibility exists that more were taken but have never come to light. Llyod of course, made a living by selling copies of photographs, particularly to visiting officers; he may have suppressed any particularly graphic photos out of consideration of taste".

Cheers

Frédéric

This Ambulance circa 1881..i show it to call attention to
a cracking book..Wait for the Wagon.The Story of the
Royal Corps of Transport and its Predecessors 1794-1993
Edited by John Sutton

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

1 & 3 Had the most wagons
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Source: Lord Chelmsford and the Zulu War.

Remember that not ALL the waggons would have been at Isandhlwana at that moment on the 22nd. some would have been on convoy up and down the communications line.

The missing wagons from Isandlwana.
By Adrian Greaves
________________________________________________________________________
I recently came across an account written by a journalist from the Natal Mercury who had
been with Lord Chelmsford’s column for the first invasion. At the time of the disaster at
Isandlwana he had been with Chelmsford’s detached column near Mangeni and on
passing back through Isandlwana had been obliged to leave his belongs where he had left
them. Later, as an ‘accredited’ journalist with the invasion force, he was able to
accompany the teams responsible for burying the Isandlwana dead. He wrote;
‘I had the melancholy satisfaction of seeing my own tent, or rather the remains of
it, with all my papers, letters and books lying torn up, but nothing of value was
left, and I only suceeded in bringing away with me a few letters from my wife, a
book containing some tales written by me, and a photo that had just reached me
two days before the massacre. The skeletons of my servants and horses lay just
behind my tent, as I was in the habit of having them picketed in that place.
One officer in the Dragoon Guards, while out with his squadron burning kraals,
found in one signs of very recent occupation, and the staff of the Colour of the
1.24th. He also later on came across a kraal full of skeletons of Zulus, and this
fact, taken in conjunction with the findings of large graves on the left of our camp
containing bodies of the enemy, goes far to prove and substantiate my statement
made in a former letter that the Zulus did move their bodies, and as the kraal was
two miles off where skeletons were found, they probably also moved them in our
wagons. The 40 wagons we brought away included two water carts in good
preservation, one gun limber, a rocket battery cart, and three Scotch carts. All that
we left behind, in number not more than 20, were in a partially or entirely
disabled condition. Counting all there, therefore, there are still sixty or seventy
wagons missing, which may have been taken away at different times’.
This account comes from original 1879 papers recently acquired by the Society from the
family of the late Sonia Clarke, which had earlier been given to her by the Oppenheimer
Library for whom she was a researcher.
Ian Knight comments; Yes, I think that is right - although the numbers could be
exaggerated. Certainly there are reports of a number of wagons being recovered en route
to Ulundi as the war progressed - I think a couple were found at one of Sihayo's
homesteads, and Harness mentions one of N/5’s turning up somewhere (he says he was
pleased he’d gone to the trouble of having them marked with the battery number, so he
could claim it back again!) Possibly the Zulus did use some to carry bodies - although a
lot went into those dongas below St. Vincents, and of course those buried further off were
probably killed further off, by artillery fire etc. And I imagine they also dragged them
quite a way anyway, to the nearest dongas. In short, yes the Zulus took away wagons -
and they may well have used them to carry the dead, although of course that might have
spoilt the appeal of the wagons as loot, if they were covered in blood-stains!

ymob wrote:

Quoted in "Twilight of a warrior nation" by Ian Knight.
Central column: 220 wagons, 82 carts, 1 507 oxen, 49 horses, 67 mules (as Chadwick)
The source seems to be French (Lord Chelmsford and the zulu war") for the 2 authors...

Cheers

Frédéric

Bonsoir à tous,

About the number of mules with the central column:

Quoted in the "Daily News" 26 March 1879:

'The Disaster at Isandula.- A Correspondant, writing from Natal on February 16th says:"It appears that including non -combattants (....). The booty taken consisted of 123 wagons, with 70,000l. worth of commissariat stores, 300.000 rounds of ammunition, 1.200 Martini-Henry breechloaders, two Armstrong guns, rocket battery, all the baggage of the General, and all the officers and men of the headquarers camp, and volunteers and mounted police attached to it, about 2.000 oxen, 300 horses, and 60 mules, with three mule wagons of the General and his carriage and eight horses -valued in all at not less than a quarter of a million of money'".

Cheers.

Frédéric

Julian Whybra wrote:

Frederic
Remember that the figure of 220 waggons relates to the whole of Column no. 3.  Some would have been convoying supplies up and down the communications line.  I've been looking at the reports of the number of waggons lost at Isandhlwana and they vary from 100 to 106 to 120 (and I presume they include the 24th's coy waggons, the AHC ambulances, etc.), not to mention Erskine's 6 wagons from Column No. 2.

About the number of wagons at Isandhlwana the 22 january:
123 wagons  according to " a correspondent" of the "Daily News" (see my previous post);
10 wagons with Dunrford according to the correspondent of the "Cape Argus", quoted in "South Wales Daily news", 1st March 1879;
102 waggons containing commissarait stores, alone amounted to £60.000 from the special correspondent of the "Cape Argus", quoted in "The Cambrian", 7 March 1879
107 waggons  according to Lt Smith-Dorrien in a letter to his father, quoted in the "Western Mail", 8 March 1879.

Cheers

Frédéric

Julian Whybra wrote:

ymob
Frederic, the location of each battalion's ammunition waggons WAS unquestionably between the rear of each camp and the mountain.
You wrote: "Why are not men of NNC who brought the ammunition boxes but two men of the 24th escorted by a Sergeant of the NNC?"  Answer: 1.  It was the duty of 1/24th bandsmen to act as ammunition carriers (and stretcher bearers) during a battle.  2.  The 24th soldiers were not escorted by a sergeant of the NNC.  He was helping them.  It would have taken 3 men to carry 2 boxes.  They had rope handles at either end.

Bonjour;
I wrote in another threat:the 2nd column under Durnford were only natives troops ( except Russell's rocket battery). It was necessary for him to have his own arrangement for the supply and distribution of ammuntion. Imagine a fight without the help of Imperial troops ( in the absence of regulars)?
Ian Knight wrote:" It must be said that there is no doubt that the shortage of ammunition was a contributory factor in Dunrford’s retreat from the Donga; Dunford was responsible for the the supply of ammunition of his own men. (Ian Knight: “A scene of Utter Confusion seems to have occureed”).

Mr Whybra wrote: it's was the duty of 1/24th bandsmen to act as ammunition carriers (and stretcher bearers) during a battle (for ALL the units, not only the 24th Regiment).
This assumption implies that someone was responsible for organizing the distribution of ammunition to all the British troops on the battlefield (Imperial troops, NNC, volunteers...) from the ammunition wagons of each unit.
By the same logic, this man was responsible for the allocation of musicians  (and gunners) teams nearby the ammunitions wagons of each unit.
This essential essential task was not easy ....
Who should be responsible for this mission? Pulleine?

Cheers

Frédéric

Frederic
My intention was to indicate that they would have acted as stretcher bearers for everyone nd as ammo carriers for those units of Column No. 3.  Arrangements for this would have been pre-organized.  The arrival of a portion of Column No. 2 was outside the remit.  Column No. 2 would have been governed by its own internal pre-organization.
(post amended to correct typo which JY points out in next post)

Frederic,

The two cannon of N/5 were not 'Armstrong guns' as described in the Daily News account.

I don't know how much of No. 2 Column's transport accompanied Durnford's division of that column, but we know that a troop of the Native Horse were told off to act as a baggage-guard.

Julian,

I think you are confusing No. 1 Column with No. 2 Column, No. 1 Column was otherwise preoccupied on the 22nd January 1879.

John Y.

Hi John
Yes, absolutely, slip of the finger (and brain).  Now suitably amended.
It was 6 waggons with No. 2 Column according to Erskine.
Julian

Bonsoir Mr Whybra, Mr Young,
Thank you very much for the answers.
Best regard
Frēdéric

Hi JY,
I am curious about  your previous post to Frederic and the type/make of  artillery that you believe were with N/5 Battery at Isandlwana.
According to the SA Military History  Soc these were 7pdr RML's, ( rifled muzzle loaders) on Kaffrarian carriages and made by Armstrong.
What do you believe they were?

regards

barry

Barry,

Take a look at Major D. D. Hall's article in Volume 4, No. 4, the Zulu War Centenary Issue.

Armstrong's system was a Rifled Breech Loading system, abbreviated to R.B.L., the Durban Volunteer Artillery were equipped with 6lb'er RBL's and the landing brigade of H.M.S. Active landed with two 12lb'er Armstrong Guns. Apparently those cannon were not used during the campaign.

To my knowledge the only RBL assigned to any column the 4lb'er Krupp's cannon that No. 5 Column acquired from the Transvaal Republic's Battery Dingaan. Krupp's breech was obvious of their own design and not that of Armstrong's.

As we know the guns of N/5 were Rifled Muzzle Loading, so would not have been referred to as an Armstrong gun, except by a journalist of The Daily News, who could tell his breech from his muzzle.

To my knowledge the land version of the Armstrong gun only saw action in the British Army in China during the 2nd Opium War, 1857-1860 and in New Zealand against the Maori 1863-1864.

I hope that makes sense?

John Y.

6 pr 3 cwt RBL
In 1859, Mr William Armstrong introduced his rifled breech loaders. The 6 pr 3 cwt RBL was originally intended for mountain service, but it was found to be too heavy. 7 prs were accordingly introduced for this purpose, and the 6 pr was restricted to normal colonial service, as opposed to mountain.
In the Armstrong system, guns were loaded through a hollow breech screw. The breech was closed by means of a vent piece, which was dropped into a slot or opening in the top of the breech. The vent piece was then pressed home against the chamber by means of a breech screw.
The shell was lead coated. On being fired, this soft coating was compressed into the 38 rifling grooves of the bore, and these gave it the required spin.
The Durban Volunteer Artillery (later Natal Field Artillery) took two of these guns to Cetewayo's coronation in 1873.6 pr RBLs were used in the campaigns of 1877 and 1878. Although two were with Col Rowlands' column at the beginning of the Zulu War, they do not appear to have been used in the war.

Vol 4 num 4 SAM.

I claim no expertise in artillery, so I quote the following from Wikipedia with no confidence as to its accuracy.

"To allow rifling to be used with muzzle-loaders, Armstrong proposed in 1866 a new system whereby the shells had studs on the outside, which aligned with grooves in the barrel of the cannon. This was adopted by the Government for the first generation of rifled muzzle-loaders, termed "RML", together with Armstrong's built-up wrought-iron construction method, which was considered sound."

So, perhaps we are talking about guns made by Armstrong as opposed to what we usually mean by "Armstrong Guns"?

Steve

Steve,

RML's might have adopted some William Armstrong's technologies but they were not built by his Elswick Works, as they were manufactured at The Arsenal, Woolwich.  As I state above I believe this to be an error by a journalist who hasn't got a clue.  

I'll see if I can provide an illustration of an Armstrong Gun tomorrow.

John Y.

We have / used to have Armstrong Guns on the waterfront where I used to live , as a kid I was climbing them every chance I got , big brown things they were / are , they were along the waterfront , in the old fort , and in the botanical Gardens , there were several from memory but I'm not sure how many are around nowadays , I know of one .


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


hope the link works !
90th

Gary,

I take it that they were from a coastal defence battery, rather than field guns?

JY

Yes JY that is correct .
90th

Hi John,
Ok, so to summarise. Do you believe the Isandlwana 7 pdr guns featured Armstrongs design but was produced by other makers ?. Or is the question around the two concepts , rifled breach loader (RBL) vs rifled muzzle loader(RML)
I do not think that those Krupps (RBL) field pieces annexed from the Transvaalse Staats Artillerie  came into play here. They were used elsewhere during the AZW.



regards,

barry

Barry,

The two cannon used at Isandlwana featured facets of Armstrong's rifling and used his studded shell design.  They were produced at The Woolwich Arsenal, in south-east London.

If the term Armstrong Gun is applied in the parlance of Victorian artillery, it generally applies a Rifled Breech Loading field gun.  Although as 90th has made clear Armstrong also designed coastal defence artillery.  He also designed Royal Navy shipboard cannon, examples of which can be seen onboard H.M.S. Warrior.

Sorry but I don't understand your comment regarding the Krupp's cannon, which I stated were in the possession of Rowland's No. 5 Column.

Could you please explain?

This is going somewhat off topic, and might be better discussed elsewhere.

Regards,

John Y.

Hi JY,
Thanks for clarifying.
It appears that Armstrongs design were manufactured by other manufactures, so a generic term was used to describe them, ie "Armstong guns" if they had those features.
Trying to fathom the nature of the query I went back to Maj Halls article in the SA Mil History Soc and he seems to be sure of the designation's of the canon used at Isandlwana , ie "Armstong 7pdr RML"
Now what I thought the query could have been partly about was the RBL configuration, into which class the Boer Krupps guns fall. Of course they were elsewhere, ie with 5 Col.

regards

barry

Barry,

Please confirm that you are looking at Major Hall's 'Artillery in the Zulu War - 1879' as in Volume 4 No. 4 SA ISSN 0026-4016?

If so please explain where in his text you are seeing SA Mil History Soc and he seems to be sure of the designation's of the canon used at Isandlwana , ie "Armstong 7pdr RML"?

Because frankly I cannot see the name Armstrong mentioned once in Major Hall's description of 7 pr 200 lb RML.  
The gun that was used by N/5 at Isandlwana.

He mentions in his description of the 9 pr 8 cwt RML that The main characteristics of Armstrong construction had been maintained.  
The gun was made of wrought iron; it was 'built up' but, in appearance, not at all like the Armstrong RBLs and experimental RMLs.  
It fired an elongated shell, but it was muzzle loading; and it was rifled with three grooves.  
But we are not concerned with the 9lb'er RML as it was not in theatre at the time of Isandlwana.

Again, I think the term Armstrongs has been incorrectly used by a journalist with no knowledge of British field-pieces.  

John Y.

Hi Xhosa
It's quite amazing how much vegetation is there now compared to that pic.
I do remember IK saying the vegetation had only began growing at a faster rate in the 1980's from memory
90th

Hiya 90th, iv'e often wondered about that, we know about the practice
of ' burning the ground ' to clear vegetation, i wonder how much of the
surrounding area was cleared in this fashion post battle when the area
was settled with the arrival of the missionary's..anyhoo, you will be there
soon enough, i bet you cant wait..i will e mail you later, i have a request
of you.

1970
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Around 1995
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

2012
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Acacia started early 1970s, in the first shot its  just taking hold on the side of the mountain.
As Ian says by the 1980s it was spreading very fast.
In fact it was only the big drought in 2005 that killed a lot of growth of the back and made Shepstones grave 'findable again.

Fortunatly the local villages forage for firewood and its keeping it in check to a certain degree.
Cheers

Great images Frank, makes you wonder what happened to
the ' waist high ' grass that we have all heard of, i thought
apart from the immediate camp site the grass was rampant
affording lots of cover for the attacking Zulu, you know that
place as well as anyone, any thoughts on that.. xhosa

Xhosa
I've never heard any report describing it that high, nor of it affording cover to the Zulus. Where have you seen that?

Hi Les
I have seen the grass at waist level, but its not dense in fact its fairly sparce.
The Fugitives drift area is some thing else though because its on a flood plain its pretty thick and high.
A lot of the troops would be prone when firing so being that low to the ground its highly possible that the grass could appear fuller.

Cheers

Julian,

The oral history of the descendants of Prince Shingane has it that he commanded a force of riflemen who crept forward using the grass as cover, thus permitting them to open fire on the British line from a place of concealment.  
John Laband in Rope of Sand mentions Shingane's riflemen, but doesn't mention the additional information gleaned from the oral history.

John Y.

John Y
Exploring the oral history, does it give a position for the force of riflemen? Or possibly the regiment they were from/with that would allow us to position them.
Cheers

Frank,

The oral history was quite good as the two descendants I met with at Isandlwana explained how they slid through the grass using their shields. Shingane was approximately 40 years of age in 1879, and according The Zulu Army and Zulu Headmen was a member of the uDloko ibutho. That said the family offered no oral history that he fought at Rorke's Drift, only at Isandlwana.

I have been waiting from a written transcript to appear from Ulundi, as they want to do something with it to counter what they saw as propaganda being using for self-promotion by another descendant. I can drop you an e-mail or pm as to that.

John Y.