Did Ntishingwayo really not know Lord C wasn't at home

Julian, My understanding is different to Frank’s. The main kraal of Matyana ka Sitshakuza was at “Dayingubo”, I have not been able to locate this place with certainty. My informed guess is within a couple of miles of Babanango Mountain.
Conversely further west from Nkabane and south of the Malakatha puts it slap bang in the Mangene Valley; precisely where Lord Chelmsford believed it to be.
There is not anything necessarily conflicting here, other than the actual location, presumably different sources give different locations. MkaS’s interests were in the Malakatha.
As to my previous post re Nkabane. I take "almost" as "No". We do know with precision from whence Matyana departed, but it was from Nkabane and morning of 22nd Jan, we do not know from whence the Amaviyos departed to Babanango but you assert from the “source” it was somewhere in the Qudeni and on the 21st Jan. Please correct if my understanding is incorrect.
It seems that the Mangene Stream was the northern border between MkaM and MkaS, the eastern border being possibly the Nyezi and the Western the cliffs of Mangene gorge, south being the Buffalo.

SRB
I'm very glad you did post it.  It made me re-visit my notes and refreshed my memory with some sources I hadn't looked at for yonks.  I also learnt something (which is what it's all about) from Frank.
But flippant?  Nooooo!  Surely not!

Tig
I shall check with Frank as to “Dayingubo”.
"Almost" is a yes with one small change: the amaviyo plus may have assembled and left from the area of the Qudeni Forest and/or they may have left from Nkabane on the 21st.  Which was not precisely recorded.  But it was the 21st and Matshana kaMondisa did order their departure, so he must have been close by at the time.

"It seems that the Mangeni Stream was the northern border between MkaM and MkaS, the eastern border being possibly the Nyezi and the Western the cliffs of Mangene gorge, south being the Buffalo."
I don't know for a fact that this was the case but one might infer from the sources, and in so far as the Zulus had 'boundaries', that it was so.

Tig
Frank replied to me as follows re your post:
"Different interpretations of the same thing. West of Nkabana puts it well away from Mangeni, a lot closer to iSandlwana. South of Malakatha puts it in the Buffalo valley. That's where kaSitshakuza's chief kraal is."
He also suggests looking at this thread where he discussed this before with Fred: 'Hypothesis on the positions of the Zulu reserve'

So, definitely NOT near the Babanango!

Julian,

That is not what the British thought. They thought it was at Dayingubo on the Wagon Road at the Umhlatusi River.

And you know what thought did!

Julian,

The British went to a lot of time and trouble to get intelligence, what they got may be wrong, or not, the fact is they seem to have learned this and recorded it. So I state it for the benefit of others.

Jolly good.  And I've learnt from it.  Thank you.
My 'thought' jibe was not at you but at the nature of British Intelligence which so often got things wrong, especially in the early stages of the war.
I am trying to find out whether M kaS had a second 'subordinate' kraal or your 'find' was a kraal that belonged to him. It is entirely logical that he might have had a kraal in that direction - it IS in the rough direction where LC thought he would find M kaS's followers.

The oxymoron that is military intelligence.

It strikes me though that this is maybe not deserved in this case. His principal kraal was "Dayingubo", not necessarily his "stronghold". If you look at the map the Wagon Road passes the watershed near Babanango where it crosses the line of the Mhlataze. This position is also at the edge of his territory and probably offers advantages in terms of trade.

If there was a conference why not here? It is seven miles from isipezi and a similar distance to the next days bivouac. The Impi was not in this region earlier than 20th Jan? It seems too coincidental to me, not it have a truth in it.

So far the only Dayingubo i've been able to find in RSA is near Umvoti on the wrong side of the border. I can find no reference to it on contemporary maps or in contemporary documents.
Where did you find Dayingubo named? Where did you find that it probably lay near Babanango? Where did you find MkaS's name associated with it? And where did you find it written that it was M kaS's chief kraal? I'd like to follow it up.

The Zulu Army and Headmen, He is listed as Umatyana (ka) Usityakuzu.

Julian and Frank,
Thanks for the pointer to the "hypothesis” thread is interesting and informative lots of stuff I have not seen before, and interesting that this question has been fleshed out before but not resolved, at least on the forum.

I now have access to quotes but not full access to the sources. That said, I will take some time reading through again and trying to get a view on the unresolved apparent conflictions in the thread.

Differences are all about timing and place, which it seems are hard to pin down with accuracy or certainty. It needs to be worked through pretty well and double checked with all the other sources. There is nothing Canonical in the theological sense that can be applied, hence the differences, and the controversy, there can be no "apostolic" supremacy of interpretation.

As to place and time I offer, a straw man built from the information so far tendered, I refrain from using the much abused term “facts” around which we might find agreement, rip him apart. I take this quote from the earlier "hypothesis" thread:- which does not directly contradict the Uguku account. Forgive me for making it over long,  if there is error, correct it, a different interpretation state it, but please add the why and an alternative.

“CT Binns, The last Zulu King pp 125, 126, puts a stamp on the issue. There was a strong discussion between Matyana and Ntshingwayo as to tactics and strategy the argument took place at Babanango on the way to iSandlwana. Matyana wanted to adopt a guerrilla type of warfare, that was overruled by Ntshingwayo. Matyana felt so strongly he took his regiments away from the impi”. Then it follows…
The Impi left Ulundi on the 17th of January, across the White Umfolozi River; camped at the isiPhezi ikhanda 18th. On the 19th they arrived and camped near Babanango mountain. This position was the place named in The Zulu Army and Zulu Headmen Dayingubo the main Kraal of Matyana ka Sitshakuza as on the 20th they moved and camped near Siphezi mountain. Finally, on the 21st they moved into the Ngwebeni. I believe that Ntshingswayo march on foot with the Impi.
To tie this with Julian’s source this can only mean that Matyana ka M was at Babanango mountain on the 19th Jan. It would be then the evening of 19th that Matyana allegedly left the Impi, or more likely morning 20th Jan, it seems to me. Julian’s source has him going to Nkabane. The amaviyo? Another question? Possibilities are endless. Take your pick from these.
1, They made their way to the Nondwene Valley (trampled grass)
2, They went to the Qudeni, This would infer that Matyana may have left with only his, in Julian’s words, bodyguard. Since he went to Nkabane.
3, They all went to Nkabane.

During that afternoon (20th) Lord Chelmsford undertook a reconnaissance towards the Mangene stream via Hlazakazi and determined to send Dartnell there the next day since it was reported that “many Zulus were in the valleys near his (MkaS’s) stronghold”. This may be an intelligence source emanating from Gandama who had “previously submitted”.

The target of the Dartnell expedition was the stronghold in territory of Matyana (ka Sitshukaza). i.e. the Buffalo Valley and Mangene Stream, Crealock drew a picture of the spot which I have not seen but will confirm the target site it not by name. It follows therefore that the Matyana named is Matyana ka Sitshakuza not Matyana ka Mondisa. Norris Newman states as much in his account, he was both in the camp where the Dartnell expedition was told off, and with the expedition itself that went there, so he should know.
Lord Chelmsford’s direction of march for his new camp at Mangene required him to drive the enemy before him and secure his flanks. His intention to take on the oft quoted “two Matyanas” is based upon this strategy, not necessarily to imply they were acting together or in concert, but he must go through the territory of one to act against the other’s territory. His intention to impose submission and hostage taking for assurance as to future behaviour, to drive reticent Warriors before him, or to confront them in battle, whilst destroying the subsistence agriculture and stores of those resisting. Lord Chelmsford’s detailed proposals were confided to a Memorandum sent to Bartle Frere, Colonel Bray, and Col Durnford. (No copy of this document is known to be in existence (?).)

In the event we know that Matshana ka Sitshakuazu had abandoned the Mangene and Buffalo Valleys entirely and moved all his people who would/could move away: Likely towards iSipezi or Babanango.

Julian states "On the 22nd while his warriors were engaged with the British, Matshana kaMondisa set off with a party of followers for the intended conference and was not even aware his men had been engaged with Dartnell since the 21st.” and adds that  “following the impi commanders' summons, on 21st January the amaviyo left Matshana kaMondisa's territory i.e. the area of the Qudeni Forest (I do not know if they had all foregathered at Nkabane) to go to Babanango; and on 22nd January Matshana ka Mondisa himself with a bodyguard left Nkabane to follow the amaviyo towards Babanango.” Confirming thereby that  MKaM’s warriors were at least some or all of those confronting Dartnell on 21st Jan.

Dartnell had crossed the Mangene above stream above the falls then observed a considerable force of the enemy moving NE. At this point Dartnell decided to head back to Hlazikazi and combine his various forces there. This would be about 2-00pm on 21st.

On the morning this same day 21st Jan, Lt Browne had stirred up Zulu interest during his patrol towards iSipezi Mountain, this has often been put down to Zulu scouts from the “great army” possibly so, but possibly also a different force. iSipezi mountain stands out as a high point on a long ridgeline a person could not see over the ridgeline unless he was standing upon it. The actual location of Browne is therefore important to understand better whose force he encountered. (I have not seen Clery’s record of the report that Browne made.)

Before Lord Chelmsford sat down that night to write his ultimate missive to Bartle Frere before Isandlwana he took time out to recon to the iThusi vedette position, from whence he saw Zulu horsemen standing on Maboso after 4-00pm. Those horsemen saw both Lord Chelmsford group and the main part of the Zulu army below them in the Ngwabeni valley by then presumably confident that the position of the Zulu army was still unknown to the British. Lord Chelmsford had also taken a report on Dartnell xpedition from his staff officers who had accompanied Dartnell to Mangene, Lord Chelmsford assented to Dartnell’s request to stay out at Hlazikazi for the night.

Matshana ka Mondisa went to bed that night 21st Jan knowing he was to set off for (according to Mageme Fuza) for Babanango on the morrow for a “conference” oblivious to the fact that the main Zulu impi was heading to Ngwebeni, and presumably nobody was at Babanango to confer with.

Such are the inconsistencies of these reports, which I wonder is the true account of the events?

Tig
First: what was CT Binns' source?
Might he not have simply taken the same source as you [Uguku] and misinterpreted it? He has no special 'silver bullet' source.
Fuze, who was there, said that M kaM had been ordered to come and join them [i.e. the main impi and Ntshingwayo] and MkaM then ordered his amaviyo north from the Qudeni/Nkabane on the 20th.
"To come and join them" - M kaM cannot have already been with the impi for that to have happened. He had to have been going TOWARDS them [i.e. from Nkabane].

Second: my source does not have M kaM going to Nkabane. He was already at Nkabane.

Julian,

I placed the Binns reference in inverted comma’s it is taken from the thread you directed me to. I do not know the sources I state it as part of a straw man construct to highlight the inconsistencies.

You quote Fuze and you are aware I do not have access to this source. You will understand that I cannot comment on it, nor the implications of it’s contents. Any document must be read in context, other documents add to the granularity of interpretation.

You for your part, having access to both Uguku and Fuze do not explain why it is a misinterpretation to believe Matyana travelled southward of Babanango according to Uguku, the source I do have.

My “view” is that the accounts are actually in complete accord. Without the Fuze piece (the existence of which I was completely unaware until you quoted it) I cannot say or agree this is so, without comparing both, but I do believe it is so.

The straw man above is intended to focus on these issues.

Timings and who saw what when can still greatly improve our understanding of what was going on at Mangene and who was there and where they went.

Hi Tig

What I understand Matshana had several Homesteads,  The main one may well have been in the Mangeni Valley, The Symons brothers in their testimony mentions they attack Matshana homestead the one being at Nkabane he also mentions the locations of the other Forces which attack were to the left of their attack which was at Nkabane.  It is also worthy of the mention that when Milne was on Sulatshana to view the camp he could hear and see the origin of the shots which were coming from the Natal Mounted Police

Aussie, Thanks for the info, my library is extensive past internet searches and does not extend to the "official archive" except as quotes form it.

I have seen Milne's position given as Silutshana and Magogo. I think it was Silutshana. I have read the Symon's account but I cannot lay my hands on it.

There is another possible source of cunfusion, that is translation. In the context of the Mangene expedition, Norris Newman is very precise he uses the phrase "Ngaba-Ka-Mazungeni", the British sources constanty use the word "Stronghold". This is kind of unusual language, fort, fortress is the kind one would expect miltary folk to use for an place constructed for defense, stronghold infers to me a place that offers natural advantages for the home team as it were.

I am no liniguist let alone a Zulu scholar but ka is a pretty simple concept so it is a ..... of Mazungeni, it just so happens that the Zulu word for Fortress/stronghold is inqaba (ngaba). so the stronghold of Mazungeni. Mazungeni was a Kumulo a grand nephew or grand cousin of Mzilikazi. The Kumulos left in the Nqutu area giving homage to Shaka.

The new political settlement in the area brought in new people. Sitshakuza and his son Matshana, his lineage was Cunu, space must have been made for Matshana ka Mondisa after 1858 he was Sithole/Tembu his orginal base in Natal was the Msinga area so the Qudeni makes a lot of sense.

Nkabane may also be a translation problem inqaba-ne?

Just thinking.

Tig

In Milne own testimony he mentions going up the hill on the left which is Silutshana, Magago is on the right several historians claim its Magago but by going stictly by his testimony it can only be Silutshana, Milne also mentions seeing Zulus at the foot of Isehezi with Colonel Russell Mounted Infantry close by he could not have seen them if he was on Magago there is no line of sight.

Gavin,

A critique of your hypothesis will follow.

Meanwhile, well done re the Headmen booklet’s mention re Matshana kaSitshakuza. I must have missed it – more haste, less speed! Two things are thrown up. First, that is a vast swathe of countryside for him to be chief over, especially with Buthelezi’s land smack in the middle of it. I shall do what I can to explore this. Secondly, did you notice from the same source that he was an inDuna in the inDabakawombe? That ibutho was one of those ordered to stay at the royal kraal as a reserve, so it was never part of any one of the three impis sent forth against the British. Note too, that Chelmsford’s forays locally from Isandhlwana all got the same result: that the surrounding area was devoid of male warriors and all those interrogated as to the men’s whereabouts gave the same story, viz., that all the men had left for the summons to the king’s kraal. M kaS was nowhere near Babanango, Ntshingwayo’s impi, Russell’s mounted men or LC’s troops at the requisite time.

Julian,

I did note the regiment. Your conclusion though whilst it may be correct is not certain. Matyana ka Mondise was in the regiment and he was there!

Indeed it was a large tract of country, the positioning of MkaM in Quadeni may have been for this reason, see my post above.

As to the rest of course it may be as you say, but it is only an assertion. British intelligence thought presumably for other reasons both were in the "area" for Lord Chelmsford wished to secure their submission. It seems to me that in the case of an invasion it would be imprudent of Catswayo to leave the Headmen of the area way back in Ulundi. There would be a high incentive for these to protect their kin in the area, that is a reason for sending them, i.e. to fight harder, and not to send them in case of desertion.

Aussie,

I agree it was Silushana.

Russell was nowhere near iSipezi on 22nd Jan. He did not get out of the Nondwene valley. The nomenclature of the British and Hills was all over the place. I do not even think Browne got there, though he may have done, I have not seen the original docs to see if they throw more light on the event.

My recollection of one reading of Browne's encounter was that the Zulu were moving East, I cannot remember where I read it, but it sticks in my head. Delighted to be corrected on this. Why would Zulus even at iSipezi be moving east in 21st Jan?

M kaM was not an inDuna.  M kaS was and HAD to be with the regiment.
M kaM's Sithole were still in the Qudeni (from witnesses).
M kaS's Chunu were totally absent from their tribal area (from witnesses).

Julian, I lay no claim to knowing as well as you the Zulu regimental system and mores. It does seem though as a result of these discussions we all now know a little more about who was (or not) where.

That's very true and I hope to elaborate a little more on this subject shortly.

Gavin,
Thanks for your patience. I have been busy and unable to find the time to respond. I really need a clear stretch of time with accessibility to all the sources. I'll try to create an opportunity this week. In the meantime, sorry for the wait.
Julian

Hi Tig

If you read Milne testimony on page 39 of Witnesses on Isandlwana, Milne confirms sighting " The main body of the enemy who had been in our front all morning were now assembled at the foot of Isepezi hill, watching the movements of the mounted infantry who were scouring the plain some distance off, but on their near approach they all retreated to the table land on the top of Iepezi Mountain."

Indeed. And no farther.

Aussie,
Thanks for the accessible reference. I had not seen that book, I have now got the kindle version, I much prefer the real thing though.

"The main body of the enemy who had been in our front all morning were now assembled at the foot of Isepezi hill, watching the movements of the mounted infantry who were scouring the plain some distance off, but on their near approach they all retreated to the table land on the top of Iepezi Mountain."

It is all rather confusing, one thing though is for sure, nobody in the account was anywhere near iSipezi that morning. iSipezi was 4 miles as the crow flies from Chelmsford’s Breakfast spot. The Zulus referred to here were on the flanks of Phindo ridge.

Later in the account Milne gives the Hills letter titles, obviously referencing a map to which I have not seen, (if it exists still). The Hills (Silutshana) & (Magogo) are hills E & F presumably from left to right, but not necessarily so. The IMI were with LC (& Russell) and passed through the col between E&F and were therefore watching the Zulu.

Lots in the book to look over and think about.