Crealock's notebook.

LH
What personal observation do you draw from this exchange?

Same as the government do today, skirt around the evidence, ignore the facts and come up with their own theories. Each watching each others backs. And then sit back a hope it goes away. Chelmsford is saying what he thinks will get him off the hook. and let's face it it did. It's only the likes of us to day, that keep this who's to blame issue alive. That said CHelmsford wasn't at the battle, and it was all over by the time he returned. I think we all agree that Chelmsford had his part to play, but not as much as those there on the day. Pulleine and Durford. Gardner had the forsight to advise Pulleine to ignore the generals orders but this suggestion was ignore by Pulleine.

Julian. We would be interested in how you see this debate by house of commons, What observations do you drew.

John

Can you please tell me what you mean by "this suggestion was ignore by Pulleine" ?

Pulleine didn't start to pack the camp up, he even sent a note to Chelmsford telling him that he wasn't going
to pack the camp up.



Cheers

Gardner suggested, to Pulleine that e should forget the generals orders. In view of the situation. John is not suggesting they were parking up camp. But at first I beleive Pulleine was unsure what to do, perhaps Gardner's intervention help change his mind.

Dave
Yes, but Pulleine did not ignore Gardner's suggestion. He adhered to it. And as DB has said, he advised Chelmsford that he could not "move camp at present".
Chard
Chelmsford here is playing a straight bat. He's answering not very difficult questions truthfully with a fair amount of ease and playing for sympathy from the gallery. The questions asked of him come from an unnamed document source (there were at this time several British papers reproducing 'stories' from the Natal papers mostly resulting from rumour and speculation) and these could be easily countered. Chelmsford got off the hook lightly. The wrong questions were asked and the source for those that were could not be named (either because they were anonymous and easily discounted or else because they might incur a case of libel).

Quote :

Chelmsford here is playing a straight bat. He's answering not very difficult questions truthfully with a fair amount of ease and playing for sympathy from the gallery. The questions asked of him come from an unnamed document source (there were at this time several British papers reproducing 'stories' from the Natal papers mostly resulting from rumour and speculation) and these could be easily countered. Chelmsford got off the hook lightly. The wrong questions were asked and the source for those that were could not be named (either because they were anonymous and easily discounted or else because they might incur a case of libel).

Fair comment. But even now speculation rules the day.

Quote :

Yes, but Pulleine did not ignore Gardner's suggestion. He adhered to it.

But he was certainly perplex by Gardner's comment. Would he have done the same had Gardner not said nothing.

CTSG
Perplexed is a bit strong, it's your word, not Gardner's, and he witnessed Pulleine's reaction. Pulleine certainly wavered for a second - but then who wouldn't if you were contemplating disobeying a direct order from the C-i-C? Gardner was a staff officer on the General's Staff. His opinion counted and it gave Pulleine the option he sought. I think your question 'would he have done the same if Gardner had said nothing?' is not relevant (I'm not being rude here; I just don't think it has any relevance). Gardner did say something and Pulleine responded accordingly. It was a good decision from both parties.

Extract from Brickhill. One of the four that was present during the conversation between Gardner & Pulleine.

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

I think it's safe to say, that Brickhill used the wrong word, when he used " Complexed"

CTSG
That was not an extract from Brickhill. I actually have a photocopy of the original typescript of Brickhill's article from the former KCAL. I know that several histories have poorly reproduced his account so you are not to be blamed for providing the wrong word. "Complexed" is a typographical error. What Brickhill actually wrote was "nonplussed" not "complexed". There is no crossing out in the text or misspelling or overwriting. The typescript is perfectly clear. "Nonplussed" also appears in the original 1879 Christmas edition of the Natal Magazine in which the account was first published. "Nonplussed" is not "perplexed" - perhaps puzzled or unsure would suit better, however this is all just a question of semantics - as I said before, who would not waver for a second when contemplating disobeying a C-i-C's order?
As a by the by, I never trust an account "reprinted" in a secondary source - they are invariably inaccurate. I always go to the primary source document. It may take a little longer to get into my grubby paws but at least I can quote from it with certainty.

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

Julian, as you are stating the Statement in the link above from Brickhill is incorrect. Can you post the version you have. This will alllow us to all to sing from the same hyme sheet!!

CTSG
I know the source of the "complexed" (as posted originally by 1879graves) - a typescript done in the 1970s provided by the old 24th Regt Museum. It has several other errors. So, yes, the link has provided unwittingly an incorrectly-reproduced copy, no doubt further perpetuating other myths.
impi
No I can't do that. I signed an agreement not to copy it or pass it on i.e. to abide by SA's copyright laws. I may quote from it but not reproduce it. Without wishing to be evasive, if you want the real thing either write to the NA to buy a certified photocopy or go to your local library and get an inter-library loan from the British Library of the Natal Magazine Christmas 1879 edition. That'll cost you £1 (in Essex) and you get to keep it! If you live in London just go the BL.

Quote :

It has several other errors

I can't see it being a problem, if you post what the errors are.

Thanks for clarifying that Julian, all perfectly clear now.
Would have been surprised if Brickhill had made an error like that!

Julian. How can you be sure you have the original Statement, and not a copy.

Tasker why I you so quick to dismissed the statment posted By "Grave's" and the one that contains errors.

Perplexed sounds more alike to Complex. Don't you think.

John

Julians copy came from the KCAL.



Cheers

I trust Julian's word as a professional, reputable historian. I think he deserves some latitude in this and does not deserve to have his professionalism questioned every time he posts findings from his meticulous work.

And? DB why haven't you mentions this before, you have quoted from the account posted by Graves. I not happy with the fact, that we are being told, that the posted is a copy with errors, yet the person who made the allocation states he cannot post the one he has. Because of copy right, which would mean no one could post anything from the statement even if they were to obtain one. So how can this be debated.
It's a joke.

Tasket, In which case we should all sit back at let Julian tell us what happen at the battle if Isandlwana, end of!!

This account varies somewhat to the one posted on the forum.

On the fateful morning of the 22nd January, between six and seven o'clock, the Zulus showed in considerable force at the south end of Ingutu Mountain. In a survivors account by JA Brickhill details of the escape from the slaughter are given.

Brickhill writes: “The whole four and a half miles of the Ingutu were by this time covered with Zulus; they kept up a continuous fire upon our men, but appeared to me to shoot at too great a distance to be effectual. The Durnford's Horse, at the southern end were now drawing the Zulus down the southern nek in very large numbers. Those to the north retired to a crest which joins Isandlwana to the Ingutu. Leaving the horses well sheltered here, they held this crest splendidly, keeping up a galling fire which, with that of the White Mounted Force on the right, checked what was at first a very determined advance in the direction of the camp; and, instead of coming on, they passed the northernmost end of Ingutu. The artillery threw about 25 shots from different parts of the field during the battle. Four of these were very effective each tearing up what appeared to be an acre of ground in the enemy's masses. One of the guns, however, always appeared to shoot high whilst one shell burst half way, nearly over our foot native contingent. Durnford's Horse now appeared to the right of the conical hill, keeping up a steady fire and retreating parallel to the road to Mangeni Valley. A much larger force of Zulus now confronted them than we had yet seen, showing that the enemy had large accessions to his strength from the hidden end of Ingutu behind the conical hill."

Brickhill continues: "The mounted white force now went down to their assistance and these together held the plains so determinedly that the Zulu lines actually swerved once, and sought to mass together under cover of a kraal. A well-placed shot from one of the field pieces caused considerable havoc and scattered them from there. A general forward movement was now made by the enemy from the kraal just named, right away from the northern nek. This was opposed by the two guns and the infantry alone. The Native Contingent had left and passed through the camp; one determination seemed settled on them all: to escape. I could see nothing of the details of the infantry fighting because of the low lying land, but if the increasing gun roll kept up was any indication at all, the enemy's losses must have been terrible indeed. Our mounted force was now compelled to retire to the gulley. The Zulu left horn had extended two miles on the road to Mangeni Valley. They did not come on in lines, but evenly distributed. Nowhere could you catch three men well together and rarely two. In some places their front was a third of a mile in advance of their rear. This gulley the mounted forces held most tenaciously, every shot appearing to take effect, so much so that, with the havoc caused by the shell thrown in the kraal before mentioned, a thousand Zulu dead must have lain between the conical hill and the gulley. The leading Zulus finding that they were being mown down so terrible, threw themselves flat upon the ground to wait for others to come up, when up they jumped and came on again. One of Durnford's Horse now brought up a wounded companion sitting on the horse behind him. Our mounted men now turned to their horses. 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. The only attempt at a stand that I know of, was made by the few that followed the Quartermaster and the Basutos, who had a narrow escape of being cut off at the crest, but who came through past the General's tent shouting to each other and keeping up their fire from a few rocks under Isandhlwana. The Zulus, for the last 300 yards, did not fire 25 shots but came on with a steady determination of walking down the camp by force of numbers.

Brickhill says : "There were thirty Zulus to every British soldier. At 120 yards distance they raised the cry "Usutu!", the name of Cetswayo's army which overthrew the Izigove under his brother, Umbulazi, in the fight for supremacy in 1856. The cry then was"Minizeld Usutu!" (The Usutu has swallowed up, or overwhelmed.). Since then, all Cetswayo's army goes by this name. They now came on with an overwhelming rush. I went back to the 1/24th (1st Battalion, 24th Foot Regiment, the South Wales Borderers) camp to see if I could find my companion, but could not. So, seeing that the Zulus were already stabbing in this camp, as well as the others, I joined the fugitives retreating over the nek, on reaching which I found all communication by the road we had come along cut off by several lines of Zulus running across. They had come along behind Isandlwana and thus intercepted our retreat. The Zulus' left horn had now come over the ridge south of Stony Kopje. They could have completed the circle, but preferred,I think, leaving this gap so that they might attack us in our flight and bring us to bay. The Isandlwana horn edged away more and more to the left and these two kept up a constant cross fire on us. Our flight I shall never forget: no path, no track and boulders everywhere. On were we borne; now into some dry torrent bed; now wending our way amongst some trees of stunted growth so that unless you made the best use of your eyes you were in constant danger of colliding with trees or finding yourself unhorsed at the bottom of the ravine. Our way was strewn with shields, assegais blankets, hats, clothing of all descriptions, guns ammunition belts and saddles which horses had managed to kick off, revolvers and belts, and I know not what else. Our stampede was composed of mules with and without pack saddles, oxen and horses in all sorts of equipment, and fleeing men all strangely intermingled; man and beast all apparently impressed with the danger which surrounded us. One riderless horse came alongside of me and I caught it and handed it to a poor soldier who was struggling along on foot. But he had scarcely mounted it before he was knocked off by a Zulu bullet. Whilst descending into the deep bed of the torrent, I saw Lieutenants Melville and Coghill and Mr Foley about 200 yards ahead, only more to the right. A stream of Zulus was fast pressing them down towards the course we were on. Scrambling over the rocky bed as best we could, we came up the hill on this side fully exposed to the enemy's fire. We here came to an abrupt halt by reason of a huge chasm of gulley which opened to view just in front of our horses. There was nothing for it but to turn sharply round and follow the course of the gulley down in the hope of finding a crossing somewhere. The constant (sound) of the Zulu bullets made one's ears tingle, and one of the mounted infantry, impatient with our Indian file, put his horse at the gully. It was a noble looking grey but the horse fell far short and the rider fell crushed twelve feet below. I have little doubt both horse and rider had found their grave. We found a crossing to the gully, but so steep that coming out on the far side I placed my arms round the horse's neck and my head as far forward as possible. Even, it will ever seem a puzzle how the horses got out without falling backwards. A little further I found Mr Melville carrying the colours. Turning to me, he asked,"Mr Brickhill, have you seen anything of my sword back there?" After glancing back upon our path for his satisfaction, I replied that I had not. He must have lost it before he joined us. Going down the Blackwater River, we had some very bad country, so bad, that we got off and led our horses. We were compelled to take a narrow pass, the fleeing party all converging at this point. Seeing the danger of Mr. Melville's position (for there was a steep precipice on his immediate left), I backed my horse and kept back others as well as I could. It was then that I became aware that Mr. Coghill was just behind, as he shouted "Get on your horse there, Mr Brickhill. This is no time for leaving a horse. Get on your horses you fellows in front." Someone near him said, "You get off yours.This is no place to be riding one!" I did not then know that he suffered from an injured knee and could not walk. As we shot down into the bed of the Blackwater, we had to slither down a steep bank of 8 or 9 feet. The impetus of Mr. Melville's horse had carried him under a tree, a large branch of which caught his right shoulder and nearly unhorsed him. I was able to catch the back swing of the branch, though it tore my coat well down. Rising to the far side, we were again exposed to the full fire of the enemy, still in hot pursuit. Crossing a little ridge, we came across a grass-covered bog. This scattered our party, each one feeling his own way out. My horse was now fagged. As I spurred him, he reared and my spectacles fell off. I peered down into the green grass to try and catch some reflection of them, but the whizz of a Zulu bullet reminded me that time was precious, so on I sped.   Reaching the Buffalo we found it rolling high. No time for choosing the best crossing time then there were the Zulus in running lines making for the stiller water higher up. My horse plunged in swimming at once but had scarcely gone six yards before he stumbled over large obstruction and nearly fell into the rushing stream beyond. I clutched his mane and guided the rein with great care yet four times I thought all was lost. Not ten yards below was a waterfall, in the pool of which three riderless horses were swimming around.

Off course why this was added I do not know. "(1st Battalion, 24th Foot Regiment, the South Wales Borderers) possibly to upset Martin!!!

LOL.

Thanks LH.

Me!

Get upset???

Never! (he say's punching a hole in the door), LOL.

It's been known for some time that the reference to the swb was not used by Brickhill, it was added much later by some plank. It is on the forum somewhere LH, in fact, I don't think that it's all that long back since it was discussed.

Quote :

it was added much later by some plank

Your not suggesting Julian changed it.

All
Wait. I understand perfectly your comments.
Do we agree that Brickhill's original account was first published in Sep 1879 in the Natal Magazine? If so, that is his original text. The typescript version in the KCAL is marked in the accession notes and on its title page as being the typescript for it. The typescript is identical to the printed version in the Natal Magazine. Compare the two. Both say nonplussed.
The other errors are all minor - spelling or misread words - in this case CTSG focused on one word and it so happened that this had been a word misread by a typist at the 24th Museum.
I have no intention of "telling anyone what happened at Isandhlwana" but do you think if I see an error in a quotation that I would just let it pass? The time when I would turn a blind eye to sexed up dossiers is past. Either something is right or it's not.
John
Perplexed may sound like complexed I agree with you but that's got nothing to do with it. The original says nonplussed.
impi
Copyright isn't a joke. I take it very seriously. I rely heavily on the NA (the former KCAL) to help me with information. I wouldn't dream of risking crossing them. I've already explained that the Natal Magazine can viewed free in this country and can be obtained through your LOCAL library at a minimal cost. If you want to sing from the same hymn sheet you have to buy the hymn book first.

impi.

NO! I am not suggesting anything of the kind (and well you know it). Juilan is well above doing stupid things like that, and besides, anyone with a smattering of knowledge or a few grey cells in their noggin would know that at the time of the battle of iSandlwana and RD (both 1879), the title of the 24th foot was the 2nd Warwickshire regiment, and this did not change until 2 years AFTER the AZW, meaning that the reference to the swb must have been added AFTER July 1881.

Julian.
How can you be 100% sure you have Brickhills original statement!!

Tasker.watch your wording!!! No need to express your feelings in that manner.

Deleted

Julian, how can you be sure that the battle of iSandlwana really happened on the 22nd January, 1879?

Perfectly good question!!!! I would edit that word out if i was you.

John

Julian explianed how he got the account and where from



Cheers

John
Forgive me, I don't know anything of your background so I may be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs by explaining this as simply as possible.
You asked how I know that that the original KCAL account is Brickhill's original.
James Brickhill was a Natalian. He lived there until his death and never visited England.
These are the accounts he left:

(A) His account, ‘The Isandhlwana Massacre’, was published in the Natal Magazine, (September 1879), vol. IV, no. 17, pp. 255-263. Part of this appears in a letter in the Natal Witness, 10th May 1879. The whole is reprinted in Hattersley, A.F. (ed.), Later Annals of Natal, (London, 1938), pp. 150-9, and Brickhill, J. A., ‘How I escaped from the Fatal Field of Isandlwana’, Africana Notes and News 29, no. 2, (June, 1990)
(B) A second-hand account appears in Maxwell.
(C) An Account appears in the Blue Books.
(D) Supplied a short statement and information (with others) to Colonel Bray to produce a sketch map of the battlefield.

The text posted on this site by 1879Graves is unusual in that Gardner's name is misspelt 'Gardener'. The only time it appears with that spelling is in an inaccurate reproduction of Brickhill's account made available by the 24th Regiment Museum in the 1970-1980s. That's how I recognized it for what it was. The typist made a number of errors in it. I got one from the same source in 1972. It stated clearly at the top where it came from and came with a 24th Regt compliments slip. It is not a photocopy of an original. It is a mass-produced photocopy of a modern (for the time) typescript with modern typesetting. Unfortunately extracts from it sometimes appear in histories where the author hasn't checked its accuracy. You can confirm with Bill Cainan that the RWMuseum does not hold the original of Brickhill's account.

In the early 1980s I obtained a copy of the Natal Magazine 1879, the Natal Witness 1879, and Hattersley (as listed in A) all of which have the same text but differ from the 'reproduced' copy I had from the 24th Museum. I then realized that the latter was inaccurate and tracked down where the typescripts used for the production of the Natal Magazine were held so that I could check the exact wording used by Brickhill. They were held in the Killie Campbell Africana Library in Natal. The KCAL was extremely helpful and photocopied the original 1879 typescripts for me - the sheets are headed with what they are and with accession numbers written in pencil on them. They are individually stamped on the back with a KCAL source stamp and copyright statement. You can tell they are the originals because the type is from an old typewriter and the age of the paper has come through on the photocopy. When an item enters a museum or repository it is given an accession number. This number usually consists of the year, month, and number and is unique to that item. This identifies the item as being the one deposited in the museum on a certain date, i.e. the original.

The KCAL typescript, the Natal Magazine, the Witness, and Hattersley all have the same text (incl. nonplussed and, interestingly, Brickhill's original misspelling of Gardner's name as Gardiner). That is how I know that the account is Brickhill's original.

To the rest of you
Apologies for the long-winded explanation.

Thanks for the overview Julian. However you say its typed, Does Brickhill name appear as typed or written in hand.

CTSG
This is a typescript for publication. It is not an official account. Brickhill's name is typed. Indeed, I don't know of ANY account, official, CoI, or otherwise (apart from letters home) which are signed. They didn't have to be.

I guessing this document, was authenticated as being from Brickhill by yourself and Mr Jackson.

CTSG
All documents are authenticated by the repository/museum which houses them. The KCAL (now the NA) has housed these ones since 1879.
In terms of 'Brickhill' himself being authenticated, he WAS the Column No. 3 interpreter. His presence at Isandhlwana on 22nd January can be cross-referenced to the accounts of and confirmed by Gardner and Foley who name him in their accounts and by Col. Bray who met and recorded fugitives' arrival.
What point are you making?

Just going down all avenues , just a bit baffled why you haven't mention this before. As its quite important to in hance the debate, after all most of us believed that 1879graves example was the original. Then you surprise us by saying its not... I'm sure you would prefer us to question, how you came about obtaining the original rather than just agreeing because with you, because your Julian Whybra. If we all agreed with everything you said, the whole history of the Zulu War would be done and dusted.

After all we are only amateurs. Your the expert.

Just an observation of mine.

Why have you never wrote a proper book on the Anglo Zulu War 1879. There are many authors out there who, have done a marvellous job with their publications. Books with substance, books that look good on the bookshelf, rather than just a few pages of A4 paper. With your knowledge on this subject, you should be able to write a blinder of a book. You could correct all the mistakes, that the others authors have made, and we can all throw our books away, and just have the one. The be and end all to the Zulu War 1879. Think of a good title. " The Zulu War, I'm telling you this is how it was" By Julian Whybra, the most leading authority on the Anglo Zulu War of 1879.

CTSG
I've not mentioned it before because I'd not noticed 1879Graves posting before. If someone posts a complete account or reference I never read it. I already know it. I assumed 1879Graves's one was the original. As I've already said, it is to all intents and purposes the same. It just so happened you quoted a line which I knew was inaccurately recorded.
I'm really not sure from your last comment whether you're being facetious or not (you might even be being downright rude). I certainly don't like some of your implications. Young, Knight, Castle, Clarke and Jackson have written excellent works, generally faultless and Jackson's interpretation was brilliant.

You have missed out :Snook, Lock, Quantrill, Young, Crammer, Huw Jones, Barthorpe, Emery, Edgerton, Roca, Morris, Laband, Holme's, and the others.

Quote :

facetious

? You have solved all the mysteries surrounding the Battle of Isandlwana on your own. So with your superior knowledge, on this subject, we wouldn't need any other books.

The Zulu War all sowed up!

CTSG. You have received a perfectly good answer to your original question. If you can prove that the document in question is not the original as stated by Julian, then you need to prove that. He has never said he has solved all the mysteries regrading Isandlwana. So this prolonged attack is getting you absolutely no where. So what's the point in continuing with it...

littlehand wrote:

So this prolonged attack is getting you absolutely no where.

DB, don't need that to follow, what I said comes from me, and that's it.

LH, I will give your post some consideration.

CTSG
I had not missed out Young but I did miss out Jones, Holme, Laband and Emery (who I should have included), and it's Clammer by the way, not Crammer.
But this is going dangerously off topic...
On one thing you are very wrong. I have not solved all the mysteries surrounding Isandhlwana. But at least I have the tools to attempt it. History is not for the closed mind.

Perhaps you should buy a couple of books from the ones we have mentioned. May open your eyes.

Gents it taks two to argue. Either way the discussion is at a stand still.

CTSG.

Some (but not all), of the Authors you have mentioned are not very reliable, and at least people like Julian, Jackson, Knight, etc, do some proper research and try to get the facts correct rather than making guesses or assumptions. Trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff can prove a problem, and if we didn't have realible historians to sort all this out, we would all be making wild assumtions and guesses at what really happened. They deserve our thanks not our criticism.

Still arguing I can see LD coming soon!

John .
Early in the morning here but who is LD , do you mean AD ?? .
90th.

Lock Down To much arguing.

Thanks John .
90th.

I quite agree. Can we get back to the topic.