Crealock's notebook.

Quote :

Durnford took command for the SHORT period of time he was inside the camp perimeter, not off his own bat, but by DEFAULT.

But what did he archieve in his time of command!!

He opened the eyes of Pulleine for starters!

And closed them!

Ulundi
He didnt achieve much as he was not in the camp long enough , he basically went off to assess the situation as no doubt , no one in the camp knew what was about to unfold .
90th.

Quote :

Ulundi
He didnt achieve much as he was not in the camp long enough , he basically went off to assess the situation as no doubt , no one in the camp knew what was about to unfold .
90th.

That's incorrect. He went to prevent the Zulus joining up with those Zulus he supposed might be trying engage LC. So he went with the intension of combat not to assess.

littlehand wrote:

And closed them!

I think that Zulu warrior who claims to have stabbed him in his tent did that!

There was a chap stabbed inside the tent, but it doesnt specify it was Pulliene.

No, they didn't introduce themselves to each other, but if you believe the account of the Zulu warrior who claims to have made that kill, the senior British induna whom he describes would most likely have been the camp commander, Pulleine.

I don't think the Pulliene issue, will ever be resolve, one will have to suffice with one's own opinion.
I ask myself why the rumour " our officer shot himself" originated from. There's no smoke without fire.
And DB pointed out in another thread, the helmit laying next to Pulliene's body shows a bullet hole to the side stained with blood. What was Brown trying to tell us. Why would he draw a helmet next to Pulliene's body with a bullet hole showing as clear as day?

OH2 .
I'm thinking you may be a tad off the mark ! . He no doubt went to see what was happening out toward Chelmesford , he didnt / wouldnt have known for certain that he was going to be attacking or attacked by anyone . There was a lot of confusing reports regarding the zulus , Durnford did set off as you say to prevent the zulus attacking L.C but he didnt know for a FACT that he was going to be either attacking or be attacked .
90th.

Ulundi wrote:

Why would he draw a helmet next to Pulliene's body with a bullet hole showing as clear as day?

Either Browne was trying to tell the world something with out spelling it out; or, as is well known, GHB was a renowned teller of yarns, not all of them entirely plausible.

Quote :

Why would he draw a helmet next to Pulliene's body with a bullet hole showing as clear as day

It does raise a question. Did he or didn't he

There are lots of sightings of Pulleine's body, by Browne, Glyn, Coghill said he was shot dead to at least 2 people.



Cheers

Assuming he shot himself, is it it's self a shot in the dark, with the amount of lead flying that day, he could have been hit in number of way's. And without concrete evidence, it would be highly dsrepectfull to suggest he shot himself

sas1 wrote:

Assuming he shot himself, is it it's self a shot in the dark, with the amount of lead flying that day, he could have been hit in number of way's. And without concrete evidence, it would be highly dsrepectfull to suggest he shot himself

Completely agree with this.
I am not sure, but I think the suggestion is based on Zulu(s) accounts.

I agree to an extent.. But the rumour started to circulate not long after the battle, the instigator of the rumour we know didn't take part in the battle, but it can't be ruled out until such evidence comes to light to prove otherwise. Was the instigator told by someone who was there and escape?? Just one of the many mysteries surrounding the battle of Isandlwana...

if your talking about Thomas Thomas LH, he was a proven lier and can't be taken seriosly on any account.


Cheers

Quote :

if your talking about Thomas Thomas LH, he was a proven lier and can't be taken seriosly on any account.

He wasn't proven a liar at all. It was proven he wasn't at Isandlwana during the Battle. So it was assumed he woundn't have known.

What I'm saying is don't dismissed it to quickly, unless you have concrete evidence to show he was lying. But I know you can't!!!

LH

He says the men formed square around the ammuntion, struck the tents, held the Zulus off for 4 hours before Durnford arrived and ordered them to advance and thats when they lost.

None of the above happened.


Cheers

Are we not discussing the issue regarding " our officer shot himself"

Letter from No. 1415 Thomas Thomas of Ystalyfera to his Uncle and Aunt.

Quote :

We went about 300 yards and they were so many that they came in our rear and took the camp and everything that belonged to us; they came about us so thick that we could not handle our guns and then we knocked them down with the butt of the gun; the Zulus killed about 1841 of our fellows altogether but we ourselves killed some of the volunteers because they were running away and the colonel in command shot himself because he knew he had done wrong. He should not have put us to advance after them and leave the ammunition.

"He should not have put us to advance after them and leave the ammunition"

Ok he may not have been there. But it's odd how he mentions the reasons why he shot himself.

Did, "Thomas Thomas" actually exsist. If yes what do we know about him?

And which "colonel in command" is Thomas talking about?

Pulleine or Durnford?

"From No. 1415 Thomas Thomas of Ystalyfera to his Uncle and Aunt.1
Rorke's Drift.
19 February 1879.

I am very sorry to tell you that we see very hard times of it out here now. We are on the march all the time and we have not seen a bit of bread this last two months, only biscuits all the time and we are often on the road for two or three days at a stretch, that we don't get coffee or tea, only dry biscuit; it is an awful place for water. Another thing, we have to write with powder and water and I had to pay fourpence for this sheet of paper and envelope.

We had a very hard fight for about three hours at a place called Isandhlwana. The Zulus attacked our camp and as soon as we saw them coming, we struck the tents and formed square around the ammunition, and we kept them back for three hours.

The General was not with us at the time; he was out somewhere and the colonel that was in command of us (as soon as he saw the Zulus retiring) ordered us to advance after them. We went about 300 yards and theywere so many that they came in our rear and took the camp and everything that belonged to us; they
came about us so thick that we could not handle our guns and then we knocked them down with the butt of the gun; the Zulus killed about 1841 of our fellows altogether but we ourselves killed some of the volunteers because they were running away and the colonel in command shot himself because he knew he had done wrong. He should not have put us to advance after them and leave the ammunition. However, we killed about 6000 that day. David Davies has been killed.

Thomas' statement that 'the colonel in command shot himself (referring
probably to Durnford but possibly to Pulleine) is hard to credit; at the same time
it is difficult to understand why he should have made such a statement had he
not believed that such was the case.

The battle of Isandhlwana ended at about 1-30 p.m. and by 4-30 p.m. B Company of the 2nd Battalion, left to protect the post at Rorke's Drift, found the Zulus moving against them. Fortunately, natives of Durnford's Horse had brought news of Isandhlwana about one hour earlier and some defences were erected from mealie bags, biscuit boxes and commisariat waggons. The defection of the members of the Natal Native Contingent and their flight to Helpmakaar rather offset this meagre advantage and left roughly one hundred whites to defend the post with another thirty in hospital. The defenders held out for the best part of twelve hours against great odds maintaining a steady and deadly fire. The burning of
the hospital by the Zulus probably saved the garrison after nightfall, as the flames from it provided sufficient light by which to keep up an accurate fire. At daybreak the Zulus retired in face of the advance of Chelmsford's column leaving thegarrison comparatively unscathed with twenty men killed and nine wounded.

Private Henry Hook sent his mother a very matter-of-fact account of an engagement
in which his courage earned him the award of the Victoria Cross.2
1 North Wales Express, 18 April 1879.
2 See Atkinson, pp. 351, 353.

Thanks for reposting this Ulundi, I have read it previously although some members may not have and will find it useful. I was aware that the colonel reference was ambiguous.

Still can not help but feel that although Thomas was not present at iSandlwana or RD, as one of the few rank and file who was literate (not common back then for an enlisted man) he may well have been reflecting the whispered rumours of many an enlisted man around the camp fires.

It's not something those who may have witnessed It, would shout about, but whispered around a camp fire. Maybe

littlehand wrote:

It's not something those who may have witnessed It, would shout about, but whispered around a camp fire. Maybe

Whispers around campfires...good title for a memoir...bad source of information.

littlehand wrote:

Are we not discussing the issue regarding " our officer shot himself"

What kind of sophistry is this? His story was a complete fabrication. People who tell lies are liars. Have the decency to admit it and I'll let you eat your humble pie in peace. But if you persist in this sort of nonsense I'm going to give it back to you with both barrels. DUDE, YOU JUST GOT SERVED BY A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD!

Quote :

His story was a complete fabrication.

easy to say hard to prove.

Dave wrote:

Quote :

His story was a complete fabrication.

easy to say hard to prove.

Thomas Thomas' story? That's not hard to disprove at all.

If you mean Pulleine being shot in the head, I don't know what happened to him. But the burden of proof lies with those who assert it as a fact, not the doubters.

What's more DB has simply been providing relevant context. I can't even detect whether he took a specific side in the argument.

John wrote:

Letter from No. 1415 Thomas Thomas of Ystalyfera to his Uncle and Aunt.

"He should not have put us to advance after them and leave the ammunition"

Ok he may not have been there. But it's odd how he mentions the reasons why he shot himself.

Why is it odd that he attributed a reason? Liars and con men do such things to make their accounts plausible. What would have made it REALLY odd is if it said, "He shot himself in the head because he was terrified by the eclipse." But to my way of thinking that wouldn't make the account any less believable because it's obviously utter fabrication as it stands.

Littlehand .
Your post 26 / 11 , 7.30 am . Regarding Thomas Thomas I quote '' He wasnt a proven liar at all '' and '' What I'm saying is dont dismissed ( your word ) it to quickly , unless you have concrete evidence show he was lying , but I know you cant ''. DB14 did indeed give you the concrete evidence you were after !. Then your next post you change the debate by saying '' Are we not discussing the issue regarding '' Our Officer Shot Himsel '' . I think you may need to apologise to DB , I'm not taking sides but I think he did indeed give you what you required . The statements of Thomas Thomas basically, in our language of today prove he had NFI !
I'm sure you know what that means . Rumours shouldnt be given the light of day , its up to people to prove that one of the officers shot themselves , in other words they need to put up or shut up ! . No disrepect intended to those who think Thomas Thomas is scholary example of what happened at Isandlwana , I'm sure some think he's got it right .
Cheers 90th.

6pdr wrote:

His story was a complete fabrication. People who tell lies are liars. Have the decency to admit it and I'll let you eat your humble pie in peace. But if you persist in this sort of nonsense I'm going to give it back to you with both barrels. DUDE, YOU JUST GOT SERVED BY A FIFTEEN YEAR OLD!

6pdr and 90th.


Cheers

So many posts to catch up on. 90th to make things easier you the quote facility, it helps to separate who said what!

"

Quote :

Littlehand .
Your post 26 / 11 , 7.30 am . Regarding Thomas Thomas I quote '' He wasnt a proven liar at all '' and '' What I'm saying is dont dismissed ( your word ) it to quickly , unless you have concrete evidence show he was lying , but I know you cant ''. DB14 did indeed give you the concrete evidence you were after !. Then your next post you change the debate by saying '' Are we not discussing the issue regarding '' Our Officer Shot Himsel '' . I think you may need to apologise to DB , I'm not taking sides but I think he did indeed give you what you required . The statements of Thomas Thomas basically, in our language of today prove he had NFI !
I'm sure you know what that means . Rumours shouldnt be given the light of day , its up to people to prove that one of the officers shot themselves , in other words they need to put up or shut up ! . No disrepect intended to those who think Thomas Thomas is scholary example of what happened at Isandlwana , I'm sure some think he's got it right .
Cheers 90th.

I wasn't aware that DB had shown concrete evidence. He just posted what he said. What I was trying to say is don't discount any account that was written, look at all the avenues. The rumour must have been started for a reason, myself a 6pdr came to the Conclusion it may have started around a camp fire.

You then say I changed the debate, it was DB who changed the debate, by mentioning what else was said by this chap. The debate inquestion is "Our Officer Shot Himself"

Did an officer shoot himself, who knows. Who can prove it. The debate will always come back to " Did he or Didn't he. End off.

littlehand wrote:

The debate inquestion is "Our Officer Shot Himself"

The debate is on Crealocks notebook.



Cheers

Not at the point we were discussing.

It changed at this point. Go back and look! Shows your not clear on what we are debating.


Subject: Re: Crealock's notebook.   Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:27 pm
littlehand wrote:
And closed them!


I think that Zulu warrior who claims to have stabbed him in his tent did that!

_________________
Life. Isn't it everything?

Thomas Thomas' letter to his uncle and aunt was exactly that, a letter to his uncle and aunt.
it was never intended to be a statement of fact, was it? Anymore than Lt Henderson's letter.

Soldiers' letters home to family are prone to either:
1. Being economical with the truth - for example men on the friont line ususally down play the danger.
2. Just a little artisitic license - particularly the cook in in the cookhouse, civilian cleaners, Colonel's ass wiper and other remfs; certainly most of the ones I have read are!

What a soldier says in a private letter to his lover or family and what he is willing to put his name to in an official account will invariably be 2 entirely different things!

One thread has closed, this one looks interesting but there are some points to clarify:
DB
I believe that Crealock's notebook was destroyed in a house fire.
CTSG
There is nothing "so-called" about Crealock's order or Chelmsford's Instructions.
Ulundi
Hamilton-Browne drew nothing himself. You cannot attribute an artist's interpretation of a slaughter so literally. It is highly unlikely that the man Manyanyoba killed in the tent was Pulleine. Pulleine would have been with his battalion. It's possible the officer was Paymaster White. Coghill stated to others before he was killed that Pulleine had been shot.
All
The letter of Thomas Thomas, who did exist but was out with Chelmsford's reconnaissance, is not truthful. In the absence of anyone knowing what horrors went on in the camp's final moments, no doubt, as others have said, rumours spread like wildfire among the 2/24th. Thomas is simply repeating those (many and inaccurate) rumours in the letter which cannot be used as a source of evidence for events at the battle of Isandhlwana.

Quote :

Hamilton-Browne drew nothing himself. You cannot attribute an artist's interpretation of a slaughter so literally

But surly Brown would have approved the sketch before going to print, so would have explained what details he could remenber. It would be down to personal opinion!!!

Quote :

The letter of Thomas Thomas, who did exist but was out with Chelmsford's reconnaissance, is not truthful. In the absence of anyone knowing what horrors went on in the camp's final moments, no doubt, as others have said, rumours spread like wildfire among the 2/24th. Thomas is simply repeating those (many and inaccurate) rumours in the letter which cannot be used as a source of evidence for events at the battle of Isandhlwana.

I think this was concluded as ,Rumours around the camp fire. a while back.

Quote :

I believe that Crealock's notebook was destroyed in a house fire.

Julian is this a personal thought. or read somewhere.

Ray

I doubt that Hamilton Browne gave it a second glance (other than to make sure he was centre-stage in the picture - which he is). We are speaking here of 1911 not 2012. You cannot judge Hamilton Browne's actions and thought processes by today's standards let alone by our current age's obsession with potential conspiracy theories.
I might also add that Thomas is the ONLY person to suggest that "a colonel" had shot himself. Thomas was not in a position to know such a thing and his letter is full of speculation, opinion, and falsehoods. If there had been any currency to such a rumour at the time, others would have written home about it. And they haven't. Or shall we all believe in the Angel of Mons?

Re the notebook and the house fire, if my memory serves me correctly, I recall being told this years ago by David Jackson (when I asked him if he knew what had happened to the notebook). The fire occurred after Crealock's death and the notebook was in the possession of his sister whose house burnt to the ground. David had been looking for it and learnt of this from one of her surviving relatives.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Or shall we all believe in the Angel of Mons?

Well can you PROVE that didn't happen, Julian?!

Heavens above!

Julian Whybra wrote:

David had been looking for it and learnt of this from one of her surviving relatives.

Thanks Julian, Jackson certainly did his reasreach !



Cheers

DB
One day I'll introduce you to him. He did most of his research between 1950 and 1965 and tracked down children, nephews and nieces, and grandchildren of the participants. He has a mine of personal anecdotes you won't find anywhere else.

I look forward to it Julian thank you


His 1960 article is far better than most books that have been published recently.


Cheers

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Julian Whybra wrote:

David had been looking for it and learnt of this from one of her surviving relatives.

Thanks Julian, Jackson certainly did his reasreach !



Cheers

DB has been asking about this notebook's whereabouts for a long time!
t is good that he/ we now have a good notion of what became of it. A negative result, but useful to know at last.

Julian Whybra wrote:

The letter of Thomas Thomas, who did exist but was out with Chelmsford's reconnaissance, is not truthful. In the absence of anyone knowing what horrors went on in the camp's final moments, no doubt, as others have said, rumours spread like wildfire among the 2/24th. Thomas is simply repeating those (many and inaccurate) rumours in the letter which cannot be used as a source of evidence for events at the battle of Isandhlwana.

Julian, are you saying that Thomas' letter is untruthful, or unreliable?
Obviously he wasn't present during the battle and we can't take his letter to be evidence (or any other letter to be evidence).
But he did sleep on the field on the night of the 22nd and stories would have started then, that night. Whilst not evidence, whilst they can't be relied on, might these rumours and hence this letter give us a glimpse of the flavour of the goings on during the battle?
A piece of art painted decades later would surely be a lot further removed, than a letter written just days after?

Tasker
Thomas's letter fooled even Prof. Laband and Jeff Mathews who published it as genuine. Untruthful or unreliable - let's have a look...

"I am very sorry to tell you that we see very hard times of it out here now. We are on the march all the time and we have not seen a bit of bread this last two months, only biscuits all the time and we are often on the road for two or three days at a stretch, that we don't get coffee or tea, only dry biscuit; it is an awful place for water. Another thing, we have to write with powder and water and I had to pay fourpence for this sheet of paper and envelope." NOTHING UNTRUTHFUL HERE.

"We had a very hard fight for about three hours at a place called Isandhlwana. The Zulus attacked our camp and as soon as we saw them coming, we struck the tents and formed square around the ammunition, and we kept them back for three hours." HERE HE IMPLIES HE WAS IN THE FIGHT BUT TO BE GENEROUS TO HIM HE MAY SIMPLY BE WRITING GENERALLY AND USING 'WE' IN TERMS OF HIS REGIMENT. HE INVENTS FACTS CONCERNING STRIKING TENTS, FORMING SQUARE AROUND THE AMMO, AND THE TIMING. WOULD YOU CALL THAT UNTRUTHFUL OR FANCIFUL?

"The General was not with us at the time; he was out somewhere and the colonel that was in command of us (as soon as he saw the Zulus retiring) ordered us to advance after them. We went about 300 yards and theywere so many that they came in our rear and took the camp and everything that belonged to us; they came about us so thick that we could not handle our guns and then we knocked them down with the butt of the gun;"
HERE HE DEFINITELY IMPLIES THAT HE HIMSELF WAS AT ISANDHLWANA INVENTING 'US ADVANCING', I.E. THE 24TH - UNTRUTHFUL.
"the Zulus killed about 1841 of our fellows altogether but we ourselves killed some of the volunteers because they were running away" UNTRUTHFUL
"and the colonel in command shot himself because he knew he had done wrong. He should not have put us to advance after them and leave the ammunition." UNTRUTHFUL
"However, we killed about 6000 that day." INVENTIVE!
"David Davies has been killed." AT LAST A FACT! 25B/1414 Pte. David Davis of the 2nd bn was indeed kia.

Well, what do you think? Both untruthful and unreliable I'd say.

Thanks Julian.
I would say fanciful and inventive!
The untruths in regard to being present during the battle were thrown in to try and impress his aunt and uncle I would suggest - he probably felt he missed out on the action.

Would you concede that the letter may give us a glimpse of nothing more perhaps, than the rumours which flourished around the 2/24th's camp fires in the dark evenings in the days after the batle?