" In Zululand with the British Army"

I hope you don't mind if quote some of the information written by Norris-Newman. But as i'm reading through, there are things that he says took place that differ from what we have spoken about in other thread's. Now most of you have read much more about the Anglo Zulu War than I ever will, so hopefully you make be able to tell me if there are others statements that confirm what Newman saw during his time with the British Army. I will post what I believe would be of interest under this thread.

Sirayo's stronghold.

Norris-Newman.

• " As we approached to within about 500 Yards, a voice was heard asking " By whose order the White Impi had come there, and whether they were enemie's?" To this there was no answer given, and we again advanced. Major Black in the meantime sent down for orders as when to open fire, and permission was given, to fire only after they fire first at us. Shortly after, at about 07:30 the first shot was fired from behind a large rock, and injured a Kafir belonging to the Native Contingent."

Newman here is saying that no answer was given. Yet the history books say a reply was given. ( By orders of the great White queen)

According to Newman it was the Zulu's who fire first not the British. Yet we have discussed in other threads that it was the British who drew first blood.

Must admit, I'm enjoying these posts by MrG. But surly this takes us to another level between historical research from those who books we are reading today, and those of an eyewitness who's prime task was to report what he saw while with the British Army during the invasion of 1879 into Zululand.

So if it's correct and the Zulu's did fire first it was those who became the aggressor in the first instance not the British ?

Hi 24th .
I dont think its quite right saying the zulu were the aggressor , fair enough they may have fired the first shot . What would you
do if 5,000 men crossed a river and invaded your land !!. The British were the aggressor , they started it by crossing the Buffalo
River . Much conjecture about who said and who saw what !. This is what makes this war tick !. Hamiton - Browne states in his book
Capt. R. Duncombe ( His Interpreter ) replied '' By The Orders Of The Great White Queen '' . The question is how far away was
N-N ??. He obviously wasnt within earshot of the reply , and more than likely was back with the rest of the main body so therefore
wouldnt have heard the reply . I know H- Browne could embellish the truth somewhat , ! but dont see the sense in him making this up .
One of the many inconsistencies you will encounter whilst reading this book and any other on this somewhat confusing 6 month campaign .
cheers 90th.

Quote :

I think its quite right saying the zulu were the aggressor , fair enough they may have fired the first shot . What would you do if 5,000 men crossed a river and invaded your land !!. The British were the aggressor , they started it by crossing the Buffalo.

It.s not a case of who fired the first shot, is a case of who do we believe, All members on this forum have always thought the British had drew first blood.

I not sure I would go long with Newman being to far away to hear the reply, if he heard the question he would have hear the answer.

Hi Impi.
N- Newman could also have been told second about the question that had been asked , because he said we advanced to within
500 yds doesnt actually mean he was there ??. We will never know for sure . Hope this makes sense .
cheers 90th.

But when he said we, it was in the context in we the army moved within 500 Yards. We also have to take into consideration Browns ( soldiers stories) which he was very keen on telling. During and after the war.

Well he certainly gives a good overview and personal thought to the New camp at Isandlwana.

“The camp was pitched during the first afternoon in the following order.
The beginning with the extreme left, we had the 2-3rd Regiment N.N.C. 1-3rd N.N.C, R.A, 2-24th, Volunteers and mounted infantry, the Natal mounted Police, and the 1st 24th on the right. The waggons were all placed between the camp and the hill at the back; and behind them. Immediately against its base, the head quarter’s tents were pitched, with their waggons beside them; the hospital being close by on the neck.

I may here mention that at our previous camping ground in the Bashee Valley, although reports came in to us that a large force of Zulu’s was approaching, yet as our mounted patrols did not corroborate this statement, no defences or entrenchments of any kind were put up around it until the evening previous to our departure, when for some course or another a small stone wall was built along two side of the camp, one facing the road we were going, and the other fronting the country between us and the buffalo.

This was all done at the camp; and, notwithstanding the clear and distinct orders given and published in an official book called the “Regulations for the Field Forces in South Africa,” not a single step was taken in anyway to defend our new position in case of a night or day attack from the enemy, either by forming the waggons into a laager or by erecting a shelter trench around it. And it is to this error of judgement that I cannot help attributing the awful result, which awaited the return of the reconnoitring party, and which not only thoroughly crippled our offensive power for some months, but even placed the colony itself in great danger of Border incursions”.

Mr G. As you know I much prefer eyewitness accounts, from those that were there. However it does annoy me somewhat that that are many accounts of what was not done at Isandlwana, and like the rest Norris-Newman writes it in a book years after. And like the rest he never said nothing on the day.

Hi CTSG.
Just a couple of points , N-Newman's book was first published in 1880 , so hardly years after the event :lol: . Also he was
sending dispatches back to England as the war was in progress , which means he was writing what he saw and most likely
what was told to him second hand as well , as it unfolded on the day .
cheers 90th.

Still CTSG doe's have a point wether it was year or many years, he like many others had the choice to speak to Chelmsford that day, but chose not too.

Would Newman had published information that was told to him ( Secondhand)
Don't thing he would with the risk of it being was unreliable, And I'm sure if he did he would have named his source.

Quote :

Would Newman had published information that was told to him ( Secondhand) Don't thing he would with the risk of it being was unreliable, And I'm sure if he did he would have named his source.

I would agree with you there Chard1879. His job was to important to risk hearsay information.

Hear say information at that time, is not plausible enough to take note!.

In the end Hero's fought bravely on both sides.

Only Historical information remains.

Chard1879 / Littlehand.
Guys Please , dont forget this is 1879 we are talking about , no phones , no Internet , basically nothing ! . N- Newman is
TELLING the story , who in Gods name would know if he was reporting hearsay or unreliable facts ??. I hardly think anyone
with him would actually see his articles because it's not like you can go out and buy his paper over the counter anywhere is it ? . As for telling C'ford or any officers
about the layout of the camp , it is 1879 !! . It wasnt his place to do so and I doubt he even thought of telling those
in charge how they should be doing their job . Glyn spoke to the 'Good Lord ' about the camp layout and we all know what happened there , so what possible chance did N-Newman have if he even thought of speaking up !!!!. You must try and think like it's 1879
Too many people try to apply todays thinking and ideology's which wouldnt have even been thought of in the
Victorian Era . Also I'm not having a go at N-Newman , I have his book and thought it was very good . Of course he was told
things second hand ( Who Isnt ) !!!. He could have been told things in confidence , were you cant name sources and its
the same today . Reporters will never betray the trust of anything told to them in confidence and it still applies today. I hope
what I'm trying to say makes some sense to you , as its hard to put into words .

Chard1879.
You say '' Still CTSG does have a point , he like many others had the choice to speak to C'ford that day , but chose not to ''
We have covered this many times , C'ford was spoken to by Glyn and Dunbar and others whose names escape me , they were basically told to Go Away !!!. Surely you have read these posts on the forum previously . I will say again it wasnt the done thing for
a news reporter to tell high ranking officers how to do their job . Can you imagine a reporter from one of your UK papers telling your
C- C in Afghanistan or where ever your current day troops are '' I dont think you have set this perimeter correctly '' Please ! He would
be told in no uncertain terms '' P - - S OFF '' . I dont wish to sound antagonistic its just the way I've attempted to explain my points . As for him running the risk of being labelled '' Unreliable '' who would know ????. Again I'm not saying he was unreliable !. Look at today's reporters who seem to belong to the Mantra of '' Never let the facts get in the way of a good story '' . Again I'm not saying
N-N thought that way , but seriously , he didnt have to worry about immediate reply media did he ??.
cheers 90th.

I don't think anyone is forgetting it's 1879. We are talking about a man who was the only official correspondent. There is nothing in the book that would have prevented him from naming his source. The problem here is, with a lot of the members they are so transfixed on the History books they have purchased nothing else happened apart from what they have read, so when a dependable eyewitness accounts contradicts what their history books say, they get on the defensive, and come up with all sort of excuses to discredit the witness who was there and witness what happen in both sight and sound. I really wish some members would for once look at the bigger picture.

"Glynn didn't speak to Chelmsford about the layout of the camp.!!"

Well CTSG most who were there on the day never lived to tell the tale. Those who were not there, or not quite there like a number of senior officers had plenty of chance to say what they thought happened without contradiction. That is my problem with almost all the eye witness reports of that fateful day. As for the answer of the Great White Queen I am pretty sure that it is a media invention. It reminds me of the story of the Shamgani Patrol who allegedly all sang God Save the Queen prior to being wiped out. Once again no eye or ear witnesses to the fact. It did make good press though an das John Ford said when the legend becomes fact print t he legend.

Hi Ctsg.
Well I dont know how many times I need to tell you this as you seem to have a case of memory loss everytime I or
someone else brings this up . :lol: . Page 43 Isandlwana & Rorkes Drift 22-25 Jan 1879 by I. Knight .
' When Col Glyn suggested TO CHELMSFORD that the camp at Isandlwana be laagered he received a curt reply .
'' It is not worthwhile , it will take to much time , and besides the Wagons are most of them going back to R.D for supplies ''
Sounds like he spoke to him to me !!!. This conversation was verified in Zulu Rising as coming from a Penn - Symons
Manuscript , who obviously was present otherwise he wouldnt have verified it in the manuscript .
So we all know this conversation certainly took place , dont we ?.
cheers 90th .

No you have it wrong, someone else told Pen-Symons. ( it's was second hand) Pen- Symond's was within 500 yards, not there.

Was there a Captain Barton at Isandlwana that Survived? Some of Durnford’s men were under his command.

Hi Mr Greaves

Captain Geoffrey Barton (1844 - 1922), 7th Hussars. Service in 2nd Ashanti War 1874. On Special Service throughout 1879, first as Staff Officer to Colonel Durnford of No 2 Column and commander of the Natal Native horse, and subsequently of the 4th Battalion Natal Native Contingent, successively with the Eshowe Relief Column, the first Division and Clarke’s Column. Present at Isandhlwana and Gingindhlovu. Brevet Major.
From Lord Chelmsford’s Zulu Campaign 1878-9 edited by John P C Laband

Thanks 1879Graves. This chap apparently told Norris-Newman that the mounted men fought well at Isandlwana keeping the Zulus at bay for hours when they had no choice but to fall back to the camp due to thier ammunition being exhausted. Asking for supplies they were refused by the officer in charge who said the a Ammunition was needed by the infantry.

But has he wasn't there, it could have hearsay.

There is a Captain Barton who escape from Isandlwana. Could this be your man.

Survivors mounted units. ( Isandlwana)
Captain Barton (Natal Native Mounted Contingent (NNMC)
Lieutenant Vause (NNMC)
Lieutenant Davies (NNMC)
Lieutenant Hendersson (NNMC)
Lieutenant Raw (NNMC)

Mr G. Firstly thanks for snipets from the book.

Not sure how far you have got, but is there anything in his book relating to himself speaking to the survivors that escaped Isandlwana.

Impi. I have come across his opinion of those the escaped from Isandlwana. Mainly directed to members of the NNC. He says when he got to the Mooi River, he found a large number of government and hired waggons carrying stores ect. But the drivers refuse to move forward owing to the alarming reports brought down the road by the fugitives and created all most panic along the road of their flight. He also says that every native that had fled from Helpmakaar deserved to be shot,and certainly every white man that had left our out post at R.D and Helpmakaar should have been tried by court-martial for cowardice.

Hope this helps. If I come across anything else to do with your request I will let you know.

Bit disappointed that in his last fair well speech, Chelmsford only made reference to the Battle of Ulundi. And never mention those lost at Isandlwana.
Bit of a let down.

Yes!!! He would have rather have forgotten that little episode. And hoped everyone else would. He was wrong then, and wrong 132 years later on.

S.D.

Graves1879,

Re-your comment:

Quote :

Captain Geoffrey Barton (1844 - 1922), 7th Hussars. Service in 2nd Ashanti War 1874. On Special Service throughout 1879, first as Staff Officer to Colonel Durnford of No 2 Column and commander of the Natal Native horse, and subsequently of the 4th Battalion Natal Native Contingent, successively with the Eshowe Relief Column, the first Division and Clarke’s Column. Present at Isandhlwana and Gingindhlovu. Brevet Major.
From Lord Chelmsford’s Zulu Campaign 1878-9 edited by John P C Laband

Sadly Professor Laband made a major mistake there. The Barton who served at Isandlwana was Captain William Barton, an Irishman, of the Natal Native Horse.

Captain Geoffry (correct spelling) Barton, of the 7th (Royal Fusiliers) Regiment was at Kranz Kop on 22nd January 1879 with the remainder of No.2 Column.

kwaJimu1879

Hi kwaJimu1879

Many thanks for the information, I will update my records

Mr G.
When you have time, Can you let me know the name of the ship that Newman was taken on, and captain's name. It was nearing the end of the war. I think the Captains name was "Broiler" or "Belier" something like that.

Thanks in advance.

Chard1879,

Do you mean the 'Natal' and Captain Brunker?

Captain Howard Molyneux Edward Brunker, 26th Regiment, at that stage of the war he was then serving as the DAQMG on lines of communications at Durban.

The 'Natal' was the ship which conveyed King Cetshwayo down to Capetown.

kwaJimu1879

Chard1879,

Were you referring to this?

“Meanwhile, in pursuance of previous arrangements, I had availed myself of the privilege offered me of a berth on board H.M.S. Forester, engaged on the naval duty of the expedition. The Forester, a composite gunboat of 455 tons, with engines of 60 H.P., was commanded by Lieutenant-Commander Sydney Smith, her armament being of four guns, namely, two 20-pounder breech-loaders fore and aft, and two 64-pounder converted 8-inch muzzle-loaders in centre of main deck, one forward, and the other abaft the mainmast, and her crew numbering 60 all told. Leaving Durban on the 19th June, she reached the selected site on the following day; but it was not till Monday, the 23rd, that the arrival of the Column took place, and communications were opened up with General Crealock. The Forester was then sent back to Durban, to prepare the transports and await orders for the final trips. These orders came on Sunday, the 29th, when the little squadron steamed off. There were, besides the gunboat, the steam-tug Koodoc, transport Natal, U.S.S., with Captain Twiss, R.N., as Chief Transport Officer, and the Tom Morton with mules and stores. Conspicuous among the accessories were two Algoa Bay surf-boats, specially purchased, at a cost of £1,000, and with crews complete. The landing operations, under the special supervision of the General in person and of the commanding naval officers, were commenced immediately after our arrival on the following day, when each surf-boat made two trips, landing about 80 tons of stores in all. The work was resumed next day, Tuesday, 1st July, but before noon the sea became rough, and the surf increased so that farther proceedings were impracticable, and all communication between the ships and the shore was cut off. This was of some practical inconvenience, as I and several others who had come on shore from the ships were unable to return on board or obtain any of our belongings; and we were thus cast on the hospitality of the officers in camp, notably of the 57th, or "Die-Hards." Similarly, officers from the camp, who had gone to visit the ships, were compelled to remain: and the situation was sufficiently embarrassing for all parties. But this inauspicious change in the weather and conditions had, as will be seen, still worse effects, exemplifying in a remarkable way the difficulties and hazards of the landing-place on an open coast-line with a beach never free from surf.” From: IN ZULULAND WITH THE BRITISH THROUGHOUT THE WAR OF 1879, BY CHARLES L. NORRIS-NEWMAN


Petty Officer Tom

What Tom as posted is all I can find with reference to Newman going on board a ship. Not sure if this is your man " Lieutenant-Commander Sydney Smith" as his name starts with an S not a B.

Mr G

Mr Greaves,

What about the answer I gave then?

The 'Natal' and Captain Brunker appears on page 201.

kwaJimu1879

kwajimu1879 . Captain Brunker. I do believe that's the chap. Can anyone tell me what it's says about him. Didn't Newman pay a special thanks to him.

Quote :

The 'Natal' and Captain Brunker appears on page 201.

Jim. I can't find anyone by this name on page 201 or pages either side. What book are you quoting from.


I have done a few web searches there is a Captain Brunker, but he was an army Captain, not Naval.

Chard1879,

Here's what Norris-Newman states on page 201 - the last page of Chapter XXVI - of my copy of 'In Zululand with the British...'

Quote :

... I was prevented by an unfortunate concatenation of circumstances from rejoining the Forester and my personal effects. So I went on board the Natal with Captain Brunker, D.A.Q.M.G., a companion in misfortune, and we reached Durban on Tuesday, July 8th. ...

Mr. Greaves,

Sorry I thought had already established in my previous posting (yesterday at 5:57pm) that Captain Brunker was an army officer.

Quote :

Captain Howard Molyneux Edward Brunker, 26th Regiment, at that stage of the war he was then serving as the DAQMG on lines of communications at Durban.

As stated above it appears on page 201 of my version, is yours an original or a reprint?

kwaJimu1879

Hi all.
The '' Capt Brunker '' statement is on page 201 of my copy !.
cheers 90th.