Sectarian camps

Mr. G., the written order never existed. Melvill delivered a verbal order.

Hi Springbok.
Following on from my previous post I've just read a transcript of Essex's report , where I mentioned 2200
yds 1200 yds is mentioned . It may be a typo in the coupland book as 2200 yds seems way to far for mine .
Essex didnt actually mention that Durnford ordered Cavaye up the hill ..........
cheers 90th. .

Is it not possible, that some else wrote the note under Pulleine’s instruction. Because he was busy. ????

Sorry just seen this.

Quote :

Mr. G., the written order never existed. Melvill delivered a verbal order.

How do we know this.

John, several bits of info on the written order are wrong. If someone else had written it on Pulliene's behalf, they'd need to sign it with their own name, same as Lt. Cook did with Custer's order to Benteen at LBH.

90th
Ostensibly Essex met with Chelmsford on the 23rd at Helpmekaar. Its from here that its assumed that Chelmsford was briefed. However the report he, Chelmsford , drafted was not a report on the diaster but a summary of the evidence from the COI. Essex' statement for the COI makes no mention of Durnford.
The book by French contains a lot of errors, some deliberate, think of that what you will.

My difficulty is two fold.
If Essex gave a verbal report to Chelmsford on the 23rd and a written one on the 24th, why are they different?
If Chelmsford wrote a precis or summary on the COI, why did he include information outside its evidentury scale.

Your comment about the rest of the troops being sent to parade asks the question , who sent them? In turn who sent Mostyn up to the ridge.

The account of the conversation between Pulleine and Durnford resulted in durnford backing down in asking for the two companies to support him. I assume therefore that at that point Cavaye had not been dispatched ( if he had and Durnford had taken the two companies the camp would have been empty). So the question begs itself why would Pulleine have taken orders from Durnford to send a company to the ridge? He Durnford had allready dispatched mounted men to scout the plateau, what benefit would Cavaye have been?

Certainly a conundrum.

Mr G.......dead right.

Colin....Fully agree.

John..... Allways possible, however far two many errors on the note for it to be remotly genuine, besides all else why would he send a rider ( And who was that????) and then send another with a verbal message

Regards

regards

(from an internet café somewhere near Outer Mongolia)

Springbok

That Cavaye was sent out at Durnford’s order is specifically stated by Chelmsford in a summary which he made from the CoI evidence (French page 148). The sentence appears at the end of a para. for which he gives Essex as the source.

Essex did not mention Durnford in this context in his formal statement of the 24th January which was subsequently handed in as evidence. Essex was however called down from Helpmekaar to Rorke’s Drift on the 23rd January “to report the events of the previous day to the General”. The information about Durnford was given to Chelmsford at this time (Essex, Times letter) as was much else – none of it contested later or since.

There were witnesses to this verbal evidence taken at first-hand and Chelmsford included the information thus gathered in his summary which was afterwards in the public domain and would have been common knowledge as far as those who gave evidence in this way were concerned. It could have been used as evidence against Chelmsford if there were untruths in it or the truth was twisted. Chelmsford came in for much criticism later in terms of the slant he would put on things but none of his facts gathered were disputed. Essex never contested anything in the summary either. Chelmsford was not a fool. He would not knowingly include a lie in his summary just one day after the disaster knowing full well that it could very easily be exposed as such by goodness knows how many survivors. Chelmsford was not to know Essex would omit it from his written report (with much else) the next day. Its veracity is as valid as anything else in the report and summary presented by the CoI. If you choose to discount it as ‘hearsay’ which it was not, since it was received at first-hand by the general before others, then everything else so heard becomes ‘hearsay’ and inadmissible. A ridiculous situation!

Durnford’s positioning of E coy. was stated as a fact in the papers presented to Chelmsford’s superiors and to London. I have no reason to doubt it. I say this being, broadly speaking, a supporter of Durnford and knowing that it could be ‘used against him’. What is, is.

If you want to take this further, I suggest a separate thread so it doesn’t detract from this one.

Mr Greaves

We do not know whether the paper the alleged order is written on is the same type as used in 1879. We know merely that it is the correct-aged paper.

Colin

It has oft been said that Pulleine would have refused a request from Durnford for E coy to be sent to the ridge, because Pulleine’s orders were ‘to defend the camp’ and that Pulleine must have sent Cavaye out because he was concerned about the ‘hidden’ north.
This line of argument is obviously self-defeating. What is sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.
Look at the timings – Cavaye’s departure cannot be later than Durnford’s.
It is likely that Durnford persuaded Pulleine to send E coy to replace Barry’s NNC coy on picquet duty and to watch for any Zulu movement towards the RD road from the north – and we know that Pulleine was concerned about that possibility.

90th
Thank you for quoting the Memorandum. Essex’s evidence was given verbally, as I’ve said above, on the 23rd, as well as in written format dated the 24th.

John
And do you also believe that this anonymous ghost writer also tried to copy Pulleine’s handwriting? Be serious!
No-one is suggesting Pulleine sent a verbal message by rider (it was Melvill) AND a separate written order.
You’d get on much better if you asked for a copy of my article – you’re arguing in the dark at the moment.

Julian
By accepting the summary verbatim, would we also accept the missing two companies he refers to?
Or do we get selective?

regards

Julian, To get a clear indication. Is this the order you are saying is fake. A simple yes or no will do.

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

Julian, I can't be sure of this, but wouldn't Barry's N.N.C. company have been better getting replaced by Krohn's N.N.C., (were his men not left in the camp ?) rather than deploying a 24th company ? That way you'd be sending out a force of similar nature to Barry's. Krohn's N.N.C. appears to have been held back in reserve the whole time at Isandhlwana. Removing a company of regulars away from the camp in this role, I think is odd. Even if Durnford requested a replacement company for Barry's, he may not have been referring to the 24th, especially after his conversation with Melvill, resulting in Pulliene himself making the latter decision. When Durnford said 'Very well then, I'll take my own men.' he could, and I mean this only as an alternative, have generally meant native units, inclusive of the replacement for Barry, but not Imperial troops.

Quote :

If you choose to discount it as ‘hearsay’ which it was not, since it was received at first-hand by the general before others.

Julian, who were, the " others"

Hi Admin,

The photo's you posted, are they from the weakend??

Is that not a copy of the order??


Cheers
DB14

I was at the exhibition, and yes they were the originals.

But the Pulline order is at the Breacon Museum isn't it ??

How could it be at the weaked, surly you can't buy it??

Confusing or what. I didn't think the order existed.

Hi Chard.
To try and put it simply ....... The order is a fake / It has never existed or been part of the Isandlwana saga , it was produced later by persons or person unknown . ........But in saying that the piece of paper you are looking at is the one that has been passed around as the original ! . The fact of the matter is , this is the
ORIGINAL FAKE ORDER which had nothing to do with the battle . Hope this clears it up for you and others
who have become confused .
cheers 90th.

Thanks 90th. So is this the one that supposedly has had the date altered.
The being an 8 to a 7. Or am i completely of the track.

chard .
In a word ........Yes . Happy to be corrected .
cheers 90th.

That says it all 90th.

As for me I shall be of the forum for some time, more pump repairs. be in touch in a couple of weeks.

regards

Hi Springbok.
All the best mate , we'll hear from you in a couple of weeks . .
cheers 90th.

Quote :

chard .
In a word ........Yes . Happy to be corrected .
cheers 90th.

Right I'm with it so far. But!! It is said that the document as a whole is fake.
So why is it being said the original is in the museum.
Or is this the part where I'm going wrong.

Springbok, my apologies, I hadn't realised you were unwell. Chard, it all comes down to the proving for definite it is a fake, before it may be considered removing it totally. In human terms, it's like someone is innocent until proven guilty. This comparison I used sounded alright in my head, hope it is understood okay.

Chard,

Pulleine's 8.5 message which is in the Royal Welsh Museum is genuine. I think you are getting the wrong of the stick as a framed copy of that was displayed at Tenterden.

I hope that makes sense?

kwaJimu1879

Right. The 8.05 order. (is this the one, the owner Is offering to destroy if it's proven to be fake.

Chard No

The owner is offering to destroy the Puline / Cavaye order if it turns
out to be a fake.

The 8:05 Message is real and in a museum, the one at the exabition was a
copy, but it is nothing to do with the order we are dicussing.[/b]

Please ask if you do not understand


Cheers
DB14

But if it never existed it would be fake

We mean it never existed as a real order.

It is a fake

Cheers
DB14

Quote :

We mean it never existed as a real order.

I starting to think everyone on here is pretending to know what this is about.

Why would Julians friend offer to destory his copy, If it never existed as a real order. Why would he want to own a pretend order. No one is making sense. Look!!! either you know or you don't know.

I can see why this topic never took off on the other forum. Its been made totally confusing on purposes. Either someone speaks in laymans terms or i going to ask admin to lock this topic. Its going no-where and other topics have been locked for less.

I wasn't going to have anymore in-put on this. By Chard, I did post earlier on.

Quote :

When trying to show facts as the fundamental key, hypothesis should not be used within the same document. (This method is used to divert the reader’s attention)

And that's is exactly what's happen. Personally I would move on, don’t waste any more time on it.

I didn't see that post. If I had i would not have contributed from that point

Thanks..

Quote :

Either someone speaks in laymans terms or i going to ask admin to lock this topic

Chard1879. No doub't there are others who do understand, so i'm quite happy to let it come to a close on its own.

Do you understand it.

Fair enough. Move over I watch it with you. :

I'm happy enough to hold me hands up. I haven't got a clue what's its all about. So move over and make room for another one.

Chard, I'm only just managing to hold on to some understanding of it, I think. Saul, surely hypothesis has to be included within any paper, to act as a bit of 'glue' between other more considered prominent factors ? Any details not necessarily fact and declared so, then are open to further investigation, with proof presented forth of an alternative conclusion. Please understand, this post is my poor attempt at trying to follow this topic, hopefully until it is resolved in some way, including my concept of what hypothesis actually means in the context of Julian's paper. Anyway, I will be seeking a couple of painkillers now, as all this info has gave me a massive headache.

Julian, I meant to add this on my previous post. On looking over this topic for the umpteenth time, I became aware of your comment, which was something like no-one is asking the right questions. Now, I don't know if these have been asked since you said that, but in order to get back on track, before weariness, frustration and perhaps staleness ends this topic prematurely, please could you list the right questions here yourself, as several are becoming lost or sidetracked. Thankyou.

I thought it seemed that with the confusion about which order was being talked about at which time. Pictures, descriptions, fake, original, copy, reproduction……..This would help.
This may be obvious to some and hopefully helpful to others.
Here we go. Hope this helps,

Document 1 ( 11.30am order)
Cavaye
Zulus are advancing on your
Right in force. Retire on camp
In order. E coy will support
Your right. NNC your left
11.30 A.M. H.B.Pulleine

• This is the order Julian Whybra has written his paper about and alleges is a fake.
• This document has been publicly displayed over a number of years at military fairs, the National Army Museum and most recently at the AZWHS weekend at Tenterden.(see pictures in that thread)
• This document was published in the first printing of Edmund Yorkes book Rorkes Drift 1879, (London, 2001) and removed from the second printing (London, 2005).
• According to Julian the picture of this document in Yorkes book shows the date at the bottom as 89 rather than 79.
• Current pictures of this document show that since it was published in Yorke in 2001, the date has been changed from 89 to 79. (look in an above post in this thread for an account of this taking place when displayed at the NAM)
• This document was sold at public Ebay auction in 2007.
• This document was recently published in A. Greaves book, Isandlwana (Barnsley, 2011.)

Some points of confusion

• From Julians paper… “The present owner of the alleged “Pulleine- Cavaye” order………has offered to destroy it before witnesses if it can be proven to be fake.”

Remember that Julian wrote his paper in 2001. This order, Document 1 has changed hands several times since then and the present owner is not assumed to be the same as when his paper was written.

• When this document was sold at auction in 2007 the sellers description used the words “first generation copy” and “totally convincing replica of the original document”, suggesting that this document was copied from an original.
Julians paper indicates the document to be a fake. No original has ever existed.
(This would make it impossible to make a copy/replica/reproduction ETC..) (my own conclusion)

All the details and points one could debate about it being fake or real: timing, historical facts, handwriting ETC… are in Julians paper. Some are covered in the above posts. I would encourage anyone who has not yet requested him to send you a copy to do so. Then whatever your conclusion, you can feel confident you were well informed.

Document 2( 8.5 A.M. order)
Staff officer
Report just come in that
The Zulus are advancing in force
From Left front of camp.
8.5. A.M H.B Pulleine
• This document is known to be genuine.
• This document was used as the base for comparison in Julians paper.
• This document has been published in numerous books on the Zulu war.
• This document is confirmed to be in the possession of the RRW Museum.
• The bottom half of paper of this document was torn off sometime between 1983 and 1992.

Some points of confusion

“Withheld information” by Julian

• The only information “withheld” by Julian is information about the paper used in this genuine document.( Document 2, 8.5 A.M. order.) I.E. make, color, dimensions, watermark. Not information about Document 1( 11.30 order.)

(No different really than only a museum curator knowing about specific markings on the back of a rare painting or a small inscription on the inside of a piece of rare jewelry. If someone were to try and copy /forge Etc. they would need to know these markings and their location.)

• Mention of the bottom half of the paper of this document (Document /2, 8.5 A.M. order) being torn off.

In the thread about the recent AZWHS event in Trenterden, pictures appear with members holding a full page framed order. Members who attended indicate they believed this to be the genuine Document/2, 8.5.AM. order. Julian has stated it must be a copy as the genuine one (Document/2, 8.5 A.M. order) is missing the bottom half of the paper and is in the RRW museum. Its location and paper condition have been confirmed by Bill Cainan.
This a different issue and does not effect the decision about Document/1, 11.30 A.M.order. being real or fake.


Having said all that. I’ll state that having no information to refute his claim I agree with Julians conclusion but I hate the idea that it is fake. I love to hear about new finds, additions to people’s collections, never seen before pictures, letters, and diaries. Believe me I know how difficult it is collecting items and providing provenance. Researching something only to be let down. I would love to be convinced otherwise by someone who believes differently. Would anyone who believes document 1 to be real be able to answer some of the questions I asked above in a previous post? Let’s stay away from the technical hand writing points in Julians paper although I agree with the conclusions I understand that one might think they are subjective. So here goes. Lets start off with the basics.
Where did the order Document 1, 11.30 order come from? Why do we think it is real?

I appreciate the time everyone puts into their posts. Looking forward to anyone’s ideas.

Regards, Jeff

Jeff, excellent post. Where did it come from ? - that is definitely a question that only someone in the profession of historian or works in a museum may have an inkling about, unless it has appeared in auctions as the genuine article, but even then, they'd only know one piece of a large jigsaw. All apparent sightings/locations, owner description and year seen would have to be compiled to create something of a pattern, if there was such a thing. It may give an idea of area at least. Why do we think it is real ? - can't answer that because it just never seemed right to begin with. I have Yorke's 2001 book, and the photograph of the order does say 89 clear as day, even clearer when I used a magnifying glass.

As you know i'm more on the reference side of the forum. However.

A company of the 1-24th was now ordered to advance on to the eastern neck of the Isandhlwana Hill, where it joined the ridge on which the Zulus were, and it also came into action with the right wing of the enermy which was advancing anlong the northside of Isandlwana.
Would this have been Cavaye's company and others.

Littlehand what is your source??

Cheers
DB14

Text deleted. Reply to an off topic remark, which has been deleted.

DB14, if the answer is yes. Then I need to add something, which may or may not open another door. Was that the area where Cavaye was sent to.

And would this have been the location where 11:30 order would have been sent.

Sorry Admin

Hi Ctsg.
I see J.Whybra attempting to clarify a point which does need some clarity , and why wouldnt you force the point
to arrive at the facts as you see it , you do it daily with your thoughts on the Good Lord ( Chelmesford ) .
Edmund Yorke thought it was a fake in the end that is why it was withdrawn from his second edition of his book.
I'm not saying A.Greaves knows or believes its a fake but he has decided to put it in his book , he is entitled
to have his opinion . Its up to the serious readers of the AZW to judge his book and therefore they will be the ones who will endorce it or discredit it to a degree . After reading the Whybra article I've come around to his way
of thinking until someother evidence can move me in another direction . Read the article if you havent seen it ,
otherwise you are firing blindly .
cheers 90th.