The missing five hours.

Hi Ulundi .
I assume you are adding a touch of Sarcasm in regard to K.Smith ? . He is a well known author / authority on the AZW , at a guess he's written 5-7 books on the war and earlier times ,ie 1878 ? . I do seem to remember someone placed some of his work on here a few years back and he joined and gave them , and the site , a serve for not asking his permission for it to be posted !. Possibly you may have to hang on to your hat ! .  
90th.  

Some chap called Keith Smith? That either shows ignorance or a lack of social skills.
 

Ulundi. Keith Smith, is the son of Mr & Mrs Smith!

I see Mike Snook, has highlighted something, that could turn TMFH in a new direction. 

But it looks like he has no intention of doing anything to back it up?

Hi Impi
Mike has a point the nomenclature is different on A and C. On A, as he rightly points out, only three regiment are named, the blance are shown but not name. On C they are named and in addition various topographical names have been added in a fairly modern block lettering. Im pretty convinced that Peter has forgotten that was done. I dont believe that its an intention to deceive or pass those labels of as Woods. Just fogetfulness. However there is a case to answer, in that there is no reference by Wood on A what those unnamed blocks are, or rather who they are. Therefore they have been added, but on what knowledge base? Not from Wood! Sorry getting complicated, do I make sense?  

If they, R and P have assumed the regiments names then its pretty wrong of them to corrupt the evidence. But is Mike merely being pedantic? Does it affect materially R and Ps basic concept? I dont believe it does. In support of that statement look at the way Snook is slowly adding in from his original blanket condemnation. He is now saying that yes they 'may' have been in front of Mabaso and adding that he hinted at that in HCMDB. If he did then why on Earth is he arguing.
Cheers

A very good point Springbok

Yes springbok very good point's you
make.is snook up to his old tricks and
simply playing devils advocate..seems
to me that its all starting to un-ravel.
snook will continue to bluster and he
will try to browbeat any opposition in
an attempt to come out on top.

Yes he does selectively and one could
say skilfully..shift and change his pos-
tion to suit his own theory..and thats
all it is THEORY. P&L have a lot of
thinking to do..Col nice turned out not
to be the cavalry when he did turn up.
cheers xhosa

Does Mike Snook not have the right to argue his case, if he believes he his correct. 

littlehand,add to the debate,or get off the pot.
cheers xhosa

LH
Its a democracy, he does. But in becoming part of the debate he in turn becomes available for questioning.

Cheers

But MIke Snook seems to have found a possible error? Which now needs confirming. Doe's it not. 

littlehand,hope your well,
Error! thanks for pointing
that out. could you please
tell me what that was..
cheers xhosa

Les, take a look at the website, MS and PQ last posts

Cheers dave,i'm all over it.they all
frankly, have for a long time made
me feel ' uneasy '. what is the purpose
for all this posturing.who benifit's, and to
what end.immortality. listen to Col M Mc,
and you wont fare better.look at what
your reading..and decide who has the hid-
den agenda's. usuthu cheers xhosa

LH Fully agree.

Ive just read Peter Q's explanation for the zulu regiment naming. I can see what he is saying and accept that there was no attempt to influence history.
HOWEVER
He/they published the theory on the RDVC site using, not the map they had discovered, instead using a map that had been altered on their orders. And they never saw anything wrong?
I have to admit that when I saw it, and bought it, I automatically assumed that they had added the names for clarity. However as MS points out, they are not on the appendix A map2 presented as the map annotated by Wood. Neither are they as indicated on the Appendix B map 3 also as presented as being annotated by Wood.
Where does that leave us?
We have three addendums, A: Map2 The unadulterated map,presumed to be Woods annotations. B map# also as annotated by Wood, does not show the start positions just the lines of attack. and C: Map 2 as Modified on their orders adding in the names of regiments.
With out a solid explanation from them a portion of THFH theory ( indicating starting points for the regiments, therefore orders issued to them by Tshingwayo) lies in tatters. And that is very very disapointing.

 

Snook is nit picking in an attempt to discredit a very cogent theory.
There is enough evidence presented in TMFH to suggest that the Zulus were indeed attacking the camp from an early hour and not passively waiting for Raw or some-one else to discover them in the Ngweni valley.
It seems that by the time the hapless Col Durnford arrived it was already game set and match and that the dithering and ineffectual Pulline was mostly to blame for the inadequate disposition of the various companies. Endless quibbling about exactly where Porteus, Cavaye and Pope were on the day is really an attempt to hide the true blame for the British disaster. Senior command divided the forces and then the command left behind failed to realise he was under attack for well on five hours.

Do we know exactly howmany messages Pulliene had received regarding Zulu movements prior to Durnfords arrival?

The first part of TMFH goes through all the reports and sightings of an aggressive zulu reconnaissance in the early hours of the morning of 22 January.
Download it off the other site. It is very well written.

I make in 9 on TMFH.

Then we have the chap from the Border guard, who claimes to have see 30.000 Zulus. Which was ignored by an officer?

Point is that there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that something was afoot from first light.
So when Durnford arrives in the camp the trap is already sprung.

If Pulliene had fortified the camp prior to Durnfords arrival, would Durnford had still left the camp.?

But of course,destiny awaited.
who would fool with the gods?.
cheers xhosa

I have been reading a book " Zulus at Bay " by Denis Barker the Great Grand son of William Barker who was on Qwabe hill on that fateful day we can call him an eye witness below are some quotes from the book

Page 212 During the day of the 20th Matshana himself had met up with the Zulu commanders to discuss their own strategy planes

Page 214 The British forces had certainly not gone unobserved. They had in fact been closely watched by Zulu scouts since early that morning. Large numbers of Cetshwayo's warriors, effectively conceled behind the Phindo and Magogo hills had joined Matshanas force.

Page 215 A large numberof fires had been seen on the nearby Magago heights these had been delibertely lit in orderto give the impression that many more Zulus were arriving on the scene

Page 217 The important question is whether the British were careless in dividing their forces or whether the Zulusdeliberately tricked them into making a fateful mistake, the general contention now held is the British fell in the Zulu trap.

Page 231 It also confirms that the waiting Zulu army were certainly not discovered in the Ngwebeni Valley, as has often been believed, but had earlier moved forward to behind Itusi. There they awaited the return of their fellow Zulu regiments that had earlier that morning acompanied Cheif Matshana
It is clear that as soon as the Zulus saw Chelmsford leaving the camp for the Mangeni that morning they realised that it was to good an opportunity to miss

Page 238 The version of the discovery of the main Zulu army now accepted as authentic is that Lieutenant Charles Raw in his account submitted later to the Court of Enquiry. It is based on what he saw when sent out with Lieutenant Roberts onto the plateau where he came across the main Zulu army obviously waiting for regiments sent to the Malakatas to rejoin them

It also mentions when Raw and Roberts left the camp to scout the higher ground Cavaye was sent up the plateau and from there the Zulu were discovered 4klm from the plateau and thats when they saw Zulu herders

I would love to hear your comments guys this certainly answers a lot of questions

Hmm, hello aussie inkhosi, i too have aired
my view on this, but of course not as eloquently
as yourself..

xhosa2000 wrote:

Hmm, hello aussie inkhosi, i too have aired
my view on this, but of course not as eloquently
as yourself..

I would like to know more can you please take me back to those veiws
thanks xhosa 2000

Hi Aussie
Im back in Cape Town tomorrow and will respond more fully when I can get to my files. But a question, has Dannis Barker backed up his claims with documented quotes or footnotes? Or is he speculating?
There are a number of holes in the statements/questions you have posted, Not least documented statements that Tshingwayo had argued with Matshana and through a ruse sent him of in a different direction.
Split TMFH into two sections, the so called decoy period and the discovery of the Impi and you will find it easier to deal with. The first part doesn't work but great portion of the second does, not all but a large segment.
The big question that has never been realistically answered and has been alluded to many times by Mike Snook is: 'Why did Ntshingwayo move his impi from the perfect concealment area of Ngwebini to the foot of Mabaso, not Ithusi.
Cheers for now.

And above is springboks opener, my view has
remained the same..that the Zulu did indeed
know of the British Invasion Plans from the 
very beginning..(he) knew there was three in-
vading columns as soon as they set foot on 
Zulu soil. and decided from the onset that the
central, third column was the main threat! ( i
have set aside Rowlands and Pearson for 
obvious reasons.)

There has been so much debate covering TMFH,
both on here and the RGVC site, i am by no means
an authority on the Battle of Isandhlwana but have
been able to follow the debate from beginning to
end! the last great impasse occurred in the other
place on Thurs Oct 10 2013...

The main protagonists were Peter Quantrill and Ron
Lock who locked horns over and over again with the
ex Lieut Col Snook, the sage and very knowledgeable
ex Lieut Col of Engineers Mike McCabe was poised to
box the ears of all concerned till what was to be his 
final illness overtook him..

I am a very straight talking man, and to make it short,
all i could see and hear were a bunch of Authors  post-
ulating and throwing out their own agendised  viewpoints..
( not inc the late Officer of Engineer's ) till they all had
blath blathed themselves to a stand still and uneasy stale-
mate!. and then near the last Julian Whybra added his list
of 'spanners in the works'.. so when will the next round be?

I dont use X as marking the spot, i dont use placenames, i
have'nt ' walked the ground'.. but i have read a hell of a lot
on this subject, i usually scan the relevant passage out of a
book and let that speak for its self! i guess i am intelligent
enough to extract the information from all of these and then
present it as my own words..but i just cant bring myself to
do that, i will leave that to others..

I find it simply unbelievable that people can not give the Zulu
the credit which is theirs entire! i have studied the Zulu for a
long time and firmly think that they alone were the architects
of that famous but ultimate pyrrhic victory..albiet, the sheer
ineptness of the British high command went a long way to 
secure it!.

springbok9 wrote:

Some chap called Keith Smith? That either shows ignorance or a lack of social skills.
 

Call me ignorant if you will, but I just got hold of DEAD WAS EVERYTHING and started reading it a few hours ago. Much to my amusement he not only cites this site, but specifically this (longrunning) thread in the second edition. Anyway Springbok, I see where you have got your sensitivity to all the temporal issues of the battle!

durnfordthescapegoat wrote:

Snook is nit picking in an attempt to discredit a very cogent theory.
There is enough evidence presented in TMFH to suggest that the Zulus were indeed attacking the camp from an early hour and not passively waiting for Raw or some-one else to discover them in the Ngweni valley.

Actually, if you read the link posted to Keith Smith's paper he accounts for this by positing another possibility:

"From this argument, it follows that the case made by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill that the battle began in the early morning of the 22nd January when the vedettes were driven off is no longer tenable, if it ever was."
...

"Zulu evidence clearly indicates that Ntshingwayo was not planning to attack the camp on that day. Had he been going to do so, why then did he wait from early morning until noon to begin? It seems more likely that he was simply moving his warriors to a more favourable position for the expected attack on the 23rd."

6pdr wrote:

durnfordthescapegoat wrote:

Snook is nit picking in an attempt to discredit a very cogent theory.
There is enough evidence presented in TMFH to suggest that the Zulus were indeed attacking the camp from an early hour and not passively waiting for Raw or some-one else to discover them in the Ngweni valley.

Actually, if you read the link posted to Keith Smith's paper he accounts for this by positing another possibility:

"From this argument, it follows that the case made by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill that the battle began in the early morning of the 22nd January when the vedettes were driven off is no longer tenable, if it ever was."
...

"Zulu evidence clearly indicates that Ntshingwayo was not planning to attack the camp on that day. Had he been going to do so, why then did he wait from early morning until noon to begin? It seems more likely that he was simply moving his warriors to a more favourable position for the expected attack on the 23rd."

Thanks for your response 6pdr i would like to answer your above question concerning why then did he wait from early morning until noon to begin?
The answer i provided already in my earlier post Ntshingwayo was waiting for those regiments that was used to deceive Dartnell and Chelmsford to arrive if this is true it was a master stroke of deception this would of taken some time seeing they those regiments needed to go the long way around and not the direct route to avoid being discovered. those quotes from that book were carried down from son to grandson so we have clearly someone who was present on that fateful day with his direct thoughts which have much more punch than all of todays authors if you can get the book please read it, I only mentioned a few items there is much more to digest thanks again mate

It might be that all who have debated this issue feel that enough
has been said, i am  particularly talking about the academics!.. 
and so they will not be drawn out on this, at this time. Yes it is
certainly true that Barker was there and his testimony is of the
most importance..but please bear in mind the survival rate from
that Massacre..55 Europeans, all on horse back and all fleeing for
their lives..The many ( and there were many ) warnings to his lord-
ship went unheeded, the arrogance of the british who thought that
the Zulu would be dealt with in the same fashion as the previous
campaigns. iI wont go on about the second invasion where it seems
his Lordship finally got a clue, he built a fort every ten yards thereafter.
i dont exaggerate by much! count them. Decoy..yes.

Hi Aussie
Ive ordered the book so will reserve comment on your post until Ive had the chance to look at it. But I really do hope that its based on more than WW Barkers testimony as recorded in Stalker. Because there is absolutely no proof that Ntshingwayo was waiting for troops to join him. The so called 'thousands ' that Barker says were seen ( that's heresay incidently) were recorded at 8 oclock in the morning. There is still that 4 hour gap to account for.
Unfortunatly a lot of the theories ignore the timelines ( Sorry Les I know Im a pain in the Arse with that) and tend to be selective. Read Mehlokazulu carefully for a good viewpoint.
Another point to consider is Barkers distance estimation. He says he was 6 miles to the front of the camp. That puts him way way passed the Quabe valley, he then says he rode back 2 miles to talk to Scott. That puts Scott at 4 miles from the camp but Amatutshane, Scotts post, is barely a mile and a half from the mountain.
And unless Im mistaken didn't Denis Barker claim that WW Barker was awarded the VC?

Anyway I look forward to reading the account and will keep an open mind.

Cheers

PS. Les there was a rumour at one time the Chelmsford was trying to emulate Hadrians wall.

Hi springbok3
Yes your exactly right about there distances very short miles mate know concerning the VC Denis gave the reason in his book why his Great Grandfather was not awarded the medal because he was a Carbineer anyway I have a photos of the place in question coming up with my comment love to get your opinion mate
it seems you have a been doing more reading on the Zulu War than myself.

Can anyone find out were i can get that Documentry Zulu the True Story the Timewatch program love to have a copy thanks all

aussie inkosi wrote:

The answer i provided already in my earlier post Ntshingwayo was waiting for those regiments that was used to deceive Dartnell and Chelmsford to arrive if this is true it was a master stroke of deception this would of taken some time seeing they those regiments needed to go the long way around and not the direct route to avoid being discovered.  those quotes from that book were carried down from son to grandson so we have clearly someone who was present on that fateful day with his direct thoughts which have  much more punch than all of todays authors...

Punch? Well, I enjoy a solid speculation as much as the next man and such things are completely appropriate to discuss here.  But for anybody to go to the trouble of printing pages and binding a book these days I also hope for something new approximating actual PROOF.  That gives us an excuse to dwell on the possibilities.  But to quote DEAD WAS EVERYTHING the status quo among professionals on this issue remains some version of this:

"Zulu observers would have reported the site of the camp almost concurrently with the planting of the first tent pole."
...
"The subsequent actions of Matshana kaMondisa and his people during the late afternoon effectively screened the movement of the Zulu Army, in small groups at a time, from Isiphezi to the Ngwebeni Valley behind Mombaso Hill. (There is no evidence to support the view that Matshana was acting under the orders of the Zulu leaders to create a diversion to hoodwink the British, although the results of his actions were entirely the same.)" (p.54)

Never a pain Frank..i have read all Zulu testimony extensively
over many years, not to be relied on. he said anything the 
invaders wished to hear, well you would, would'nt you? consider
how he lived and then consider how he died....a true patriot to
the end!. i have said many times, either by a mixture of good
fortune, serendipity or heaven forbid anyone should think the
Zulu high command actually knew what they were doing.. the
british were decoyed and then taken! you will note and maybe
wonder why nobody challenges these assertions, maybe because
they are fact..the inconvenient truth..i would never seek to close
down debate, but nit picking over minutiae is not my thing..     
i do have Barker i will attempt to dig it out, god knows where it
is..

Hi Aussie
As I said Ive ordered the book and look forward to reading it. My concern about this typ of book is that a lot is generally hung on a little. Stalker reports in full WW Barkers statementand its really fraught with error. I have a standard policy in looking at the various statements and testimonies and that includes disregarding times and measurements of distance because generally they are allways wrong. Once these elements are eliminated the pure story becomes apparent. As a second issue take out any references that the writer could not possibly have witnessed. As an example if someone was on the plain they would have no first hand knowledge of happenings on the plateau. And as a second point Barker puts the time of the battle at 10.30, patently wrong.
Ive looked at this particular issue, the position of the piquets etc for a number of years and discussed at length. Do a search for 'Questions to Ian Knight' on the forum. In there he gives his opinion on the positions of the sentries.
I do believe though that Barker did see some kind of force, I don't believe that it was a deliberate tactic by the Zulus to drive away the piquets. The Zulu have never historically been afraid of showing there forces or manoevering in the open. On the contrary its a ruse often used to scare the opponent.

Les Sorry mate but that theory, such an integral part of TMFHT, has been attacked and repudiated on many occasion, on many different stages, including this one.
As we have often said, all the statements are open to interpretation, and that's exactly what L and Q have done so well. But there interpretation is based also on omission of certain 'evidence' such as the statements that Matyana was in turn decoyed away from the main force because of a division in the high command.
Its also a perfect piece of logic that when Matyanas men saw Dartnells force in THEIR backyard then of course they were going watch/spy/skirmish with them. And run away as well, even try to do the typical Zulu attack of face up and wait for the advance before sending out the runners/horns.
Just because all that happened doesn't suggest any form of entrapment or tactic to do that. Every argument put up by Ron and Peter can be countered in logical format. But hey anything is possible, just depends if you put your old tooth under the pillow at night and expect it to morf into cash.
You may guess that I don't believe in the decoy theory.

PS For Barker look at Stalker in The Natal Carbineerss

springbok9 wrote:

I do believe though that Barker did see some kind of force, I don't believe that it was a deliberate tactic by the Zulus to drive away the piquets. The Zulu have never historically been afraid of showing there forces or manoevering in the open. On the contrary its a ruse often used to scare the opponent.

Hmmm, interesting Frank. Then you don't hold with Keith Smith's view of events either, eh? It seems to me the weak spot in his argument is driving off exactly the two picquets that would have witnessed the advance; especially on the plateau. If you can swallow that there is an almost inexorable logic to the rest of his contentions...but you have to believe they were that clinical. You also make a very good point wrt to prior Zulu practice. A leopard doesn't change his spots overnight!

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

I thought it would be a good idea to add a photo taken from the donga in question from my recent trip from this point it would of taken 30 minutes for the

Zulu to reach a view of Isandlwana one thought that enterd my mind Hamilton Brown said he saw the Oxen were used as a shield to enter the rear of Isandlwana

At 1:30pm this gives us a timetable if the discovery of the main Zulu army was at Ngbweni then there discovery would of happened at about noon we all agree

Ntshingwayo was in command of the battle how long would it have taken him to cover this distance being well aged and slow remember he could not escape

The Ulundi massacre which many Chiefs died at the hands of Zibhebu he needed to  make the distance in 1 hour seeing he would have been on his command rock

Commanding the battle say 30 minutes before the Zulu left horn used the Oxen as a shield to gain entry from the rear.  So 12 noon for the disvovery we

need to allow Ntshingwayo 15 minutes to organize some order after most of the regiments took off and at least another 15minutes for him to get out of the valley been there

its very deep leaving him 30 minutes to reach the rock this would off even been difficult if he was on horse back impossible on his feet and remember if we take Hamilton Brown

testimony he saw the cannons firing at 11am and the camp being attack at this time.  The Zulu was still in the valley undiscovered would he have got his time wrong by 90 minutes

I don’t believe so please I would love to hear from as many people as possible.  I have been at all the sights twice and it has given be a better understanding than before my visits.

Photo & Text by Aussie Inkosi

aussieinkosi
Can you please supply just one of the primary sources from Barker's book? The one which says Ntshingwayo MET Matshana. If such a thing exists the book will be worth buying because it indicates a high level of research. If it doesn't...

Where did you get these 3 stories from i have a large selection of books and maybe i just overlooked thanks xhosa2000

Julian Whybra wrote:

aussieinkosi
Can you please supply just one of the primary sources from Barker's book?  The one which says Ntshingwayo MET Matshana.  If such a thing exists the book will be worth buying because it indicates a high level of research.  If it doesn't...

The book lists 18 sources on page 313

aussieinkosi
Barker's book lists 18 primary sources stating that Ntshingwayo MET Matshana pre-battle to discuss the battle plan????!!!?? PLEASE cite one of them!

Julian Whybra wrote:

aussieinkosi
Barker's book lists 18 primary sources stating that Ntshingwayo MET Matshana pre-battle to discuss the battle plan????!!!??  PLEASE cite one of them!

concerning the meeting with with Ntshingwayo it does not specify a source for that meeting but all the source books listed were written way after the war ended like i said from the start
Barker was there on the day he also was a magistrate of Eshowe after the war if thats not credible enough for you then nothing will be

aussieinkosi

If the content of Denis Barker's book is to have historical credibility then sources for statements made have to be given and open to scrutiny.  Otherwise they are just opinion or hearsay.  D. Barker's simply writing that Matshana met Ntshingwayo does not make it true.  

W. Barker certainly was there on the day of Isandhlwana but that did not mean he was privy to Ntshingwayo's pre-battle meetings with his indunas.  He may also have been a post-war magistrate at Eshowe but that did not give him any special insight as to the strategies and battle plans re Isandhlwana.  Neither does it make any of the remarks made in the book any more credible (unless he states his sources for them).

I take it then that there are NOT 18 primary sources stating that the alleged meeting took place and that all the works used in the book are secondary sources.  Is that right?

If provocative, earth-shattering (or outrageous) statements are going to be made then evidence has to be provided. I'm not being pernickety. That's just how history is.

Aussie nkosi
Im afraid I would agree with Julian. That is why I commented earlier that I hoped it was based on more than Barkers testimony.
I do look forward to reading the book, unfortunately there is a postal strike in RSA at present so deliver of the book will be delayed.

Regards

Got to say, that's why i scan passages from work and
indicate that there is no comment from me! to make
assertions of any kind is to walk on very tricky ground.
it is well known that the British stupidly neglected to
interview the Zulu high command in the aftermath of
the war, again i can only put that down to arrogance!.
i unearthed as it turns out two copies of Barker one of
which is signed, which means nothing of course, but is
nice for us collectors..of course most of all this has been
in the public domain for such a long time, so one must
be very careful about what one says, otherwise be
prepared to meet the ' Dogs of Foe ' nice to hear from 
you again Julian.

Hi Les
Ive always wondered about the lack of interviews with the 'top dogs'. And I don't believe it could have happened. Somewhere in a dark and dismal basement there is a filing cabinet with a name on it that says 'Extremely embarrassing revelations'. There were meetings that Ntshingwayo was present at when high ranking officers were present, for example ( before anyone shouts, prove it ) when the kingdom was split up and all the new kinglets signed for there bits of land.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And if that piece of paper is not the ultimate heap of indignity on a very noble man I don't know what is.

Cheers

Woof woof