Glyn, was he capable

Hi all

If LC ​​had left Glyn, in place of Pulleine in the camp and taken Pulleine with him, it would have happened?


Given the difference of personality and experience of these two officers...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal.
We'll never know will we , but he couldnt have done any worse !.
90th

This is about, you could do worse ...

When Chelmsford left the camp in the early hours of the 22nd, the Zulu main army of 20,000+ men was already in position on the hills N of the camp and Chelmsford didn't know they were there.
The battle to be was therefore lost at this point.
I fear when LC split off, he could have left Alexander the Great in charge of the camp Pascal and the result of the battle would have been little different.

God, I mean, that with all reports received prior to the attack, other provisions could have taken beings, but by another ,Glyn ? if he had been there, not both :joker: of Pulleine and Durnford...

Pascal, comprenez vous? Pulleine, Glynn, Durnford, ce n'était pas important.

Hi Tasker .
You aren't talking dirty to Pascal are you ??. :lol: :lol: . Be careful , he might like it !. :lol: :lol:
cheers 90th.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Very funny 90th, oo la la :lol:

You never know, if Chelmsford had left Glyn behind at the camp and taken Pulleine with him things might well have turned out different. I think that Glyn would have done a lot better than Pulleine did when reports started coming in about zulus around the area of the camp, and I am sure he would have organised some sort of better defences at the camp. I am not saying that the zulus would not have won, but I do think that there would have been a better chance for the British under Glyn rather than under Pulleine.

Quote :

Pascal.
Harry Houdini couldn't have saved that camp ! . The camp simply didnt have enough imperial troops to withstand an attack of that
magnitude .
cheers 90th.

Explain RD?? They survived.

Chard, you know better than that!
Whilst there are the obvious similarities, these were entirely different battles in so many respects.
The Zulus planned and prepared their attack on iSandlwana, the camp defenders were lacking in their preparations and planning and it was too all intents and purposes a surprise attack.
At RD, the Zulus launched a spontaneous, unprepared attack. The hospital defenders were much better planned and prepared than their unfortunate camp colleagues.
Glyn was a different person to Pulleine, so he may have acted differently when the scouting reports came in, he may have prepared better than Pulleine, but it is hard to imagine what he or anyone else could have done, even with hindsight, to fend off that Zulu assault.
Square anyone?

Hi all

damn, guys, I do not know as much as you all on this war and what I know is thanks to you all ...

You do not understand me?

There is, therefore, Mr M. Cooper who understands me among you?

I tell you, me, me, and anyone with a character like mine (because I read a lot of story military campaign of all times, even though I started in the Zulu War) who received the kind of report has received Pulleine, before the arrival of penguins, and especially me being thoroughly informed about the Zulu army before the invasion of Zululand (even if I had been a humble subordinate, I 'have done out of curiosity) I'll move much more than Pulleine has done ...

Imagine a guy like Upcher or Glyn of the 1/24! Instead of Pulleine!

There was necessarily a few of guys, both prudent and capable of taking preventive initiatives in the third column or they were all calves?

Why not Glyn? But see also notes on page # 230 of the historical records of the 24th regiment, from it's formation in 1689 ... By Paton ect ...Melvill was it you say what is writing, whether it was a man of superior intelligence...

To make myself better understood, I prepared another subject (the time to something to make sure that you will be forced to approve ...)

Cheers

Pascal

[quote="Chard1879"]

Quote :

Explain RD?? They survived.

Totaly diffrent situation, amount of ground, troops, what they had to do ect.




Cheers

Hi Drummer Boy 15

This is the C-in-C that makes the difference.

Without Dalton, RD Garrison was crushed like the guys of Isandhlwana ...

Cheers

Pascal

Quote :

Totaly diffrent situation, amount of ground, troops, what they had to do ect.

RD had very little time I which to fortify thier position, but they managed. Isandlwana had 5 hours in which to fortify, prepair ammuntion stations and prepair the men to face an attack. They did nothing. The odds of surival at Isandlwana was more than those at RD. if you work out the odds, man- power x hours in combat. They had no Aritillery no mounted units unlike those at Isandlwana. The officers in command had ensure that what needed to be done prior to the attack was done. Mainly ensuring that a good and plentiful supply of ammuntion was available during the battle and of course a bayonet, with some guts behind it.

Chard1879.
Seriously , I suggest you go and read some books regarding these the two battles !. .
90th.

YES? SHOULD NOT COMPARE THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT,,,

Chard, do what most of us do when a discussion, gets to this point. Just sit back, and let those speculate and guess what happened, and who's to blame for what, it's quite amusing. Julian Whybra once said, use primary sources if you can, this as fallen on deaf ears, it most cases.

Yes Chelmsfordthescapegoat but the primary sources are not certain and also full of errors, one is forced to speculate, what is human and what is this, the forum

Quote :

primary sources are not certain and also full of errors, one is forced to speculate, what is human and what is this, the forum

CTSG. I see what you mean the whole Zulu War is based on speculation. Primary sources are full of errors. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Best, put my Zulu War books on EBay....

Primary sources are crucial, however they they can be unreliable. Reader beware, be questioning, use your own brain and be open minded.
(Read about the police reports on the Hillsborough disaster. Fortunately, these have been revealed to be a sham due to the persistence of the families involved. These were primary sources).

Is that we are all on this forum

Quote :

Reader beware, be questioning, use your own brain and be open minded.

No!! you have to prove the primary source to be incorrect. Using the method above, would only result in personal speculation.

Hello LH

So here it is very simple ...

If you have many witnesses who saw an event, if they were not together, get as many dissimilars testimonials ...

It is not bad faith on their part, it is human that's all ...

Cheers

Pascal

Let's not forget that some that escaped from iSandlwana had to justify their escape, in other words, they had to give their reasons why they fled.

It is possible that some of them give accounts in their own favour in order to put themselves in a good light. However, some of their accounts won't always tally with what others say, and can also be out of the time frame for the events that some of them say they witnessed.

Many of these accounts are now quoted as 'primary sources', but it's worth while checking them with other accounts first, to see if they tally with what is known to be factual and also within the time frame of events.

The truth is alway elsewhere ...

Agreed. Read primary sources, but beware of the errors, deliberate or otherwise.

Be particularly suspicious of primary sources where the writer has has self interest (3escapers") or loyalty to protect (LC and his staff officers or officers of the 24th Foot), if he is unreliable (Henderson) or if he has been exposed to the possibility of duress (Mehlokazulu) for example.

None of the above would be admissable in a court of law, unless stringent safety protocols and procedures have been followed by the letter from the start.

Primary sources are valuable of course and I am not suggesting they all be dismissed or disbelieved, but reader beware.
They do give us glimpses of a battle that the vast majority of those who witnessed it could never tell us.

Agreed . We have to remember that witness accounts give us valuable glimpses, but they should not be treated as Gospel. There will be errors, deliberate or accidental and the odd pork pie.

Yeah

littlehand wrote:

No!! you have to prove the primary source to be incorrect.

But that's not always possible. When I started reading about this battle and realized how complex it was I decided to gather all the accounts of the battle I had and work out a definitive timeline. Anybody who has ever attempted that seemingly simple task knows what happened next. The primary sources were all over the place. It was impossible for me to reconcile them all and it was at that moment that I realized what professional historians were struggling with. Sometimes when you have conflicting sources you have to use your own judgement and experience to decide which is likely to be closer to the truth. Note, I am not saying, "the truth" as you appear to believe, but which is LIKELY to be CLOSER to the truth. If I don't have sufficient information to hazard a guess as to which of several conflicting accounts are correct, I read secondary sources that I have learned to trust for their interpretation and reasoning.

By their very nature no one primary source can recount all of what happened at Isandlwana. The battlefield was simply too big. Also, the Zulu left no primary written accounts and they played a pretty big part in the battle. And the British Army was only interested in the answer to specific questions, not ultimate truths, so apparently a lot of testimony taken down was tossed. Thing fell in the gaps...and that is the case BEFORE we get into deconstructing who was obscuring what intentionally, or gilding the lily.

Not a problem. Col: Mike Snook fills in the gaps with speculation, difference being he has walked the battlefield more than the troops did back in the day. Plus he is a high ranking officer in the British Amry, so he can see issues from another perspective, the same as the commands of 1879 saw it. But primary sources are the way to go if possible.

Snooks book realy is amazing, the way he brings the battle to life by describing the troops posistions and
the territiory the battle took place is briliant. Next to that Jackson's work is also the best.




Cheers

Only one small note of caution of course, with Col. Snook.
As an officer of the regiment descended from the 24th, he has an interest/bias in painting the officers (Pulleine et al) of the 24th, who took part in the Battle of iSandlwana in rosey colours.
But he does tell tell a rivetting story and his appreciation of the actual battlefield is top drawer. Read and enjoy those bits of writing and what might well have happened, in his view. But steer clear when it comes to the blame game.

I agree with that Tasker, but you do look at the battle a lot diffrently after reading his book.



Cheers

Of course, his speculation, as you call it, cannot be disproven. But it is the most likely outcome.

Hi All .
I agree with all those who posted recently on this thread , Snook's book is wonderfully written in describing the battle etc etc , Hair standing up on the back of the neck stuff ! . But as Tasker mentioned he was a commanding officer in this susequent Regt , a Lt Col if I'm not mistaken - happy to be corrected . So he has more than likely either consciously or unconsciously
not portrayed any of the 24th in a poor light . Which according to some reviewers was a minus in their opinions , I think I read that on the AZW Historical Society's Web Site . Again happy to be corrected . I know it was a long time before I decided to purchase it for those reasons , but on Springboks recommendation I did get it and enjoyed it immensely . As we know it's light on for footnotes this is where he has used speculation etc etc , which is ok as long as his work isnt treated as gospel by those who do read the book . It certainly is well worth reading , as that is what it is ....A good read .
Cheers 90th.

90th wrote:

It certainly is well worth reading , as that is what it is ....A good read .

As others have mentioned, I don't think anybody has written more cogently on the topology of the battlefield than Snook. His communicates the relationship of the terrain features to one another and how they impacted the sight lines and perceptions of the participants with outstanding clarity. And I also agree that a particular strength of the book is his understanding of the Victorian army in general and behavioral codes of the regimental tradition specifically.

But that also leads to his books' two greatest weaknesses. First he does have an almost pathological aversion to recognizing any behavior which could be deemed less than estimable and valorous in the 24th; especially the officers. They were all iron jawed heros. The second relates to "the lack of footnotes" where it comes to filling in gaps that other historian have so carefully excavated...a habit which sometimes goes beyond mere supposition, or even rank speculation, to outright flights of fantasy IMO.

That may sound like I didn't like it. On on the contrary, I too think it's worth spending time with. As an act of historical imagination it is outstanding. He has put together a unified coherent theory of the battle and articulated the entire thing as if he was present. Part of what makes it such a great read is that he unhesitatingly fills in the blind spots. No academic throat clearing for him. The trouble is, of course, that nobody can KNOW the things that he inserts and they all basically assume that the 24th fought far better than the Spartans at Themopylae. When you are done reading you will wonder how they ever lost. But Snook goes on to reexamine that (again and again) in obsessive passages in two other books which can be summarized thus: BLAME DURNFORD!

If Durnford was a white whale, Snook would be his Ahab. So read his account of the battle as you would a historical novel and you will probably enjoy it. Just take some of the encomiums to the 24th with a grain of salt, as well as the downright smearing of Durnford.

YES,good...

I also have Snook's book, however, I only got so far through it and had to give up. He makes it very clear where he THINKS the blame lies, and I just could not read any more of this very bias book in which Snook's imagination takes over from fact. It is all supposition and assumption, he wants the reader to believe that because he THINKS that's what happened, then it must be right, and a lack of footnotes does not help at all, the book now languishes in a dark corner at the very back of the bookshelf.

Hello Mr M. Cooper

It was not'm writing a historian, the author would have to sell his rights to a film producer ...

Best regards Mr M. Cooper

Pascal the Rascal

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

I agree with that Tasker, but you do look at the battle a lot diffrently after reading his book.

Care to cite any specific examples? (This is a friendly question, not an inquisition. Feel free to ignore it...but I'm curious if you want to answer.)

Yes DB14,please , cite any specific examples

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Yes DB14,please , cite any specific examples

One thing Snook solidified in my mind was that Pulleine's primary mission was the defense of the camp. He is adamant that his force could not abandon it for any reason by the standards of the day. I have to say, I needed to hear that bit of common sense with all the discussions of climbing the hill and forming square etc... Snook also makes it clear that he believes the camp was entirely too large for Pulleine's force to hold. We don't need to revisit that discussion--I'm just citing this as an example of Snook's clarity to get the discussion rolling...

It has long been known as the Book of Monsieur Snook, is not very sharp as historian material, it is the same as that of another author that I will not mention,by courtesy,because ,he is also on this forum...

HI 6pdr

Well the example you mentioned, that Pulleine needed to hold the camp and couldn't go forming squares, he totaly
rids the myth of an ammuntion problem to the 24th companies being a reason for the defeat, and the retreat of the
comapanies, i always imagined it was every man for himself, but it clearly wasn't.



Cheers

Ah yes, the great excuse as in the 1970s

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Ah yes, the great excuse as in the 1970s

And still believed by some historians today



Cheers

It's amazing, it's bad faith Characterized! Which make it ...?

Me every time I speak of Isandhlwana in France, it is alway that comes up,this is exhausting ...

Cheers

Pascal