Men were killed as they came out if their tents. Isandlwana.

Si I wonder who those men were that we're killed coming out f their tents.

I suspect that the "men coming out of their tents" were actually men passing through the tents - anything else is inconceivable.

Perhaps they were Civilians ect?

Here's an interesting artical.

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

LH

Its been discussed before, its a load of nonsence, Popes diary does not refer to an eary attack and the troops
than falling out for dinner.



Cheers

Quote :

its a load of nonsence

I like to way you say this DB. The reference to the Pope bit might be!!!

Now read the part in keeping with this discussion.

"Some of the white soldiers were in their shirts, other came out of the white tents eating"

And there's quite abit in the artical thats rings true!!!

Quote :

And there's quite abit in the artical thats rings true!!!

Where's the other refrence to men coming out of tents eating ?

All the men about camp were sent to the firing line, at least 2 people state this.



Cheers

Old H, thanks that's exactly what I was referring to.

DB read back through the post today, in this thread.

HI DB.
Pope does mention that the zulu's '' Retire everywhere '' . He also states '' Men Fall out for dinners '' . These are in fact the last two lines he ever wrote ! .
Cheers 90th.

LH

I still can't find anything on men coming out of tents eating ?

Men running out or through the tents is mentioned by Curling but these were most likely civilians or soliders retreating, as i've said a dozen times, all the soliders around the camp were marched to the firing line and the retreat path of E and F Coy was right through the tents.


Cheers

The eating bit is in the artical. Some are trying to establish, who may have been coming out of the tents. This could be one theory.

CTSG

Soliders were justing casulay eating in there tents while the entire battle took place ?

Can you prove otherwise, it's not the first mentioned of this. And it says so in the artical.

Can you please show me the other references to soliders of the 24th eating in there tents while the other 600 of the
regiment were fighting on the front line ?


Cheers

If I had time I would, but I sure your more than capable of looking yourself. There are a few accounts of the men being over confident even on the firing lines in the face of the enermy.

Quote :

Victorian trait of glorifying quite horrible and distasteful

I have heard the food wasn't that great.

CTSG
Strathnairn is referring to a despatch sent by Chelmsford on his return to PMB days after the battle before he knew what had happened and the air was still filled with unsubstantiated rumours like 'coys going off and never being seen again' - exactly as mentioned before.
old historian et al
The article you quote from is an unsubstantiated article from a British newspaper allegedly quoting from an unsubstantiated Natal newspaper in which a Zulu account appears. It did not exist.
DB
You are quite right. The Pope extract has been misquoted. There was no attack. The dinner referred to was brought out to Pope's men on picquet when the other men were having theirs.
All of you
History is not done like this. Sensationalism is. This is the 'Sun' version of history. You cannot focus on one line without seeing where it has come from or puuting it into context. Place what you find into context and check the sources.

John
It does show that there were rumours flying around yes. Before the CoI. Before any accounts were gathered. READ my post yesterday of 5.50. John, I am not being rude, but this is a ridiculous way of carrying on. Focusing on unsubstantiated immediate-aftermath rumours subsequently shown to be nonsense will not get you anywhere and merely distracts and detracts from the thread. You really must read some history books to get a broad overview of how things developed. Jus one would be enough.

CTSG

I'm certain there is no other account that mentions men eating in there tents during the battle.

90th

He does, but he does not refer to an attack in the morning that forced the Zulus to retire.



Cheers

DB. YOU REALLY ARE MISSING THE POINT. FORGET THE EATING PART, THAT'S MENTIONED IN THE ARTICAL. BUT WHAT IT DOES SHOW, IS THAT MEN WERE COMING OUT OF THE TENTS WHILE THE CAMP WAS BEING ATTACKED!!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY WERE EATING OR NOT. WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE WITH REGARDS TO THEM EATING.

Chard

If you had read the posts you would see that CTSG had refered to apparent other sources on men eating in there
tents during the battle

Chard
You are missing the point. The account does not exist!!!

It does exist. In the newpaper artical written, by an unnamed Zulu Warrior who was there, just like the one who gave his account to Mitford.

Which newspaper? Date? Title of column?
If it exists you will be able to cite me the reference.

Julian, heres the original source of the artical.

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


DB read the artical properly. What does it say about " Popes" account....

LH

It says Pope's diary speaks of an attack in the morning that was repleled, Pope's diary in fact says this

22nd January, 1879 - 4 a.m. - A,C,D,E,F,H Companies of
ours - 1 2 / 3 N.N.C. - mounted troops and four guns off.
Great Firing.
Relieved by 1-24th.
Alarm.
3 Columns Zulus and mounted men on hill E.
Turn Out.
7000 (!!!) more E.N.E., 4,000 of whom went round Lion's
Kop.
Durnford, Basutos, arrive and pursue. - Rocket Battery.
Zulus retire everywhere.
Men fall out for dinners."

Hi Littlehand,
The post previous to yours fascinates.
The last line says " the men fell out for dinners", wot........ with 25,000m blood thirsty Zulu's menacing the camp??
So,..... I wonder where they enjoyed their midday repast, at the local Mickey Dee's perhaps?

regards

barry

Good observation Barry, at least someone is reading it properly...

Yes!!! but they only took lunch, while the enermy were retreating.

LH straight from the article

"The entery referred to speaks of an attack in the morning after which the enemy retired in all directions."

That isn't in the entrey in Pope's diary

Barry

The men fell out for dinners as Durnford left the camp, at that point the Zulus were reported to be retiring everywhere, also no-one in the camp knew there was 25,000 Zulu's near the camp, the largest report had put their numbers at 7,000.


Merry Christmas
Sam

Sorry DB. I can't work with you. You jump around to much. I know your only 14 but you have proved you can hold your own. I can see no point in replying to your posts..

DB. The artical inquestion is saying " The only piece of evidence contradiction " And that's your Pope reply.

LH

I'm 15 and i didn't "jump around" i simply proved the article wrong



Cheers

You haven't. But we are happy to let you think you have. In which case you don't need to add anymore as you have solved the issue in-question. Well done young man, keep up the good work.

LH sent you a PM regarding papers past.

Impi

This is what the article says is in Pope's diary

"an attack in the morning after which the enemy retired in all directions."

This is the last entery in Pope's diary

"22nd January, 1879 - 4 a.m. - A,C,D,E,F,H Companies of
ours - 1 2 / 3 N.N.C. - mounted troops and four guns off.
Great Firing.
Relieved by 1-24th.
Alarm.
3 Columns Zulus and mounted men on hill E.
Turn Out.
7000 (!!!) more E.N.E., 4,000 of whom went round Lion's
Kop.
Durnford, Basutos, arrive and pursue. - Rocket Battery.
Zulus retire everywhere.
Men fall out for dinners."

I may be 15 but i don't see any mention of an attack in the morning that was repelled

DB. " The only piece of evidence contradiction "

The artical is admitting popes accounts is contradicted by this account, and waiting for verification. The artical is agreeing with you.

This is why people are getting fed up, your only reading what you want to read.

little hand
I rarely say this but you are wrong. You have misunderstood. The article from the paper you have provided a link to is a REPORT of an article in a Natal paper. However that Natal paper article DOES NOT exist. There is NO Zulu account.
You are all arguing about nothing.
This is another example of a rumour finding it's way into a Natal paper and then being reproduced in a New Zealand paper.
90th
The great firing in Pope's diary refers to the sound of firing they heard from the direction taken by Chelmsford. Several comment on it.

Julian.
Thanks for clearing that up , I did know there was firing heard from the direction of Chelmesford's force , didnt realise it was loud as it must have been for Pope to write what he did .
Cheers 90th.

90th
Loud enough for them to assume that Chelmsford MUST be engaged with the main impi!!! So, when they did find something on the plateau, they already thought they knew where the main impi was, so the plateau Zulus could only be a subsidiary force...couldn't it?
Ah, the benefit of hindsight!

Julian .
So true ! , I've used that word on here many times and there are many on here who dont like the word ! . As has been discussed on here many times I doubt anyone could blame Durnford for having the gumption to leave the camp and try to ascertain what was happening out toward Chelmesford's force . Do you agree ? .

Of course!
Merry Christmas!

LHand
WMD
Plebs, morons.
Lieut. Young.
John Wyndon Lyon.
Zabange.
The 'Pulleine-Cavaye' order.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
C19 journalists were no more to be trusted than C21 ones.
I'm afraid it needn't have come from anywhere (unless you can demonstrate that it did).
Merry Christmas.

Julian what are you talking about. To much sherry trifle, me thinks.

impi
It's my response to Littlehand's question. All of them had their origins in newspaper articles (except the last) and all were without foundation.
It's Christmas pudding in my household not sherry trifle but alcohol does put in appearance as I always set light to the brandy on the pudding. Merry Christmas to you, impi!

Quote :

It's Christmas pudding in my household.

Same here..

Quote :

I doubt anyone could blame Durnford for having the gumption to leave the camp and try to ascertain what was happening out toward Chelmesford's force . Do you agree ? .

90th. But he didn't need to go with them. He had the Everyman in the camp, under his command. So plenty to ascertain where the enermy was.


Julian. Quote:
You say the paper article DOES NOT exist. Then why is there!!

Julian. I'm confused by your post. What do you mean it doesn't exist!!

Chelmsford/Ray
The Zulu account referred does not exist. I cannot put it any plainer. The NZ newspaper report is a fiction.
Chelmsford
D had all the camp at his disposal, true, yet, he was not going to interfere with the camp as he would not be staying, remember. All he did do was to replace the NNC picquet he had borrowed with E coy.

Julian. Come on. The artical is there for all to see, your telling us it's fiction, you need to show that, you have many times told us to prove various resources posted. Tell us in laymans terms how you have come to the conclusion it's fiction. Is it because you can't find it in your database..

Dave

I've taken some trouble to reply to you. Please read it. Comments like "is it because you can't find it in your database" are not helpful.

So we are clear, the item in question is the newspaper article Little hand referred the forum to . It's taken from a New Zealand newspaper, the Nelson Evening Mail dated 19th January 1881. The first thing a historian has to do with a new piece of evidence is to establish veracity. He does this by looking at two aspects – provenance and content.

Provenance

To begin with the article is a three-times Chinese whisper. Its origin is, allegedly, an unnamed Zulu who gave an account of Isandhlwana to an unnamed white individual (an interpreter); the individual repeated this to an unnamed South African journalist, who, allegedly, recorded it in an unnamed, undated South African newspaper; this alleged report was seen by an unnamed New Zealand journalist, who wrote the article referred to.

This article in itself is not a primary source, it is hearsay. However, it does need to be checked. It claims to be based on a South African newspaper article dating from (presumably) 24th January 1879 to 10th January 1881. One would presume that it appeared toward the end of this period in order to enhance its ‘sensationalist’ recent aspect and one would also assume that it had had a similar sensationalist impact in South African newspapers.

I spent two years, off and on, at the Colindale Newspaper Library (this is the copyright library for the then British Museum [now Library]) going through every newspaper, British and South African, for reports and accounts of Isandhlwana between 1879 and 1884. Longer articles I had photocopied, shorter ones I copied by hand. Of especial interest to me were Zulu accounts since they were so rare but I was equally meticulous with colonial and British accounts. I found no article bearing any relation to the NZ article. I found no second-hand article which referred to its content, its sensationalist claims, or its existence even. The Red Book covers the Natal Mercury and Natal Witness and is useful. But Colindale has everything, the Natal Magazine, the Kaffrarian Watchman, the Natal Colonist, the Natal Advertiser, the Cape Argus, you name it, it’s there, every edition, as well as all the British papers. Now, I admit, I am not infallible. It’s possible I could have missed something. But an article of this kind would have had an impact, would have caused editorials, a response, comments in other papers. And they are not there. In addition, I know David Jackson and Ian Knight (and partly, Young, Lock and Quantrill) have trawled those same archives and nothing, not a word, of anything remotely similar, has appeared or ever been mentioned in any history. As I said in a previous post, NZ was a long way from SA in 1881, and even longer from the UK, and journalists’ ‘facts’, for the average reader in NZ, were difficult to check. An invented good story has every chance of never being found out. An invented good story, two years after the event portrayed, provided to a journalist as hearsay, but taken as gospel (“Do you know that there’s been a report in SA that…”) has even less chance of being found out. That said, I’m still prepared to countenance the possibility of such a South African article having existed. So, a historian would turn to content…

Content

I would normally examine all the elements of the Zulu ‘account’ alluded to (as in The Brave Fugitive). Forum members have focused on the creeping forward of the Zulus in the grass (what grass?), the element of surprise being such that soldiers were caught coming out of their tents, unarmed, not fully-dressed, and eating, so I’m just going to focus on these.

One might surmise that the Zulu came from the umCijo or a ‘chest’ regiment given his description of the discovery of the impi, not necessarily, but possibly. We won’t assume this. Let’s say he came from the right horn. Creeping close to the camp, unseen, would have involved thousands of Zulus' creeping over the saddle and down the near slope in full view of everyone in camp (not to mention the scouts atop Isandhlwana and Stony Koppie). Not possible. Let’s assume he came from the chest. Creeping close to the camp, unseen, would have involved avoiding Roberts and Raw’s troopers' screening the access to the spur and creeping past or through Cavaye and Mostyn’s men, and down the near slope of the spur to get within striking range of the tents. Not possible. Let’s assume he came from the left horn. Creeping close to the camp, unseen, would have involved creeping down the exposed ridge of the escarpment, in full view of the NC scouts atop conical Koppie, out across the plain, whilst Durnford’s men were cantering about, and then towards the camp, somehow getting unobserved past Pope’s picquet line. If you’ve been to Isandhlwana, you’ll know that the plain isn’t flat, it slopes gently in a south-easterly direction down to the two dongas and the countryside is fully visible and exposed to anyone in the camp. It’s just not possible that anyone could creep or crawl that close without being seen or heard (let alone thousands of them).

Let’s assume that somehow the collective wisdom of all AZW historians is wrong about how the Zulu attack developed. What we should then find is that somewhere this Zulu’s alleged ‘account’ is endorsed by other Zulus who affirm its statements, and that British soldiers’ accounts might relate how they were surprised, bleary-eyed still eating their toast as they emerged from the tents. But we don’t. There is nothing remotely similar from either side and this is just looking at two elements from the alleged ‘account’.

From the point of view of provenance and content the NZ article has no factual basis, no logical basis, and therefore no veracity. In the absence of information it could fool an NZ colonist community in 1881 but it can't (or it shouldn't) fool an educated community with a special interest in and knowledge of Isandhlwana like this forum.

The New Zealand article is a con, or more likely, and to be generous, the journalist concerned confused Isandhlwana with a hearsay account of Intombi (where soldiers did emerge from their tents, bleary-eyed and eating their toast after the Zulus had crept close to the laager before charging home).

Thanks Julian - a great response - which should give everyone a good understanding of the difference between an Historian and an interested amateur ( I am definitely the 2nd).

thanks for taking the time and patience to share your knowledge with us on the forum.

Sergio