Just a thought! Lord Chelmsford at Isandlwana.

Hi Springy
You wont get any argument from me there my friend !
Cheers 90th

Gents we seemed to be going down the road, of being told what to read, how to read it, what was written, what wasn't written, reading between the lines, in hindsight, who can be trusted who can't.

Come on now, we all have books, but I starting to feel like we are being told the books we have are no good and in-correct. And that the books certain members have are the be and end all, and have the answers to every question out there. Every account should be considered and taken seriously if it doesn't corroborate another's account, it doesn't mean in incorrect. All discussions will end, if we only except that only certain accounts are correct to prove a members theory as a maybe. I'm all for new avenues, but can't except because something is wriiten in a different book it puts all other theories out the window.

Morning Mr G
I fully agree. The problem comes in not with books but changes to original documents. The Crealock and Gardner statements are the cases in point. There are two separate versions on the gardner statement on the North East website. One is false, and that's corroborated from the original document.
I sure that all the forum members are more than willing to learn what is the truth and what isn't. A lot of my posts are purely ideas and thoughts and are shared on that basis, I accept crtisism and constructive debate. That really is the idea of the forum.
You need to draw your own conclusions about the books you read and weather or not they are factual and accurate but Im sure you would agree that errors and false information should be pointed out, that of course being proven from source documents. Healthy debate is a good thing but agreeing with everything that's said is a pointless exercise.
Cheers

springy
When Crealock refers to "this officer", grammatically he is referring to Clery, the "this" referring back to the man previously mentioned. Whatever else Crealock was, his English would have been clear (unlike his meaning).

Mr Greaves
It's pure and simple , some books are indeed much better than others , you cant deny that , it's like going to a fast food restaurant for dinner , or the club down the road where the food is much better and a lot more healthier ! , books are no different ! . It's also a case of if you wish to know something is incorrect , or you dont ! , simple , it's up to you . But if people want to believe what is written in the not meticulously researched books , then that is a personal choice , but dont come on the forum stating that some members believe their books are better than others ! , when it truth they are ! , the old saying '' you get what you paid for '' .
It all depends if you wish to know the facts that are available , you cant expect people to spend their own precious time attempting to sort out what is clearly untrue from the facts . Why would anyone bother ? . I'm not having a dig at you or anyone else on here , just stating what I believe is the point of the forum's existance , debate is good where there are no known facts , completely diiferent though when people are inclined to post incorrect information and take some sort of offence when others try to set it straight ! , I hope you understand what I've attempted to explain .
90th

Spot on Gary mate, and well put.

Springy.

Was Col Durnford not put in a similar position regarding the report of zulu's heading towards LC?

LC left to get to or rescue Dartnell because he thought that Dartnell had found the main impi, Col Durnford left to see what the zulu's were up to and support LC (as he had been ordered to do), because he thought that the zulu's might be trying to join up with the impi or cut LC off or outflank him or even attack LC's rear, and he did say that "if they are heading towards the general we must stop them at all hazards", so he must have been under the impression that the zulu's were up to something, and after all, his orders were to support LC, that is why he told Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp when he arrived earlier.

Martin
Durnford left camp with the best possible moteives, we seem to overlook that. So on the plus side then yes I agree with you. The issue I brought up originally and it is, despite all the banter, the one I genuinely have the problem with and that is the return journey. Julian mentioned that he could not have know it was the left wing attacking him and therefore it was a part of the whole.
My point is, whats in a name, 3 to 4 000 rather angry individuals, in any country in the world, represents a major threat and needs to be recognised as such. He rode out to intercept an impi, he did that rather well so first objective achieved.
What was the second part of his action plan? Or was it a JIT thought process?

Cheers Mate

He rode out thinking that he would put his men in a position to screen Chelmsford's "detachment."

He came back realizing he had to screen Chemlsford's transit camp.

What more can you expect to do with 100 cavalrymen supported by...a rocket battery and an NNC company of dubious morale?

I really do wonder what difference a skirmishing force like that was going to make. Quite possibly, reinforced by Bradstreet's boys, holding that donga as long as they did was the best possible use of that force that day. Holding the camp would have required something on the order of a Roman Legion and that Durnford did not have.

6pd
Your falling into the trap and mindset that all was lost before the battle started.
You've been to iSandlwana, probably parked below the Koppi and looked across the battlefield while having a cold something or other.
Now picture exactly where you parked, an ammo wagon, 1/24th, a few yards away, Durnfords ammo wagon, and a few yards passed that the regimental reserve. Now picture a thousand men on that koppie. And you will start to get an idea of what Im talking about.

By all modern accounts it took the broken infantry line probably no more than 20 to 25 minutes to navigate all that space to get from the line to the final grouping on the saddle. One of the biggest cairns was on the saddle very close to the koppie. Durnfords volunteers some 50 yards away.

So that space that Durnford could have created in a fast balls to the wind reversal to get to the camp, issue an order to Pulleine, the recall sounded and a defence based on the koppie would have been in place screened by 200 plus armed horsemen.
I don't have a clue if it would have been a success but with that amount of concentrated fire my 7-2 bet would have been on the Brits. They nearly pulled it of on the line itself, the Zulu waivered and came close to breaking. So imagine all that firepower they faced concentrated onto a 200 yard front, imagine that those twenty thousand Zulus spread out and advancing are slowly compressed as the circle gets smaller and smaller they get more and more packed together and into the packed mass the Martini Henry bullets smash into them. Those big pieces of lead at point blank range would cut through body after body, each one hitting two maybe three warriors. How long could they have stood it before breaking. Raw courage, and the Zulu had plenty of that to spare, would not be enough.

That's my thoughts anyway.

Cheers

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

6pd
Your falling into the trap and mindset that all was lost before the battle started.

One man's trap is another man's reality.

Quote :

You've been to iSandlwana, probably parked below the Koppi and looked across the battlefield while having a cold something or other.
Now picture exactly where you parked, an ammo wagon, 1/24th, a few yards away, Durnfords ammo wagon, and a few yards passed that the regimental reserve. Now picture a thousand men on that koppie. And you will start to get an idea of what Im talking about.

Or I could just open your app.

Quote :

By all modern accounts it took the broken infantry line probably no more than 20 to 25 minutes to navigate all that space to get from the line to the final grouping on the saddle. One of the biggest cairns was on the saddle very close to the koppie. Durnfords volunteers some 50 yards away.

Yes, that much I can picture.

Quote :

So that space that Durnford could have created in a fast balls to the wind reversal to get to the camp, issue an order to Pulleine, the recall sounded and a defence based on the koppie would have been in place screened by 200 plus armed horsemen.
I don't have a clue if it would have been a success but with that amount of concentrated fire my 7-2 bet would have been on the Brits. They nearly pulled it of on the line itself, the Zulu waivered and came close to breaking. So imagine all that firepower they faced concentrated onto a 200 yard front, imagine that those twenty thousand Zulus spread out and advancing are slowly compressed as the circle gets smaller and smaller they get more and more packed together and into the packed mass the Martini Henry bullets smash into them. Those big pieces of lead at point blank range would cut through body after body, each one hitting two maybe three warriors. How long could they have stood it before breaking. Raw courage, and the Zulu had plenty of that to spare, would not be enough.

Stirring stuff.  Somebody ought to shoot a version of ZULU DAWN where the British win doing just that.  But in my version the Zulu would go to ground again and begin shooting at the concentrated red mass.  More importantly, the best armed among them would scale the heights of Isandlwana and use that elevation to their advantage.  A tense day-long battle of wills with neither side giving another inch until...

The relief arrives led by silly buggers Dartnell. Seeing them coming the Zulu impi would pivot on their heels and wipe Chelmsford's detachment  out on the march...not unlike what happened to Custer.  

But wouldn't Pulleine and Durnford have had a tale to tell then!*

- 6pdr    

* But Mike Snook would still blame Durnford.

P.S. That's my thoughts..so two for ha'penny.

springy.

I am sure I have read that about the same time that Durnford was confronted by the left horn, that over on the other side all hell was braking loose after Raw etc discovered the massed zulu's waiting to attack, and that they were then chased back to the camp which then came under attack. I can see what you are getting at with your theory, and maybe later that is what was going through Durnford's mind when he said that the men were too spread out and wanted them to regroup. But at first don't you think he could have been trying to give Pulleine a chance to organise things back at the camp, and therefor he tried to hold up the left horn to enable Pulleine to do just that. Later, when he realised that Pulleine was not doing that, he then said that the men were too spread out, and he was also being outflanked and running out of ammo, he then tried to get back to the camp to find Pulleine and organise some sort of defensive position, but by this time things had gone from bad to worse and it was all over bar the shouting. And don't forget that it was not Durnford's orders to defend the camp, it was Pulleine's, Durnford's orders were to support LC, and that is what he was attempting to do when he left the camp.

Martin
...but when Durnford returned to camp, he was then senior officer and inherited LC's orders...

Julian.

Yes, but he was not ordered to take command, his orders were to support LC, that is why he told Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp, besides, he was in command of his own independent No2 column, it was Pulleine that waas left in command of the camp. But I do see what you mean about him being senior officer on his return to the camp, however, this would only be technically, besides, Pulleine could not be found and the end was near, but Durnford did rally many men to him for a last stand in an attemp to keep a way open for escapees.

Martin
Not technically but de facto on his return to the camp Durnford would be senior officer and inherit all orders. He does eem to have had some communication with Pulleine once returned and on his own authority ordered the concentration of the troops.

Hi Martin
There is Zulu testimony, and Stafford as well, that the impi chasing Raw across the plateau actually sat down for a while, there is another colonial that specifically says he was under the impression they sat down to await the left horn. Cant be more exact than that at this stage but Ymob is an absolute fundi at finding things, Im sure he will come up with it.
Again look at the start points along the base of Mabaso, if the various regimants set of at a similar time and place then Durnfords opponents would be in a similar time and space as the rest of the impi. The two carbineers tend to support that fact. When Durnford eventually got back to the donga then sure I would agree that the balance of the attack was under way, but that's not my contention. IF he had returned flat out he would have been way ahead of the left horn and the main chest. Look for a time comparison at the Rocket party, they were attacked by skirmishers, not the main chest or left of chest and Durnford was at that point towards the end of the fight, so the chest had not yet put in its appearance. Highly possible though that the right horn was engaged on the ridge.
I would echo Julian, at the time Durnford retired on the camp he was senior officer and had the ability to influence the outcome. Quite possibly it was then to late but one would think that when he hit the donga he would have given thought immediately to securing ammunition, not 20 minutes later. Even at that time if he had delegated responsibility to say Harry Davies and rode of straight away to Pulleine, instead of poncing around in the donga, he might have been able to effect a discliplined fighting withdrawl when the imperial troops were extacting great damage on the impi.

Cheers.

Frank..stop it.." Poncing about in the Donga " Really? you stand by that?. 

Julian Whybra wrote:

He does eem to have had some communication with Pulleine once returned and on his own authority ordered the concentration of the troops.

I'm curious about the sources for this. I'm not asking for technical citations...just generally speaking, who said they saw these guys talking once the battle began? About when and where would they have been?

6pdr
The staff officer Gardner (who by now was acting as another field officer/adviser to Pulleine) in his report said that he was sent to find the reason for the NNH's withdrawal to the camp and was told by Bradstreet that Durnford had ordered it "as the position taken up was too extended".  He then saw Durnford himself who repeated this and said he wanted to collect all the troops together.
While the colonials formed a firing line in front of the tents Durnford, according to Molife, rode over to the centre to find Pulleine and re-organize the defence.
Durnford ended up returning to the colonials on the right where his last stand took place.
The presumption is that Durnford either DID or TRIED to confer with Pulleine.

6pd
I actually posted a breakdown of Durnfords movements, not speculative but making use of sources. Essex Gardner Davies spring to mind.
Les
Hes riding up and down praising his men "my boys" unjamming rifles laughing of the fact that he was making himself a target, if Poncing is a trifle strong I withdraw it.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

6pd
I actually posted a breakdown of Durnfords movements, not speculative but making use of sources. Essex Gardner Davies spring to mind.

I'm aware you have Frank and I'm grateful for it...and as well for liberally sharing your vivid historical imagination. What I was hoping for it to persuade Julian to reveal where/when he IMAGINES Durnford and Pulleine meeting (assuming for the moment they did so.)

Quote :

Hes riding up and down praising his men "my boys" unjamming rifles laughing of the fact that he was making himself a target..."

Now see, I envision him striding along the lip of the donga, waving his hat and looking down on those sheltering and shooting within it.  I'm just trying to figure out how people see in in their mind's eye...or how they would recreate it in film or animation.  That translation from words to visuals reveals a great many assumptions and helps put our minds on what seems really important to us...

My guess in the case of a potential meeting between Durnford and Pulleine for example would have Durnford mounted and a distracted Pulleine staring wide eyed into the distance hands on hips...  But where would this be happening?  Would the headquarters tent be behind them...or would they be down low where Pope's company might have (once?) been?

Hi springy.

Well, IF the zulu's sat down for a breather whilst Durnford was delaying the left horn, wouldn't that have been a good opportunity for Pulleine and the other officers to have got their heads together and got something organised before the whole mass of zulu's fell upon them. You seem to be blaming Durnford for not dashing back and taking command, but command of the camp was with Pulleine, Durnford had his own command and orders, which were to support LC, and that is what he was doing when he was confronted by the left horn. He then held up this left horn for some while therefor giving Pulleine the opportunity to do something back at the camp. Are you saying that in your opinion Durnford (a Royal Engineers officer) was a much better officer, and could have organised a line regiment a lot better than Pulleine and the other senior infantry officers of the line that were left in charge of the camp while LC went off on his wild goose chase? Oh dear! I don't think Mike Snook or CTSG would agree with that mate Although it is supposed that Chard (RE) did a similar thing at RD, but did he?

Joking aside mate. It would appear that Durnford did see that the men were too far spread out and that he wanted to get them together, in fact he may have had that in mind whilst he was delaying the zulu's, and if Pulleine or the other officers had seen the opportunity he was giving them, then things just might have turned out different.

Poncing???? Don't you mean giving his men the encouragement to remain at their posts and hold back the zulu's to give those back at the camp the chance to get something organised .

Whatever people think of Durnford, no one can deny that he had guts, and that he was also a very brave and honourable officer. He got a raw deal, and was scapegoated for the mistakes created by LC, and was unfairly used by the liar Crealock to divert the blame away from LC.

Frank..

Hi Springy
You are a mischievous chap at times ! .  '' Unjamming rifles laughing of the fact that he was making himself a target '' , I doubt Durnford thought himself as a target , although , it would've made great content in ' Zulu Dawn ' that type of Artistic Licence !
Cheers 90th

90th wrote:

Hi Springy
You are a mischevious chap at times ! .  '' Unjamming rifles laughing of the fact that he was making himself a target '' , I doubt Durnford thought himself as a target , although , it would've made great content in ' Zulu Dawn ' that type of Artistic Licence !
Cheers 90th

I think making himself a target was EXACTLY what he was doing. Showing contempt for your enemy's firepower is a tried and true leadership technique...that can get you killed, but also inspires your men for exactly that reason. Victorian officers did it often, especially against less well armed opponents.

I think Durnford was walking up and down ( inside ) the Donga , that's how I've understood to mean over the years .
90TH

90th wrote:

I think Durnford was walking up and down ( inside )  the Donga , that's how I've understood to mean over the years .
90TH

You may well be right but I thought I read somewhere that they were handing their jammed rifles UP to him so...but who can be sure?

Hi 6pdr.
They would certainly be passing them ' UP ' to Durnford if they were lying against the wall of the Donga ? , as Durnford would be walking behind them , that's how I imagine it to be , but we will probably never know for sure .
Cheers 90th

6pdr
I imagine D and P met near the centre of the line. P & staff behind the guns or Wardell. I think that's where P would have wanted to be. Not in the HQ tent somehow.
Xhosa/springy
Ditto re Durnford, exposing himself to fire.

Hi Springy
You are a mischievous chap at times ! .
Whatever do you mean? Tut, colonials tsk

Jabez Molife: Durnford papers 4901.44.2
The Colonel rode up and down our line continually, encouraging us all, he was very calm and cheerful, talking and EVEN LAUGHING with us. Fire away my boys, well done my boys, he cried. Some of us did not like the way he exposed himself so much to the enemy and wanted to keep him BEHIND us, but he laughed at us...................... sometimes as he passed amongst us one of the men brought him a gun with the old cartridge sticking and he DISMOUNTED and taking the gun between his knees, because of having only one hand with strength in it, he pulled the cartridge out and gave back the gun.

Pretty clear from old Jabez.

90th
Probably the best Ive ever seen Nathan Lyons bowl, chalk that one up to him.

Cheers

Devil's advocate, but you got there in the end!

I just hate the fake spoken-in-earnest-as-though-it-were-God's-own-truth anecdote.

I thought Jabez's account had the ring of truth about it!....

Springy
Thanks for clearing that up , and agree about Lyon , I watched him bowl in the Indian First inns while I was at work , and said then he's bowling well , he did it all game , I think he's improved , seems he has more of a loop , spinners need to get the ball above the Batsman's eye line , always more difficult to play . As we are aware , Indian players are well versed in batting against Spin bowling , even more of a feather in Lyon's Cap ( Baggy Green ! )
90th

Julian as you know Rattray was not a AZW historian in
the accepted sense, and you are obviously entitled to
any view whatever! but ' hate ' is a bit strong i feel, i
thought he was a breath of fresh air when he spoke so
passionately about the subject..we all know something 
of his background, he was reared on tales of the AZW
from a very early age and spoke with people daily, whose
direct descendants were a part of that conflict.. i count
myself very fortunate to have caught one of his lectures
at the RGS now 10 years ago, he was the first to say that
he was ' no expert ' on these matters..but boy could he 
tell a great tale, his still boyish enthusiasm i and others
found greatly infectious that coupled with a great sense of
humour, and i might say, by no means did he display
any hint of arrogance, but an almost humble recollection
of his ' tales from the fire ' of his youth, talking with people
like George Bunting made a lasting impression on him!. 
and i for one am very pleased that he shared and communicated
his passion so successfully. i note the spaces between your
words, so it was easy to picture your voice in a speech pattern.

I feel Rattray had his place...i miss the thought of not hearing
that voice again. perhaps, you have done a piece to camera
that i have somehow missed!                                    xhosa

Durford's horse: I can't remember whether Chieftain was one of the Basuto ponies like his men rode or one imported from Europe or where ever. Anybody know?

Xhosa
Yup, he was a decent bloke (I corresponded with him occasionally), yes he was a good storyteller, and yes I know full well the service rendered by DR in popularizing the AZW.  The point I was trying ever so clumsily to make was the self-perpetuation of myths as fact by so doing.  And that's all.  People tend to remember the myths and not the fact.  (Just think of Martin and his bugbear of 'Welsh SWB/English 24th' which arose from the film 'Zulu'.  That will run for years.)
There were no gaps between my words.  They were hyphens and I was using them to turn a variety of not-normally-used-in-that-fashion parts of speech into a long adjective - purely a grammatical thing.  I'm afraid this has given you a false impression of picturing my voice pattern.

6pdr
I'm not sure where I read it but I seem to recall reading that Chieftain was a thoroughbred from a stud and not a Basuto pony. It might have been in one of Anthony Durnford's letters quoted in Edward Durnford's book (2nd ed.).

DR was a first class bloke with frighteningly impish sense of humour. As one guest who left his trainers outside the door for cleaning found out. I did have the honour, and I do mean the honour of meeting him on a number of occasions. He made no bones about not being an historian, but always implied in his tone and demeaner he was. Marvelous raconteur, entertaining, and more than happy to make up 'bits' to fill in the gaps. A singular gentleman who will always be missed.
But hell don't take his word as gospel.

Cheers

springy
Much better put than my clumsy way.

And he did make a very successful buiness out of not being an Historian. Known to the locals as the White Zulu.

You know when I visited his place the guide who stood in for him didn't really stray into very controversial areas. I assume Rob Caskie was pretty much giving DR's spiel with a few personal adjustments and I found the focus rather soft edged as if crafted to give the minimum possible offence to anybody.

Also, with a few exceptions, DAY OF THE DEAD MOON is a harmless enough yet evocative introduction to the AZW. Of course when I first heard all that I wasn't yet introduced to this board and all the detailed analysis that entails...but on the whole it seemed to me the version of events offered by the Fugitive's Drift Lodge was meant to appeal mostly to English...British... Commonwealth upper middle class enthusiasts who were steeped in ZULU, Cy Endfield...and at a stretch Morris.

Long on the emotive aspects -- great courage, great sacrifice...and no blaming whatever...except for the Colonial Secretary. Would I footnote the oral history offered? No. But it wasn't meant as such...it was very well crafted infotainment. In other words, I think they do as good a job as can be expected under the circumstances.

Well i have never minded putting my point in
clumsy or not! i posted in response mainly to
Springboks antics re Durnford's actions as far
as we understand them at the Battle of 
Isandhlwana..so when Springbok finally posted
Jabez Molife's account i thought i would then re-
inforce that with some audio from David's Day 
of the Dead Moon..because i always keep in my
mind that with so many members, there are sure
to be many who simply would not know where 
these accounts ' fit in ' historically in the saga of
this epic British Defeat..and the AZW as a whole!

To say i was surprised at Julian's immediate re-
sponse to my posting is very much an understatement,
I had to read that one line statement over a couple 
of times before i fully took it in! i am, afraid still no
clearer in my mind. yes i understand the real need 
to confront and then banish myths whenever they
appear and this must continue for as long as there
are lazy people out there who do not check the facts.
and indeed check them again before publishing the
same inaccuracy's over and over again!

So we owe a great debt of thanks to people like you
Julian..your work is never in vain and very much to
be admired and appreciated..which leaves me to the
why i was so puzzled.. i speaking personally have
always found it easy to separate the Academic from
the story teller..rarely do we get a combination of the
two! And Rattray surely falls into the latter as regards
the AZW, he was academic in other area's as we know,
Are the two worlds really anathema to each other? ,
cant  both reside in harmony side by side?..

I suggest both are different sides of the same coin one
side has no place for anything that is not fact, and not
any of your plain or garden fact! oh no, it must be held
as the ultimate test which will withstand examination
from any test, only then will it stand and become in it- 
self inviolate and incorruptible. you my friend stand as
such.. its you in fact that ' guards the guard's '.

But ahh! the storyteller!! as a very small child it was these
people that stole my heart..they opened my eyes to the 
endless possibilities of childlike wonder..in the shake of
a lambs tale..i was Ivanhoe or Long John Silver and as
many more characters as my mind could absorb. and i
have to tell you, i absorbed my self stupid. i loved the 
tales of Walter Mitty and Billy Liar..and as i grew up and
entered the adult world..going into pubs and listening to
the old guys tall tales over a pint, an aspect the younger
generation will i fear never know!

Yes there is room for both,, and the guards will tell us
when it's time to get a grip and look at the facts, and i will
comply and take note, but a small part of me will be by
then drifting away with a slight smile on my face...xhosa

Hi 6pdr
The following is from ' A Soldiers Life And Work In Sth Africa ' by Lt - Col E. Durnford . This was after Durnford's fall on the way to Bushman's pass . '' And when the horses were brought up to where he lay , he made his men lift him on to his Gray Basuto horse , and he led the advance himself '' . Julian , this was marked by the following footnote . ( Wylde's ' My Chief & I ' , pge 241, 2 ).

page 32 ... '' Finding , on reaching the top , that one of the Basuto Scouts had returned to say that all had been quiet when they reached the Bushman's Pass the evening before , but that when he left , some natives were beginning to come up with a large number of cattle , Major Durnford ordered his forces immediately to upsaddle and prepare to move on . They marched about 4 am , Major Durnford riding in front with the Basuto Guides , mounted on his favourite horse ' Chieftain ' '' . ....Are they the same horse , it's possible ? .
Cheers 90th

So then it's at least POSSIBLE the horse he was riding at Isandlwana was a gray pony and that was the same animal that took him up (and down) Bushman's Pass. Thank's 90th.

90th/6pdr
It's possible, yes, with a few years intervening, but possible.

Xhosa
But Long John Silver, Richard Hannay and Ivanhoe were all fiction - that's made clear even to a child from the start.
Isandhlwana happened. The weaving of stories around factual events does not make the understanding of those events any easier. Now, Rattray didn't invent he merely embellished a little, like any good storyteller. From 1985 to 2013 I did a similar story-telling at a Victorian Fantasy event for 10/11 year olds and each year would play a character from Rorke's Drift, Isandhlwana, Hlobane, Peking, Balaclava or Cawnpore (rotated each year). I was careful never to invent or embellish - the facts don't need that. Hook, Mossop or Wightman's accounts stands alone. And I had the kids and their teachers in the palm of my hand. But then this was an educational day for schools and my intention was to educate AND entertain. Perhaps if my intention were just to entertain and it was my livelihood I might have behaved differently.
How many children now adults think of RD as a band of Welshmen singing Men of Harlech and imagine the troops sustained dozens and dozens of kia - all based on Zulu. Spin the punters a tale and get them hooked, then once inside the big top (this forum) you can tell them what really happened. I don't know. It just seems not right to me.

"How many children now adults think of RD as a band of Welshmen singing Men of Harlech "
Your turn Martin.
Petrol, pour, fire. Words that spring to mind.

Sorry, didn't mean to incite...just to give a practical example of what I'm confronted with EVERY time I give a talk or lecturer on the AZW.  I know John Young and others find the same thing.

Julian, you weren't I was, in a fun way.
I gave a series of lectures a few weeks ago at a Battlefields hotel, all tourists from the UK. The knowledge was a surprise, what wasn't were the myths they regarded as fact And that mainly from 'Zulu' and having watched it every xmas for a number of years. Sadly Hook was one of the main ones and the audience was very sceptical when I told them the truth, Id go so far as to say a majority didn't believe me.
Coming back to the point Les made, DR was an awsum man with a huge presence. Dining with him was not a participatory exercise. You listened, and were happy to do so, spellbound. But yes I agree there is a time and a place for stories and a time and a place for history. "And never the twain should meet."
Battlefields tourism would, I would venture, never have taken of the way it did without his massive effort.

Cheers

Cheers

Yes I agree.
Re the lecturer you gave. Can you imagine having to do something like that in Wales? You don't just get disbelief. You get people in tears.
I did the Annual Rorke's Drift lecture for the RE HQ a couple of years ago and centred it around Chard, and again found incredulity.