On the tp of the hill?

Bonsoir,
Walter Higginson said: "I made my report to the Colonel [Durnford] and he then ordered me to send some men to the top of Isandhlwana to watch the hills, the men had been up about half an hour without sending down any news, so i sent another native up with orders to come down with news at once, he returned very soon and brought news that the natives were retiring". (source: Higginson official report quoted in "Zulu rising" by IK p.327-328)
Higginson suggests that the native didn't reached the top of the hill (I.E:"he returned very soon").
I think it's possible that the native reached the summit and really saw that the zulus were retiring.
There is a note in "Zulu Battle piece" by Sir Reginald Coupland:(p.63 / edition 1991)
"From its precipitous southern end the mount can easily be climbed. When the author visited the site (december, 29, 1947), an athletic member of his party reached the top from the col [nek] in seven minutes, another older member in fifteen".

Just a thought.

Cheers.

Frédéric

North West is the easiest climb, took me thirty minutes at best.

Its an interesting comment because it puts another time scale onto Durnfords stay in camp, generally accepted as around an hour.
Durnford arrives, arranges his troops and consults Pulleine.
Sends men to the top of the hill, but would the half an hour include their climbing time? If not then we would look at around 45 to 50 minutes expired time.
Then a second climber is sent up and comes back with a message, minimum of 40 minutes.
Other messages are also coming in from the plateau around this time, we don't really know their sequence. But from that point Durnford decides to leave having now been at the camp for at least one and a half hours.
In the meantime Raw etc had all been dispatched to the plateau, so if the sentries were reporting on the enemy withdrawing, it could have been at any time over their watch period, why didn't any of the troops sent by Durnford also report that? Or at least mention it in their statements.
They didn't hence they couldn't have seen it, leads to the conclusion then that the hill top sentries reports were of a sighting at a greater distance. Beyond the plateau and more towards the base of Mabaso, or even beyond iThusi in the Quabe Valley.
Interesting points Frederic

Cheers

Springbok,
Excellent point.
Cheers

Frederic
Ive been looking at some photos, its highly possible that the sentries were looking at the top of the Ngwebini. The traditional point that raw is supposed to have discovered the impi is viewable from the top of iSandlwana. So potentially the lookouts could have seen the for runner of the movements towards the point indicated by lock and Quantrill in TMFHT.
Cheers

Durnford's stay in camp, generally accepted
to be about an hour, this has it at an hour and
three quarter's..

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

Morning Les.
Drooglever?
I would, very humbly, disagree with the 10 oclock time of arrival. Out of the 13 separate timings given , the 10.30 'fits' the days scenario. Its also the time given by the man closest to the action, Cochrane.
To quote from " A Question of time": The ride from Rorkes Drift to iSandlwana is mostly up hill and would therefore be covered by a horse at a fast walk. Since the distance is around 17 kilometres then the rate of travel would be approx. 6.4 Ks per hour ( Based on figures from Sir Garnet Wolseley )."
That would give around 2 hours 45 minutes traveling time. Add to that Durnfords stop to confer with Chard, say 15 minutes, gives 3 hours for the journey.
Its documented that Durnford left RD at 7.30 ( Cochran, Davis etc ) therefore 10.30 works as a basis to plan the day..
Higginson outs a different time on it, 10 oclock, but assuming that the time of 10.30 is correct then he, Higginson, would have arrived back in camp some minutes after that as the conversation between Durnford and Pulleine had already taken place ( I delivered my report to Col Pulleine but he referred me to Col Durnford. ) After delivering that report he then sent men to the top of the hill. So 10 minutes to get from the camp to the top of the hill, 30 minutes up there, another 20 to 25 minutes for a messenger to be sent up and get back then the decision to move out. In between the rocket battery arrives around 11.15 and Durnford leaves camp around 11.30..............maybe?
That time assumes that the length of time for 3 trips up the mountain plus 30 minutes on top can all be squeezed into an hour? Tall order.

Cheers

Fair enough! but the ? after Drooglever could be applied
to all! you are the only one attempting to set the definitive
timeline for the battle..point being it simply can not be 
done with any amount of accuracy! most statements are at
best contradictory..but they are there for all to see! so then
Durnford arrives at 10.30, leaves at 11.30, Pulleine orders
Degacher to send Much's E, commanded by Cavaye at 12.00,
he threw out Dyson a hundred yards to his left, they were
there for 35 mins and then were joined by F under Mostyn..

So Durnford leaves the camp!. i had a quick look at Jackson,
ITSR, Knight ZR, Laband, KIC, and Gon TRTI. L&Q ZV, they all
pretty much say the same.. Meanwhile at Helpmaaker Lieut
Wilfred Heaton noted in his diary that the eclipse began at 11.51,
the battle proper was raging at about 12.45, by 1.30 the Zulu 
were in the amongst the tents and the right was ' around the back '.
it was all over bar the shouting by around two ish, yet Edward 
Durnford noted his brothers watch had stopped at 3.40 after the
fatal stab, he believes..and the last man died at around 5.30, are
any of these times to be relied on? is my real point!

Which leaves me to ask you Frank..are you going to publish a new
thesis or the like, to be placed in the public domain with your
definitive timeline presented?. i have been noting your views for
well over a year now and would be delighted if you declared your
intention on this. of course your opening ? after my citing  the
Drooglever thesis again, would suggest that you think me over
reliant on his view's...fair point, but point me to another source 
which can come close and i will look at that. bearing in mind i have
most of them. lastly i humbly submit that the real time line was not
set by the British at all. not even close..happenstance! no..a carefully
orchestrated decoy? Matshana heading off Dartnell so he would not
discover the main Impi!. Finally the Zulu, contrary to popular opinion
did not mind fighting that day, dead moon or not, see decoy, ie that
was fighting..they controlled that day from start to finish, in the after
math of the war the Zulu told the British just what they wanted to hear.

The ? after Drooglever was exactly what it was, a question if the quote was Drooglever. Careful mate your paranoya is showing. Your times are aall subject to debate, that's exactly what Ive been doing for 40 years. No times are definitive on that day, but a look at the minutae brings us closer. If we are to purely accept every thing as written then be my guest. The objest of a discussion forum is to discuss and through that intercourse potential results are found. To that end this forum has stimulated research that has produced results, long may it continue. To merely provide past written and possibly not subjective views are not condusive to moving debate forward. Challenge of conventional viewpoints is a way of reaching conclusions beyond the accepted norm.
No I have no intention of publishing a thesis, my thoughts are put into the public domain to stimulate not stifle.

Cheers

Sorry about the spelling my keyboard is really badly screwed up

Should have added by the way that the attribution of comment by Heaton is wrong. There is no hand written reference to that in his diary, there is a printed reference and that was inserted by the printers of the diary. THAT is an example of taking the printed word at face value without doing your own research.
Here are some genuine figures for the eclipse corrected for local time and location. Eclipse began 13.10, Maximum 14.35 and end 15.51
I have no intention of launching into a crit of Drooglever, its a really good work. BUT at times his research lets him down.
And that goes for every single writer of both the historical and modern era. Argument/debate needs to be conducted on the basis of source material, not somebodies interpretation of such.

Cheers

Again very interesting!. i would state to no one in particular that
my current mental health is the same, which is to say sharp as a tack!
yes i do take account of everything that has been written, well as much
of it that i have read, which has been a lot to be fair, i think i have the
correct take on this one particular battle that some, seem to over obsess 
about!..i have no wish to stifle any debate, i am one member out of
whatever the total is?. i have an opinion and people are free to answer
or not as they seek fit.

There is no point in going through the above point by point, i get it, i'm not
flavour of the month in this place, well boo hoo! i have no need of any
virtual friends..  i stated from the start and have since that i post alone! 
i'm a grown up and can more than take care of myself in any debate about
the AZW. i have noticed the cracks about my supposed paranoia. sadly repeated
by yourself. it's been a very long time since i left the playground but i guess 
some things never change. as i type this i am fully conscious of what i am 
saying and how it will be taken and perceived, but its straight! nothing veiled..
no offence meant, truly, but fully expect massive offence to be taken. pity
this cant be on the subject i sincerely have dedicated a large portion of my life
to.

No offence taken Les, stop taking things to heart. There are no personal attacks from me.

Cheers Mate