Durnford was he capable.5

Off to work now. But reading MIke Snooks book, he gives a very good argument, on how the outcome could have been different had they defended the camp. And he being a Military man, looks at it somewhat different to us. And who are we to say he's wrong, when putting his argument forward. Tatical decisions. I don't think we can keep accusing him, of using his imagination. Perhaps imagination is another word for hinesight.?

CTSG
No it's not exactly as it should be. It should be as I wrote it. My text comes from Jackson's notes (he saw the original diary and copied it out from the original in front of him exactly as he saw it). Only one or two early writers reproduce it correctly. Many later and modern ones don't bother with the spacing/punctuation/detail. The diary is now in private hands but John Young has seen the original and can vouch for the text.
Laurence's selected writings include 11 letters sent back from the AZW - he resigned from the ACTD in 1879 and subsequently became a Major in the Kimberley Horse and was killed in the Basuto War of 1881. His writings were put together by one of his brothers and published the following year. It may be that in the editing and printing process the text got a little mangled.

Dave, you say that Durnford disobeyed orders when he tried to leave camp, what orders did he disobey?

How can anyone disobey an unauthorised, unofficial and therefor illegal order? The order given to Pulleine was written by Clery (a junior officer) without any authorisation from either Glyn or LC.

Col Durnford obeyed the order he was given, you are doing what LC and his cronies did, trying to stitch Durnford up and make him the scapegoat.

You quote Snook (being an ex military man), you know that there are quite a few ex military men on this forum, Snook being an ex Lt Col does not make him any better than the rest of the ex military men on this forum, they have all served their country, many with distinction and honour.

Not too long back I quoted a piece from one of the books of Ian Knight, and everyone knows that Ian is a recognised authority on the AZW, however, I was bluntly told that, "Ian Knight was not there", so, one could say the same thing about Snook, namely that, "Mike Snook was not there". You also know full well that Snook is biased, so he will say things to try to infuence others to make them believe that it was all Durnford's fault.

Try to be a little more open minded, and see things from both sides, before jumping the gun and blaming Durnford.

Martin, your taking my comment on Ian Knight out of context. You were putting his thoughts up against a source, Chelmsford, document. hence my comment.
Snooks comments on a possible outcome are his alone, he makes no claims that they are based on any source. He has drawn on his military experience, and as you say there are military men on the forum that do the same, the fact that they do does not demean Snook in anyway. He is after all entitled to his opinions, he needs to sell books.

Cheers mate, chill.

Frank, I am not demeaning Snook, I am saying that because he was a Lt Col does not make his opinions any better than those of others with an ex military background, and yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but you know yourself that Snooks opinions are biased.

Yes, he wants folk to buy his books, but I'm afraid that I won't be buying them.

I see SA just scraped through over WI.

A few illustrations to break up the text a bit..

A portion of Bengough's 2nd Batt NNC.

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

Coghill's last diary entry,recovered at Isandhlwana.

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

Speaks for itself.

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

Enough wagons took use in an organized defense..

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

Hi Springy .
A bit of clarification on my post which seems ages ago now ! , its probably 3 pages back . Lt H Davies in a statement in Feb 1879 says after they crossed the Buffalo they ( Durnford's Column ) encamped about 2 miles into Zululand .
Raw in one of his statements says it was about a mile into zululand . These were found in K.Smith's ' Select Documents ; A Zulu War Source Book ' , India , has been basically batted out of the fourth , and final test , at stumps on day 1 !
Cheers 90th

Hi Martin
Phew, just made it by the skin of 8 wickets Mid afternoon yesterday I was fully convinced it was heading for a draw. I went through this morning for a couple of hours, batting was a real bugger but they made it eventually.
90th
yep that's about it, so we agree it wasn't in the Bashee valley ( 6 miles from the Mzinyathi ) still comes back to that comment from Crealock and my not understanding why he expected SD to find him in the Bashee? Am I being dense and missing something? Im African, we tend to do that on occasion.


Cheers

Martin
You're not right about Clery's order to Pulleine. At the time it was regarded as a legitimate order by everybody and the pretence was maintained by all up to clery's admission.

Xhosa
I don't think there were enough waggons there to laager the camp. And not enough men to move the waggons. I read somewhere it needed 50 men to move one laden waggon.

Julian.

I see, so actually it was only regarded as being legitimate, but in fact was not, and the pretence was kept up until Clery admitted he was not authorised to do it.

So all this pretence worked in Thesiger's favour in making people believe that Durnford disobeyed orders, and all the stuff people wrote back then, and now, keep banging on about Durnford disobeying orders, is actually based on a pretence and false assumption, and not on fact. So in an odd sort of way, although you say I am not right about it, I am not wrong about it either.

Now that we all know that the order Clery gave to Pulleine was in fact unauthorised, unofficial and therefor illegal, I wonder how this would stand up in a court today, and would The Noble Colonel Durnford be found NOT GUILTY at long last, and the real culprit Thesiger, at long last be found GUILTY and get his just deserts?

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Dave, you say that Durnford disobeyed orders when he tried to leave camp, what orders did he disobey?

How can anyone disobey an unauthorised, unofficial and therefor illegal order? The order given to Pulleine was written by Clery (a junior officer) without any authorisation from either Glyn or LC.

Col Durnford obeyed the order he was given, you are doing what LC and his cronies did, trying to stitch Durnford up and make him the scapegoat.

You quote Snook (being an ex military man), you know that there are quite a few ex military men on this forum, Snook being an ex Lt Col does not make him any better than the rest of the ex military men on this forum, they have all served their country, many with distinction and honour.

Not too long back I quoted a piece from one of the books of Ian Knight, and everyone knows that Ian is a recognised authority on the AZW, however, I was bluntly told that, "Ian Knight was not there", so, one could say the same thing about Snook, namely that, "Mike Snook was not there". You also know full well that Snook is biased, so he will say things to try to infuence others to make them believe that it was all Durnford's fault.

Try to be a little more open minded, and see things from both sides, before jumping the gun and blaming Durnford.

Matin be honest. Have you ever read one of Col Snooks books.

24th.

I will be very, very honest and say that I got part way through and could see which way it was all going, ie; Durnford bashing. I then tried to read more at a later date, and again found more unsubstantiated assertions, lots of guesswork, his own bias opinions, no footnotes, and yet more Durnford bashing, so I closed the offending book, and put it to the back of the book shelf, where it still resides. Now how is that for being honest?

Dear Julian how very literal you are at
times. yes the cape wagon was a monster..
but i think you know me well enough to
know by now that i hung that comment
' out there ' in case any body wanted to
walk into my trap..from the time the Zulu
attack was fully developed, the defenders
were only going one way..backwards..
xhosa

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

24th.

I will be very, very honest and say that I got part way through and could see which way it was all going, ie; Durnford bashing. I then tried to read more at a later date, and again found more unsubstantiated assertions, lots of guesswork, his own bias opinions, no footnotes, and yet more Durnford bashing, so I closed the offending book, and put it to the back of the book shelf, where it still resides. Now how is that for being honest?  

Then you really can't give a opinion, on his work! What book do you have that you say gives Durnford. Bashing!

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Julian.

I see, so actually it was only regarded as being legitimate, but in fact was not, and the pretence was kept up until Clery admitted he was not authorised to do it.

So all this pretence worked in Thesiger's favour in making people believe that Durnford disobeyed orders, and all the stuff people wrote back then, and now, keep banging on about Durnford disobeying orders, is actually based on a pretence and false assumption, and not on fact. So in an odd sort of way, although you say I am not right about it, I am not wrong about it either.

Now that we all know that the order Clery gave to Pulleine was in fact unauthorised, unofficial and therefor illegal, I wonder how this would stand up in a court today, and would The Noble Colonel Durnford be found NOT GUILTY at long last, and the real culprit Thesiger, at long last be found GUILTY and get his just deserts?

Clery COE

Before leaving the camp, I sent written instructions to Colonel Pulleine, 24th Regiment, to the following effect:—" You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn;

Clery doesn't say I sent written orders, he say's I sent Instructions. Is there a difference between "order" and "Instructions"
thoughts please gents.

Dave.

What do you mean I can't really give an opinion? You don't have to read any of Mr Snooks books to be able to form an opinion. All anyone needs to do is to search online and you can read many of his opinions, comments and assumptions right there. He seems to have the opinion that because he is an ex military man, and was an ex Lt Col, that he holds the right to be correct all the time.

This sort of 'I know best' attitude also came over in the book I have (HCMDB). He forms his own 'expert' interpretations of how he thinks things should have been done, he gives his own unsubstantiated assertations, his opinions are biased, he uses assumptions, little sources, and he does not have footnotes for anyone to examine his claims. Also, again, reading his book felt like he was trying to say that if you had a military background then you should really be agreeing with what he says, well I'm sorry, here is one man with an military background that doesn't. You don't have to be an ex Lt Col to know the difference between right and wrong, even a private soldier with a bit of nous knows what that is. Being an ex Lt Col in rank does not make him any more knowledgable than anyone else, yet this is what he appears to be implying. I am in no way trying to demean the ex Lt Col, but he should be a little more fairer with his comments, shouldn't expect everyone to agree with him, and try to show less bias in his remarks.

John.

An order is an authorative command or instruction. The one given to Pulleine by Clery was not authorised by either Glyn nor LC, therefor it was invalid.

Martin wrote:

All anyone needs to do is to search online and you can read many of his opinions,

But if you read the book, you see the whole picture. Instead of looking for the negitive look for the positive. Read some of the reviews. He's not exactly bashing Durnford, he's merely pointing out the tactical errors that he made, he is like every other author of the AZW he will defend, what he thinks took place, and does it well. How many books have you published.

Martin wrote:

I am in no way trying to demean the ex Lt Col, but he should be a little more fairer with his comments, shouldn't expect everyone to agree with him, and try to show less bias in his remarks.

I doubt he with give two flying Fs if people didn't agree with him, and let's face it he's the only author that I know, who actually says Durnford has a part to play in the down fall of the camp. Its been said before Durnford is only really remembered for supposedly keeping the gates open near the end of the battle.
At least Col Snook gives a good overview of his actions a failures prior.
Go to the Battlefield, and see for yourself, then write a book. Then tell us Col Snook is wrong.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John.

An order is an authorative command or instruction. The one given to Pulleine by Clery was not authorised by either Glyn nor LC, therefor it was invalid.  

Not authorised.  Post the evidence to show this. And please, don't say because Julian says so.

You cannot make a statement like that without evidence. You say Col Snook has no foot notes in his books, but aren't you doing the same.

How Can Man Die Better: The Secrets of Isandhlwana Revealed
Snook, Lt. Col Mike
ISBN: 1-85367-656-X Greenhill Books

When a Zulu Impi attacked and destroyed a British encampment at the foot of the sphinx-shaped hill locally known as Isandhlwana, on Wednesday 22nd January 1879, it sparked a series of political and military incidents that are, even today, still faintly echoing around southern Africa. It is the detail of this momentous military engagement, The Battle of Isandhlwana, which is the subject of this work; the author's first published book.

Lt Col Mike Snook is a serving regular officer of the Royal Regiment of Wales and is clearly a man passionate about his Regiment's history; moreover, this book is written with the professional eye of a soldier who has an in-depth knowledge and a deep understanding of his subject matter. By using a mixture of first hand accounts and primary source documents, drawing upon later academic and non-academic books and essays, as well as an extensive first hand knowledge of the area of Zululand in which the focus of the book is based, Lt Col Snook has attempted to gather together the reasons why the British force at Isandhlwana was annihilated all those years ago.

In his preface, Mike Snook states that he was not setting out to write a detailed academic dissertation about the battle, but to reconstruct Isandhlwana using primary sources and where gaps appear, to use military logic and a professional soldier's eye for ground to fill in the missing pieces. This he achieves.

The topography of Zululand, the all important ground over which a land war is fought, is the bed-rock to this excellent book. The author uses the terrain, every detail of it, to describe as logically as possible how the battle was waged. Over this base he has laid the personalities of those involved, military and civilian; British, colonial and, to a lesser extent (because of the lack of reliable sources), Zulu. The third main area of interest to Snook is the actions of the combatants; who did what, when and why? By using the accounts of those who fought and then by relating these to the topography and finally, by matching the whole to [a figurative synchronisation matrix of] time and space, the battle unfolds to the reader. Whilst the author concedes that his reconstruction might not be perfect, it is a refreshingly military-orientated approach and one that I found to be both easy and very enjoyable to read. Command relationships are discussed, staff appointments are defined and individual commander's weaknesses identified.

As with every publication, one can have criticisms. These, however are very few and verge on nit-picking. Firstly, it is a shame that excellent photographs of the Zululand landscape are not in colour. Secondly, a separate or fold out map might have given the reader the advantage of relating Mike Snook's extensive narrative to an easily referenced map without the vexation of constantly having to refer to the section of photographs. Lastly, and whilst acknowledging the author's desire not to write an academic work, the lack of footnotes giving sources to statements and facts is disappointing in what is clearly an extremely widely researched book; as the bibliography makes clear.

So, is this a recommendation to add this title to your bookshelves? Most definitely yes.

(The British Army Review No.139)




Guards Magazine

How Can Man Die Better? is by Mike Snook, a serving Lieutenant Colonel in The Royal Regiment of Wales. His main purpose was to highlight the immense courage and professional skill of his Regiment's predecessor The 24th Regiment of Foot, which lost six and a half companies at Isandlwana, fighting to the last man with bayonet when the ammunition finally ran out.

Snook has produced a very detailed and well-researched account of that dreadful battle: the movements and actions of the individual 24th companies are meticulously described, even down to the places where they made their last stands, and where their bodies were found.

The author is icily scornful of some recent revisionist books which have insinuated that the two subalterns who tried to save the Queen's Colour were unduly anxious to save their own skins: that Chard (RE) and Bromhead (24th) who commanded at Rorke's Drift were third raters who did not deserve their VCs; and that the nationwide acclaim for Rorke's Drift was a “spin” operation to cover up the failure at Isandlwana. Snook will have none of that.

He also refutes one or two well-established myths. The 24th's ammunition supply did not run out at the climax of the battle: he points out that each man had 70 rounds and could not have fired much more than half of them by the time the Zulus broke in. And the Quartermasters did not have to undo ten screws on each box - there was a quick access panel with a sliding lid secured by only one screw, as is apparent in the surviving specimens in the Brecon Museum. Of course everyone ran out of bullets at the very end, but earlier the only failure of supply was that of Colonel Durnford's Colonial horsemen - which was in fact a decisive factor in the Zulu break-in. Also, the native infantry levies did not break and let in the Zulus: they were too scared to be in the front line.

The truth is that the camp at Isandlwana was, as laid out, indefensible against an enveloping attack by very large numbers of brave and determined Zulus. If a much smaller perimeter had been given some all-round fortification (as was to happen at Rorke's Drift) things might have turned out better.

This book is a wonderful tribute to the courage and professionalism of our Army, and to 'the majesty with which the British soldier fights.' I highly commend it, and await with great interest the promised successor book about Rorke's Drift.

Andrew Gibson-Watt





Review by Dawn Grant

The Battle of Isandlwana fascinates and confounds us. Fascinates because an Imperial army equipped with the latest in breech loading rifles was decimated by an army of supposed 'savages' armed in the most part with spears and assegais. It confounds us because so little is known of the battle itself, especially the final moments. In How Can Man Die Better, Mike reconstructs the battle using the knowledge gained during battlefield visits, written accounts of the men who were there and his own military logic. How Can a Man Die Better attempts to strip away the conjecture that has gone before and build up a picture of the battle as accurately as possible. Whether the scenario put forward is the correct one, is impossible to tell for, as Mike puts it, those who were witnesses to the final denouement did not live to recount it. However, much of what is stated is backed up by sound reasoning that cannot be discounted. In the end, the readers will have to make up their own minds.

How Can a Man Die Better is written in a conversational style that is easy enough for a non-military person to follow. It is an in-depth examination of the Battle of Isandlwana and, while it can be read on its own, it is probably better appreciated if the reader already has a general overview of the battle and of the campaign itself. The illustrations include photographs of the present day battlefield marked with the battle lines. These give the reader a grasp of the scale of the battle. However, this reader would have liked at least one topographical map giving an indication of the position of some of the landmarks mentioned in the text. But this is a small point in what is a remarkable and insightful book.
(June 2006)


Just a few!

John reading between the lines, the reviews trip on the same points..
topographical map and footnotes, saying someone is impressed with
an extensive bibliography means nothing in itself, does not mean the
author read any of them. the gaps are filled in with the authors own
opinions..which we can decide to take or leave..i left it. but thank him,
their in my collection, amongst the also ran's i'm afraid. have you read
Jackson's Isandhlwana..the sources re-examined? now that in my humble
opinion is the benchmark. cheers xhosa

No Dave, you see the picture Mr Snook WANTS YOU to see, and he is pointing out the tactical errors that he THINKS Durnford made, and yes, he will defend what he THINKS took place. And no I have no wish to publish any books.

Well, he would say that Durnford has a part to play in the downfall of the camp wouldn't he? And he would no doubt dwell on Durnford's past wouldn't he? That is how it works Dave, get the reader to have a downer on Durnford so that they will be convinced that he was a bit of a loose cannon, never mind all the good Durnford did, that doesn't matter, he wants the reader to swallow all the bad points doesn't he?

I wonder if he mentioned the even bigger parts that both LC and Pulleine had to play in the downfall of the camp, ie; did he condemn LC for splitting his force in enemy territory without doing proper reconnaissance, did he condemn LC for not issuing proper understandable orders to Durnford, did he condemn LC for not issuing any orders to Pulleine, did he condemn Dartnell for not obeying LC's orders to return to camp, did he condemn Pulleine for not doing anything at all about all the sightings of zulus in the area, did he condemn Pulleine for not even attempting to try to use the wagons to form some better defences by Laagering, did he condemn Pulleine for sticking to the orders that were supposed to be from LC, there are lots more I could go on about, however, it is getting late, but I will bet that Durnford gets most, if not all the flak from Mr Snook.

I wish I could afford to visit the battlefield Dave, I would love to pay my deepest respects to ALL who fell there mate.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Dave.

What do you mean I can't really give an opinion? You don't have to read any of Mr Snooks books to be able to form an opinion. All anyone needs to do is to search online and you can read many of his opinions, comments and assumptions right there. He seems to have the opinion that because he is an ex military man, and was an ex Lt Col, that he holds the right to be correct all the time.

This sort of 'I know best' attitude also came over in the book I have (HCMDB). He forms his own 'expert' interpretations of how he thinks things should have been done, he gives his own unsubstantiated assertations, his opinions are biased, he uses assumptions, little sources, and he does not have footnotes for anyone to examine his claims. Also, again, reading his book felt like he was trying to say that if you had a military background then you should really be agreeing with what he says, well I'm sorry, here is one man with an military background that doesn't. You don't have to be an ex Lt Col to know the difference between right and wrong, even a private soldier with a bit of nous knows what that is. Being an ex Lt Col in rank does not make him any more knowledgable than anyone else, yet this is what he appears to be implying. I am in no way trying to demean the ex Lt Col, but he should be a little more fairer with his comments, shouldn't expect everyone to agree with him, and try to show less bias in his remarks.

Martin. National Service was compulsory, you had no choice. I'm fairly confident you didn't make the rank Mike Snook did!


Being an ex Lt Col in rank does not make him any more knowledgable than anyone else
Yes it Does!

Dave wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John.

An order is an authorative command or instruction. The one given to Pulleine by Clery was not authorised by either Glyn nor LC, therefor it was invalid.  

Not authorised.  Post the evidence to show this. And please, don't say because Julian says so.

You cannot make a statement like that without evidence. You say Col Snook has no foot notes in his books, but aren't you doing the same.

It's already been posted, see page 9, the post was by Les.

CTSG.

Cheeky sod.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

No Dave, you see the picture Mr Snook WANTS YOU to see, and he is pointing out the tactical errors that he THINKS Durnford made, and yes, he will defend what he THINKS took place. And no I have no wish to publish any books.

Well, he would say that Durnford has a part to play in the downfall of the camp wouldn't he? And he would no doubt dwell on Durnford's past wouldn't he? That is how it works Dave, get the reader to have a downer on Durnford so that they will be convinced that he was a bit of a loose cannon, never mind all the good Durnford did, that doesn't matter, he wants the reader to swallow all the bad points doesn't he?

I wonder if he mentioned the even bigger parts that both LC and Pulleine had to play in the downfall of the camp, ie; did he condemn LC for splitting his force in enemy territory without doing proper reconnaissance, did he condemn LC for not issuing proper understandable orders to Durnford, did he condemn LC for not issuing any orders to Pulleine, did he condemn Dartnell for not obeying LC's orders to return to camp, did he condemn Pulleine for not doing anything at all about all the sightings of zulus in the area, did he condemn Pulleine for not even attempting to try to use the wagons to form some better defences by Laagering, did he condemn Pulleine for sticking to the orders that were supposed to be from LC, there are lots more I could go on about, however, it is getting late, but I will bet that Durnford gets most, if not all the flak from Mr Snook.

I wish I could afford to visit the battlefield Dave, I would love to pay my deepest respects to ALL who fell there mate.

Martin it is very apparent that you haven't read the book. What you mentioned above, is in the book. You really know nothing about Mike Snook. Your just shooting from the mouth for the sake of it. I must admit you have me, as I cannot penetrate your armour of utter stupidity.

Oh I see, slagging off time again is it. And what High Rank did you make, spud bashing in the NAAFI?

[quote="Mr M. Cooper"]

Dave wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John.

An order is an authorative command or instruction. The one given to Pulleine by Clery was not authorised by either Glyn nor LC, therefor it was invalid.  

Not authorised.  Post the evidence to show this. And please, don't say because Julian says so.

You cannot make a statement like that without evidence. You say Col Snook has no foot notes in his books, but aren't you doing the same.

It's already been posted, see page 9, the post was by Les. Stick with Julian.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Oh I see, slagging off time again is it. And what High Rank did you make, spud bashing in the NAAFI?

No where near Col Snook. But much higher than you. And yes I was a spud basher, where does that place you.

I can well imagine that you were much higher than me, much higher in ignorance.

You should now go to bed and be a good boy. Night Night.

Martin, your regiment. Was it Welsh? Good night Martin. Never go to bed on bad words. See you tomorrow.

Lord Chelmsford and Crealock, both say they only received one message from the camp at Isandlwana received at 09:30. More were sent, is it known who the messengers were. Is there anything that shows all messages were delivered. Or didn't they received them.

Dave I can give an opinion on Snooks' book , I've read it along with countless others ! . Snook's description of the battle in my eyes is first class , but as you , your self posted , he isnt writing a book wich is based on primary source facts or evidence alone ! , a bit like a movie really , some artistic licence here and there . A drawback being he uses his own opinion as seen through an ex serving soldier , which is fair enough , but you will see in his writings he hardly places any blame on those in the 24th , when in actual reasoning there are several who should fit some of the blame , ranging from LC all the way to Dartnell , and among those two some who served in the 24th ! . It took me a while to bother getting his book , I did in the end because of Springbok's urgings , I did see several reviews from those in the know of the zulu war who also said the same thing , that it lacks footnotes to back up his theories , thats because they are his theories and quite possibly not what actually happened . I hope you understand fully what I've attempted to portray ?
90th

90th
well put.

24th
Yes I remember on a couple of occasions mentioning these messages , and the names of those who delivered them .
From memory , Hamilton - Browne states in his book he sent 4 messages back to LC . I think there are possibly 3 , if not another, that are supposed to have been sent from Isandlwana , but LC stated he didnt see any of these messages as does Crealock ! ,
convenient for them ! . Happy to be corrected , for those who have access to their books , I'm certain Keith Smith mentions the messages in one of his books . I'm not home so cant check .
90th

John/Dave
Clery does state elsewhere that they were orders.
Please be it known that how I see the matter and before words are put into my mouth by others is whatever the reason or lack of it behind Clery's orders to Pulleine, orders they were, and were regarded as such by both Pulleine and Durnford.

Xhosa
Apologies for my naivety!

Two from Pulleine, 1 from Gardner, 1 delivered by Lt Pohl, 1 by Sgnt Turner, 1 additional from Hamilton Browne ( Mounted Native according to Lt Milne and Norris Newman) 1 by Captain Devlin
So 7 , possible a relayed one via Devlin through Church. However there are at least two of those where Chelmsford couldn't be found, and considering the site he chose for breakfast its doesn't surprise me one little bit.

Cheers

I knew there were 7 or so messages sent back to LC's force , and as you say , not surprisingly , some of them didnt find LC ! ,
he had his force spread to all points of the compass trying to close in on the supposed zulu army ! . and , had he found them , if they wanted him to , he would've been chopped with the rest of the Column ! . I seem to remember Clery I think , stating in his letters to either Harman or Alison that LC certainly saw more than one message , but it seems the Good Lord & Crealock forgot to mention that fact . Happy to be corrected
90th

Yeah Chelmsford got tripped up a couple of times in his denials.

Cheers

Hiya Julian. the usual deserve'd glancing blow from your kerrie
upside my head! ouch.. xhosa

I'm sure, I read in Keith Smiths book, Dead was everything.

That Clery stated he had not see or received any message from Gardner. So it's appears quite a few were saying they didn't get messages.

I could be wrong, will have to check later, unless anyone else has read that.?

That said, had they received the messages, they would have had to act on them, and we all know the outcome had they gone back. Safer to say, you didn't see them. You have to be alive to say that.

Admin wrote:

Martin, your regiment. Was it Welsh?  Good night Martin. Never go to bed on bad words. See you tomorrow.

The cheek of some of these youngsters these days, jeez!

No Pete, DEFINITELY NOT, in fact that is a total impossibilty, as ALL the antecedent regiments that make up todays RW are ALL of English origin, ie; 23rd Shropshire, 24th Kent, 41st Invalids and out patients Chelsea Hospital London, 69th The old 2nd Batt of the 24th regiment, which, if recall correctly, was actually raised in Warwickshire, it was re-designated the 69th, and later given the English county title of the 69th (South Lincolnshire) regiment. So you see, NONE of the regiments that now make up todays RW are actually welsh, but in fact are ALL of English origin.

Anyway, I went to bed and had a great dream, it was of CTSG and that book he quoted from, now, let's see, I think it might have been by one of the Colenso family, just goes to show that he is a secret admirer really.

Thanks Pete.

Mae ei holl ploy , ei fod yn gyfrinachol wrth ei fodd Tywysog William

Springy mate, I think you might have got something a bit out there, as this seems to say,

'There his all ploy that in confidential in his means Prince William'

rhaid i wneud gwell

springbok9 wrote:

Mae ei holl ploy , ei fod yn gyfrinachol wrth ei fodd Tywysog William  

Translated.

Its all a ploy , he secretly loves prince William.

Thank you John.