Wagons at Isandlwana

Julian I wonder if the conversation between Smith and Bloomfield actually took place, regarding the requisition, I think it was a myth?
I don't think Bloomfield under the circumstances would refuse ammunition?


A myth? can you elaborate...what makes you say that!.

Xhosa Where's you documentation

Xhosa Where's you documentation.....

For what!


Julian I wonder if the conversation between Smith and Bloomfield actually took place, regarding the requisition, I think it was a myth? ..

So you think it was a myth. would you like to tell us all why?.

ymob wrote:

Julian Whybra wrote:

Rusteze
Watkins arrived in 1881 to look after Kambula's 'flock'.  There would have been lots of locals who would have heard this story from Kambula himself.
And I'd forgotten the story about the piccanninny at the NC's ammunition tent (note, not waggon).

There is a testimony about an ammunition box (200 rounds?) taken in a NC's tent by some Durnford's troopers (from memory).
Cheers

Statement (undated) of Lt H.B. DAVIES, commanding the Edendale troops.

Cheers

Oh dear!

xhosa2000 wrote:

Oh dear!

You have just realise Can you post an image of the document

Which document..Why do you think it is a myth littlehand?

No good in the tent, should be in the men's pouches on the line!
....

Ammunition was not the problem, it was in the
men's pouches.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Which document..Why do you think it is a myth littlehand?

The one that shows you have changed you name to "Julian"

ymob wrote:

Mr Whybra,

I read again, "Hill of the Sphinx" p.40 and my comment about the point 3 seems to be OK with Mr Jackson.
Iam looking forward your answer. Again a good day to learn.

Others,
Number of cartridges per rifleman (Lonsdale Coy): 15 (p. 40)

Cheers

Number of cartridges per rifleman in NNC troops: 15
"As I had only 15 rounds of ammunition per man"
Source:Report of Commandant HAMILTON-BROWNE , 1/3rd, 2nd February.
Cheers

The one that shows you have changed you name to "Julian" ..

Ahhh! i see now your waiting on Julian to tell you
what to think!. thank for taking me back to my schooldays..
cant wait to hear what you say in the future.

And his name was Smith-Dorrien.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Steve your last point is very true! my problem is that in the end
it achieves and advances nothing! and what are people new to
this subject to make of it?. the fact's are the fact's.. and while it
maybe diverting and amusing to speculate, all to often that runs its
course and fades away as it must do, i am pointing the finger at no
one in particular but ego and self aggrandizement seems to be the
end for some, they bend and shape shift in the wind. i don't like to
see it and i wont take part in it. no offence meant, i love this subject
dearly.

I take it you do want to take part.

Yes It was directed at Julian, plus the answer to you question is in my post to Julian

Welcome back to the discussion!

xhosa2000 wrote:

And his name was Smith-Dorrien.

Yes, but Julian would know by the discussion, who I was talking about. Your learn!

xhosa2000 wrote:
Steve your last point is very true! my problem is that in the end
it achieves and advances nothing! and what are people new to
this subject to make of it?. the fact's are the fact's.. and while it
maybe diverting and amusing to speculate, all to often that runs its
course and fades away as it must do, i am pointing the finger at no
one in particular but ego and self aggrandizement seems to be the
end for some, they bend and shape shift in the wind. i don't like to
see it and i wont take part in it. no offence meant, i love this subject
dearly...cracking post above by xhosa..

I take it you do want to take part. Rolling Eyes

Yes It was directed at Julian, plus the answer to you question is in my post to Julian agree

Welcome back to the discussion!


Sorry but i find your last posts directed at me incomprehensible and nonsensical.
but i will wait for Julian's patient reply to you, then i will look earnestly at your
futurer posts.. thank you littlehand. yes, i learn..

Julian Whybra wrote:

And I'd forgotten the story about the piccanninny at the NC's ammunition tent (note, not waggon).

Mr Whybra
About your point of vigilance, are you referring to the location of the scene described (I.E: In the NC's ammunition tent not in the area of the NC's ammunition wagon?

Cheers
Frédéric

litlehand
No, I don't believe S-D's anecdote was a myth.
It's necessary to remind ourselves of the reason he wrote it - as an example of British discipline and steadiness under fire. S-D wrote this himself! It was never intended as a criticism of Bloomfield.

ymob wrote:

From memory a photography of the  2/24th was borrowed by Stanley Baker to the Brecon Museum for the famous film Zulu. He never restituted it.
I am not sure of my memory. Happy to be corrected. I am sure Isandula or John Young have the answer.
Cheers

Bonsoir,

My memory was partially faulty...


From Mr Julian Whybra:
"This large photo [I.E: Wardell's 'H' Company 1/24th, in Ian Knight's 'Zulu:Isandlwana & Rorke's Drift 22-23 January 1879'] was originally in Brecon and was one of a set of two when both H coys of the 24th had photos taken and gave each other their photo. David Jackson asked for a copy of the H coy 1/24th photo to be made for him but not of its sister photo of H coy 2/24th. Astonishingly the original was sent to him through the post in its frame.
He had a copy made kindly giving a second copy to me. He later used it in his book, Hill of the Sphinx.
Later he discovered the original had been stolen from the museum (and the sister photo 'borrowed' by Stanley Baker from the museum for the film Zulu and never returned).
Ian Knight asked David for a copy to be used in his book which he granted and used in Zulu.
Both original photos are still missing (...)".

Source: Rorke's Drift Forum / Subject; 24th Regiment soldiers in photo's / June 2009

Cheers

Julian Whybra wrote:

litlehand
No, I don't believe S-D's anecdote was a myth.
It's necessary to remind ourselves of the reason he wrote it - as an example of British discipline and steadiness under fire.  S-D wrote this himself!  It was never intended as a criticism of Bloomfield.

But it was not mentioned at the COE or in the letter to his farther. ?

About my last post:
The story of the exchange of photographs between the two companies suggests "a certain bonhomie between the two battalions".
Cheers
Frédéric

LH
The first time SD really refered to that incident was I believe during a series of lecture tours in the early 1900s. He used it not to show iron discipline or a rigid adherence to the rules but to demonstrate the bonhomie, the comraderie between the men in battle conditions.

Cheers

Frank Allewell wrote:

LH
The first time SD really refered to that incident was I believe during a series of lecture tours in the early 1900s. He used it not to show iron discipline or a rigid adherence to the rules but to demonstrate the bonhomie, the comraderie between the men in battle conditions.

Cheers

I can go with that! with just a touch of a soldiers story.

Unfortunatly it was Morris that took the phrase out of context and used it to bolster the case of the 'difficult to open' ammunition boxes then from there to 'no ammo on the firing line'.
The difficulty with Morris is that he says 'He wont attribute historical accuracy' and uses that to explain the no foot note aspect. Bit of a cop out really when the world took TWOTS as the definitive book on the war.

Cheers

Morris at no time claimed his work was definitive! how some
people in the world received his work was not a matter for him!.
i myself find him charmingly modest..despite the mistakes it is
and remains a stunning body of work..if i was on the proverbial
desert island and could take only one book on the Zulu war, i
would happily leave every other book at home.. below his remarks
in his introduction to ' there will be an awful row '. its well about
time that Morris was recognized as someone who inspired countless
people to study more closely the events around the AZW of 1879.

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

xhosa2000 wrote:

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

That picture should be used as the Forum poster, it kind of says it all.

Nice one waterloo, very dry!

I must admit to not having been able to follow the meaning behind the last dozen or so posts between Xhosa and Littlehand and it's in my language (goodness knows how Frederic coped!!!).
So,
Frederic
I'm not sure why you posted the info about the origins of the H coy 1/24th photo. Was it just as a demonstration of bonhomie?
And yes, I was referring to the 'tent' not the 'waggon' of the NC.
Littlehand
S-D did not mention the Bloomfield anecdote in the CoE official report. That's not the place for anecdotes. None of those who gave evidence engaged in anecdotes.
Xhosa
I'm inclined to agree with you on Morris for his enthusiasm and for kick-starting the whole AZW roadshow. I corresponded with him for a number of years from the mid-60s to the mid-70s (I still have his letters for posterity) about a number of things from TWOTS. He would argue his corner but would rarely cite his sources with precision even when asked...and some things in TWOTS of course were the result of artistic licence - what he didn't know, he simply made up (which is very different from speculation). That's why you won't find his work quoted anywhere. David Jackson told me that he only ever met him once, briefly, while Morris was passing through London between flights about the time of TWBAARAHAT. Morris didn't want to talk about Isandhlwana, just about how they became interested in the battle, the difficulties of researching the AZW, and the pros and cons of the various archives. It was almost as though he did not want to confront the differences that existed between them in their interpretations of the battle. Just one thing Morris said to David when the conversation died down, and that was "Of course, you were right about Lieut. Davies". David just nodded and sipped his beer.

Jackson.

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

Ditto.

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

Atkinson.

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

I must admit to not having been able to follow the meaning behind the last dozen or so posts between Xhosa and Littlehand and it's in my language (goodness knows how Frederic coped!!!).
So, Hmmm....not hard to figure out Julian!. it started not long after i joined this
forum..i'm sure Frederic copes well enough!.

As for Morris, i take him in the 'round' and was and still am, very grateful to do so..i think
Morris was by that time ' done ' with this subject, all he got for his heroic and herculean
effort was carping and unfair criticism out of all proportion.. the mistakes have been now
corrected and we are still left with an astonishing work. when something is over for someone
it must be hard for that person to be dragged ' back ' over and over..i cite Keith I Smith as
another who is ' done ' with this..shame about that!.

Xhosa
I deliberately didn't use the HRo24th mention as it wasn't sourced and conflicts with Essex's direct visual account of Bloomfield's death.  But I'm glad you've 'sort of' mentioned it.
Yes, you're quite right about Morris - he wouldn't revisit Isandhlwana after TWBAARAHAT but in his lifetime he never realized the extent of what you call carping, merely of differences of opinion. I do wonder though what happened to all his notes he'd bundled up in the attic...
I'm sorry for being dense but I'm still at a loss to follow what's been going on in the previous posts. I think I'll leave it that way. Least said, soonest mended.

Julian Whybra wrote:

I must admit to not having been able to follow the meaning behind the last dozen or so posts between Xhosa and Littlehand and it's in my language (goodness knows how Frederic coped!!!).
So,
Frederic
I'm not sure why you posted the info about the origins of the H coy 1/24th photo.  Was it just as a demonstration of bonhomie?
And yes, I was referring to the 'tent' not the 'waggon' of the NC.
.

Bonjour Mr Whybra,

Nothing really weird.
The forum member Chalkie who has a relative KIA at Isandhlwana asked on this thread if someone had a 2/24 battalion photo (2 posts  feb. 9 2016).
The same day, I made an answer partially wrong ("From memory a photography of the  2/24th was borrowed by Stanley Baker to the Brecon Museum for the famous film Zulu. He never restituted it.
(...).")
So yesterday, I corrected my initial response by this incredible story about the photographies of the H Coys.
These photographies are also an index of bonhomie that existed between the two battalions.
For the rest, I decided to understand that Littlehand was facetious.
That's all.
Cheers
Frédéric

Thank's 24th, gives a good impression of how big
the wagon's were. were they left in that position
by the Zulu or by the British rounding them up i
wonder.

xhosa
Pedantic possibly...I prefer meticulous.
If I weren't meticulous what faith would you have in my research?
As I've said before, the devil is in the detail.
And it is a very clear photo.

Can I ask whether the photo has been touched up in any way.  It is unusually clear and well-defined around the waggon wheels.

The photo posted by Xhosa 'The Waggons at the Ravaged Camp', are they Colonial half tent Ox waggons or are they the general service waggons. Also, is this how they were found or have they been moved?

I cant say Julian, i scanned it in high res, as you
know its from Hattersley's Later annals. pub in
1938.but i dont know and it does not say who
took it..not one of Lloyds and i dont know who
Miss Peace was or where she got it.

Julian

Here is another copy of the photo, equally well defined. It is clearly copyrighted so I have not reproduced it. Click on thumbnail to enlage.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And from the same site another which looks as though it was taken at the same time but from a little further around to the west.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I don't think they have been enhanced.

Steve

Thanks, yes, I have both of these but not with such definition.
They are ox-waggons. (Ian Bennett's book has to-scale drawings of all the waggons in use for identification purposes.) And, I should think they have been well-moved about by all and sundry by the time the photos were taken.

Bill
Significant I think is Bassage's notebook.

Little hand
I don't think it is a figure. On the original there was a tear - some damage on the photo itself and then a repair job. The 'figure' lies along the edge of the repair. It then curves round to the left and down. You can still see a bit of the tear on the right-hand edge of the waggon wheels to the left of the 'figure'.

Note that the photos were taken in late June not May.
Julian

Xhosa
Where did those come from?
Its the rear of the current village area at St Vincents, The thatched roof building looks as though it could very well be current visitors centre.
What is really significant is the gentleness of the slope from the Nyoni ridge.
Thanks for posting.

Taken from a higher elevation.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

Isandlwana Battlefield shortly after the famous battle.
Source: Alamy

Yes of course the topography has changed over
the years.. the first photo is from Gibson's The
Story of the Zulus 1911. the second, from Charles
Johnson of Zululand 1930..interestingly the two
seem to have been taken from the same hand..
which might date them both from the latter part
of the nineteenth century.

Bishop Macrorie of Natal appointed Mr Johnson to
be catechist and teacher to the Hlubi's people in
their new home..Mr Johnson was settled in the area
of Isandhlwana. the Bishop's letter was from Nov 1879.