Durnford's Rocket Battery

yes it is true "Zulu" and "Zulu Dawn" are super sensual at the beginning ... :lol:

Both tremendous films that have kindled many a person's interest in this small war which may otherwise have been forgotten, along with the memory of the men who fought so bravely.

Martin, don't worry about the factual inaccuracies. Anyone who has any interest at all in this war, will know the facts.

Hi tasker.

Yes I know mate, I was pointing out that the films should not be seen as being a source of reference as they are unreliable regarding factual events, but that some people appear to believe that what they see on the screen is factual.

Must absolutely give Identities on the forum... :lol:

Xhosa/90th
Whatever IK does eventually write it will of necessity be an involved story; it can't just be a pronouncement that 'the RB was destroyed here'.  As you will have read in Studies IV it will need to take into account among other things, Barker's inward and outward positions and the route of the RB itself.  All the jigsaw pieces will have to fit.  That was what intrigued me most by Frank's hypothesis.  The pieces fitted.  
We shall see.  It will all be interesting.

Hi

I have found a phrase which is 'Best horse or best man will win' - which is a variation of 'class will tell'.....but I am still trying to clarify the origin....

cheers

Sime

hypothesis. The pieces fitted. .....

hypothesis. am i missing something here, where's the history?.
Julian any deviation from the sources, must be established
and then proven in order to ' change history '... and of course
who are, in the end... the final arbiter of any of this.. all even
of the most recent of authority's have passed, with the exception
of a couple,

Hi Julian
Yes I did enjoy the article , not everyday something of that importance see's the light of day . I can tell you that Ian K believed 25 years ago , or at the time of his writing ' Then And Now ' , he believed the RB to have been probably in the ' Accepted Position ' , but he's firmly changed his views , the footnote you quoted is from ' Zulu Rising ' , in which he's describing the ' New ' area he believes the Rocket Battery came to grief , not the old accepted Notch area as it seems to read in your article , Les ( xHosa ) , and I think Frank , among others , were informed of this change of thinking once I returned home in 2015 . Yes , much needs to be done before before anything can be seen to be changed , I can tell you the footnote you used describes almost perfectly where we stood in 2015 ! , no doubt more to come , I do know of another who's also working on this as we chat ...as well as Ian and Frank ( ? ) .
90th

If I could just clear the air slightly to avoid any issues arising. I stated a thread on the rocket Battery position with a couple of photos of the position I believed the fight took place way back in 2015. Gary your quite righ,t on your return from iSandlwana you posted on that thread that Ian believed the demise was also away from the Notch.
I needed to clarify that, to indicate I haven't 'borrowed' the concept, not that I believe it was insinuated but just to be absolutely certain.
I started working on the RB around ten years ago and in ernest about 4 years back when I spent a number of days at iSandlwana trudging around and doing effectively a measured drawing of the whole area.
I have over the last few years been preparing an essay on the RB which of necessity then had to be expanded to take in all the various attendant issues, Barker, Scott, Nourse and the relevant Zulu positions. Durnford had to be a part of that tale as he was very active across the plain hence the title of the essay: Activities on the Eastern Plain with particular reference to Colonel Anthony Durnford.
The essay per force ballooned to some 97 pages including photographs measured drawings and maps. This is currently being edited and audited for, I hope, publication.
It is a Hypothesis and only that. I have used all original sources, without change or modification. All sources and references are fully documented.
We must not loose sight in our zeal to protect history that thoughts change over the years, exactly as Ian has done and that has to be commended. The more people that apply their minds to a fresh look at the sources the better. My hypothesis, partly used by Julian, is just that. Its a view point garnered from over 40 years of exploring the battlefield.
The bare fact of the matter is that there are no arbiters that can say ya or nay. We are in fact all judges and juries, this forum, other forums, individual enthusiasts, writers and authors. We all have our God given right to an opinion.
I'm tempted to believe that Ian, myself and other parties are looking at exactly the same conclusion. But I look forward to reading all the essays and hopefully increasing my own knowledge.

'An Hypothesis is not an improved supposition, to which we give idle assent; but a means, or instrument, for gaining true knowledge. ISAAC TAYLOR.

Hi Frank
Well said , as you wrote and thought there was never an intention on my behalf to suggest you '' borrowed the concept '' . Ian K , as I mentioned earlier , started to put together the pieces not long after he did ' Then And Now ' which is 25 yrs or so ago from memory ? , I dont know off hand . Will be very interesting to see what becomes print with at least 3 people working on this subject as I type .
90th

Frank Allewell wrote:

The essay per force ballooned to some 97 pages including photographs measured drawings and maps. This is currently being edited and audited for, I hope, publication.

Good news.
Amitié.
fred

SRB
'Class will tell' certainly makes sense.  Brilliant, well done!  I'm looking forward to hearing the derivation.

Xhosa
The history, as Frank has aptly described and quoted c/o Isaac Taylor, is, as it has always been, in the hypothesis (which is precisely what you say IK is currently doing).  And where there is no history, as in Durnford's route from the camp to the Qwabe, hypotheses are necessary in order to establish the history.  
Show me if you can the source from which Frank has deviated!  There isn't one.
I realize of course that you are simply trying to 'catch me out', and that's fair enough, but you know, to 'change' history there has to have been a source or 'evidenced' version to alter.  And as it stands, there is no source that identifies the NNH leaving by and proceeding all the way along the track from the camp out into the plain and then north to Qwabe, nor one which has the RB & Nourse taking the same route.
Frank's hypothesis (which I had his full permission to use and is duly acknowledged) does at least have several sources which seem to support it which, I hope, will allow Isaac Taylor to have his day.
There is of course a world of difference between hypotheses and unsubstantiated opinion, the former being an accepted academic historical formulation and the latter not.
I can't respond to the last part of your post (the 'all even of the most...' bit) as I can't quite make sense of it.

90th/Frank
IK may well have changed his mind about the RB's location and route.  Unless it's in print somewhere, it cannot be quoted.  An author can hardly make an acknowledgement: "IK has changed his mind about this, but he's not saying to what (yet)."

The position of the RB can only be hypothesis as no physical evidence of their presence on the slopes up to the ridge has ever been found. In that scenario we have to rely on those who have walked the area extensively and sought to align existing accounts.That is surely what is happening with our three analysts - and I for one applaud their efforts. It seems to me that we are talking about quite short distances between these prospective points of battle - all of which, from a distance across the plain, might justifiably be viewed as part of "The Notch". In that sense history is not being changed but fine tuned. Close up there are clearly differences in the difficulty of the ground that are now being taken into account. In all of this by far the most significant development is Gunner Taylor's letter and now Sime's tracking down of his enigmatic remark. Lets not pour cold water on such advances -they are what we do this for.

Steve Reinstadtler

Hi JW
I think you've misinterpreted Ian's writings , he writes on page 359 of zulu rising ... He gave the order for the battery to head up the escarpment , aiming for a Notch on the skyline just to the west of Ithusi ...
you then say in your latest '' Only IK offers precision in placing the action itself some distance up the ' notch ' . This is clearly incorrect , IK hasn't insinuated they went up the Notch , he stated they were heading to a notch on the skyline ! . Two different places which I think you've misconstrued as one . One must always look to clarify points when addressing , or attempting to possibly alter one's perception .
Cheers 90th

"Tis hard to be Exact in good, or excellent in will;
Our will wants power, or our power wants will."

Not trying to catch anyone out Julian.. you do stirling work which i admire and
and respect, there are ' new ' offing's in the wind and i was merely playing
devils advocate in order to allow member's to contribute to what i feel will be
an interesting alternative take on the actual route the RB took, please do not
feel that i am ' gunning for you ' i certainly am not. recent authorities include
Borquin, Chadwick, Bunting, Holme, Jackson.. ect, i have looked at the area in
question closely studying photograph's and reading other opinion's as to the
most likely route of the Rocket battery, and i find them most interesting and
somewhat persuasive. i really am looking forward to what eventually pan's out.
i cannot picture Russell choosing a route where he would have to unnecessarily
negotiate numerous donga's, when he could just move a bit to his left... it will
all come out in the wash so to speak.. looking forward to part 2 of vol 4, i'm
intrigued by the ' chinese whispers '.

Hi Les
We are at last going to get something to chew on. Its been quiet since TMFHT. With three separate approaches and interpretations of the same documents I'm pretty sure we will end up with complementing rather than differing results. Ive seen Ians aprox area he is focusing on, we are within spitting distance. But its not just about the final position theres a mass of other related issues that Ive explored and I hope Ian plus 1 have as well.
Exciting times ahead.

Cheers

90th
To clarify the point about which you think I've misinterpreted, I quote from p. 359 of IK's 'Zulu Rising':
“The mules had reached a slight spur jutting out from the escarpment about halfway down.  The skyline was a few hundred metres in front of them; off to their left a donga cut into the slope, but the top of the knoll was relatively flat and large enough to set up the rocket troughs.”
I.e.  a spur juts out from the escarpment half-way down; on the flat top of its knoll the RB sets up its troughs.
IK supplies no precise map showing this location in 'Zulu Rising'; he merely shows the RB proceeding north to the east of Amatutshane beyond the Nyanga in the direction of the Notch.  However he DOES supply a map on page 79 of 'Zulu' which clearly pinpoints his surmised RB location halfway up the Notch (and again in his 2002 Osprey publication).  This location is shown on page 20 of Studies IV and I refer to it in the text on page 21.  Reading IK's text and looking at his map he is clearly referring to the same place.
I can find no misinterpretation on my part and, having checked my map on p. 20 against IK's map, I find that I have reproduced its location precisely.  Of course it could be that IK's publisher's map was awry and put the RB in the wrong place - I don't know.  If so, that would be no fault of mine.
I cannot read minds and I have only IK's published works to draw on.  That said, I intend no, and have no, criticism of IK, whose work I admire thoroughly.  But research moves on, as do discoveries, and IK would be the first to acknowledge that.
My intention on p.21 was to show the reader that the general consensus of historians place the RB's demise in the region of the Notch out of sight of the camp, north-east of Amatutshane (IK was the only one to be specific), in order to show how radically different Frank's suggestion was.

xhosa
Thank you.  I did not mean to appear curt and I don't feel 'gunned for'.  But you asked the question and it required a robust response.  
This was Frank's hypothesis and I am VERY aware how much time and effort he put into it and how grateful I am that he allowed me to use it (I hope I have interpreted his intentions correctly - he assures me I have).  I am also aware how it 'slotted' at just the right time to fit into the Taylor essay.  I would not have entertained using it if I felt it could easily and justifiably be rigorously criticized.

all
In referring to second-hand Zulu accounts of the RB's demise, subsequent Zulu movements, and contacts with the NNH I wrote on page 24 the following:
"...but the above statements are second-hand at best and still leave the Battery’s exact location and route open to interpretation.  The absence of evidence means Allewell’s theory remains unproven but, even so, it deserves serious consideration and further research.  It is to be hoped that he will eventually publish the results of his investigations.  At his specific request I have withheld certain information."
I would never steal someone else's thunder and I would draw your attention to the last sentence of the quotation.

All
Yup, I just double-checked.  I did not misinterpret the Zulu Rising text.  IK's map in Zulu Rising on page xv definitely shows the RB behind Amatutshane, beyond the Nyanga, proceeding north towards the Notch.  IK can only have meant that its demise would be in that area.  
Surely, if IK thinks the Taylor essay is at fault, he doesn't have a revised location for the RB yet still further to the east?

Hi JW
As far as I'm aware IK has no problem with your article . Yes JW it does indeed show the RB behind Conical Hill heading toward the vicinity of the Notch , this is when a couple of the Carbineers ride down and inform Russell to go by the short cut , which is further West of where the Notch position lies , IK states on the map it being the ' early stages ' of the battle . The confusion is you quote on page 21 of your latest and again I'll write it out ! . '' Only Ian Knight offers precision in placing the action itself some distance UP THE NOTCH '' ( Caps for emphasis ) , this clearly is not what IK is saying when you read from Zulu Rising '' He gave the order
for the battery to head up the escarpment AIMING FOR A NOTCH ON THE SKYLINE ( again for emphasis ) , they are differing points of view ! . The Notch is the Notch , the notch on the skyline is the differing point .
90th

It is not difficult to see how this difference in interpretation has occurred. Knight's maps in his NAM book of the Zulu War (2003) and in his Companion to the Zulu War (2008) both show the demise of the RB at a point slightly further west on the escarpment than in his map in Zulu (1992). None of these maps appear in Zulu Rising. But nowhere in any of the texts does it make clear that the position has been revised over that time. All the maps are very large scale sketches and it is highly unlikely that a reader would recognise that a change in thinking on the authors part had taken place without any commentary to that effect.

Steve Reinstadtler

Steve and Fred, its just a tad upsetting to see all the hard work you both have put in to your respective articles to see them virtually ignored by what is essentially a minor issue. Having just received my copy, suprise surprise. You both need congratulating. Fred that without doubt is the longest list of footnotes Ive ever read. Measured by the metre.

Frank

I personally can't wait until the second instalment - of what the rear-guard saw.....

Hi Sime
Just trying to bring it down a notch

Frank Allewell wrote:

Hi Sime
Just trying to bring it down a notch

Bonjour,
I read with great interest Taylor's essay. Apart from the discovery of a new survivor, I am very intrigued by the essay written by Frank ("activities on the eastern plain"). As I had some difficulties to understand the point of view of Gary, Steve thank you very much for your synthesis.
Frank, the long list of footnotes could have been longer....but Julian and I have decided to split the essay in two parts.
Steve, I stayed silent on your essay because I haven't finished "dissecting it".
Amitié.
Fred

What we have with Gunner Taylor is a prime example of the favourite pastime of the AZW enthusiast - it's called splitting hairs!
As for my essay, I think there is still much to uncover about Crealock's very odd behaviour in relation to the discovery of his order to Durnford on that fateful day. The more I read about Fanny Colenso and Edward Durnford the more impressed I am.

Steve Reinstadtler

Steve,
About your comments on your essay: EXACTLY my thoughts.
Amitié.
Fred

...and you you raised some intriguing questions...

What we have with Gunner Taylor is a prime example of the favourite pastime of the AZW enthusiast - it's called splitting hairs! .... thank's Steve. you may well be right, but anybody seeking to change
history or even it's perception, has to be on very solid ground. i'm currently watching and waiting.

Fair enough Les. But you speak as if the "history" of the location of the RB is somehow fact - is it not just someone else's interpretation of what little is known?

Steve

No Steve not fact! but seeking consensus will be very difficult, that's why i'm
watching and waiting.. there is more to come!. it will get interesting.. i'm just
hoping that ego's don't get in the way.. and all interpretation's are treated with
fairness and respect.

Well, I don't know. If you look at Ian Knight's latest photo of his revised location for the RB and Frank's they are of the same place. Subject to whatever our mystery third analyst comes up with, it seems as to location at least, consensus has already been reached.

Steve

'Alea iacta est. '
Sorry I'm into a classical allusion mood.

It's the lack of water.

I am curious to learn how Frank (I.E: Julian wrote: "At his specific request I have witheld certain informations") and Ian Knight came to the same conclusion.
This similitary of point of view at the same time is somewhere strange!
Fred

90th
I think I understand your arguments:
1. So YOUR opinion (I hesitate to write 'IK's opinion' as I have no idea whether you have any authority to speak for him) is that when IK is speaking about the notch (small n), he doesn't mean the Notch (capital N) but a different notch (small n) which he didn't mention in his Zulu Rising text, didn't mark on a map, and failed to provide any sources for.  This notch (small n) is the same as Frank's defile.  Yes?
2. IK's p. 331 Zulu Rising has the RB's last stated position being in the wake of the NNH along the track south of Amatutshane.  Page xv shows its proceeding toward the Notch (capital N). His next mention of the RB page 357 et seq. relates to its destruction.  You're saying that before this last  mention he omitted to write in the text that the RB had double-backed westwards to the north of Amatutshane (reason unstated), ignored the Notch, and made for another notch.  Yes?  He also didn't bother to mark any of this on any map in Zulu Rising and failed to provide any sources for it.  Yes?
3. You're also saying that IK said the RB never went up this notch (small n) but stayed at its foot.  Yes?  
That would be despite the fact that in Pte. Johnson's account he wrote that Russell galloped up the hill, was confronted by the Zulus and turned shouting 'Action front!'  
It would ignore Pte. Trainer's account which clearly stated "we were going up a hill to reach them [the Zulus] when we saw ...the enemy at the top...and [came] into action."  
It would ignore Capt. Nourse's account which stated: "the donkeys...[when the attack occurred]...hee-hawed down the hill..."  
So the RB WAS evidently proceeding UP the/a N/notch and fled DOWN it according to its members.  And you're saying that IK does not believe that they were.  Yes?  
Why?
4.  And these you describe as 'a difference of interpretation', yes?
Is that a fair assessment of your argument?

ymob/rusteze
I'm happy that IK agrees with (and may even have reviewed his own opinion of) the RB location  I can't see any evidence for it in Zulu Rising in 2010.

Steve,
boreholes producing 1000 litres a day filtered and cleaned so all the neighbours are getting fresh water, for free I might add. And the Scotch tastes pretty good.
Fred
Its pretty simple really, very very careful reading, knowing the area and spending time considering the options. IK is unsurpassed in his knowledge so for me to get close to him is pretty mind blowing. We have corresponded in the past on other issues but never discussed this one.

Julian,
Same thought about Zulu Rising, as I didn't understand the explanations given by Gary,  that's why I thanked Steve for his synthesis!
Amitié.
Fred

Frank,
Happy to learn that the drills (water) works!
About the new location of the RB, I know a part of your arguments (in reading Taylor's essay) but not yet IK's arguments.
Yesterday, on Facebook, Ian Knight wrote that he has changed of opinion about the location of the destruction of the RB but unfortunately he didn't give thoughts on this subject. It's a shame (frustrating). It would be interesting to know if your arguments are similar.
Fred

Frank,
Of course, I never thought you had "borrowed" the theory of Ian Knight!!!

A decent map from Stanley Evan's 1973.

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

It appears to show the RB behind Amatutshane (Conical Hill) on its lowest downward slope - not some distance up the escarpment where IK and Frank are now placing it and not in the traditional Notch either. What is the source for that I wonder?

Steve

Brilliant cartographer but its full of errors. As example, Raws path, Roberts path, no Zulu chasing Durnford.

Brilliant cartographer but its full of errors. As example, Raws path, Roberts path, no Zulu chasing Durnford.........

Ageed Frank/ Steve.. very dated, but very nice to have, it's privately published and goes through
the whole campaign. i was wondering why none of the ' old guard ' was aware of Stanley Evans's
work.

Hi Julian
I believe you'll always manage to find gainfull employment as a Politician if the need , or calling , ever arises .
Now after reading your very much detailed points , I will try to answer to the best of MY Ability , not Ian's , as you may've been alluding to ?. YES Julian he's referring to the notch ( small n ).. he does mention the notch ( small n ) in zulu rising , heading up the escarpment to the notch ( small n ) on the Skyline . The NOTCH ( Cap N ) isnt on the skyline , it begins at the base and works it's way up , you would've noticed this when you walked the area ( YES ? ) .
( YES ) It's close to Frank's area ( cant say exactly I'm sure you understand , it's not my place to disclose findings )

2 / It's impossible to have known how far the RB continued south once rounding Conical Hill.. before it was met by the Carbineers , who kindly offered to show Russell the short cut to the top of the ridge , as you would've noticed the Donga's kick in fairly quickly around the south side of conical hill ( YES ? ) . I'm not sure if as you said doubling back would've taken place or not ? . All that would be required would be a change of direction to the left , this is easier enough to do as you can tell once you're standing there ( YES ? ) . They had indeed started to proceed up the hill , not sure why you think or believe IK thought they hadn't , when he clearly states they had ! ( See the earlier paragraph , '' heading up the escarpment etc etc ) so I'm not sure why you've posted the Witness statements ? , they aren't the point ...are they ? . Yes to me it's a differing interpretation between the small notch and the Capital Notch .
Cheers
90th

90th
Sorry, didn't mean to nag. Politics? Me? Nah, that's for cissies. History's much more cut and thrust.
So why do you think in heaven's name does the small n notch not appear on IK's maps or is stated as being different from the capital n Notch in his text?  Is the readership supposed to guess these things?
IK is too good an historian and too meticulous for that. Sorry.  To my mind it just doesn't wash.
Anyway, it's none of it important in the great scheme of things and I am on to my next batch of fish to fry!

Les
Whats the possibility of you e mailing a copy of the Stanley Evans around a4 size. I will understand if you cant.

Hiya Frank, my pleasure, just give me bit to sort it,
you will have it in a couple of day's.