Sir Evelyn Wood & the Hlobane disaster

[Peter Ewart]

Aurelius3

The erudition is not mine (following on from your post about Wood in the Pope/2-24 thread) but that of the historians who have examined the primary sources as part of their researches and who have duly provided us with the benefit of their findings.

For many years Wood’s various published accounts of the battle (including in his own memoirs) appear to have been used as the basis for the works of several historians, but his offerings seem to be losing their sheen with each passing year! New ground was broken when the results of Huw M Jones’ research were published as Hlobane: A New Perspective, appearing in Natalia (No 27, 1997). It was published again as a lengthy section in Keith Smith’s Studies in the Anglo-Zulu War (2007, 2008), and Smith’s earlier work, Select Documents: A Zulu War Sourcebook (2006) carries some lengthy and fascinating primary documentation on Hlobane, including material written by participants in the battle and published for the first time.

Stephen Manning’s fairly recent biography of Wood – Pillar of Empire – obviously covers Hlobane but I’ve only flicked through a copy and attended a fairly general talk by the author, so don’t know how he treats the more recently published material. Prof Laband’s Kingdom in Crisis (1992) covers the battle briefly from the Zulu side but (for both sides) the most detailed and up-to-date account – and by far the best available today – is contained in Huw M Jones’ monumental work, The Boiling Cauldron (2006) in which the historical background to the battle, its protagonists, the engagement itself and its aftermath and consequences are all dealt with in superb detail. These days, it would seem that Wood’s place in the pantheon is not quite as assured as it once looked.

Peter

[Bill Berndt]

Peter:

Not owning a copy of The Boiling Cauldron, and not having read the Natalia article until now, I am impressed by the detail provided by Huw Jones and the amount of research needed to come up with that information.

Just another reason to be extremely wary of autobiographies such as "From Midshipman to Field Marshal", whether from the Zulu War or from current wars. it appears that Wood took extraordinary efforts to make sure that he got the most self aggrandizing articles in the press and even to complain about articles that failed to display those clauses where he placed the blame on someone else, especially Weatherly. He was successful in covering up his errors by adroit use of the media of his day.

Bill Berndt

[Maximus]

Feel free to correct me on any point that follows.

Wood is mentioned in the 'Missing Five Hours' assisting Edward Durnford in his investigation of the events at Isandlwana.

What is hinted at in this present topic is that his credibility is somewhat dubious at best.

Although he seems to have, according to info presented, 'used the media of his day', his assistance to Edward is apparently not given any coverage in his time, but behind-the-scenes, so how can this then be interpreted ?

It can't be that he was deflecting attention away from himself, considering this appears not to be common knowledge, but private correspondence between Edward and himself.

So, what else is at play ?

A guilty conscience about Hlobane ? - that when he witnesses someone being held to account for the disaster at Isandlwana, whom he suspects is innocent, then offers his help as some kind of redemption ?

As I say, correct me on anything posted here, as I'm tired and a tad tipsy.

Max

[Bill Berndt]

Maximus:

I'm afraid my reply to Peter referred only to Hlobane, and apologize if I am referring only to that in a thread that started with Isandhlwana. I can't answer to the genuineness, if you will, on anything Wood was involved with at Isandhlwana. However, even though his decisions during the disaster at Hlobane had an impact on the battle, any errors he made were effectively directed away from Wood by his own machinations. His emphasis in his reports on the success of Khambula and his downplaying of Hlobane the day before effectively reduced the impact of his decisions at Hlobane, in addition to casting the blame on a subordinate officer when he was well aware of his own involvement.

I think Wood did for Hlobane what Chelmsford did for Isandhlwana, deflect blame away from himself at the expense of another officer. Peter's point seems to be that Wood may not have been entirely objective in his reports or memoirs and that small point of caution should be understood when evaluating them.

Bill

[Peter Ewart]

Precisely, Bill. It would appear there were several contemporary observers (among the press of both S Africa and London, in the army and among the colonial community) who "smelt a rat" at the time, possibly many more than those who can be seen to have actually put pen to paper, either publicly or privately. The combining of the official accounts of the two engagements by Wood (and the deliberate vagueness over Hlobane) in such a way that he effectively masked from the public, for some weeks, the results of his blunder didn’t, therefore, go unnoticed in London or S Africa by some, who said so. However, Frere backed him because he needed the news of Khambula to swamp that of Hlobane, where losses were around 200 – nearly four times the number at Ntombe. After Khambula, the decisive battle of the war, Wood appears to have been untouchable, his success obviously contrasting – in the public eye - with Chelmsford’s fortunes. His and Buller’s hounding of Russell and the demolition of Weatherley’s reputation appear to have been accepted without question. Buller, at least, tried to accept the blame for the losses by admitting the vagueness of his instructions to Russell, but the WO (not Wood, as I mentioned earlier in the Pope/2-24 thread) blocked this confession. Despite his VC, Buller hardly comes out of this mess any better than Wood, both during and after the defeat. Wood’s & Buller’s treatment of Weatherley & Russell makes Chelmsford’s statements on Isandlwana & Durnford appear positively friendly. Unless new material surfaces in the way that the forgotten Dennison memoir was rediscovered by Huw Jones, it seems we shall never find out where Wood disappeared to for several hours that day, nor whether the claims in some quarters that he suffered a breakdown during the battle are accurate.

Max, Wood’s “involvement” in Edward Durnford’s campaign has always been known. Edward’s pamphlet of Nov 1880 – responding to Chelmsford’s speeches in the Lords and letters to The Times – mentions the doubts about the campsite’s viability: “...I have it from the lips of an officer who served in Zululand (and whose rank is little inferior to that of Lord Chelmsford) ...” clearly pointed to Wood, who had just returned from Zululand for the second time, including his bivouac at Isandlwana with the Empress. Edward also alluded then to the Anstey & Penrose maps. However, I can still see little evidence that anything Wood said about Isandlwana (including any annotations on maps) should carry any particular weight, nor that Wood ever particularly involved himself in Edward’s campaign, other than responding to Edward’s pestering in such a way that ensured plenty of stick continued to come Lord C’s way without necessarily sticking his own neck out.
Peter

[Maximus]

Edward's pestering ? - I'm not sure that was the case, unless you have Wood's letters/diary saying this.

It was Wood himself that eulogised Durnford and his men in 1881/82, in a very touching account.

I'll have to find it, but this appeared to be heartfelt, rather than being demanded of him.

Remember, Wolseley also suspected something was wrong, mentioning what happened to Durnford in his diary, after witnessing what was happening to Carey after the Prince Imperial's death.

I'll also need to find this comment.

Max

[Maximus]

Zulu Victory. by Peter Quantrill and Ron Lock, page 218.

Wood's eulogy -

' Imagine a gentle slope up which is storming a resistless, surging wave of encircling black bodies, which, though constantly smitten by leaden hail, braced but to sweep on again with renewed force...then there comes on the scene a one-armed man, who, having slowly fallen back before the ever-increasing foe, is now determined to die. " Save yourself, as for me I shall remain." Thus dismissing the staff officer, and Hlubi's black soldiers who vainly urged the great chief to retreat with them. Recognising his commanding courage, around him gathered some twenty similar spirits, who, nobly disdaining death, resolved to cover the retreat of the guns, or die with them.'

Max

[Peter Ewart]

Max

Yes, I'm familiar with the speech and the occasion, which was reported in the local press at the time. He praised Durnford's personal courage - no more, no less. On this point, few - if any - would have disagreed. Durnford did not lack personal courage. Wood offered no opinion as to Durnford's culpability as far as the Isandlwana debacle was concerned. He was in absolutely no position to do so, having had no involvement himself whatsoever. His colourful language on that occasion was based on information cobbled together from the post-battle statements from Durnford's men. Although some of these were direct eye witnesses, Wood's language almost intimated that Durnford's action at that time bordered on the heroic, which of course it didn't. We would not point to Wood's speech if we wanted to form an idea of Durnford's last moments - something which has sometimes been construed into some sort of "last stand." So I see little evidence of involvement by Wood in Edward's camapaign.

If you don't mind, I'd rather not stray into Isandlwana territory in a thread which I began on Hlobane specifically not to encroach on a long-standing and interesting Isandlana thread.

Peter

[Jonathan]

If you don't mind, I'd rather not stray into Isandlwana territory in a thread which I began on Hlobane specifically not to encroach on a long-standing and interesting Isandlana thread.

I agree, Peter.