'military' KUKRI for comment

[spiral]

From the above linked thread.

Originally Posted by David

Well, i'm shutting down this thread until one of the other mods for this forum can sort out this childish behavior. Really gents...we can do better than this...

I agree David, Sadley I felt I have to defend myself against such malicios allegations though. After all this has been going on here & other forums ever since I left Simons personal forum several years ago.

Thank you for your time.

Jonathan AKA spiral

[sirupate]

My (Spiral) quote from. Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords "The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply." is tottaly accurate. the comment in quotes seemed relevant as that is part of thier history. I could have just as easily mentioned thier gallentry in ww2 or any other period.

The quote is accurate Jonathan, but not in the way it was linked to WW1; the original quote by you clearly associates that statement with WW1;

THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE Spiral; 21st June 2010, 02:28 PM post 30 But just to add to Simons confusion. I always liked this bit published in 1952 in Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords Official history of the originaly Assam based 8th Gurkha Rifles. {I Think one battalion went to NWF about 1914 the other to France.} "The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply."

This I believe was very misleading.

Spiral;Such as the Document you quote to Ochterlony HQ, which deals with the Nusseree & Sirmoor battalions, neither of whom where regarded as Assam based Regiments, That Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords documentation was about!

Absolutely correct Jonathan, however you failed to supply the fact that it only applied until 1881, and in 1880 they were not Gurkha at that point, they were mainly Sikh, Hindustani, Assamese etc, hardly Gurkha! so the quote has no meaning in the context to the argument about Gurkhas.
Indeed right before the contents section of the book, it tells you they were not considered Goorkha until 1886, by the titles of the regiments supplied, so why use a quote that had in effect no relevance to Gurkhas?
Also it was not until 1893 that the Bengal Army by standing order had to become class structured regiments.

Spiral; we then come to your latest misleading & false critiscim of myself. Originally Posted by sirupate Spiral 9th January 2012, 11:46 AM post 12 Generaly I ignore Simon Hengle of Tora Replica kukri supplies, as life is to short to waste on such things ,but a request for documentry evidence I do view as legitamate on this occasion. A legitamate request... quite a reliable source realy. The Official Regimental history of the 8th Gurkha Rifles. By Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxford. Published in 1952 , Hengle has then very carefully edited my full quote to make my statement appear missleading! As if I only Mentiond Huxford as the source not himself.

Jonathan this is my original quote, you used me as a secondary source only;

Spiral 'military' KUKRI for comment;
Spiral; 7th January 2012, 01:06 AM post 6
Despite Simons statement ,Some battalions still made or bought thier own kukri during ww2 due to supply difficulities during ww2 with the main pattern kukri.This is well documented.
Sirupate; 7th January 2012, 12:39 PM post 9
Proof of documentation please Jonathan. Spiral 9th January 2012, 11:46 AM post 12
Generaly I ignore Simon Hengle of Tora Replica kukri supplies, as life is to short to waste on such things ,but a request for documentry evidence I do view as legitamate on this occasion. A legitamate request... quite a reliable source realy. The Official Regimental history of the 8th Gurkha Rifles. By Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxford. Published in 1952 ,

This quote of yours is a complete misquote of Huxford;

Despite Simons statement ,Some battalions still made or bought thier own kukri during ww2 due to supply difficulities during ww2 with the main pattern kukri.This is well documented

Huxford actually says that the Regimental Centre took over production of kukri, not the battalion, nor did he say that the battalion purchase kukri, THE REGIMENTAL CENTRE AT QUETTA MANUFACTURED THEIR KUKRI!!

Spiral; I would like to state to all, My statements & quotes were fully correct & not misleading. This can all be veryfied on the original threads, if anyone moderators or forumites is bothered enough to.

The above quotations and corrections by me, clearly show that to be wholly incorrect Jonathan.

You also took no notice of this quote Jonathan, which would have applied to all units considered or with the title Goorkha/Gurkha from this point on;
GENERAL ORDERS BY THE HONOURABLE THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Fort William, 2nd May 1823.
these corps (The Nasiri & Sirmoor) are clothed, armed, equipt and supplied with Ammunition at the expense of the State....etc.

Now I respectfully request that you answer why you used these;
1. quote from Huxford; "The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply." in a quote about WW1, when it only applied to non Gurkha/Goorkha regiments pre 1881?

2. supposed and incorrect quote from Huxford; "Some battalions still made or bought thier own kukri during ww2 due to supply difficulities during ww2 with the main pattern kukri.This is well documented"

A straight forward reply would be much appreciated, cheers Simon

[thinreadline]

I am not really sure what this argument is all about and to be honest it is WAY too esoteric for me . I simply posted my kukri on here to see what members thought about it , particularly whether it could be described as a WW2 military example .
It certainly was not my intention to showcase a 'war' between two members .. especially as their issues with one another have nothing to do with my enquiry.
Could you two guys not just take your battle elsewhere please ?

[spiral]

Originally Posted by thinreadline

I am not really sure what this argument is all about and to be honest it is WAY too esoteric for me . I simply posted my kukri on here to see what members thought about it , particularly whether it could be described as a WW2 military example .
It certainly was not my intention to showcase a 'war' between two members .. especially as their issues with one another have nothing to do with my enquiry.
Could you two guys not just take your battle elsewhere please ?

Apologies to you.

Ive tried to avdoid Simon but I cant ignore such an attack on myself.

So I am merley defending myself against long term harresment & attempts at cyber intimidation.

As for Simons latest post, its virtualy the same as his one besmirching myself & fully answeard on the locked link.

I want nothing to do with simon, as I said early in this thread , life is to short to waiste on such things.

spiral

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by spiral

Apologies to you.

Ive tried to avdoid Simon but I cant ignore such an attack on myself.

So I am merley defending myself against long term harresment & attempts at cyber intimidation.

As for Simons latest post, its virtualy the same as his one besmirching myself & fully answeard on the locked link.

I want nothing to do with simon, as I said early in this thread , life is to short to waiste on such things.

spiral

I appreciate your apology and do understand the need to justify oneself , but sometimes its better just to ignore such things . Clearly there is some 'history' between you two !
I see what you mean re the continuation of the argument from the locked link on to my thread .

[spiral]

Originally Posted by thinreadline

I appreciate your apology and do understand the need to justify oneself , but sometimes its better just to ignore such things . Clearly there is some 'history' between you two !
I see what you mean re the continuation of the argument from the locked link on to my thread .

Thank you Richmond.

I am sure your correct.

spiral

ps. Indeed Gav!

[sirupate]

Hello Thinredline,

I had originally, but I'm afraid Spiral brought it back on here on post 25, and all I ask is that Spiral answers the questions raised in the original new thread, that I did a link to.

However he misquote here on post 6;

Despite Simons statement ,Some battalions still made or bought thier own kukri during ww2 due to supply difficulities during ww2 with the main pattern kukri.This is well documented.

I then asked for proof of documentation on post 9, to which his reply was on post 12, And he said his reference was;

Spiral;A legitamate request... quite a reliable source realy. The Official Regimental history of the 8th Gurkha Rifles. By Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxford. Published in 1952 ,

a totally inaccurate quote from Huxford's book.
The actual quote is this, no mention of buying privately or making their own at battalion level;
Huxford "“As Government kukri were unobtainable, the Centre (Regimental Centre at Quetta) developed its own kukri industry. A large number of kukri manufacturers and other skilled artisans were imported, and within a few months it was possible to equip all drafts with weapons of the finest design and make. Considering that only available material was scrap, such as springs from derelict motor cars and odds and ends of old metal parts, and that the workshops were covered huts with no facilities for manufacturer, these craftsmen put up a fine effort which astonished visitors.”

On the same post, He also used a post of mine from another forum which done about four years ago, which was only an opinion, and not documentary proof!!

It would therefore be courteous of him to explain his misquote, cheers Simon

[Atlantia]

Simon,

Disagreements are part of this type of research, we all have them. It's unfortunate when they overwhelm a thread and I think we can all understand why Richmond feels caught in the middle.
Clearly Jonathan realises that and to his credit has appologised to Ricmond.
You should do the same.

When you decided to take this to a separate thread you could (and should) have handled it very differently.
If you wanted to just scan some pages from this 'fabled book', highlight some quotes and draw conclusions that would have been fine and we could have all discussed the evidence as shown. But you continued the personal nature of the disagreement with Jonathan right from the start and to be frank you undermine the credibility or your position when you imply that Berkley's disagreeing with your interptretation was in some way indicative of personal bias and reflected on www.ikrhs.com 'The International Kukri Research and Historical Society' or Jonathan's position as a senior researcher within it.

IKRHS is a 'Mecca' for serious Kukri collectors and whatever points of symantics etc that you may disagree with them about, Berkley and Jonathan's honour and dedication to the serious study of the subject is completely beyond reproach or question.
It was clear to me (in the other thread) that when that sort of fuel was being added to the flame the thread was only going to end one way and I completely agree with Ricks warning and Davids decision to lock it.

As a novice Kukri collector and Brit' I have some experience of Kukri so have my own opinion based on my experience, but as Richmond rightly says, the minutiae of this question rapidly becomes to esoteric for me, so I'd suggest that you correlate your evidence and present it calmly and imperonally on IKRHS where it can be discussed by those whose speciality is Kukri and those who used them.

I'll even happily join in and add my thoughts there, not here. Lets take this out of the oven now and leave it to cool before it gets any more burnt

Best
Gene

[thinreadline]

This is all too complex for me , and really is none of my business . You two need to settle your differences and that way perhaps we can all benefit from the knowledge you both clearly possess in abundance,
Richmond

Originally Posted by sirupate

Hello Thinredline,

I had originally, but I'm afraid Spiral brought it back on here on post 25, and all I ask is that Spiral answers the questions raised in the original new thread, that I did a link to.

However he misquote here on post 6;


I then asked for proof of documentation on post 9, to which his reply was on post 12, And he said his reference was;
a totally inaccurate quote from Huxford's book.
The actual quote is this, no mention of buying privately or making their own at battalion level;
Huxford "“As Government kukri were unobtainable, the Centre (Regimental Centre at Quetta) developed its own kukri industry. A large number of kukri manufacturers and other skilled artisans were imported, and within a few months it was possible to equip all drafts with weapons of the finest design and make. Considering that only available material was scrap, such as springs from derelict motor cars and odds and ends of old metal parts, and that the workshops were covered huts with no facilities for manufacturer, these craftsmen put up a fine effort which astonished visitors.”

On the same post, He also used a post of mine from another forum which done about four years ago, which was only an opinion, and not documentary proof!!

It would therefore be courteous of him to explain his misquote, cheers Simon

[sirupate]

Atlantia,

But you continued the personal nature of the disagreement with Jonathan right from the start

Exactly where at the beginning was it personnel? I asked Spiral in Person because it was his quote, which was used out of context to prove a point, ie something that applied to non Gurkha units up to 1881, when he clearly quotes it as linked to Gurkhas in WW1!

Also on several occasions before I started the new thread Atlantia, I gave Spiral the option to scan and post from Huxford's book on POST 13;

ME; A very rare book, which seems to be your main source, as you have posted scanned pictures of the text you refer to in other books in the past, could you do the same again Jonathan?

As for Berkley it was in my view biased, hence I edited the post and put in his details and connection to Spiral on IKRHS, if it was not biased why did he not question Spiral about his misleading quotes, and infact one complete misquote?

A forum can only be the Mecca of something, if the information given as fact is correct! Of course a view at one time, may not be a view in the future, more than acceptable.

As for me making an apology to Thinredline, that is between myself and him, cheers Simon

PS if you want to start another independent thread that is fine by me.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by sirupate

Atlantia,
Exactly where at the beginning was it personnel? I asked Spiral in Person because it was his quote, which was used out of context to prove a point, ie something that applied to non Gurkha units up to 1881, when he clearly quotes it as linked to Gurkhas in WW1!

Also on several occasions before I started the new thread Atlantia, I gave Spiral the option to scan and post from Huxford's book on POST 13;


As for Berkley it was in my view biased, hence I edited the post and put in his details and connection to Spiral on IKRHS, if it was not biased why did he not question Spiral about his misleading quotes, and infact one complete misquote?

A forum can only be the Mecca of something, if the information given as fact is correct! Of course a view at one time, may not be a view in the future, more than acceptable.

As for me making an apology to Thinredline, that is between myself and him, cheers Simon

PS if you want to start another independent thread that is fine by me.

Hi Simon,

I think you are missing the point somewhat, that's a shame.
Your personal probelms with Jonathan seem now (from your above comments) to extend to Berkley and 'The International Kukri Research and Historical Society'. I would have to disagree with your opinion and add that my experience of both gentlemen are of people who'se views and research is of an ever expanding and evolving nature and not that of a fixed perspective.
As I said, if you were to present your theories in a separate thread in the appropriate place, with your supporting evidence, in a calm and impersonal way, then I'll happily join in.
Failing that I have nothing more to add beyond what I've already said apart from giving you permission to call me Gene We're all friends here.


Best
Gene

P.S. that's a final word from me here, so don't worry if you reply and I seem to ignore it. I think poor Richmonds thread has suffered enough.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by thinreadline

I am not really sure what this argument is all about and to be honest it is WAY too esoteric for me . I simply posted my kukri on here to see what members thought about it , particularly whether it could be described as a WW2 military example .
It certainly was not my intention to showcase a 'war' between two members .. especially as their issues with one another have nothing to do with my enquiry.
Could you two guys not just take your battle elsewhere please ?

Hooray!!

[sirupate]

I agree freebooter, but Spiral did misquote on post 6 of this thread, and has still failed to give an explanation?

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by sirupate

I agree freebooter, but Spiral did misquote on post 6 of this thread, and has still failed to give an explanation?

Oh give it a rest...

My 2 cents about the whole subject has been expressed before and without quotes from books or generals or otherwise and that is I think it is folly to consider that no Gurkha at any time in any place in any conflict never carried a kukri other than the issued...it can never be proved one way or the other...I think it is safer to say the VAST majority towed the line and there could have been others who didn't for one reason or another....there is no absolute perfection where humans are concerned, no matter how noble ....this old chestnut has been flogged to death....

[sirupate]

I am talking about a misquote and a misleading quote Freebooter.
You are of course entitled to your opinion about Gurkha Rifleman potentially carrying their own kukri pre-1947, but that is not what the argument is about, all Spiral has to do, is answer why he misquoted! a fair and reasonable request.