Crealock's notebook.

Martin. In the order issued on the 19th, what is Chelmsford asking Durnford to do.

LH.

Read my post yesterday at 19.29 pm, this explains all mate.

As normal you are evading the question. All I'm asking is what part of the order is directed at Durnford with regards to his movements.

Ok your post at the time you stated.

The highlighted is the issued in question.the rest is you telling us how you see it.

Concentrating on just the offical order only. What is it telling Durnford to do regarding his movements. What doe's Chelmsford want him to do.

Chelmsford's plans against the Matyanas was to use Durnford and Bengough in a pincer movement whilst he was the centre. It was hoped that Durnford and Bengough would flush out the zulus and drive them towards Chelmsford, then Durnford and Bengough would attack them from both flanks whilst Chelmsford would hit them from the front and between them they would either destroy them or force them to surrender.

Chelmsford's order to Durnford on the 19th is below.

1. You are requested to move the troops under your immediate command viz: mounted men, rocket battery and Sikeli's men to Rorke's Drify tomorrow on the 20th inst.; and to encamp on the left bank of the Buffalo (in zululand).
2. No 3 column moves tomorrow to the Isandhlana (sic) hill.
3. Major Bengough with his battalion native contingent at Sand Spruit is to hold himself in readiness to cross the Buffalo at the shortest possible notice to operate against the chief Matyana & c. His wagons will cross at Rourke's (sic) Drift.
4. Information is requested as to the ford where the above Battalion can best cross, so as to co-operate with No 3 column in clearing the country occupied by the chief Matyana.

So as you can see, Durnford was clearly ordered to co-operate with No 3 column by clearing the country occupied by the chief Matyana.

The order of the 22nd then tells him to move up to the camp with all the force he has with him of No 2 column, whilst Bengough's battalion is to move to Rorke's Drift. It also tells him that the General and Glyn are moving off to attack a zulu force about 10 miles distant, and that if Bengough's battalion has crossed the river at Eland's Kraal it is to move up here (Nangwane Valley).

Now do you understand?

He wasn't moved up to the camp to take command, reinforce, assist, or to help Pulleine, he was there to form one arm of a pincer movement with Bengough.

CTSG, You forgot to mention that when Durnford arrived at the camp Pulleine told Durnford that he was sorry that he had come to the camp, as with him being senior officer he would take over command, however, Durnford told Pulleine that he would not interfere with Pulleine's command of the camp, and that he was not staying there.

The reason why he was not staying there was because he had orders to co-operate with No 3 column and assist Chelmsford in clearing the country occupied by the Matyanas.

The officer in charge of the camp in the absence of Glyn was Pulleine, not Durnford.

Pulleine set out his defence of the camp according to Chelmsford's plans not Durnford's.

It's no good trying to blame Durnford for the mistakes that others made, read the evidence, and sort out the facts from the fiction, spot the lies and deception that others conspired to plant the blame onto Durnford, it is all there if you look for it.

LH.

I am not evading it at all.

You ask "what part of the order is directed at Durnford with regard to his movements".

I would say that all of it is directed at Durnford, saying that he was in command of No 2 column.

This is it.

Quote :

You are requested to move the troops under your immediate command viz: mounted men, rocket battery and Sikeli's men to Rorke's Drify tomorrow on the 20th inst.; and to encamp on the left bank of the Buffalo (in zululand).

Major Bengough was ordered by Chelmsford to go to Sand Spruit. A different location. And with his own battalion.

And if any other member agree's with you it's for argument sake only. And we will not be able to move on.

LH. There's enough of us singing from the same hyme sheet, we can move this along. As far as i'm concerned the 19th order, issue has been put away.

Quote :

You are requested to move the troops under your immediate command

Major Bengough appears not to have been under immediate command.

If we look at the order Durnford received on the 22nd Jan.

1)“You are to march to this Camp at once with all the force you have with you of No. 2 Column.

2) Major Bengough’s battalion is to move to Rorke’s Drift as ordered yesterday.

3) 2/24, artillery & mounted men with the General & Colonel Glyn move off at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distant.
J.N.C.
If Bengough’s battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Nangwana Valley).”

Again showing Durnford and Bengough in different locations.

And the Final part, Shows just Bengough's Battalion being moved to Nangwana Valley. Not Durnford!!

Originally posted by 90th

Cochrane"s account of Isandlwana from London Gazette
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Martin can't find the bit you mention.

Cochrane left many accountants, thats probebly a diffrent one to the one martin refers to.

Thanks for that usefull information DB This is the one martins link led too. Perhaps you could help indentify the piece inquestion.

The particular Cochrane account Martin is referring to is his written report (WO32/7726/079/1472) of 8th February

1879

I quote:

"Having made all the necessary arrangements for his Column Col. Durnford took over

the command from Colonel Pulleine 1/24th Regt. ......"

Came across this account.

"There were no high words," Lieutenant Cochrane says, of any kind between the colonels, as some would lead the public to suppose. The above remarks are taken from Lieutenant Cochrane's account of what passed ; and he says : " I think no one lives who was present during the conversation but myself ; so that anything said contradictory to my statement is invented."

But where he say's.
" I think no one lives who was present during the conversation but myself ; so that anything said contradictory to my statement is invented."

I thought Martin had used this in the context, where Cochrane states he heard Durnford say, he wouldn't interfere with Pulleines command.

Don't have a lot of time to spare, got a Royal British Legion meeting to attend at 19.00.

So LH, please go to the 'Durnford was he capable' topicThursday November 15th and on page 13 you will find a conversation that Julian and I had regarding Durnford and Bengough's 'pincer movement', you will see what Julian has to say about it.

The Cochrane account that I have can be found if you google in 'The Cochrane account of iSandlwana'. It is dated 8th Feb 1879.

Sorry for the short reply lads, but I have to be on my way soon, and time is ticking on.

Ulundi. Martin did say "" I think no one lives who was present during the conversation but myself ; so that anything said contradictory to my statement is invented."
wasn't the same has the one he found. The one you have posted comes from Colenso,

Julian wrote.

Quote :

Martin

To answer your question about Shepstone, he was sent over to Chelmsford by Durnford on the morning of the 21st and arrived mid-morning (after 9 and before lunch). He informed Chelmsford that Durnford's column was still at Umsinga and requested fresh orders. Chelmsford sent him back to Durnford with instructions to hurry on to RD as quickly as possible (and that Bengough was not to cross at the Gates of Natal but to join Durnford at RD) but with no fresh orders. This does of course mean that through Shepstone Durnford would have been aware of Dartnell's move to the Mangeni and that the 'pincer movement' had begun.
Pieces of a jigsaw dropping into place one by one according to the picture on the top of the box...or so it must have seemed

.

So this is how you have become obsessed with the orders on the 19th Jan. Not sure how this alters anything, we are back to this fresh order issue. Durnford requested fresh orders via Shepstone, or though not written, he did received verble instructions to move to RD. Possibly on the 21st it was the game plan, but it changed on the 22nd with fresh orders arriving, ordering him to the camp.


Where Julian says "This does of course mean that through Shepstone Durnford would have been aware of Dartnell's move to the Mangeni and that the 'pincer movement' had begun.
Pieces of a jigsaw dropping into place one by one according to the picture on the top of the box...or so it must have seemed" this is Julians possible conclusion to what Durnford may have been thinking.

There was a lot of orders floating about between the 19th & 22nd.

"On 19th, Durnford received further orders to relocate the force under his immediate command to the Zulu bank of Rorke's Drift. On the 20th Number 3 Column reached Isandlwana.

On 21st, Lord Chelmsford sent out a two-pronged reconnaissance to ascertain the whereabouts of any Zulu forces. Elements of the reconnaissance came into contact with Zulu forces late in the afternoon. Messages were passed back to Chelmsford at Isandlwana requesting reinforcements.

In the early hours of the morning of Wednesday, 22nd January, 1879, Chelmsford made the decision to divide Number 3 Column, leaving one half at Isandlwana, whilst marching out with the other to meet the Zulu threat. It's here the situation changed, and with that, the orders too.

At 3 a.m., Lieutenant Horace Lockwood Smith-Dorrien, of the 95th (Derbyshire) Regiment of Foot, a special service officer detailed to transport duties, was ordered to return to Rorke's Drift. He carried orders for Durnford, instructing him to the camp at Isandlwana with the forces at his disposal.

Durnford received the orders at about 7 a.m. Durnford moved on towards Isandlwana with his mounted troops, having given orders for his infantrymen to follow on"

I wonder if they realised, when they were issuing these orders, they would be the cause of many arguments a 133 years later!

Probably not Dave!

Again, the fact that the orders ARE still debated 133 years later is telling.
It tells us that the original orders were vague and imprecise as members acknowledged to be true yesterday.
And the responsibility for that lies squarely with Chelmsford.

Let's face it, if we still can't be sure exactly what D was supposed to be doing and not doing after 133 years of thinking about it, what chance did D have at the time?

Quote :

Let's face it, if we still can't be sure exactly what D was supposed to be doing and not doing after 133 years of thinking about it, what chance did D have at the time?

I think some of us are clear.

Durnford was ordered to Isandlwana. Which he did.
Durnford was expected to take command. Which he did.

Durnford then leaves ?
Durnford takes the fight to the Zulu. Which he did.
Durnford returns to the camp chased by Zulus. Which he did.
Durnford sends messages to Pulleine for support which he did.

The rest is History.

Dave wrote:

Quote :

Let's face it, if we still can't be sure exactly what D was supposed to be doing and not doing after 133 years of thinking about it, what chance did D have at the time?

I think some of us are clear.

Durnford was ordered to Isandlwana. Which he did.
Durnford was expected to take command. Which he did.

Durnford then leaves ?
Durnford takes the fight to the Zulu. Which he did.
Durnford returns to the camp chased by Zulus. Which he did.
Durnford sends messages to Pulleine for support which he did.

The rest is History.

Couldn't have done any more could he?
Durnford, RIP. You were a true hero that day:Salute:

Quote :

Couldn't have done any more could he?
Durnford, RIP. You were a true hero that day:Salute:

All those that stayed were hero's, but the questions remains could their deaths have been averted.

If some one comes up with an offical chain of command structure from that period, which indicates that Pulleines orders were binding to Durnford when he took over command. Well that's another story.

And did he have the right relinquise his command back to Pulleine. Once he had taken over.

Quote :

an offical chain of command structure from that period,

Not proving easy to find, but it's got to be out there. Is anyone able to contact Mike Snook. He is still a serving officer in the armed forces. Surly he would know. Especially with his interest in the Battle of Isandlwana!

Impi.
Durnford wasnt in command of the camp once he'd left it . Dont forget Durnford said to Pulleine before he left that he ( Durnford ) wasnt going to interfere because he was leaving !. Also once Durnford Left command reverted back to Pulleine .
90th.

90th do you know this for sure, and how.

Quote :

Durnford wasnt in command of the camp once he'd left it

Impi asked this question?

Quote :

did he have the right relinquise his command back to Pulleine. Once he had taken over.

90th

Quote :

Dont forget Durnford said to Pulleine before he left that he ( Durnford ) wasnt going to interfere because he was leaving

This has been discussed earlier. Why was it not used at the court of enquiry.

The court of enquiry was a farce ! Of over 87 white survivors and over 100 natives only 5 survivors evidece was
recorded.

5 out of over 200.





Cheers

DB Thanks, but that doesn't take us away from the questions. That's been asked today.

Have you looked at the order issued on the 19th to Durnford. What does that order tell you,

More to the point. What is it telling Durnford to do.

It's there for all to see. We should by now be accepting primary source evidence. Not trying to make it fit in with our personal views. There's no mistakes, or what if's in that order.

Quote :

Mr Greaves
Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:51 pm  
It's there for all to see. We should by now be accepting primary source evidence. Not trying to make it fit in with our personal views. There's no mistakes, or what if's in that order.

Totally agree!

Ray63. DB will have to seek guildence before answering your simple question

Ray .
Because of the same way Durnford was to take command when he arrived at the camp he was the highest ranking officer . when he left he was no longer in command , it reverted back to Pulleine ( as he was then the highest ranking officer ) . Please dont ask why , If this isnt good enough for you I suggest you read some literature on the battle , It isnt rocket science ! .
Cheers 90th.

Hi Ray.
Surely you are able to see that the enquiry was a farce , how many survivors ! , how many interviewed ! . There is a large disparity between the numbers who were interviewed and those who werent , what does that tell you , or more to the point what do you personally make of that ? . Search online for the transcripts If you havent any books , you will no doubt come across them , or possibly one of the forum members can steer you in the right direction .
90th.

Ray63 wrote:

DB Thanks, but that doesn't take us away from the questions. That's been asked today.

Have you looked at the order issued on the 19th to Durnford. What does that order tell you,

More to the point. What is it telling Durnford to do.

Even more to the point, what do YOU think it means?

You appear to know what it means, and also what it's telling Durnford, so why don't you share your wisdom and explain it to us?

Martin, as we know you don't read the comments, correctly. Like the orders. So let me see if i can help you out. See below!!

Quote :

Subject: Re: Crealock's notebook.   Yesterday at 2:26 pm
Chelmsford's order to Durnford on the 19th is below.

1. You are requested to move the troops under your immediate command viz: mounted men, rocket battery and Sikeli's men to Rorke's Drift tomorrow on the 20th inst.; and to encamp on the left bank of the Buffalo (in zululand).

2. No 3 column moves tomorrow to the Isandhlana (sic) hill.

3. Major Bengough with his battalion native contingent at Sand Spruit is to hold himself in readiness to cross the Buffalo at the shortest possible notice to operate against the chief Matyana & c. His wagons will cross at Rourke's (sic) Drift.

4. Information is requested as to the ford where the above Battalion can best cross, so as to co-operate with No 3 column in clearing the country occupied by the chief Matyana

There is nothing in that order to indicate, (as Bengough’s orders do) that Durnford was required to co-operate with No 3 column against the Matyana's. He was to remain on the left bank of the Buffalo!!!

Ray .
Because of the same way Durnford was to take command when he arrived at the camp he was the highest ranking officer . when he left he was no longer in command , it reverted back to Pulleine ( as he was then the highest ranking officer ) .

Quote :

Please dont ask why , If this isnt good enough for you I suggest you read some literature on the battle , It isnt rocket science ! .

Cheers 90th.

90th in all the posts you have ever Posted, this as to your biggest cop-out.

Quote :

It isnt rocket science

Then link us to the source that shows his. Or is this the mighty 90th say that's how it was because it fits in with my theory.

Quote :

Hi Ray.
Surely you are able to see that the enquiry was a farce , how many survivors ! , how many interviewed ! . There is a large disparity between the numbers who were interviewed and those who werent , what does that tell you , or more to the point what do you personally make of that ? . Search online for the transcripts If you havent any books , you will no doubt come across them , or possibly one of the forum members can steer you in the right direction .
90th.

Personal observation, not based on facts!!

From The Good Lord Chelmsford.

"

Quote :

War Office, March 15,1879.
   THE following Despatch has been received by the Secretary of State for War from Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford, K.C.B., Commanding the Forces in South Africa:—

From the Lieutenant-General Commanding in South Africa to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for War.
Durban, Natal, February 8, 1879.
SIR,
   I HAVE the honour to forward herewith the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry held to take evidence regarding the disastrous affair of Isandlwana.
The Court has very properly abstained from giving an opinion, and I myself refrain also from making any observation or from drawing any conclusions from the evidence therein recorded.
   I regret very much that more evidence has not been taken, and I have given instructions that all those who escaped, and who are able to throw any light whatever upon the occurrences of the day, should be at once called upon for a statement of what they saw.
   I deem it better, however, not to delay the transmission of the proceedings, which will no doubt be awaited with anxiety.
   I have directed my Military Secretary, Lieutenant-Colonel Crealock, to append a statement of the facts which came under his cognisance on the day in question, which may possibly serve to throw some additional light on what, I fear, will still be considered very obscure.
   It will, I fear, be impossible to furnish an absolutely correct list of all those who perished on the 22nd January, as every record connected
with the several corps belonging to No. 3 Column has been lost.
   Colonel Glyn is doing his best to furnish what is required.
   Since writing the above the printed list of killed and wounded has reached me, several copies of which I beg to enclose.
I have, &c., (Signed) CHELMSFORD, Lieutenant-General."

who were the officers in charge of the vaiours Native & Colonial units at Isandlwana.

CTSG .
.In reply to your post of 7.01 pm .
Hardly a cop out my learned friend , merely a case of '' Feel free to look it up yourself '' .
Cheers 90th.

CTSG .
I forgot to add the following to your 7.01 pm post as I was laughing so much ........
I said earlier , Dont ask me why , but seeing as you have decided to ask , I'll attempt to put it in as simpler terms as possible !.
All , and I mean all those who are the serious players in the academical / Historical world of the zulu war , all state or have stated in their publications that Durnford took command of the camp when he arrived due to the fact he outranked Pulleine , are you keeping up so far ? . When Durnford left the camp the role of the commanding officer reverted back to Pulleine . What you want or wish to see is the '' Primary Evidence '' of this being fact , well I cant help you ! , you may need to speak to someone who has done research on the chain of command ! . If this wasnt the case I'm sure many historians would've ridiculed these comments somewhere in the modern day works , so to me , it's simply fact that this is how it happened , until you , or someone else can refute it , the evidence stands as it is ! . With me keeping my theory as I tend to believe what happened .
90th

Ctsg .
Unfortunately the Lol emoticon has disappeared . Your post of 7.05 says it all ! . Please read L.C's Letter again slowly .
From '' Sir '' , please read line 3 through to 8 and please explain to me as I am an Australian maybe I'm missing something here ! . Show me how LC'S letter isnt the biggest cop out of all time ? . '' Court abstaining , myself refraining , please . Didnt he put Harness on the panel of the inquiry ? , funny , as that basically gagged him from having any say in what happened to the camp ! , even more funnier wasnt he ( Harness ) on his way to camp before he was ordered by Clery to turn back as instructed by LC ? . Happy to be corrected .

Ctsg .
Also in reply to your post of 7.05 pm.
'' I wrote how many survivors , how many interviewed a rather large disparity etc etc etc ''

You reply '' Personal observation , not based on facts ''
Well I certainly think it's a fact as the sources confirm there were only a small number interviewed .

Ray
There is no need to contact Mike Snook. Yes, I am (we are) sure I (we) know about the command structure. It was as has been stated.
DB et al
The CoI heard evidence from a good many more survivors than 5. It is simply that only 5 statements were published as part of the report. The others were felt to add nothing to the Inquiry re the loss of the camp but were included with the report as supplementary evidence but never published as part of it. Over time these have simply vanished or more likely were destroyed subsequently en masse as being of no import.
Many of these would have been from simple waggon drivers, privates and troopers but one wonders what else might have been lost as a result.

Julian
Agreed . Who knows what went out with the bath water ! .
90th

90th

Quote :

When Durnford left the camp the role of the commanding officer reverted back to Pulleine . What you want or wish to see is the '' Primary Evidence '' of this being fact , well I cant help you ! , you may need to speak to someone who has done research on the chain of command

90th This is what we are trying to establish. Was he expected to take command. We think yes!. Did Chelmsford expect him to take command. Crealock, seems to think so. So what was the regulations in 1879?

Could Durnford hand the command back to Pulleine. The order issued on the 19th would have been the only excuse Durnford had to leave the camp. But it has since been shown. On the 19th he was order to RD end of, until he received fresh orders to move to Isandlwana.

Julian

Quote :

There is no need to contact Mike Snook.

So are you saying that Durnford had the right to take command, and hand it back when he felt like it.

Ulundi

90th This is what we are trying to establish. Was he expected to take command. We think yes!. Did Chelmsford expect him to take command. Crealock, seems to think so. So what was the regulations in 1879?

ANY SENIOR OFFICER ARRIVING AT THE CAMP WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE BEEN HANDED COMMAND. THERE IS NOTHING TO ESTABLISH. IT WAS STANDARD MILITARY PROCEDURE.

Could Durnford hand the command back to Pulleine.

YES, ONCE HE LEFT AND ESPECIALLY SO SINCE ON ARRIVAL HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT BE STAYING.

The order issued on the 19th would have been the only excuse Durnford had to leave the camp. But it has since been shown. On the 19th he was order to RD end of, until he received fresh orders to move to Isandlwana.

THE ORDERS OF THE 22ND ASKED HIM TO MOVE FORWARD WHICH HE DID.


So are you saying that Durnford had the right to take command, and hand it back when he felt like it.

YES, DURNFORD HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE COMMAND - PULLEINE WOULD NOT HAVE QUERIED THIS - IT WAS EXPECTED BY HIM, THE NORM. HE COULD HAND BACK COMMAND WHEN HE LEFT THE CAMP, NOT WHEN HE FELT LIKE IT. DURNFORD ARRIVED, MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT BE STAYING, MADE DECISIONS AND ISSUED ORDERS AS SENIOR OFFICER WHILST IN CAMP AND THEN LEFT. COMMAND REVERTED TO PULLEINE. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHY SOME FORUM MEMBERS (NOT YOU) CANNOT GRASP THIS. IT IS SIMPLE ENOUGH.

Julian .
I've been thinking the exact same thing myself !.
90th.

CTSG.

It appears that you also think you know what the order means, so come on, share your great wisdom with us and tell us what it means.

Like many of the Anti Durnford brigade on here, you assume and make your own interpretations of things, and will say almost anything to convince other members of the forum that the blame for iSandlwana is all Durnford's fault. You and others are very selective with your choice of quotes from various accounts, publications etc, and ignore anything that appears to support Durnford.

You know that the enquiry was a farce, you know that Crealock lied, you know that Chelmsford rigged the enquiry officials, and you also know that Chelmsford had much influence over other officers, and also know that he was a favourite of Queen Victoria.

How many of these ambitious officers wanted to further their career and obtain higher rank, and I wonder how many of them gave accounts that were favourable towards Chelmsford? They had their scapegoat, he couldn't say anything as he was dead, so how many people went along with Chelmsford's lies and deception to cover up the truth, by giving false statements or carefully worded accounts to protect their own and Chelmsford's backside?

There were those back home in Britain then who could see through the cover up, and there are still those today that can also see through it all, it's just a pity that some of the members on here can't see the wood for the trees.

Ulundi. Julian's not shouting, his caps lock is stuck!!!

I post this some months ago.
Durnford's rank of Lieutenant Colonel was in a colonial force, which did not give him seniority over Pulleine, who was a Brevet Lieutenant Colonel in a regular unit, the brevet indicating that, while he actually held the rank, he was still paid as a major for a probationary period. So Durnford was neither the commander at Isandlwana nor was he the senior officer at the camp. No one has yet disproved this, officially.

Durnford, was ordered to move forward, which he did to Isandlwana. Nothing else needed to be said. The situation at Isandlwana should have been enough for Durnford to get himself in to gear, it was obvious that Pulleine had failed to commit to forming any sort of defence. But Durford impacted the problem, but leaving with the troops under him. Therefore depleting the force even more.

Durnford was commander of Number 2 Column, and was originally intended to cross the Buffalo at Middle Drift into Zululand. However, he took it upon himself and crossed before the ultimatum had expired - and was threathen with the sack by Chelmsford. So Chelmsford i beleive wanted Durnford where he could keep an eye on him.

Quote :

Like many of the Anti Durnford brigade

Ah!! So this is what's its all about. Tit for tat.

As far as I can see, those arguing the point that Durford had some part to play in the fall of the camp, are doing so using primary sources the best they can.

Those disputing that, always fall back, on what a brave man, Durnford was for keeping the door open.

Why not join us in try to establish why there was a need to keep the door open, who fault was it, that in came to that.

Durnford honour is not it question! never has been. But look at events before his fall back.

Anti Durnford brigade. ( How Childish)