Crealock's notebook.

Julian Whybra wrote:

John
Forgive me, I don't know anything of your background so I may be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs by explaining this as simply as possible.
You asked how I know that that the original KCAL account is Brickhill's original.
James Brickhill was a Natalian. He lived there until his death and never visited England.
These are the accounts he left:

(A) His account, ‘The Isandhlwana Massacre’, was published in the Natal Magazine, (September 1879), vol. IV, no. 17, pp. 255-263. Part of this appears in a letter in the Natal Witness, 10th May 1879. The whole is reprinted in Hattersley, A.F. (ed.), Later Annals of Natal, (London, 1938), pp. 150-9, and Brickhill, J. A., ‘How I escaped from the Fatal Field of Isandlwana’, Africana Notes and News 29, no. 2, (June, 1990)
(B) A second-hand account appears in Maxwell.
(C) An Account appears in the Blue Books.
(D) Supplied a short statement and information (with others) to Colonel Bray to produce a sketch map of the battlefield.

The text posted on this site by 1879Graves is unusual in that Gardner's name is misspelt 'Gardener'. The only time it appears with that spelling is in an inaccurate reproduction of Brickhill's account made available by the 24th Regiment Museum in the 1970-1980s. That's how I recognized it for what it was. The typist made a number of errors in it. I got one from the same source in 1972. It stated clearly at the top where it came from and came with a 24th Regt compliments slip. It is not a photocopy of an original. It is a mass-produced photocopy of a modern (for the time) typescript with modern typesetting. Unfortunately extracts from it sometimes appear in histories where the author hasn't checked its accuracy. You can confirm with Bill Cainan that the RWMuseum does not hold the original of Brickhill's account.

In the early 1980s I obtained a copy of the Natal Magazine 1879, the Natal Witness 1879, and Hattersley (as listed in A) all of which have the same text but differ from the 'reproduced' copy I had from the 24th Museum. I then realized that the latter was inaccurate and tracked down where the typescripts used for the production of the Natal Magazine were held so that I could check the exact wording used by Brickhill. They were held in the Killie Campbell Africana Library in Natal. The KCAL was extremely helpful and photocopied the original 1879 typescripts for me - the sheets are headed with what they are and with accession numbers written in pencil on them. They are individually stamped on the back with a KCAL source stamp and copyright statement. You can tell they are the originals because the type is from an old typewriter and the age of the paper has come through on the photocopy. When an item enters a museum or repository it is given an accession number. This number usually consists of the year, month, and number and is unique to that item. This identifies the item as being the one deposited in the museum on a certain date, i.e. the original.

The KCAL typescript, the Natal Magazine, the Witness, and Hattersley all have the same text (incl. nonplussed and, interestingly, Brickhill's original misspelling of Gardner's name as Gardiner). That is how I know that the account is Brickhill's original.

To the rest of you
Apologies for the long-winded explanation.

Jee whizz Julian, you have the patience of a saint, you really do! I:Salute: YOU

What concerns me about all this, is that an eminent forum member such as Julian Whybra will leave the forum if he is constantly pecked at like this.
It is disrespectful, unnecessary and purely mischief-making by envious, closed minded individuals.
Julian must have the patience of a saint.
Gentlemen, please use Julian's knowledge wisely and stop being rude; else you risk driving out one of this forum's most credible assets.
CTSG; ever wondered why Mike Snook hasn't joined this forum but is active on at least 2 others I know of?

Tasker, Julian is more than capable of holding his own, and not the type of person to throw in the towel because of disagreements. You might!!!

Quote :

CTSG; ever wondered why Mike Snook hasn't joined this forum.

How do you he hasn't join.

He posts under his own name.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Tasker, Julian is more than capable of holding his own

Julian has nothing to prove to people like you. I am only surprised that he bothers replying to your petty, peurile remarks.
What concerns me about all this, is that an eminent forum member such as Julian Whybra will leave the forum if he is constantly pecked at like this.
It is disrespectful, unnecessary and purely mischief-making by envious, closed minded individuals.
Julian must have the patience of a saint.
Gentlemen, please use Julian's knowledge wisely and stop being rude; else you risk driving out one of this forum's most credible assets.

At what point did Lord Chelmsford play along with what Crealock stated with regards to him Crealock ordering Durnford to take command?

Ulundi
Day one.

Cheers

Thanks Frank.
So he never once mentioned what he had first ordered Clery to write in the first instance. (Which wasn't take command)

Clery COE "The General first ordered me to write to Colonel Durnford, at Rorke's Drift, to bring his force to strengthen the camp"

I haven't seen nothing, that confirms LC went along with Crealock's statement.

John wrote:

I haven't seen nothing, that confirms LC went along with Crealock's statement.

Thanks John, me nither I have spent hours looking but find nothing on LC stating he confirmed he ordered Crealock to order Durnford to take command, as part of the cover up. LC made no comments at the COE that shows he nither agreed or disagreed. Clery is the only one that states Durnford was to reinforce the camp.

Ulundi/John
Could we possibly accept that legal phrase: Lies by omission? In other words he didn't deny any of the testimony. On the other hand of course you could say that Chelmsford had ordered Crealock to instruct Durnford to Reinforce the camp and therefore when he saw Crealock had testified to that he then believed Crealock had obeyed his orders! Its always a possibility. In a modern court of law Crealocks defence would/could be that he was under duress, half asleep, getting ready to fight the enemy and so was confused as to what he did write as opposed to what he was ordered to write? We do tend to forget that Crealocks notebook was left behind in the camp so he couldn't refer to it. That last part is the bit that niggles me though, why would a 'military secretary' go of without the tools of his trade, ie his way of issuing orders. Would be like a squaddie going of without his rifle.......

Just a different take on the issue.

Cheers

Understand that makes sense.

I guess what I have been looking for is where LC has stated to a higher authority that his reasons for wanting Durnford at the camp was to strengthen it.

Ulundi.. An extract from a letter.

"An express was sent off to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, Royal Engineers, who was at Rorke's Drift with 500 Natives, half of whom were mounted and armed with breech-loaders, to move up to strengthen the force which were left to guard the camp"

Source: From Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford, K.C.B., to the Right Honourable the Secretary of the State for War"

Pietermarizburg, Natal 27th January, 1879.

It's important to note the date of that letter - 27th January - and how it relates to who said what when.

Let's face it, it was Crealock who made a pigs ear of it all by his interefering when Clery was going to write out the order from LC, if Crealock had not poked his nose in, Col Durnford maybe would have received a more understandable order rather than the one that he received.

The way I understand it, the original order that Clery was going to write, would have said that Durnford should reinforce/strengthen the camp, however, through Crealock poking his oar in, this was not written in the order, and the order itself was not very clear at all, so Durnford would have to rely on his earlier orders for reference, and they were to co-operate with LC in a move against the Matyana's, and that is what he was going to do, and that is the reason he said to Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp. However, when Pulleine explained the Zulu activity in the area, Durnford would realise that things had altered since LC had left, and he would now have to try to find out what the Zulu's were up to just in case they were trying to outflank, cut off or attack LC, and that is why he sent his men out, to try to get better information on the Zulu movements.

After the battle, Crealock would have realised that between them he and LC had made a mess of things, and that LC would be for the high jump, if, between them, they didn't get their act together and throw the blame elsewhere, so step up the scapegoat, Col Durnford, they threw the blame on him to cover their own arses, and that is why Crealock at first said that Durnford had been ordered to reinforce/strengthen the camp, but later he was proved to be a liar when he admitted that it was not in Durnford's orders, he had falsified the evidence in order to throw the blame on Durnford to protect his and LC's backsides.

The man was a first class bounder and a cad to boot, an absolute stinker and rotter, and in their private coach ride, they concocted the plan to scapegoat the honourable Col Durnford and lumber him with the blame, what a prize pair of scum bags they were.

Or as Captain Bluebeard might have said, 'Dead men tell no tales'.
But they might leave messages from beyond the grave, thanks to Black finding the copy of Crealock's order on the battlefield.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Let's face it, it was Crealock who made a pigs ear of it all by his interefering when Clery was going to write out the order from LC, if Crealock had not poked his nose in, Col Durnford maybe would have received a more understandable order rather than the one that he received.

The way I understand it, the original order that Clery was going to write, would have said that Durnford should reinforce/strengthen the camp, however, through Crealock poking his oar in, this was not written in the order, and the order itself was not very clear at all, so Durnford would have to rely on his earlier orders for reference, and they were to co-operate with LC in a move against the Matyana's, and that is what he was going to do, and that is the reason he said to Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp. However, when Pulleine explained the Zulu activity in the area, Durnford would realise that things had altered since LC had left, and he would now have to try to find out what the Zulu's were up to just in case they were trying to outflank, cut off or attack LC, and that is why he sent his men out, to try to get better information on the Zulu movements.

After the battle, Crealock would have realised that between them he and LC had made a mess of things, and that LC would be for the high jump, if, between them, they didn't get their act together and throw the blame elsewhere, so step up the scapegoat, Col Durnford, they threw the blame on him to cover their own arses, and that is why Crealock at first said that Durnford had been ordered to reinforce/strengthen the camp, but later he was proved to be a liar when he admitted that it was not in Durnford's orders, he had falsified the evidence in order to throw the blame on Durnford to protect his and LC's backsides.

The man was a first class bounder and a cad to boot, an absolute stinker and rotter, and in their private coach ride, they concocted the plan to scapegoat the honourable Col Durnford and lumber him with the blame, what a prize pair of scum bags they were.

Martin Crealock never said Reinforce or Strengthen.  It was Clery who states that he was told to write that, before LC changed his mind and order Crealock to send it, Crealock sent his own version of the order.

littlehand wrote:

Ulundi.. An extract from a letter.

"An express was sent off to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, Royal Engineers, who was at Rorke's Drift with 500 Natives, half of whom were mounted and armed with breech-loaders, to move up to strengthen the force which were left to guard the camp"

Source: From Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford, K.C.B., to the Right Honourable  the Secretary of the State for War"

Pietermarizburg, Natal 27th January, 1879.

Littlehand thanks.
So four days after the event LC is kind of confirming the order that should have been issued to Durnford.
Which by the way would have, had Clery been allowed to send it.

Ulundi, yes, Clery was going to write it, read my post again, that is what I am saying.

However, it was through Crealock poking his nose in that it wasn't, and at the CoE, Crealock tried to infer that the order said that Durnford was to reinforce/strengthen the camp, but was proved to be a liar, when, as Julian says, Black found the copy of Crealock's order on the battlefield.

No Crealock never infer that, he never mentioned strengthen or reinforce. Strengthen and reinforce is what LC had intended for Durnford.

ulundi
Actually, Martin's right, Crealock did say that he'd said that (when in fact he hadn't). See C2260 p. 98.

I'm going by this.

"1. Statement of Lieutenant-Colonel J. North Crealock, Acting Military Secretary.

1. Soon after 2 A.M. on the 22nd January I received instructions from the Lieutenant-General to send a written order to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., commanding No. 2 Column, to the following effect (I copied it in my note-book which was afterwards lost): " Move up to Sandhlwana Camp at once with all your mounted men and Rocket Battery—take command of it. I am accompanying Colonel Glyn, who is moving off at once to attack Matyana and a Zulu force"

"Take command of it."

There was no mention of taking command in the actual message.

I know that Julian. But if Durnford had received the order that was originally supposed to have been sent, then Durnford would have understood what was required of him. To reinforce and strengthen the camp. It was Crealock who sent a completely different order.

Ulundi
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

You wrote:
"But if Durnford had received the order that was originally supposed to have been sent, then Durnford would have understood what was required of him. To reinforce and strengthen the camp. "

We only have Crealock's word for it that it was so intended since Crealock wrote this after the event assuming that all evidence was lost or destroyed. But yes, if he had written that then Durnford would have had no excuse to act as he did.

You also wrote:
"It was Crealock who sent a completely different order."

Indeed he did and thereby hangs a tale.

Sarnario!

If Clery had send the order, he was ordered to send to Col Durnford, what would it have said.

Take Crealock right out of the picture.

Ulundi

I understand what you are saying. If Clery had been allowed to send the orders to Durnford you would expect them to have been consistent with the orders Clery gave to Pulleine. That is reasonable I think. But we know that Chelmsford changed his mind and said Crealock should send the orders. Did Chelmsford change the order? did Crealock miss-hear? Did Crealock get it wrong? We do not know. What we do know is that Crealock lied at the COI and Chelmsford repeated that in his letter of 27th January (the same day).

There is also a problem with what Clery's written instuction to Pulleine actually said. In his testimony he says he cannot recall the exact words and he gives the "essence" of what they contained. He then writes 12 lines, but says the instructions "took up one page of foolscap". His last two lines read "Col Durnford has been ordered up with his men from Rorke's Drift to re-inforce you". So in fact he said much more (a full page of foolscap would contain 4 times as much) but we have no way of knowing what it said.

Steve

What business would Major Clery have in sending an order
to an independent column commander.

Steve, at last someone see's what I'm trying to say!

Agree "There is also a problem with what Clery's written instuction to Pulleine actually said. In his testimony he says he cannot recall the exact words and he gives the "essence" of what they contained"
But that is relating to Pulleine!

What he is saying about Durnford was never written down.

Smith-Dorrien Memories of 40 years services

"At about midnight I was sent for by General Lord Chelmsford and told to take a dispatch back to Rorke's Drift for Colonel Durnford, R.E., who was expected there with reinforcements consisting of native levies. I rode back, 10 miles, arriving at Rorke's Drift just before dawn on the 22nd, and delivered my dispatch. It ought to have been a very jumpy ride, for I was entirely alone and the country was wild and new to me, and the road little better than a track; but pride at being selected to carry an important dispatch and the valour of ignorance (for I only realised next day that the country was infested with hostile Zulus) carried me along without a thought of danger. Colonel Durnford was just moving off with his levies towards Sandspruit (away from Isandhlwana), but on reading the dispatch, which conveyed instructions to move up to reinforce the Isandhlwana camp (as Lord Chelmsford, with the main body of the force, leaving the camp standing, was moving out some miles to the east to attack the Zulu Army), he at once changed the direction of his march".

I know SD Is possibly guessing what the dispatch contained, but I like to think he was told by someone before he left camp.

So we have three people, stating the reason why Durnford was required at the camp. Chelmsford, Clery, Smith-Dorrien.

The problem is this. The only hard evidence we have of what was said before the disaster and the COI is the orders to Durnford that were discovered on the battlefield by Black and kept secret by Crealock for some time. When revealed they contradicted the evidence given by Crealock and repeated by Chelmsford, hence uncovering the lie. Only three people knew what was said in that tent and two of them lied - the third, Clery, can only recall the essence of his instructions to Pulleine - which is the only other source of original evidence - and no copy has ever been found. Everyone else may be tainted by the COI and the long period of time during which Crealock and Chelmsford's line that Durnford's orders were to re-inforce the camp were believed. That is why SD cannot be taken at face value.

Steve

Clery COE

"The General first ordered me to write to Colonel Durnford, at Rorke's Drift, to bring his force to strengthen the camp, but almost immediately afterwards he told Colonel Crealock that he (Colonel Crealock) was to write to Colonel Durnford these instructions, and not I."

What did Clery have to gain, but stating this at the COE. Crealock never refuted this. And LC confirmed his intention four days after for Durnford on the 27th Jan in his letter to Secretary of the State for War" And bearing in mind this letter was sent prior to the COE.

John but i do see what your trying to say! the problem is
no one knows if there was an additional order to Durnford..
we can only deal with what we have!. i am sorry if you are
not getting the outcome you seek, you might one day have
to reluctantly conclude that yes! his lordship got things very
badly wrong, it was his fault alone!. and he was very fort-
nate in the fact that he had no General staff to closely liaise
with him.. every thing going though his secretary. who
he had chosen, wisely for him..he must have known Crealock
was bent, the cover up took place at bewildering and indecent
speed in the light of what was Britains worst ever defeat.think
about it man.

Who's John

Yeah sorry ulundi, i dont know why that happen's.