Coach Ride. Lord Chelmsford & Crealock.

Does anyone know if it's true that Lord Chelmsford and Crealock took a long coach ride together after the Battle of Isandlwana. I'm not sure where they travel from or where they were going but it was a lengthy journey. It could well have been on their way to the court of enquiry. Would be appreciated if some one could confirm if this is true or false.

Hi Chard 1879

Yes, it's true, they travelled together from Ladysmith to Pietermaritzburg in a trap.

If you have the book 'Zulu Victory' by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill, you will find it on page 247.

Regards

Martin.

Hi Chard 1879 and MC,

Correct that did happen


barry

Thanks. Does it what the purpose of their journey was.

Chard
If I were a sceptic I would say the object would be for some 'alone time'. Possibly to co ordinate stories.
But I would only say that if I were a sceptic.
Needless to say a pony and trap over that distance and terrain would have been a tad uncomfortable.

Regards

Hi Chard

It is suspected that they wanted to travel in privacy so that they could collude together about the battle and the eniquiry.

The three officers they chose to head the enquiry were purposely selected, these were;

Col Fairfax Hassard R.E. he was considered non-controversial, innocuous, and rather feeble.

Lt Col Francis Adeane Law R.A., he was not considered by Chelmsford to be gifted with an appetite for hard facts.

The third officer chosen was Lt Col Arthur Harness R.A. He was in command of N battery at Isandlwana, this caused controversy, because he was witness to many of Chelmsford's actions, but by being appointed to the court of enquiry, it precluded him from giving evidence.

So it does look like there was some 'funny business' going on doesn't it?

Regards

Martin

Martin I will say no more!!

Hi Admin

Yes, it does look just a 'tad' suspicious doesn't it

Regards

Martin

Hi all.
No arguement from me !. .
cheers 90th.

Hi All,

There is no doubt that the coach ride taken by Chelmsford to Pietermaritzburg gave him many, many hours to think about his disaster at Isandlwana and to cook up his plan to cover his own back, thus protecting his "integrity " and , the sad part, to pillory a man, Col Anthony Durnford, who should in reality have been well lauded for what he he tried to do under terrible circumstances.
This resulted in Chelmsford's report to the British people and government that was packed with fraud, lies and deceiption and was possibly the biggest cover-up of that era.
So much for Victorian integrity.!!

barry

Question, Barry, Martin and Chard.

What lies did Chelmsford tell? And I do mean Chelmsford, not Crealock.
Sources please.

Pete feel free to join in.

Regards

Hi springbok

I can see what you are getting at about Chelmsford 'telling lies'. He may not have 'told lies' directly, however, he was certainly a party to Crealocks web of deception, which was all concocted to get Chelmsford off the hook and to pass the buck onto Col Durnford, who, because he was dead, could not give any evidence at the enquiry.

To be a party to a web of deception that tries to blacken the reputation and character of a decent and well respected officer that Col Durnford was, makes Chelmsford just as culpable as Crealock, if indeed not more so.

Regards

Martin

Hi all

Yes, I'm sure that during the coach ride, much of what happened at Isandlwana was being discussed. However, I would suggest that the coach ride was also organised as an opportunity for Chelmsford to outline to Craelock other matters of pressing importance:

What to do about getting Pearson's column out of Eshowe ?
What to do about the defence of Natal following the defeat of the Central Column ?
(Pietermaritzburg and Durban were being fortified in anticipation of a Zulu invasion)
Was Wood capable of holding on in the north without reinforcements ?
How to restore morale following a catastrophic defeat ?
How many troops would now be required to end the campaign ?
How to ensure the "correct" story of Isandlwana was sent home as opposed to newspaper correspondents' versions ?

All of these had to be addressed, as well as making judgements (allocating blame) on Isandlwana.

Bill

Hi Martin
Fully agree, possibly a lie by omission?
There is the other view of course that Chelsford fully believed that he had done no wrong.
Not for nothing was Crealock known as the wasp. I dont know if total loyalty would be regarded as a fault? In todays world possibly, in Victoriana it was a virtue, an expected virtue really. Crealock was no more capable of 'shopping' Chelmsford than breathing.
And really the power behind that particular throne was 'the wasp'.

I can almost imagine the conversation in the trap heading to PMB. Crealock expounding on the mistakes of others and Chelmsford believing what he was told, a touch of post rationalization I suppose.

All speculation I know but in actuallity Chelmsford merely repeated what he had been told, mainly by Crealock and I would suspect others who were primed in what to say. An example of that would be the meeting between Essex and Chelmsford on the 23/24th, Essex went against Gardiner and others in saying the Durnford had sent the troops onto the ridge, "splitting forces".

Look carefully and you will find little bits and pieces that have been fed to Chelmsford........... He didnt have a clue what he had instructed Durnford to do, not untill Crealock Lied to him. from then on it was a fact to him.

Regards

Bill
Sorry posts crossed, yes I fully agree that there were a lot of other issues besides isandlwana to discuss, not least would be how to maximise the defence of RD in the publics minds.

Regards

Hi springbok,

My feelings are much like Martins, he has put it well.
I cant improve much upon that other than to say, in short ;

1) Chelmsford was the boss, his integrity should have been unquestionable.
2) If he did not know what was going on with his subordinates and if they were untruthful and he did not intervene, he then becomes as guilty as they were, by default. That is a lie
3) there is strong evidence of a cover up when so called written orders, supposedly given by GOC are proved to be spurious, that is one of the biggest lies.

Added to this, my opinion was also formed by parlour talk in my family, one of whom was directly involved with all of this at the time. Memoirs based on prime source material are shortly to be published , so I do not want to pre-empt what will come out there.

barry

Hi Bill and Springbok

Yes, I am sure that many other things would be discussed during the private coach ride, and that maybe Chelmdford did have 'lies' put in his mouth by Crealock. But he must have known within himself that what he was being party to was a web of deception, and so by going along with it, he is just as guilty as Crealock.

Regards

Martin.

Hi Barry

Many thanks for your kind words of support.

You are right in what you say about Chelmsford, the more I read of him and Crealock (and others of that ilk), the more I dislike these people.

The opposite can be said of Col Durnford though, because the more I read about him, the more I am drawn to the man, and the men that served under him seem to have had a genuine respect for him, he was a very well liked officer.

Regards

Martin.

Just out of interest. What would have happen to Lord Chelmsford if he had been found responsible for the lost of the camp

Hi Barry

Noticed that you say you had a member of your family involved in this, it has always been said in my family that we had a relative that was involved in the zulu war. I have done much research and found that there were a number of Coopers involved in both the battle of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, unfortunately, the three at Isandlwana were all KIA, two being in the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and one in the Royal Artillery. The most likely relative however, was the one at Rorke's Drift, a private William Cooper, also of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, but everytime I seem to get a lead, I keep reaching dead ends, but I will keep trying.

Regards

Martin.

Quote :

The opposite can be said of Col Durnford though, because the more I read about him, the more I am drawn to the man, and the men that served under him seem to have had a genuine respect for him, he was a very well liked officer.

Of course the men under him were colonial. Not British.

Hi CTSG

What was your last comment surposed to mean??



Cheers
DB14

Exactly what it says.

Hi CTSG

Sorry but i do not understand how being a Colonial would make someone think different
to someone who is British.




Cheers
DB14

Hi Dave.
I think to answer your query '' just out of interest what would have happened to Chelmesford '' ... etc etc .
As you may or may not be aware , Chelmesford was replaced but happened to stay around long enough to finish
the issue at Ulundi , and after returning home to England , never commanded a force in the field ever again. So you
can take it from those two instances that's '' What would have happened '' to the Good Lord ( C'ford ) . Hope that
made sense !. .
cheers 90th.

Hi all,
I can add to 90th's comment. Apparently after Chelmsford's return to England and the enormity of what had happened had settled in, he became a little deranged and was incapable of taking command again.

Now to answer DB's question as to "what is a colonial".
Colonials were those men who had lived for varying periods in South Africa prior to the war and belonged to colonial units ( ie South African), ie NC, UMR, NMP DLI, UMR, etc etc.
Most of these men were born in England, , eg Dartnell, Clarke, Lugg, but had wised up on local languages , folklore, politics, geography and had become acclimitised and knew all about the might of the Zulu army, for which they had a great respect. As a result they were less arrogant than the Imperial officers.
Naturally their respect for Imperials was not what it should be.
To illustrate this, there is a fact probably not well know in this forum, about Chelmsford's attempt to divest Dartnell of his command of the NMP at Isandhlwana and place them under an Imperial officer.
En masse , the NMP men declared that if this happened they would leave immediatly, come what may, as they knew that the Imperial officer chosen was incapable of this command and the change would lead to total disaster for all of them.
Refusing orders like this was serious matter in military law and could have been cause for a shooting at dawn, however with 135 men involved this was not a possibilty. What this event illustrates is that even before the battle Chelmsford's decision making and leadership abilities were being questioned.
Chelmsford, sensing a serious mutiny on his hands, capitulated .

barry

PS: Only after the war was Major Dartnell given proper recigniton for his talents, thus ending his military career as Maj General Sir John G Dartnell, K.C.B. He retired to his home country shortly after the turn of the century where he died in Folkestone.

Hi Barry.
I think it was Russell who was to be in charge of the Colonials till they '' Jacked up '' .
cheers 90th

Hi Martin,
Cooper is still a fairly prominent name in Natal. Do you have any other leads or info.


barry

Hi Barry

I have never heard it mentioned in the family that we had/have any relatives in Natal or anywhere else in South Africa. All my side of the family are in Lancashire, although we do have relatives in Warwickshire, and there are others dotted around Britain, but like I said, trying to find them is proving more difficult than at first thought, I seem to get a lead then come to a dead end.

There was an officer called Cooper mentioned by Cmdt Hamilton-Browne NNC, a number of times in his book, but I don't know anything about him I'm afraid.

I remember my old grandad mentioning back in the 50's that we had relatives that fought in the zulu war, other members also spoke of relatives in the zulu and boer wars. I wasn't all that old at the time, but these stories and my grandads stories about his time in WW1 used to intrigue me, and I was always keen on anything military and always wanted to learn more, so in my later life I have tried to find out who these relatives were. During my searches I have been lucky in finding the Coopers that fought at Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, it could be any of these men, but at the moment the most likely candidate looks to be the William Cooper that fought at RD.

Sorry I can't help more Barry, but if I find any more information, I will let you know.

Regards

Martin.

Hi Barry

We are getting a little off topic with this, so I think it might be best if we pm each other if we get any info.

Sorry Admin.

Regards

Martin.

Barry
I dont recall talk of Chelmsford being deranged? Theres no doubt that The Horse Guards blocked any posting for him, that was really to be expected after the grilling he got through the written medium. And indeed the questioning in the House.
He was certainly called to order by his peers, in no uncertain manner the finger was pointed. He did however have Royal protection, he also had deniability. That comes back to the point I made earlier. He never told a lie.............others did it for him.

Regards

DB 14
Your duplicating. Also confusing. Why did he know how the troops were deploying? Did he send them onto the ridge?
Did he order the tents to remain standing, so forcing the defence line further out?

The truth is he issued a standing order for the formation of the troops, not their position relative to the camp. That was Pullein.
So back to my question, what lies?

Hi springbok69

As the information source I used to say that Chelmsford was considered "deranged", was external, ie it did not come from within, I will go back to my records to find it and get a copy to you. From what I remember the language couched there was a lot stronger than mine.

Another matter.
I have managed to find a very good turn-of-the- century sepia photograph of Fugitives drift in the old NMP records. It is taken from the south over the graves of Melville and Coghill ,which can be seen in the foreground.
In the centre background is the dry N/S watercourse I mentioned in an earlier post with its confluence mid picture, with the pool and rock face y left of middle background. The Mzinyathi runs through the middle of the picture.
Please take a look at this when Peter posts it later today and give comment , ie is the hill slope shown in the background of the pic where you understand Lt Stuart Smiths RA grave to be .
I will ask Adrian Greaves to do the same thing as he seems to know something about this too.

barry

Barry
Looking over the river and up the water course my own opinion is that the grave would be on the left. I do stress thats my own opinion.

regards

Hi Barry

That is a good picture that Admin put up for you, thanks for sharing it with us.

I hope that you don't think I was being awkward about us getting off topic, but I thought that Admin might have seen it as getting off the 'Coach ride Lord Chelmsford and Crealock' topic, so I thought it best to pm each other if we found anything out regarding our families part in the Zulu war. I don't know if the officer called Cooper was in the NNC, but Hamilton-Browne mentioned him a few times in his book. I will have a quick gander through it again and see if I can find out anything, and if so I will pm you.

Regards

Martin.

P.S. Thanks for the back up in supporting DB14.

springbok9 wrote:

So back to my question, what lies?

The one's he told the Queen of England.

Zulus being over 60,000 strong and he never recieving any report other then the one at 9:30.



Cheers

Sacred LC, he was lucky that the queen support.


Pascal

DB

Quote :

The one's he told the Queen of England.

Zulus being over 60,000 strong and he never recieving any report other then the one at 9:30.

Could you post a link to this source.

Hi all

It is also in this issue: " Zoulous , le defis guerrier " on Google...



Pascal