Durnford was he capable.1

CTSG

It is a fact the order does not state take command, even Crealcok admited that


My view of Durnford will never change, neither will your of Chelmsford and i respect that

The blame game will go on forever

Chelmsford
Durnford
Pulliene

Where all responsible in some way for the defeat, it can be debated till the end, this will still be the same.

Cheers
DB14

And that's what CTSG has been saying from day one. I got this a long time ago.

1 Chelmsford wasn't there when the camp was attacked.
2 Durnford's to blame because he was in command.

How I see it. Durnford was the scapegoat for Pulleine' s lack of experience.

impi wrote:

And that's what CTSG has been saying from day one. I got this a long time ago.

1 Chelmsford wasn't there when the camp was attacked.
2 Durnford's to blame because he was in command.

How I see it. Durnford was the scapegoat for Pulleine' s lack of experience.

Exactly. Pulleine was to blame - hopless incompetent. Durnford was made the scapegoat.

Gent's I think we have just re-written the history books.

One more thing. Which regiment did Pulliene belong to.

This is from Lord Chelsmfords speach about Isandlwana

“In the final analysis, it was Durnfords disregard of orders that had brought about its destruction.”

Clear lie



Cheers
DB14

DB14 that is the question CTSG is saying as been debated fro years. Perhaps he referring to Durnford leaving the camp. Quite a few stated it was covering Durnford's retreat that cause the firing lines to become over extended.

impi wrote:

Quite a few stated it was covering Durnford's retreat that cause the firing lines to become over extended.

He had no chioce but to retreat, lack of ammo and being outflanked forced this.


Chelsmford is clearing talking about the Take Command order

Cheers
DB14

Quote :

He had no chioce but to retreat, lack of ammo and being outflanked forced this

DB14. He did have a choice. He should never had put himself and the camp in the position he did by leaving in the first place. Being the senior officer and more experienced he should have taken control over the situation in the camp. Pulled the men back at the earlier stages. And one thing we can't get away from and that is he hung the RB out to dry.

Doesn't anyone else wonder why Durnford's body was removed from Isandlwana, and those that fought by his side in the gallant last stand remain there. Surly it would have been more respectful to have left him on the Battlefield. Or was there an underlying reason for his removal. Perhaps he was thought of as un-worthy to lay with the lions. Just a thought.

Yup. Scapegoated. Classic.

Chard1879 wrote:

Doesn't anyone else wonder why Durnford's body was removed from Isandlwana, and those that fought by his side in the gallant last stand remain there. Surly it would have been more respectful to have left him on the Battlefield. Or was there an underlying reason for his removal. Perhaps he was thought of as un-worthy to lay with the lions. Just a thought.

Chard1879

If you had the opertunity to bring back a loved one and close friend then would you not take it??

Just look at how many people attended his funeral


Cheers
DB14

No!!! He should have been left where he fell the same as the rest of the poor soles a lot of men chose to stay with him, even though they had the chance to leave. I expect there were plenty of families who would have given anything to have had their love ones brought home. And I don't think it matters how many attended his funeral he was greatly loved by a lot of Zulu sympathisers of the day.

Latest comments read with interest.

I think that is the best way to look at the situation.

Dunford was made the scapegoat by " Pulliene"

It is not are place to decide what happened to the body, how do we know that Durnford's brother didn't request that his brother be buried properly, or his mother?



Regards
DB14

properly

Hi 24th

I meen a Christan burial


Cheers
DB14

Quote :

Christan burial

I should think they all deserved one of those. He was the officer in command.he should have been left with his men. They died together they should have stayed together.

Chelmsford failed to ensure that the unity of command was preserved at the camp. Lieutenant Colonel Pulleine was ordered to remain at the camp and protect it with his battalion. He simultaneously issued vague orders to Colonel Durnford to "march to Isandlwana at once with all the force you have," without detailing the purpose for Durnford's presence at the camp. Which resulted in Durnford arrived at Isandlwana unsure of whether he was expected to follow after Chelmsford and the main body in anticipation of battle or if he was to remain at the camp. Additionally, since Durnford outranked Pulleine, Durnford obviously expected to take command on his arrival. For his part, Pulleine was specifically instructed that the camp and its security were his responsibility; and he had no intention of relinquishing his command or supplementing Durnford's column with his troops. This confusion over who was truly in charge prevented either man from establishing command and control and inhibited efforts to establish security and a clear logistical support structure. Therefore both offices were at a lost. Perhaps it would have been prudent if they had worked together.

24th wrote:

I should think they all deserved one of those. He was the officer in command.he should have been left with his men. They died together they should have stayed together.

I totaly agree that they all deserved one.

What is your opinion of Anstelys body being removed from the field, he heroicly lead his men to the
last, just the same as Durnford did


Elizabeth, Agreeded

24th wrote:

Quote :

Christan burial

I should think they all deserved one of those. He was the officer in command.he should have been left with his men. They died together they should have stayed together.

Foreign soil or home soil, they all would have had an appropriate Christian burial, or otherwise a burial or cremation and rites conducted by a religious man of their same religion.
It is a very personal matter of taste for the family to decide whether the body is brought back home or buried where it fell. No one decision is right or wrong. Nowadays, most opt for the body to be brought back home - witness the scenes at Royal Wootten Bassett - and the repatriation is paid for by the MoD. Some opt for the body to remain where it fell and the plots are cared for by the CWGC - 2 Para have a plot at Goose Green in West Falkland, where Col H Jones and his men lie. There may or may not be in-field burial sites in the Aghan and/or Iraq but I am not at liberty to say either way.
In WW1 and WW2, there were simply too many bodies to be brought back home so these were buried where they fell - unless you were very rich indeed. Americans always bring their dead back home with one exception - see above.
We can conclude nothing at all from the fact that Durnford's and Anstey's bodies were brought back home, other than their families back then must have been well off.

Hi Tasker

Durnford was buried in Natal south Africa

"The funeral was held on Sunday afternoon, 12 October 1879, attended by well over 1,500 military personnel, together with a great number of the PMB civilian population.
In early October 1879, Jabez Molife, (although his signature reflects Mulipe) was sent to the battlefield, possibly by Bishop Colenso, to bring the body of the gallant Colonel back to Pietermaritzburg. This he did by ambulance, arriving in PMB on Thursday 9 Octobert. Lt. Scott's two brothers, on a similar mission at Isandlwana, assisted Jabez in the exhumation of Durnford's body.When the ambulance reached Greytown, Jabez wrote to the Bishop in a letter dated 7 October..An extract ran:
" He [Durnford} said, ' Jabez, if it gets worse here in Natal, so that I die, it will be well that Hlubi's people and the Edendale men should be there when I am buried.' But we were just speaking jestingly, though I remember his words today; for I could see that his heart did not think of mr as a black man; but that was his way with all natives."

Cheers
DB14

DB14, 24th wrote:

Quote :

What is your opinion of Anstelys body being removed from the field, he heroicly lead his men to the last, just the same as Durnford did

Anstey was not in command, he was just following orders. Anstey was an innocent victim of stupidity.

And whats special about "Anstey" is that his body was brought back to "England" by his brother and not buried anywhere SA.

Hi all,
What is being teased out here is Anthony Durnford's connection to the Colenso's and Samuelson (se my post a day or two ago on "is this Cetywayo"). Jabez Molife, mentioned in my aforementioned post was one of the Driefontein Scouts ( a very brave man, awarded the DSM, but it was never issued) who reported to Samuelson, who himself was a christian missionary from St Pauls mission station in Zululand. Samuelson and Colenso were very much pro Zulu , anti-war and in cahoots.
Now added to the fact that Durnford had been scapegoated, he was also a friend of one of the Colenso sisters. So, with all of this in mind I can see good cause for a burial, attended by Durnford supporters, in Pietermaritzburg.

barry

Hello All

Elizabeth Hogan has hit the nail on the head with her post, well done Elizabeth.

When Col Durnford arrived at Isandlwana at about 10.30 am, Chelmsford had left no new orders for him with Pulleine. He found out that events had changed since Chelmsford had left, and Pulleine informed him that a large body of zulus had been seen on the iNyoni ridge, Durnford was concerned that it might be a zulu attempt to cut off Chelmsford from the camp. He therefore decided to sweep the iNyoni hills with a view to secure Chelmsford's left flank, he asked Pulleine to lend him some infantry, but Pulleine refused, so Durnford rode out telling Pulleine that he would expect support if he got into difficulties, this would be about 11.30am. If Pulleine had done something earlier when the zulus were first seen, things may have been a lot different, but he had done little to find anything out, and had done nothing to fortify the camp he was in command of, surely he could have done something to make the camp more secure, yet he did nothing. But who gets the blame for this disaster, Chelmsford, who should have left proper orders at the camp? no, Pulleine, who could and should have made the camp more secure? no, but the man who was trying to find out what was going on, and also trying to protect Chelmsfords left flank, Col Durnford, he gets scapegoated for this. Why? because Chelmsford knew he had made a pigs ear of it and wanted to offload the blame onto someone else, so Col Durnford was the ideal scapegoat, he was dead, and could not say anything to defend himself.

Regards

Martin.

Hi Mr Cooper

Agreed


Also CTSG said that when they first arrived at Isandlwana there was no threat.

They had just invaded an enamy country with an army of some 40,000 warriors.

What more threat do you need then that knolage

Cheers
DB14

No immediate threat.

So??

You have just invaded a hostile countrey that has an army of 40,000 warriors.

Chelmsford did not know where they where, pretty good reson to do something.

Tempary camp, they where there for 2 hole days!!

Hi 24th

No immediate threat, ummm

So if there are a bunch of yobs throwing stones at the houses on the street where I live, and although they are further along the road and no immediate threat, do I wait until they break my window before trying to do something about it?

Regards

Martin.

Hello DB14

Chelmsford may have assumed that there was no immediate threat at the time before he left the camp, however, things had altered since he left before dawn. A large body of zulus had been observed long before Col Durnford arrived, yet Pulleine had not done anything much to find out more about them, nor had he made the camp more secure just in case these zulus where only a part of any vast army that might be waiting for the right moment to attack him. So when Durnford arrived, at least he had the sense to try to find out what was happening, and also tried to cover Chelmsfords left flank in case these zulus were trying to cut Chelmsford off. Things may have been a lot different if only Pulleine had taken steps to find more out about the zulus that had been seen, and had made the camp more secure to defend in case he was attacked. Lord Chelmsford should have left clear orders with Pulleine to give to Durnford on his arrival at Isandlwana, but he failed to do that. Col Durnford was in charge of what was No 2 column, Pulleine was in charge of the camp, both had been given orders prior to Chelmsford leaving the camp, but Chelmsford had not left orders has to what was to happen when Durnford arrived at the camp, this put both Pulleine and Durnford in a bit of a fix, which caused problems and resulted in the disaster.

Regards

Martin.

Well said everyone, great discussion.

Hi Mr Cooper

There may have been no imedite threat, but being in a hostile countrey and not
knowing where there army is, is a good reason to do something in terms of protecting.


Pulliene should have done more i agree




Cheers
DB14

Hi DB14

Exactly, spot on young man.

Regards

Martin.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Hi DB14

Exactly, spot on young man.

Regards

Martin.

spot on both of you. maybe they didn't have the precautionary principle back then.

Thanks tasker.

Regards

Martin.

Dont you think the first issue would be to define the original question.

Was Durnford capable? ........Of what?

Man managment?
Tactical appreciation?
Acts of bravery?
Decision making?
Remaining calm under pressure?
Communication?

A Question for all and sundry.

Chelmsford is pilloried for splitting his forces !
Having Dartnell deciding to ignore his orders and remain outside the camp perimeter over night, does he, Chelmsford, ignore him and hope he gets back in the morning, or go and try to assist him in a potential looming battle.
Having this decision forced on him in the early hours of the morning, does he:

A) take the whole column lumbering over the dongas and veld. ( it took three days to cover 12miles with that column)
B) Take a flying column.
C) Turn over in his camp cot and dream of playing billiards

Lets for the time being ignore, fortification, written orders, squares barricades etc and concentrate on the question.
Bare in mind Im neither a Chelmsford, Durnford or Pullein fan, i think they were all incompetent. So the question is posed without bias.

Regards

Springbok, not answering your post, but just to say I hope you are recovering well. As an aside, apparently Peter Quantrill is also recovering from an operation, so I wish him well too.

Hi Colin.J.
I'm also not answering Springbok's post , good to see him back , but , I fear if he looks at the current cricket score he may
be straight back ! . Off topic I know , but I think Springbok will get a kick out of it . :lol!: :lol!: .
Sorry Pete , hope you dont mind . .
cheers 90th.

Springbok, here goes -

First six questions - 1. Yes, especially with native units. 2. Yes, both at Bushman's Pass and Isandhlwana, with the former only affected by panic by some in the ranks and unsupported by other units. 3. Definitely. 4. Yes, and if someone raises the point about the request (not demand) to take two Imperial companies with him at Isandhlwana, then it should be seen that he listened, rather than taking them anyway by 'pulling rank'. 5. Yes, again, someone might refer to Henderson's account of Durnford at the donga, but nobody appears to question Henderson's own state-of-mind and what he was like at the donga, as no-one else mentions Durnford's confusion about what to do. 6. Not sure about the meaning of this last one, as communication involves both parties, not just on his part.

Next three questions - A. No. B. Compared to the other two examples, then yes, if to do anything. C. You're not serious ?

I don't think Dartnell liked the idea of heading back to camp with the Zulus then being behind him.

How did I do ?

Springbok. Hope your well, good to see you back.

Quote :

Peter Quantrill is also recovering from an operation, so I wish him well too.

Colin is this recent.

Admin, I had noticed the topic TMFH was re-activated on RDVC, and saw a reference to Peter Quantrill's recovery in a post by member Mel, yesterday I think. Heard nothing more though.

Quote :

So if there are a bunch of yobs throwing stones at the houses on the street where I live, and although they are further along the road and no immediate threat, do I wait until they break my window before trying to do something about it?

Difference being you can see the yobs. If the yobs had hid and were only discovered by accident, and they attack the houses there's not a lot you could do. the damage would be done. The police would arrive after the event, mopping up a few stragglers if they are lucky.

Hello O H 2

I can see the comparison that you are trying to make, however, let us compare the two scenarios.

My neighbours and I had warning and saw the yobs before they hid, Pulleine and his officers had warning and saw the zulus before they hid.

My neighbours and I would take action to protect our properties, Pulleine didn't take any action to protect the camp.

If the yobs had attacked our properties, my neighbours and I would have been prepared to defend our properties, Pulleine had not prepared any defence of the camp.

The police would arrive and arrested the yobs that we had rounded up. Chelmsford would arrive back at the camp and be in time to join in the battle and enforce a victory.

The point I was tring to make was that if you know there could be trouble looming, you don't just sit back and let it happen, you at least take some sort of action to try to protect and defend yourself, your property and your neighbours. Pulleine did nothing to protect and defend the camp and the men he was in charge of, he sat back and let events take there course, at least when Durnford arrived he had the sense to try to find out what was going on, and to try to cover Chelmsfords left flank, just in case the zulus were trying to cut him off. Chelmsford should have left orders with Pulleine to give to Durnford on his arrival at Isandlwana, he failed to do this, which left both Pulleine and Durnford in a fix, and this caused the problems that led to the disaster, if Pulleine had acted and taken steps to defend and protect the camp when the zulus were first reported to him, the outcome may well have been a lot different.

Regards

Martin.

Hi Guys
Nice to be back.

90th............He who laughs last...............

Colin
Yep, to my mind if you cut out all the surplus bits and pieces then those questions about Durnford are a key to moving forward. Its where the ( have to call it ) vitriol that Col Snook pours on him ( have a theory about that) stems from.
Explore those points and you will get a better picture of the man.
I personally dont believe that he can answer positivly to all the points. But there again Im un biased.

In terms of Chelmsford, the decision to move forward was out of his hands. His whole thought process was to try and force the Zulu to battle. He did not believe ( his own words ) that the zulu would be keen to fight a pitched battle.
Once Dartnell stayed out and reported a major contact ( remember the fires on the hills at night) then Chelmsford had to respond, and fast. Hence to my mind the splitting of his forces.
I dont beliieve with his make up of the invasion column and his mindset he had any option. he needed that flying column.
My point is then if critisism is to be made its not about splitting the column its about the thought process that lead up to it.
a) comparing the zulu to the xhosa
b) contempt for his enemy
c) total lack of intelligence of the enemy.
d) to much of the daring do attitude ( funny that its exactly what I critisize Durnford for)
e) his infallible belief that the zulu would stand back and let him fight the war the way he wanted.

Couple all that with his perceived need to force a battle, and that to my mind is the bottom line.

Regards

So Springbok is saying what everybody in the modern day knows.
Chelmsford was to blame for the loss of iSandlwana and 1500 lives; Durnford was made the scapegoat by Chelmsford to save his own skin.

Hi all

Springbok, I didn't know that you had been unwell, hope you are now feeling a lot better, and that you will soon be back on your feet again. Take it easy, and get well soon.



It would appear that events started to go wrong when Dartnell spotted small parties of zulus and thought that they were trying to lead him into a trap, and so decided to join the NNC on the Hlazakazi heights and send word to Chelmsford. Chelmsford then assumes that this could be the main zulu army and decides to split his force and surprise the zulus with an attack around dawn, however, he finds that the zulus have gone, apart from a few skirmishers. It makes me wonder why it never seemed to enter his head that this could be the tactics to keep him occupied, while the main zulu army attacked the remainder of the centre column. He could and should have done something then to establish what was going on, and return to Isandlwana and bring the centre column back to full strength. Things may have been a lot different if he had done this, and who knows, he might have had the quick victory he was hoping for before the government found out about him invading zululand

Chelmsford had claimed that he informed Durnford to go to Isandlwana and to take command, but this could not have been the case, because if Durnford was to take command why then did he ASK Pulleine to lend him some infantry, if Durnford was in command he could have ORDERED the infantry from Pulleine. On his arrival at the camp, Durnford was surprised to see the men formed up in front of their tents, he had been informed by Chard on his way to Isandlwana that zulus had been seen, so I bet he was also surprised why Pulleine had not set up any defences against any zulu attack. There were no orders for him left by Chelmsford with Pulleine, therefore both officers were in a sort of limbo, but Pulleine was still in charge of the camp.

Chelmsford realised far too late that his plans had gone wrong, however, he knew he had 'ears' that would listen to him (including Royal ears), but had to cover himself for the press back in Britain, and also had to find a scapegoat, and although Pulleine was greatly at fault, Durnford was the senior officer, and he and Chelmsford did not see eye to eye, so Durnford got the blame and became the scapegoat for the incompetence of Chelmsford.

Regards

Martin.

You know, with the interesting way this topic has went regarding Durnford, now would be a great time for his new biography to be available to buy, as I think it would have been 'snapped up'.

Tasker/Martin
Thank for for the greetings, right now Ive had everything bypassed that can be bypassed ( My good lady says even my brain.)
Dont read between the lines, the situation is far more complex than that. Thats why Ive tried to bring the discussion onto individual points rather than the broad ranging ( and meandering ) path its taken.

Ive pointed out that I dont believe that Chelmsford had to much option but to march out as he did. Can you see any alternates that Chelsford had?

Ive also posed direct questions about Durnford. It would be interesting to hear the responces.

Colin

Its about time a book dedicated to one of the leading participants was written. I just hope it is not a condemnation like Col Snooks or a whitewash like his Brothers. An honest appraisal would be worth buying.

regards

A point of order.................It was Crealock who made the claim about Durnford initially.

Regards

Springbok, 'An honest appraisal would be worth buying'. I agree, even though with my being a Durnford admirer, I'm very willing to accept the bad with the good, if that is, it is written as a history study of a controversial man, but not a completely personal view of him by the author, who should remain impartial, to get the best result.