Durnford was he capable.1

springbok9 wrote:

Colin J

Ah well, out of the frying pan................. Firstly let me stress that Mike Snookes scenario for the battle itself, although 50% speculation, is brilliant military thinking. Except when he repeatadly says the firing line was anchored on the conical copy, would need an extra half a dozen companies for that, as he himself has admitted.

That said. Mike is an ex colonel of the regiment and would never in his wildess dreams think of critisising any member of that regiment. Fearcly patriotic and loyal is probably a good description.
He, Mike, can only blame Chelmsford for so much ( theres a lesson there) and so the only other patsy is Col Durnford.

He like Chelmsford needed a stooge and he has picked on one that he can twist and bend to his hearts content.

The hatchet job he did in HCMDB was to a degree fair comment and a reasonable interpretation of source material, I believe that Durnford does have to shoulder some of the blame ( not all of it though).

He then decides he wants to earn some more money and pens LWTTF, not a patch on other books, and runs out of ideas to fill a decent size toomb. He then revisits his attack on Durnford and pours every bit of emotion into denigating him in any way possible.

Its almost as if he is taking it personal. He does that with any dissenting voice to his opinions, The missing Five Hour Theory is really a classic example of him attacking a different scenario than his own.

For Colonel Snook to be well thought of in the world of Anglo Zulu War academia he needs to start adding foot notes, sources etc to his writtings and justify what he says. Less fiction more non fiction.

Jackson, Knight , Laband the list of learned writers is endless really. They all have one thing in common, the ability to back up there thoughts with proof. Watch how Julian debates and produces proof of his utterances, doesnt always get it right but hes up there with the rest.


Why do I have a feeling Im going to cop a lot of flack for this post.

I must say I have just finished reading HCMDB and regretfully have to concnur with these sentiments.

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Not at all offended Julien,

it's normal that I am the most miserable in English language on this forum...


Cheers


Pascal

[quote]

hi Pascal!

Not me?????? :lol!: :lol!:

Regard

ymob

Hi Ymob

Ymobit's me ! :lol!: :lol!: :lol!:


Cheers


Pascal

Hi Ymob

No Ymob it's me ! lol! lol! lol!


Cheers


Pascal

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

And the Zulu Messenger, sent by the King with a message for Durnford early hours of the 22nd Jan. Brought in by the pickets for his own safety. Departed under escort. Contents of message unknown.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

And the Zulu Messenger, sent by the King with a message for Durnford early hours of the 22nd Jan. Brought in by the pickets for his own safety. Departed under escort. Contents of message unknown.

Where does this come from?

Chard
The three orders are precisely about what Durnford did AFTER RD. So they should answer your question.
Crealock did indeed get his copy of the order back as Drummer boy says. He allowed Durnford's brother to see it who published its content in his 1882 book. Crealock also copied it out and sent it to the War Office in a private communication. That copy was found by David Jackson and myself among the Durnford Papers in 1989 and corroborates the text as it appears in Durnford's brother's book. We published it in our 1990 article and it is about to be re-published at the end of this month (I hope).

Julian. When you say publish, will it be as an item that will need to be purchased, or as a essay document.

Published. In the past I've had too much plagiarised or reprinted without my permission or acknowledgement as a result of articles and essays. It's a case of once bitten, twice shy, I'm afraid.

Julian. Where will be able to obtain a copy. Will it be direct from you.


CTSG. Can you name the source of your last post. Or am i right in saying you playing a game of tit-for-tat because Julian said he is not prepared to name his source. And if fact this never took place. You are waiting for Julian to ask for the source, but by the looks of it he saw it the same as i did..

Old historian2
From me yes, also from the RE Museum and RRW Museum. I'll let the site know when they will be available.
CTSG will have no source for his remark as it never took place. It's an obvious fake.

Julian. Will this publication be available on Kindle.......

Hi Julian .
I will be looking to purchase a copy as well . Congratulations on your work .
cheers 90th.

90th wrote:

Hi Julian .
I will be looking to purchase a copy as well . Congratulations on your work .
cheers 90th.

Monsieur WHYBRA,

Me too!

regards

YMOB

Julian Whybra wrote:

Old historian2
From me yes, also from the RE Museum and RRW Museum. I'll let the site know when they will be available.
CTSG will have no source for his remark as it never took place. It's an obvious fake.

That is good news Julian
I will certainly be purchasing a copy.
I find the orders quiet confusing so I am looking forward to laying it all to rest.

Hi Eric .
In regard to your last post , So did they , to whom they were issued !!!. .
cheers 90th

90th wrote:

Hi Eric .
In regard to your last post , So did they , to whom they were issued !!!. .
cheers 90th

That is apparent.
I do find the various books published to be confusing.
I thought the latest book by Adrian greaves was the final word until Julinan pointed out the inclusion of the fake order to Cavaye.
So I am now totally confused.

Durnford is the british Custer,the french Murat...

[quote="Chard1879"]

Quote :

CTSG is correct when he says, all officers present at Isandlwana had the right to speak up. The Regulations for field forces in South Africa" was not written just for Chelmsford.

Be realistic

Colonel Glyn a man with years experence and was considered to be good enough to command a column in Zululand asked about fortifying and was told to go away.

If a Full Colonel and Column commander is ignored what chace did any one else have ?


Cheers

Bonsoir

Chelmsford is the boss, no one must oppose or contradict ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Bonsoir

Chelmsford is the boss, no one must oppose or contradict ...

Cheers

Pascal

"Ignored" DB14. "no one must oppose or contradict" PM.
Then surely you believe that Chelmsford must takeABSOLUTE and FULL responsibility!
(I have worked under plenty of bosses and I can remember very few who were closed to suggestions. Most valued the input of their juniors and listened to all opinions before making a decision).
General Peter De La Billiere for example, spoke to, listened and actioned on information gathered from the lowliest rank peeling potatoes round the back of the cook house! (Not every day mind you, but you know good leaders when you see one).
And Chelmsford wasn't one. Hate to say it, but another psychopath marker - I know best, I am right, you do as I say!

What i was trying to say was if a Colonel isn't going to have any luck with Lord C, then what luck with a Lt or a Captian have ??

I think Lord C is mostly to blame, but D and P did make mistakes.


Cheers

And what I am saying, is that if Chelmsford made all the decisions without hearing his officers' opinions and if he did not delegate to his juniors - and this seems apparent, then he also takes the responsibility for the defeat.

Hi DB14 / Tasker .
Agreed . .
cheers 90th.

Hi Tasker,Garry and DB 14...

Lord Chelmsford, was not a psychopath .

Psychopaths are killers, the mentally ill, and if Chelmsford is a psychopath, 90 % of humanity consists of psychopaths.

Let's say he was very authoritarian ...

What is normal, with the mass of concerns he had to settle, he had no time to waste and energy to waste with opponents subordinates ...

But we must also see what the Victorian societée and education had received Chelmsford ...

This is what Napoleon said to his subordinates:
"I alone know what I do"

It is a control system that works, if subordinates understand the orders, are disciplined and obey orders ...

But if there is one who does not understand the thought of the c-in-c is a disaster ...

Cheers

Pascal

Tasker

Of course Chelmsford is responsible for the defeat.

The head of each victory and every defeat is always the c-in-c, is the rule.

But the defeat of Isandhlwana, does not Chelmsford, a psychopath ...

Just someone who has underestimated his opponents from their ethnic origin...

A psychopath is someone who takes pleasure in doing wrong and who feels nothing for his victims when he is ...

Cheers

Pascal

"Psychopaths are killers, the mentally ill"

Nonesense! This is a common misconception.
Not my area of expertise, but I have been trained to deal with psychopaths in my profession.
However, the overwhelming majority of psychopaths are highly successful individuals, often high achievers in their professional lives, and function normally in society. One may well be living next door to you.
A person with depression is no less likely to become a killer.

Hello Tasker

In conclusion psychopaths are good people?

To be confused authoritarian because of an overload of work and not very smart subordinates such as Chelmsford or Napoleon and psychopaths ...

Cheers

Pascal

Here it shows that Durnford pulled Pulleine up for not drawing in the camp.
Even Strafford couldn't understand why this hadn't been done. How would Durnford had know that Pulleine had been issued with that order. I guess Pulleine could have shown him.

Strafford wrote.

"‘Col. Durnford and Capt. Shepstone entered Pulleine’s tent whilst I remained outside. From what I could hear, an argument was taking place between Pulleine and Durnford as to who the senior was. Col.Pulleine appeared to give way and I heard Durnford say, “You had orders to draw in the camp”. Alas there was no time for this as the fighting had already commenced. I can never understand to this day why this was not done."

Strafford recalls this when in his Seventies. ( Not that, that makes and difference.)

Hi all

After P.S.Thompson :

" Durnford want to see Colonel Pulleine ,the commandant of the camp.Pulleine told him that the Lieutenant General had gone to reinforce the reconnaissance and what happened around the camp. He also told him that he had been left in command with order to defend the camp.Durnford as senior Lieutenant Colonel superseded him . He pproposed to go out after the enemy that had been seen.
Pulleine protested that that was contrary to his instructions..."

In conclusion, Durnford is unruly and more beings incompetent...



Pascal

littlehand wrote:

Here it shows that Durnford pulled Pulleine up for not drawing in the camp.
Even Strafford couldn't understand why this hadn't been done. How would Durnford had know that Pulleine had been issued with that order. I guess Pulleine could have shown him.

Strafford wrote.

"‘Col. Durnford and Capt. Shepstone entered Pulleine’s tent whilst I remained outside. From what I could hear, an argument was taking place between Pulleine and Durnford as to who the senior was. Col.Pulleine appeared to give way and I heard Durnford say, “You had orders to draw in the camp”. Alas there was no time for this as the fighting had already commenced. I can never understand to this day why this was not done."

Strafford recalls this when in his Seventies. ( Not that, that makes and difference.)

Pascal, have another look at LH's post, above. Pulleine seems to have essentially done nothing in the hours between Chelmsford leaving the camp and Durnford arriving.

By removing himself from the camp, Durnford had abdicated any responsibility for its overall defence, and found himself unable to do anything but defend his own front. By doing so, he also compromised Pulleine, because his position committed Pulleine to overextend his front to support him. 

Neither Pulleine or Durnford had the time or opportunity to recover from these errors because the Zulu commanders - who made no such mistakes - did not let them

Chelmsford also removed himself from the camp. Durnford and the Lord both did this and they did so in order to pursue the Zulus. Were both not simply guilty of fatally underestimating the Zulu capability?

tasker224 wrote:

Were both not simply guilty of fatally underestimating the Zulu capability?

Read the Lord battle orders, you will see how badly he underestimated the Zulu.


Cheers

Quote :

Chelmsford also removed himself from the camp.

The Good Lord Chelmsford, had justification for as you say removing himself from the camp. ( He could do whatever he wanted) he was going to the assistance of Dartnell. If he hadn't he would have been comdemned for not no so. Whatever roll Dunrford was supposed to play, it wasn't leaving the camp. I think it's time we all agreed, it all went wrong back in the camp, on the morning of the 22nd consequences of those left in commard.

Hi all

If pulleine was alone, there would be no massacre, was because there would not had to battle ...

The Zulu does not want to fight on January 22.

It's Durnford which initiated the battle and thus the massacre, with the reconnaissances that he has ordered to NNH.

Pulleine Isandhlwana was quiet, until the other enraged comes mangling ....



Pascal

I think that theory was proven wrong, because the Zulus had every intention of attacking Pearson's column on the same day. Which of course they did.

Hi all

Very interesting, I had not thought of !



Pascal

24th wrote:

I think that theory was proven wrong, because the Zulus had every intention of attacking Pearson's column on the same day. Which of course they did.

The army was discovered by a NNC patrol at Nyzne.

20,000 plus Zulu warriors did not leave their homesteads, families, get tooled up, go through pre battle ceremonies, put on their war dress, engage inbonding rituals in their regiments and move stealthily to the hills above iSandlwana, for no reason. They came to attack it, with or without Chelmsfordd in attendance.
Durnford did not initiate the attack, Pascal !
They were always going to attack, and if Durnford hadn't shown up when he did, no one would have got a wiggle on. The entire camp would have been sitting on their arsenals when the Zulus struck - had it been left to Pulleine alone.
I don't blame Chelmsford for the action that he took in going to Dartnell's camp in search of the enemy.
I don't blame Durnford for the action that he took in going in search of the enemy.
Attack is the best form of defence, I could go on but you don't want to hear all the cliches, you know them.
To paraphrase CTSG, isn't it about time we all agreed not to criticise Durnford for that? At least he DID something. Aggression and aggressive patrolling is a very effective form of DEFENCE - ask any infanteer - and the camp was to be DEFENDED.

Hi all

The Zulu had no intention of attacking the 22. :lol:

The attack is the best form of defense?

Except for 1 against 13 ! It not attack an elephant catching it by the tail ...



Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Hi allThe Zulu had no intention of attacking the 22. :lol:

You've read the missing 5 hours ??

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Hi all

The Zulu had no intention of attacking the 22. :lol:

The attack is the best form of defense?

Except for 1 against 13 ! It not attack an elephant catching it by the tail ...



Pascal

Pascal, 3 points.
1. As I said, don't ask me, ask a good infanteer.
2. Durnford did not know the exact odds as we do today.
3. When the odds are against, it is even more important to be aggressive!
When a shark comes up to sniff you Pascal, remember to punch it on the nose! And keep punching, with everything you have.

Hi all

Well anyway, Durnford was not capable of anything ...

We saw this in1873, it's amazing that he still finds defenders in these days ...



Pascal

Pascal

Your mind is quite obviously set against Col Durnford, and it is also quite obvious that you have a blinkered opinion of him, and you don't seem able enough to see beyond the length of your arm.

Col Durnford was in command of No2 Column (an independant command), he was ordered to go to Isandlwana, but NOT ordered to take command of the camp, that was under the temp command of Pulleine. On his way to the camp, he was met by Chard, who advised him that zulu's had been spotted near the camp area. and on arrival at the camp, Durnford was surprised to see that the camp did not seem prepared for any attack that might be made by the zulu's. There were many conflicting reports coming in about zulu's in the area, which Pulleine had done little about, so Durnford sent out scouts and sent some men up Isandlwana hill to report on the zulu activity, later, an officer reported that a large body of zulu's were moving in the direction of Chelmsford.

Now, let's not forget that Durnford was in command of his own No2 column, and NOT in command of the camp, and with the report coming in that a large body of zulu's were heading in the direction of Chelmsford, Col Durnford must have felt duty bound to head off this large body of zulu's which he thought were trying to outflank Chelmsford. He went to try to stop these zulu's from outflanking Chelmsford, however, he was caught up and advised by a carbineer scout that this was a ploy by the zulu's to get him away from the camp, Durnford was furious, and had to make a fighting retreat back towards the camp. But let us suppose that this large body of zulu's HAD been making their way to outflank Chelmsford, and Durnford had stayed at the camp and done nothing to protect his general, what would the result have been then I wonder.

Chelmsford had said that he would expect commanders to disobey his orders depending on the situation, now, with Durnford having no orders to take command of the camp, and being in command of his own No2 column, he was not disobeying any orders from Chelmsford when he went to find out where the large body of zulu's (that had been reported as heading in the direction of Chelmsford), were going.

Pulleine was left in charge of the camp by Chelmsford, he had orders to defend the camp, and he set out the defences in accord with Chelmsfords orders, however, there had been lots of reports about zulu's in the area many hours before the arrival of Col Durnford, therefor the situation had changed since Chelmsford had left the camp, so why did Pulleine stick rigidly to Chelmsfords defence orders when there was a clause saying that Chelmsford would expect his commanders to disobey his orders if the situation had changed. The situation had indeed changed, but Pulleine hadn't changed with it, and by the time that Col Durnford arrived, there was very little that could be done, but at least Durnford did make the effort, which is more than Pulleine did, and in that respect, Durnford was a lot more capable than Pulleine even attempted to be.

Don't condemn Col Durnford for the loss at Isandlwana, when you know that the bulk of the blame lies with Chelmsford, and also with Pulleine for not using the 'change in situations' clause made by Chelmsford in his orders.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Don't condemn Col Durnford for the loss at Isandlwana, when you know that the bulk of the blame lies with Chelmsford, and also with Pulleine for not using the 'change in situations' clause made by Chelmsford in his orders.

I blame the Zulus myself ...

Quote :

I blame the Zulus myself ...

:lol:

I blame the Zulus myself ...

...for what? Defending their homeland?

Responsibility, or the greatest portion of the "blame" for failing to prepare a suitable defence of the camp belongs to Pulleine.

tasker224 wrote:

Responsibility, or the greatest portion of the "blame" for failing to prepare a suitable defence of the camp belongs to Pulleine.

Tasker how would you have preparded with the vauge reports but no atcual sightings of these
surposed thousands of Zulus ??






Cheers