Durnford was he capable.1

Good question DB14! Impossible to answer, of course.
Who knows what any of us would have done or how we would have reacted, without actually have been there, in their position at the time.
By the time the battle was beginning, it would have been too late to strike tents etc etc.

However, what I would have done first and foremmost, would have been on the "k" of "clunk" as the Lord shut the door and left the camp in my command, would have been to call an immediate meeting of my company commanders, brief them of the altered situation, order them away to consult with their officers and senior NCOs, meet again in an hour to discuss ideas as to how best to revise the camp's defensive strategy.

tasker224 wrote:

However, what I would have done first and foremmost, would have been on the "k" of "clunk" as the Lord shut the door and left the camp in my command, would have been to call an immediate meeting of my company commanders, brief them of the altered situation, order them away to consult with their officers and senior NCOs, meet again in an hour to discuss ideas as to how best to revise the camp's defensive strategy.

Thanks for the reply.

Pulliene would have seen no reason to do this, hadn't the GOC just left to smash the main zulu army ?

He could have done other things.


Cheers

Perhaps Pulleine believed exactly that.
And that is one of the painful lessons which has been learned from iSandlwana, by the army.
Never take anything for granted when camped out in your enemy's territory.
I don't think any commander would be that complacent today!


No one today would be criticised for taking the precautionary principle and erring on the side of caution in any vaguely similar situation.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

 If it wasn't for this hate campaign, The Good Lord Chelmsford would never have been brought into the firing line over the shambles at Isandlwana.

You do of course realise he was sacked of his job and never allowed to command troops again.

Quote :

You do of course realise he was sacked of his job and never allowed to command troops again

.


The Good Lord Chelmsford's career from the end of 1879.

1879 (Aug.) Made Knight Grand Cross of the Bath (GCB)
1882 Promoted to Lieutenant-General
1884-9 Lieutenant of the Tower of London
1887 Colonel of 4th (West London) Rifle Volunteer Corps
1888 Promoted to General
1898 (30th Jan.) Appointed Colonel of the Sherwood Foresters
1900 (27th Sept.) Appointed Colonel of 2nd Life Guards
1902 Made Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO)
1905 (9th April) Died in London at United Services Club while playing billiards."

Hi CTSG

That may be so, but he was still sacked and never commanded troops again.

Having lied to the queen he enjoyed Royal Surport, the reason for most his awards.



Cheers

Quote :

never commanded troops again.

DB. With the positions he held up until his death I wouldn't for a moment think that, that would have bother him in the slightest.

Hi Martin.
Much merit in your last post . You cant really argue with that I'd think . No doubt some will attempt it .
cheers 90th

Hi Gary (90th)

Thanks mate, much appreciated.

Yes, you may be right, Pascal might spring out of the bushes with an assegai,

I shall have to fix the bayonet to the M.H :lol:

Martin.

Hi CTSG.
From ' The Zulu War Then And Now ' page 203 ; Referring to Chelmesford ; '' He continued to to enjoy the Queen's support , and was created a GCB , appointed Lt , of the tower of London , and GIVEN A NUMBER OF HONORARY COLONELCIES ''.
As DB pointed out he never commanded a force in the field again , Also the Tower of London appointment ; Commander Of the Tower of London , Gold Stick ( Gold Stick is a position in the Queen's Household ) . So really the appointments you posted are not of very much substance . Either Honorary or Queen's Favoritism !.
cheers 90th.

Hi all

Martin congratulations on your post, I loved ...

Chelmsford is not at Isandhlwana, also he is not responsible for the defeat ...

Quote me a single unit, moved by order of the excellent Pulleine before 11.30 am.

There is none, all units have left the camp before 11.30, it is ordered by Durnford ...

Without Durnford, no battle at Isandhlwana and no massacre.

Made at the camp is provisional, that is 22 or 23 that the poor Pulleine was from joining the Chelmsford ?



Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Chelmsford is not at Isandhlwana, also he is not responsible for the defeat

So the man who didn't scout, fortify, take any advice, lied to the queen, ignored many reports is innocent ??

Martin

Excellent post, totaly agree.

Pascal
Read TMFH



Cheers

I too completely concur with Martin's post. It is all in there, just read it.

Pascal says,

"Quote me a single unit, moved by order of the excellent Pulleine before 11.30 am.

There is none, all units have left the camp before 11.30, it is ordered by Durnford ..."

This is precisely it Pascal. Read your own post again, slowly!

Pulleine did - apparently - nothing, but sit on his arsenal, whilst Hell was breaking out around his command. He was the Emperor Nero, playing on his fiddle, whilst Rome was burning around him.

Quote :

90th. So really the appointments you posted are not of very much substance

What do you mean " Not very much substance" :lol:

littlehand wrote:

Quote :

90th. So really the appointments you posted are not of very much substance

What do you mean " Not very much substance" :lol:

"Moved upstairs" is the polite expression I think.

Let's look at this way.

Nothing happen at Isandlwana while Chelmsford was there, they had not fortified the position at all, Chelmsford was there. In the early hours of the 22 nd January. Chelmsford took part of the force and left Isandlwana, leaving Pulliene in commard in the absence of Col: Glynn.

Pulliene was also told to have ammuntion wagons ready to leave at a moments notice.

So looking at it from Pulliene's perspective, there was no signs of any danger and he would soon be moving off the join up with Chelmsford. So what would have been the point of fortifying the camp if you were in Pulliene's place.

How would Durnford had known Pulliene had been ordered to draw in the camp.

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."

Hi Littlehand .
'' Not of very much substance '' means exactly what it implies , HONORARY COLONELCIES , as Tasker politely put it '' Moved upstairs '' , ie ; out of the way , but in a manner where he saves face , hope you understand what I mean . It's the same as Celebrities being awarded '' PHD'S or other Doctrates and awards , they are Honorary in title only . No differance with C'ford's honorary Colonelcies . Not to mention the position ( Gold Stick ) awarded by the Queen because its the Queen's household appointment , Queen Victoria was an ardent fan of Chelmesford even if her Husband the Duke of Cambridge ...wasnt !.
Hope this made sense .
cheers 90th.

Hi Martin,
Succinctly and well put.
Both you and Ron Locke have a very good understanding of the real situation on 22/01/1879.

Regards

barry

Hi all

Pulleine was not medium, he could not foresee an attack whatever reports he has received , his orders were to defend the camp ...

Durnford knew the order of Chelmsford for Pulleine and him, to defend the camp, he sent troops to the outside ...

If all the troops had remained in the camp, what would have happened if Pulleine had been alone, the camp could have been better defended ...



Pascal

The title of this thread is "Durnford, was he capable?"

If the Q is, was he capable of defending the camp against 20,000+ Zulu warriors with little more than an hour's notice to prepare a defence, then the answer is NO, as it would be for any other officer in the British army at that time.

Unless Wellington, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, or any other military genius had turned up at 1030 on the morning of the 22nd, there wasn't even the slightest chance that the camp could have escaped from the fatal predicament in which it found itself, at that late stage on the 22nd.

Hi all

90th, DB14, tasker, Barry. Many thanks for your kind words, much appreciated.

I really can't see how the blame for the loss at Isandlwana can be put in Col Durnfords lap, he did at least try to ascertain what was happening around the camp area, and he also went to try to stop his general from being outflanked (although he didn't know that this was a ploy being used by the zulu's to get him away from the camp), and I believe that this wasn't the first time they had used this trick.

Dartnell should have gone back to the camp, but he was under the impression that he was up against a large force of zulu's (which he may well have been at the time), however, he decided to send word to Chelmsford and stay out that night. Chelmsford then assumes that this is the main army of zulu's, divides his column, and sets off to confront them and relieve Dartnell. The zulu's have now got what they wanted, they have made Chelmsford split his column and go off in search of the zulu's that are no longer near Dartnell (maybe just a few left to give Dartnell the impression that they are still there), but in reality the majority of them have now gone to join up with the large army at Isandlwana.

The zulu's now see that Durnford has arrived at the camp, so they put their cunning ploy into action again. They make a move towards Chelmsford in the hope that Durnford will move away from the camp to cover his generals flank, and they are delighted when they see that it has worked. They have lured Durnford away from the camp, their plan has gone well, they can now attack the camp, surround it and destroy it.

I can see that Pulleine was 'in two minds' so to speak, he would have been expecting orders from Chelmsford to follow up with the remainder of No3 Column, and he had set out the defences in accord with Chelmsfords orders, but he should have done something more when the first reports of zulu's started to come in, he should have thought about the 'situations having changed' clause in Chelmsfords orders, had the tents struck, and arranged for a more appropiate defence of the camp, as by the time Durnford arrived, there was very little that he could do.

Although I do sympathise a little with Pulleine, to my mind he could and should have made more of a fist of it than he did, and organised better defences, and with a well organised supply of ammo to the firing line.

Martin.

Spot on again Martin, hear here. Excellent post, particularly the sections where you highlight the Zulu tactical plays.

I sometimes think that the Zulus are not given anything like enough credit for their tactical superiority in the battle of iSandlwana.

Chelmsford, Pulleine, Durnford et al were completely outsmarted by kaMahole, Ntuli and Dambulamanzi et al. I am sure that back in Victorian England, the masses would have had an impossible time getting their heads round the fact that the superior British Officer gentleman and his army, could be totally and completely played off the park by a black, native commander and his army. Much more palatable to convince themselves that several unfortunate pieces of jolly hard luck, one or two incompetent officers (a scapegoat) and the odd bit of unfair play were the cause of the rout.

Quote :

I sometimes think that the Zulus are not given anything like enough credit for their tactical superiority in the battle of iSandlwana.

Absolutely correct, even today the battle of "Isandlwana" is seen as a British diaster. It should be seen a a Zulu Victory. Because that's exacty what is was. The only Authors that have tryed to get this point across is " Lock & Quantrill"

Hi all


Durnford was he capable ?

No , no , no He is a incapable !

If he had believed that the situation was dangerous, he would have remained in the camp to organize the defense.yes or no !

Out he felt that it was LC that was in danger.yes or no !

He did not even ask Pulleine defensive measures during his abscence ...While he was the highest ranking , yes or no !

In fact he did not think the camp in danger, he thought that the Zulu would go after LC.yes or no !

Pulleine be would have done better if Durnford had remained in Natal.yes or no !

There would not even have to battle, if the orders of Durnford had not caused ...yes or no !

The Zulu had no intention of attacking the 22 ,yes or no !

If Durford had not sent the NNH in "mop", there would be no Zulu attack and massacre.yes or no !

Guys like Custer or Durnford are exactly the kind of temperament that causes this type of massacre.yes or no !

I will defend Pulleine to my last breath...



Pascal

Hi Pascal .
I dont think you need to double the same post , this same post I read in another thread . I think once is enough .
.
cheers 90th.

Gary very simple, on the other topic, (which originally had nothing to do with Durford) the discution also deviated to the well known Durnford accountability, then the post is valid for both ...



Pascal

Thanks again tasker, much appreciated.

You and littlehand have also got it right, the zulu's should be credited for their tactics that they used, they really did outwit the Brits, but like you say, the top brass back home wouldn't want that known would they?

Pascal

Put yourself in Col Durnfords place, the zulu's wanted to draw him out of the camp, so what better way of doing it than by pretending to be moving towards Chelmsford. Col Durnford really didn't have much choice, he had to protect his generals flank, if he had stayed in the camp and the zulu's had been attempting to outflank Chelmsford, then Durnford would have been guilty of neglecting his duty by not protecting his general. The zulu's must have known that by making their move towards Chelmsford, Durnford would be duty bound to try to stop them from cutting Chelmsford off, this was a very clever tactic used by the zulu's, they knew that Col Durnford would have to respond to their move towards Chelmsford, he didn't really have much option.

Martin.

Yes Martin it's true.

In fact, the third column is the largest gathering of ....... we have seen in the British Army ...

There is another who has huge responsabilities in the disaster and that forgetfulness always the 4 th ...... of this sad affair ...

I count on you and others to advise me of your lights ...



Pascal

Chard1879 wrote:

Doesn't anyone else wonder why Durnford's body was removed
from Isandlwana, Or was there an underlying reason for his removal. Perhaps he
was thought of as un-worthy to lay with the lions.

Hi Chard

He was seen as a hero by some people, some newspapers stated him and Scott should get a VC.

His body was removed by by his friends and family, being one of only a few marked graves on the field.
The crowds were as big as when the princes body had passed though. They recognized him as what he was
a very brave man.

But when you consider those men who chose to say with him until the end. (So its said) remain on the Battlefield, it would have only been right to leave him with them. Don't you think.

Up to the family i would say

There would have been quite a few families that would have wanted there kinsman brought home. Durnford was one of the lucky ones.

Hi the Zulus

The title of this thread is "Durnford, was he capable ?"

The answer is NO, only the genial Lord Chelmsford or the excellent Pulleine ( without the interferences from Durnford ) would could do it ...



Pascal

Chelsmford made way to many mistakes at Isandlwana, and was sacked of his job for it.

This British genius has never lost a battle in his career.

Durnford has always been defeated, first in 1873 and after 1879.



Pascal

littlehand wrote:

How would Durnford had known Pulliene had been ordered to draw in the camp.

LH

Symonds

"According to the testimony of a special-service officer who was present, and afterwards escaped from the camp, Col. Pulleine went into his tent and brought out his written orders."


Cheers

Hi DB14

Were is the name of this special-service officer




Pascal

It isn't given but most likely Cochrane.

Where is his regiment



Pascal

How many men did have under is commard, and exactly what units did he have commard over, at both Isandlwana and prior.

Durnford was in commard of column no 2.

Three Battalions of NNC.
Five Troops of NNH
And a Rocket Battery.

As for the number per unit.?

Isandlwana

5 troops of NNH each 50 strong under 1 white officer

2 Companies of NNC

A rocket battery under Major Russle, Bomadier Gough and 8 men of the 24th.



Cheers

Just a quick question. The Nqutu Plateau, & Ngwebeni Valley. We're these locations in the opposite direction that Chelmsford left Isandlwana.

Hi Dave.
According to Ian Knight in ' Brave Men's Blood ' Durnford's command was about 500 men , which nearly all were natives .
As this was the case it's impossible to know the exact number ..
Cheers 90th.

The number of men for all the units at Isandhlwana ,with or not with Durnford ,natives or not are all in ES.


Pascal

impi

Chelmsford left to the East/South East. The Plateau is to the North, The Valley the North East.

Regards

For the question of Dave

The number of men for all the units at Isandhlwana ,with or not with Durnford ,natives or not are all in ES.

Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

For the question of Dave The number of men for all the
units at Isandhlwana ,with or not with Durnford ,natives or not are all in ES.

What or who is ES ?

England 's sons