Starve into submission

" odd the general asking what he already know's".

90th wrote:

I must be losing it ! , please show me in Crealocks submission that states Glyn categorically forced or pushed LC to divide the camp !. All I seem to remember reading is when Glyn saw the note he directed it's carrier off to LC stating something like he commands the column take it to him ! .
90th

I have never ever said "categorically" or forced LC.
I posted Crealocks statement that's all. If I did say what you have stated, please show me,

Ray.

I have shown an example of this above, ie; Laagering at iSandlwana, and as you will no doubt have spent quite a few hours reading the various books on the AZW in your collection, you must have read what people like Crealock, Clery, LC and others had to say about Col Glyn.

He was treat like a 'tag along' when LC attached himself and his staff to No3 column, he had to take a back seat whilst LC 'ran the show', everyone knew back then who was 'the boss'.

Glyn did get a hammering quite a bit from Clery, but if I recall, it all came after the Battle when he was a low point in his life due the men he lost.

Littlehand , Impi and possibly 24th among others who think Glyn persuaded LC to move out and chase shadows ! here is some primary evidence which comes from page 83 of ' Zululand at war ' by Sonia Clarke , this is a letter WRITTEN by Clery
to Major General Sir Archibald Allison who from memory the Chief of the intelligence department , and I quote from Clery's own hand ............ '' About 1.30 am that night a message written in Pencil was brought to my tent from the commander of the force bivouacking out , to say that the enemy had shown in increased force and that it would not be prudent to attack them in the morning without some white troops . I took this at once to Col Glyn who simply said I must take it to the general . The General's tent was close by , so I roused him up . Lying on my face and hands held close by his camp bed I can still remember how I read out from the crumpled piece of notebook paper written across in pencil, word after word what I just previously had such difficulty in deciphering in my own tent . The General did not hesitate much . He said , '' Order the 2nd Batt 24th regt , four guns and all the mounted troops to get ready to start at day-break ''.

There it is , now you tell me or explain how Glyn persuaded LC to didvide the camp , when clearly from this letter written by Clery on the 17th Feb 79 , not days , or weeks , or months later as Crealock's , which has little substance after this letter , as we are all aware Crealock was trying to cover his own backside and LC's . Glyn isnt part of the conversation or even for that matter in the tent ! , Clery and LC are in the tent no -one else ! , Clery also said '' The General did not hesitate much '' , it's there plainly for you and the others to see , that Glyn HAD NO PART in LC's decision . Quite possibly an apology is owed to Glyn on your behalf  
90th

was it just a low point, i suggest he had
a significant breakdown, but, he was still
astute enough to swerve his lordship's
clumsy machination's, Mrs Glyn However
was not in the mood to forgive and forget!.

I think it was the way Crealock worded his statement that gave the impression that it was Glyn that 'spoke' to LC about Dartnell, however, I am sure that if you read it again it will be realised that the messenger came from Dartnell and the message was passed from one officer to another until it was passed on to LC. This is where the confusion comes in, Glyn said to pass on the message to LC, but nothing was exchanged verbally between Glyn and LC, then after LC read it, he decided to change his mind and set off with over half the column to go to Dartnell, it was the content of the message that changed LC's mind, not anything that Glyn said to him.

No one has far as I can see, has said nothing of the kind, what has been posted and discussed was with reference to Crealocks statement. Where he says Glyn made representation to LC which caused for a fresh orders to be sent to Durnford. No one know's what that representation was. Was it as impi asks verbal or written.

Littlehand I think you'll find that where you posted Crealock's version of events to the COE originally , that you typed in your own hand below the highlighted box , Glyn pushed / forced LC into splitting the camp . I dont think its on this thread , but you wrote it because Impi has quoted it , no-one else wrote it , surely you would be able to find the post a lot quicker than myself , its all a moot point really because as I've given you primary source evidence that Glyn had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision !  
90th

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

I think it was the way Crealock worded his statement that gave the impression that it was Glyn that 'spoke' to LC about Dartnell, however, I am sure that if you read it again it will be realised that the messenger came from Dartnell and the message was passed from one officer to another until it was passed on to LC. This is where the confusion comes in, Glyn said to pass on the message to LC, but nothing was exchanged verbally between Glyn and LC, then after LC read it, he decided to change his mind and set off with over half the column to go to Dartnell, it was the content of the message that changed LC's mind, not anything that Glyn said to him.

We could read anything into every account, to make if fit with the argument, Crealock's statement is primary source. The wording regarding Glyn, is quite clear.

Littlehand admit it , dont speak in riddles and attempt to twist things around ! , man up ,  you misinterpreted or got it wrong ! . I dont know what else you wish to believe ! The Clery Letter is written only 3 weeks after the event , he clearly states it's only him in the tent with LC , and again I say to you , Clery states LC didnt hesitate much , no mention of I'll go and see Glyn and get his thoughts ! , or nothing like ,  '' what do you think Col Glyn hiding in the corner ''.............please !
You do realise Crealock wasnt trusted or liked by many of the staff with possibly the exception of LC dont you ? .  no-one or I should say not many will take you seriously if you dont look at Clery's letter , he had nothing to gain by Lying or throwing Glyn under the bus if needed be , but he ( Glyn ) WASNT THERE !.
90th.

Possibly because this evidence doesnt tie in with your Crealock report you wish to dismiss it ? . Dont know why you think the Clery letter isnt primary source evidence when the fact of the matter is , it was only him and LC in the tent , not Glyn or Crealock for that matter ? . I suppose you can attempt to twist the evidence around , but in the long run you have only Crealock's point of view , which you seem to want to believe more that anyone else's ? . It was well known he was attempting to cover his own and LC's bums ! .

Hi LH.

I think it's in the way these sort of things are interpreted that cause these problems for us all. It seems that Crealock has used wording that seems to suggest that Glyn 'said' something or 'wrote' something to LC, but 'making a representation' just means he passed something to someone, in other words 'he presented the message', wording from that day and age can be a little hard to understand in these modern days. Put it this way, the message was 'presented' to one officer, it was then 'presented' to another, this would make it 're-presented', however, Crealock used the word 'represented' instead of 're-presented'. Hope you see what I mean.

90th your attitude is exactly what starts the rows, it causes retaliation. 

LH, read Clery statement, in conjunction with Crealocks. Let me know your thoughts,

CTSG
This coming from you who has been banned for much worse ! . I've never bullied anyone in my life , I've had some stick on here myself , but I have never bullied in my replies , if anything I can be a tad sarcastic but that's only in a reply to where someone was antagonistic toward myself , dont throw stones and expect not to be having them thrown back ! . This hopefully is my last comment on this situation .  
90th  

well. there you go! i give heartfelt
fullsome apology's, but everything
goes on the same..point scoring..
like little kids in the play ground..

i more than on one occasion publicly
acknowledged my failing's. personally
i think your both wrong re, Glyn, he
is the classic red herring, and you
all seem to fall for it time after time.

you all cite the most recent! authors
like they are the ' only received
wisdom ) well, after 134 years later!
can i beg to say, the contributors in
this place consist's ( in the main )
people, who love this subject enough
to post with confidence, only to be
met with, pick your own..entrenched
view's. jealousy, uninformed, ' thick '
blind, deaf, prejudiced,opinionated,
and plainly, just a general lack of
knowledge regarding the South
African Campaign of 1879. yes.
Isandhlwana,you pretend to be all over
that. R.D. Hmm. cut and paster's,thats
other people's work, that makes me yawn!
use your own word's. Isandhlwana ,
Rorkes Drift..yawn. P.I. Wolsley. Osborn.
Walmsley. Yeatman,Walkinshaw, browne,
Barton,Russell M.I. Coker,Wynne, Intombe,
Khambulu,Kensington.

Crealock at the COE.

Littlehands corrects. The Crealock statement contains the following passage. I also see where 90th is going.

I was not present during the conversation between Major Clery, Staff Officer to Col Glyn, and the Lt General but the evening before. about 8.30PM. on this officer asking the Lt General if the 1/24th were to reinforce Major Dartnell in the Mangeni Valley, "he said no", The General received, I believe, through Colonel Glyn, a subsequent representation which caused the fresh orders at 2Am, the 22nd, and the orders to Lt Durnford.

There are a number of issues to look at.
In Red:
Crealock evades the truth cleverly. He wasn't there in the tent when Clery met Chelmsford. He was however listening, this he admits to when he confirms that he objected to a Major issuing orders to a column commander, consequently he himself sent the orders.

In Orange:
Gosset had arrived with a message from Dartnell, he caught up with Chelmsford while Chelmsford and entourage where exploring the Nyoni ridge area. I would draw from this that apart from silently delivering a written message, Gosset and Buller would have appraised the General of the situation. That's why they were sent, the two of them were part of Chelmsfords staff and he wanted an honest situation report. No doubt during this appraisal Glyn may quite possibly have said: " Does Dartnell need support", and asked that question of Gosset. Its logical that someone would have asked and the fact the Crealock mentions it confirms that issue. Gosset correctly passed on the message from Dartnell that he expected to attack in the morning, so indicating he was confident enough to in his force to accomplish that.
It was only much later in the evening after the escapades of the panicked NNC that Dartnell realised that his earlier confidence was misplaced that he sent Lt Wash for help.

In Cyan:
This is really the mute point. Does Crealock mean prior to Lt Walsh arriving with the plea for help or is Crealock mistaken. Its pretty obvious, see 90ths quotes, that Glyn made no representations AFTER he received the message, Glynn had no contact with Chelmsford. The courier was Clery who, if anything, belittles Glyn because of a pretty couldn't  care less attitude, " Take it to the General", was all he really said.
Therefore for Crealock to be right it would mean that between 8.30 on the evening of the 21st sitting on top of the Nyoni ridge and going to bed, probably late in the evening of the 21st, Crealock maintains that there was further contact between Chelmsford and Glyn.
My problem with this is that there is no mention of that meeting in some pretty comprehensive papers by Glynn, Chelmsford, Clery and various senior officers statements.
Clery was Richard Glyns go between in dealings with Chelmsford and has written many many letters about their relationship. A significant number as confidential to senior people in England ( Sonia Clarks edited collection from the Brenthurst Library ).
See
Crealocks evidence to COE
Clery letter to Sir  Archibald Alison 1 February 1879
Clery letter to Colonel Harman 17 February 1878 ( incorrectly dated should read 1879 )
Clery letter to Sir Archibald Alison 11th March 1879

There are also many a number of letters from Crealock complaining about the criticism of the campaign and the General himself. A key complaint at the time, as pointed out by Crealock, was the splitting of the force ( justified in my humble opinion ) surely IF some conversation or observation from Glyn had been made it would have been seized on by the Generals supporters as evidence that Chelmsford wasny culpable alone and that he had agreement/request from his most senior officer? The supporters tried everything else to lay some of the blame on other shoulders why would they have missed such a golden opportunity.

I would therefore believe that when Crealock mentions : that subsequently etc etc, he is actuall referring to the note that was : 'Passed to Chelmsford via Clery and Glyn from Dartnell.' There really is no evidence that there were other representations.

If I may suggest, a lot of the animosity and agro builds up from members looking at tiny pieces of evidence in isolation. Possibly a wider look at available evidence could be an option.

Just my humble offerings for debate.

Hi springy.

You hit the nail on the head mate.

The part in cyan in your post above is indeed the part that has been misinterpreted.

What it means is that a written message was delivered by Lt Walsh from Dartnell, it was passed on via Glyn to Clery who then handed it to LC, then on reading the message, LC changed his mind about assisting Dartnell and issued fresh orders at 2am.

It was the content of the message that changed LC's mind, not Glyn, all that Glyn said was "Take it to the general", and the message was then passed on, he did not speak to LC.

Hope all well mate.

Hi Martin
I believe that's right, however we know virtually nothing of Camp life on the 21st so it is possible, remote I would admit, that there was some form of communication between Chelmsford and Glyn. Hell they had tents within spitting distance of each other and as the HQ Officers mess was so very small in terms of numbers I would be highly surprised if they didn't mess with Glynn and his staff. So yes the potential is there for a word to be said and perhaps overheard by Crealock.
Unless some long forgotten diary turns up from one of the 2/24th men we probably never will know. However that being said the letters I quoted from Clery to England make it very very clear that when Chelmsford got the note from Dartnell he sprang into life. And that fits with the personality traits mentioned by others, instant decision and action.


Cheers

kopie wrote:

springbok9 wrote:

The were really very unsophisticated in their approach.  Basically head on confrontation.

Just like the Sprinbok rugby team!

Just spotted that ! Cheeky bugger.   Ask Wales what they think? In fact wait till next week and ask Scotland as well
Oh yes then there's that little contest at Twickers next week, should be fun.  

Cheers  

impi
Exactly.
Cheers

Thanks Impi, that clears that up.

impi wrote:

Why would the Zulus try to deceived Dartnell on the 21st Jan. The main Zulu Army never intended on attacking the camp until the 23rd. Seems a hell of a long time to try and deceived someone. Most likely Dartnell  came across Zulus making their way to the valley, ready for the main attack on the 23rd. 

The unexpected division of the camp,not only changed British plans but also those of the Zulus.

That is a fair point impi. I don't know WHY the Zulu deceived Dartnell with the camp fires, I just know that they DID.
I can only guess that in war, sport, any contest, one opponent will do anything they can to disrupt or wrong foot the other.
Sometimes, it pays unexpected dividends.
(I play a bit of 5-aside footy on a thursday night. If the other team's forward is trying to move left, I get in his way. I don't know why he is intending to move to the left, just that he is, so I get in his way in order to disrupt whatever it is he is planning). Hope you get my drift!

springbok9 wrote:

kopie wrote:

springbok9 wrote:

The were really very unsophisticated in their approach.  Basically head on confrontation.

Just like the Sprinbok rugby team!

Just spotted that ! Cheeky bugger.   Ask Wales what they think? In fact wait till next week and ask Scotland as well
Oh yes then there's that little contest at Twickers next week, should be fun.  

Cheers  

Having watched the highlights, exactly like I said Springbok! Unsophisticated, head on confrontation!
I think at Twickers however, the boks are going to run into some guys of their own size who are equally unsophisticated!
England 29 - Springboks 15.
 

Koppie
Don't give up your day job. Three tries to nil? Best rugby played by the Boks without a shadow of doubt.

Cheers

Oh Yes. Next weeks game is England v All Blacks....................nery a Bok in site.