Just a thought! Lord Chelmsford at Isandlwana.

This is just a thought? What do you think Lord Chelmsford chances would have been if he had remained at Isandlwana. Would he have been chopped with the rest, or taken prisoner?

Hiya Dve, Cetshwayo wanted, and asked
for prisoner's to be taken! oop's.

Certainly good bargaining power!

Definitely chopped - unless he was wearing a blue patrol jacket, had a good horse and found an excuse to leave the field early on, which is unlikely.

I assume you mean had he sent Glyn off on his own rather than accompanying him?

Taking prisoners was not on the agenda that day, methinks, though I'm no expert - what evidence is there that Cetshwayo wanted prisoners?

Going by the some of the Zulu eyewitness accounts, they seem to have known most of the officers by name that we're in the camp at Isandlwana. But then again if LC had been in the camp, the troops wouldn't have been sent so far from the camp, and defences would have been put in place. Ie Ammo stations. The hill being used as a natural defence.

My thought?
He'd have been chopped along with Durnford, Pulleine and the rest, probably whilst in the act of sipping a pre-prandial sherry.

24th wrote:

Going by the some of the Zulu eyewitness accounts, they seem to have known most of the officers by name that we're in the camp at Isandlwana. But then again if LC had been in the camp, the troops wouldn't have been sent so far from the camp, and defences would have been put in place. Ie Ammo stations. The hill being used as a natural defence.

They knew the officers by name because the accounts where drawn up by civilian interpreters who inserted the correct names in place of descriptions.
Second point I fully agree, LC would have Im sure had a better defensive plan, there again it was his plan that Pulleine used................hmmmmm.

Nope the disaster wouldn't have happened, if: He had still called up Durnford, who would have then been restricted to the camp, or: The 2/24th hadn't been sent out of the camp on a fools errand to rescue Dartnell from his self made problems.

Just my thoughts.

Hi Springy .
I have not much doubt the result would've been the same , LC's offensive invasion plan would need to have been turned completely around into a defensive action , which he didnt think was necessary and quite frankly he didnt have the time , dont forget his whole invasion was based on luring the zulu army into a fight . Also another key factor is the lack if Imperial troops ,
dont forget more than 60% of his column were Native or Colonial forces , Wood said himself about Kambula , that it was a very
close run thing , he had more imperial troops than LC , faced less numbers , and had the time to fortify and didnt make any mistakes , the zulu nearly got over the line there ! . I have no doubt the result wouldve been the same eventually because the mind set required wouldnt have been implemented by LC , also as you stated Springy , Pulleine did set the defences to LC's specifications !!! . The casualty toll would've been much higher on both sides , but , eventually I think the result would be the same , not to sure the mountain would be a natural defence either , with the scree slopes etc , it's not like you have a flat surface with your backs up against a wall or fortification . Also only my thoughts .
Cheers 90th   

Just to hear the Wonderful DR again!

Just for the hell of it I clicked onto the RD link at the end of that piece. The guide should be shot! He actually has the balls to try and convince his audience that the buildings are the original buildings, even describing one of the windows as the actual window the patients escaped through.
And yet again he tells the audience that the first sight of the Zulus where a group shooting from the terraces, plus another group were on top of Shiyane. Bloody fool, I wonder how many people have gone home believing his version of history. And just to please Martin even calls the defenders the Royal Welsh.

Hope his Assegai rusts and falls of.

Xhosa
Wow, what rot that video is! I didn't realize my blood still boiled! I like Kipling and Rattray too but, to misquote Arnaud, "c'est maginifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre [zouloue], c'est de la folie!".

24th
You wrote "If LC had been in the camp, the troops wouldn't have been sent so far from the camp". Why on earth should you think that? Pearson, the same day, following Chelmsford's same instructions, did the same thing. Do you think Chelmsford would have been incapable of following his own instructions? Why do you think he would have behaved differently?
You also wrote "defences would have been put in place. Ie Ammo stations. The hill being used as a natural defence." Chelmsford had put no "defences " in place up until he left (just a few hours before). He would not have had any more time available than did Pulleine/Durnford. He would not have been able to dig the stony ground or pile up earth sangars or move waggons any better than Pulleine might have been able to, even if it had ever occurred to him that those things would be necessary.
Your notion of "ammo stations" is of your own invention. The same system would have been used: ammunition waggons with bandsmen tasked with carrying ammo to the line: the same as had often been practised. Look at Gingindhlovu, Khambula, Ulundi.
You further wrote "The hill being used as a natural defence" - this is an utter impossibility given the gradient of the western slope and the shape of the mountain. The higher ground further up the slope would always have been available to the Zulus.
The outcome would have been no different had Chelmsford been in camp and in command. Note that my response relates to your hypothetical, specific placement of Chelmsford in camp and NOT to that portion of the Central Column which was out on reconnaissance that morning.

Hi Springy.

Yes, there are some twits that pretend to know it all. They spout all sorts of garbage about the AZW, and some folk believe it all and are convinced by what they have just seen at the flicks or on the goggle box, or even on youtube, or what they have read or have been told by some self proclaimed 'expert', and therefor it must be the true facts, it just shows how gullible some folk are.

If these so called 'experts' are convinced that it was a welsh regiment called the swb or the rw that defended RD, then no wonder some of the more gullible folk believe all this garbage. All that they need to do is to look at a list of regiments that took part in the AZW and they will see for themselves that there was NOT ONE regiment that took part in the AZW with a welsh name, so why do some (mainly welsh folk), keep on quoting about the welsh or the swb or even the rw, when they must know that it was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and its overwhelming majority of Englishmen that did the business at RD.

The ones responsible are mostly glory hunting/stealing, and the ones who believe it must be as thick as two short planks.

This is magnificent, but this is not war!.
Hey Julian hope your pressure is back 
to its usual laid back and languid tempo?
you have to take these things with a pinch
of salt, i deliberately edited the piece with
the sole intention of highlighting the brave,
daring and initiative of the Zulu high command!

But i know that is anathema to most people,
especially to many who should know better
and indeed profess to study this Battle in 
depth..in fact i must point out yet again..the
Zulu would have had to be stupid in the extreme
( they were not ) not to have seen and then 
take advantage of the poor decisions being
made one after the other on the 21st and the
early hours of the 22nd.. i feel no need to
list them here again we all know what they 
were..who sanctioned them and what were the 
result's!

Some even today still feel that the Zulu ' got
lucky '  er no! every man knew their place,each
fighting and dying as one man, one nation, and
as the documentary stated..the repercussions 
went on and on, and on, till it was the great war!
no misquote here.. " Lions Led by Donkey's".
Sorry Julian, but i am a Philistine and not a real
academic like your good self, so excuse my 
ignorance if i don't lose any sleep over the musings
of some French dude..Altogether now! lets say with
real intent and feeling... Wow what a stunning Zulu
Victory at Isandhlwana. who are those people who..
well you all know the rest.                    xhosa

Xhosa
Actually it is a misquote - Kaiser Bill never did say "lions led by donkeys".  No-one did.  I totally agree though about it being a stunning Zulu victory BUT it was also a stunning British defeat.  It WAS both.  The trick is always to look at both sides.  The question is I guess to assess the extent to which the Zulus showed flexibility and adaptability in their approach to battles against the British and then make extrapolations as to Isandhlwana.  So, I look at Rorke's Drift, Khambula and Ulundi and think, well, did those British errors enable the Zulu to gain any special advantage or to change their tactics such that it would guarantee their desired outcome to the battle.  And I deliberate.  In the end it was raw Zulu courage that won the day.  Simply, are Zulu daring and bravery not enough?  Or do we have to ascribe military genius as well?  And can this be done with any real justification?
Yes, the video piece, absolutely, of course, a pinch of salt, but sometimes, like Martin, you hear such obvious nonsense that you wonder how these people get away with it.  I come across the manipulation of the truth, the deliberate alteration of historical truth all the time - in schools, on TV, at university seminars, in the papers, in American films, sometimes in academic works - it's nothing new.  It's a feature of the 21st century.  I do find it difficult.  Long ago I worked in a university behind the Iron Curtain and found such things VERY difficult to stomach especially when it affected me directly.  I made a personal vow that I would always try to speak up if I ever came across it in my own country.  And I have.  But now, in 2014, it's so common that I feel it's almost like King Canute telling the sea to go back.  I permit my blood to boil, just a little, now and again.

Julian
Tyd vir 'n koppie rooibos.

Cheers

springbok
Ah, now, rooibos tea, that's a different kettle of fish, I love it!

Well that was as always well said Julian, and i agree with you entire
that one must speak out at every opportunity in order to stem the tide.
but alas i fear we are fighting a losing battle so to speak! i hear with
interest your brief account of your time behind the curtain, which you
found frustrating on a personal level but never the less must have been
enriching on many more! but as i say on every occasion, all the inform-
ation is out there relating to this period, thanks in no small part to people
such as yourself! but i find myself constantly amazed at the time we find
our self's living in, the sheer speed of global mass communication is
bewildering and bonkers mad! for god sake whats next? the constant flow
of real time information criss crossing the globe makes it reality that any
one can access information on any given subject at any time night or day!
which is fine! till we factor in our human self's... and then i'm afraid it 
comes down to the intelligence or not, of the individual person, it then all
boils down to how they assess, evaluate and process the information that
is presented. 

Going back to your reply..yes the Zulu relied on raw courage, but that trait
was common to the race as a whole, years of indoctrination by successive
Monarch's Shaka,  Dingaan, and Mpande and to a lesser extent Cetshwayo
had weeded out ' coward's ', if one could truly call any man that. my main
analogy is to liken the whole Zulu army in all their Battles post Shaka..is
of a gigantic Ant colony! the point although simplistic holds scrutiny..all
the component  parts working as one for the good of the whole!.it worked
beautifully at Isandhlwana, as we know for a variety of reasons.. but your
points re Rorkes Drift, Khambula and Ulundi fall, for reasons you know so
well! The British were warned time and time again to entrench wherever 
they made Camp, they did not..Massacre! Cetshwayo warned his troops to
NEVER attack an intrenched position but to try and move his enemy into
the open..they did not listen! Defeats followed by Routs..by the way people
might rightly come to the conclusion that i find us, the British stupid in the
extreme at the onset of the Campaign against the Zulu! but then i find the
motivation behind the Campaign despicable and morally bankrupt!!.
certainly not my cup of tea.                                                    xhosa

You are spot on Julian when you say that "you hear such obvious nonsense that it makes you wonder how these people get away with it". Is it really a matter of the manipulation of the truth, and the deliberate alteration of historical facts, or is it a case of glory hunting/stealing and trying to alter history itself by continually refering to the welsh and the swb and replacing the actual regiment and its mainly Englishmen that defended RD. It has been happening for years, and especially more so after Baker's film of 1964, makes you wonder how on earth this blatant hoax was passed by the film board in the first place (unless of coarse they were welsh). It always irritates me when I see this sort of welsh propaganda garbage being churned out as if it was the truth, and I always speak up about it to defend the honour and glory of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and the mainly Englishmen that fought and died in its ranks at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift, because if we forget these poor souls and their regiment, then history itself may well be altered and the welsh will glorify themselves in something that is not theirs (but they are doing that already). This would not have happened if the stupid idiots that moved the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment from their homeland of England had not moved them to the borders of south wales and moved the Monmouthshire regiment from the borders of south wales into England, whoever was responsible for that should have been put against the wall and shot by firing squad, what a stupid thing to do.

Talk about King Canute and boiling blood, it really does get my goat when I see this sort of stuff, and Springy and some others just love winding me up about it, the problem is (and I should really know better), I just can't resist falling for it.

Although the image below is not propagated as a myth! in
a sense it is! the wording and miss identification is readily
understandable back in the day of production..but now the
narrative runs that this is widely accepted to be an image of
Ntishingwayo..where is the provenance? accepted by who?..
who has definitively nailed this down? i would dearly love 
this to be him, my favourite pose looking straight down the
camera he exudes a natural air of authority.

Last night on bbc 2, Mastermind, guy's specialist subject the
AZW. nothing challenging, all correctly answered! who sets
these questions? there are many on here who would have
smashed it, and set more difficult question's..available now
on i player.                                                 xhosa

The poor bloke just couldn't say Deba, Daba, Diba, Doba, Oh forget it, you know who he mean't.

Julian Whybra wrote:

 "He would not have been able to dig the stony ground or pile up earth sangars or move waggons any better than Pulleine might have been able to, even if it had ever occurred to him that those things would be necessary."

THANK YOU.

Quote :

"Your notion of "ammo stations" is of your own invention.  The same system would have been used: ammunition waggons with bandsmen tasked with carrying ammo to the line: the same as had often been practised.  Look at Gingindhlovu, Khambula, Ulundi."

THANK YOU.

Quote :

"The higher ground further up the slope would always have been available to the Zulus."

THANK YOU.  As far as I know -- and I may well be wrong about this -- no other professional historian has stated that explicitly, though many may assume it.  Given the number of firearms carried by the Zulu -- (which is NOT evident in ZULU or ZULU DAWN btw) this is an important point; especially in answer to the, "If they had just formed square..." line of reasoning.

Quote :

"The outcome would have been no different had Chelmsford been in camp and in command."

Er...um...can we amend that to the ULTIMATE outcome would have been no different?  I think that Chelmsford might have delayed the inevitable a few minutes longer because he would have been more present as a command figure...until he was slaughtered like every other non-Zulu (to answer Dave's original question) who remained on the battlefield too long. In other words my GUESS is that Pulleine's inexperience as a field officer accelerated the rate of collapse a bit.  On the other hand, it is not fair to portray Chelmsford as someone who is fit only for pre/postprandial sipping (as Peter O'Toole might have us believe, subversive Irish actor that he was!) because he eventually DID conquer the Zulu kingdom and with relatively little drama after Isandlwana. He WAS competent which is why it's significant that the Zulu beat him so soundly.

Quote :

"Note that my response relates to your hypothetical, specific placement of Chelmsford in camp and NOT to that portion of the Central Column which was out on reconnaissance that morning."

Will all due respect Springbok, I think you answered outside of the bounds of the query.  IMO, your contention is based on the assumption that Chelmsford did not make the crucial decision to send good after bad.  Everybody else is answering in the context of, "What would have happened if he had stayed," after dispatching the 2/24th. Your contention that he would have reined in Durnford is an interesting one.  I'm not so sure about that.  Given his...shall we say, "energetic" riding about the days before, it's equally possible he would have accompanied Durnford out of the camp in a "reconnaissance in force."  Let's face it, his prior behavior was hardly less impetuous that Durnford's.  In fact, I think they may have understood one another a little too well! But in any case, one way or another, this was destined to be a thoroughly Victorian melodrama!

Julian Whybra wrote:

"...but sometimes, like Martin, you hear such obvious nonsense that you wonder how these people get away with it.  I come across the manipulation of the truth, the deliberate alteration of historical truth all the time...in American films...

I take exception! Where it comes to historical veracity American films are second to none...from the bottom. What next? Are you going to go off half-cocked like Mr. Cooper and claim the Welsh DIDN'T discover our fair country?! The mind reels...like a spool of acetate.

6Pd
Happy to be taken to task over my thoughts, but not when they are other peoples. The line you quote was Julians.
Unless that is you allude to a commonality in the love of Rooibos

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

6Pd
Happy to be taken to task over my thoughts, but not when they are other peoples. The line you quote was Julians.

Yes, sorry for the confusion. I WAS quoting Julian but was also answering you in the larger context of the thread. Or, in other words, I was answering this:

Quote :

Nope the disaster wouldn't have happened, if: He had still called up Durnford, who would have then been restricted to the camp, or: The 2/24th hadn't been sent out of the camp on a fools errand to rescue Dartnell from his self made problems.

I think maybe I missed that crucial "if" and put a period after "happened."

6pdr
I recommend rooibos for prevention of going off at half cock.

Indeed?! I would take you up on it except my local drug store...chemist...is fresh out at the moment.

Perhaps Teavanna will set me...um...straight again.

6pdr.

I have never gone off 'half cocked' and claimed that the welsh did or did not discover America, so I don't catch your drift on saying that.

There are lots of claims about who discovered it including Amerigo Vespucci, the Vikings, John Cabot is said to have named it after the map maker Dafydd ap Meric (David Merrick), Columbus, etc, etc, etc. Some bright spark even suggested that it was discovered by 'Anna Merriken'.

Springbok, what is about Darnell’s actions you disliked? I get the impression you partly blame him for the loss of the camp. Would be interested in your comments.

If I have miss-read your feelings on Dartnell then I apologise.

Littlehand I dont wish to jump into Spring's mind here , but Springy and myself , and possibly others ? to a certain degree blame Dartnell , for the simple
fact he was certainly ordered to return to camp by dark on the 21st ! . LC wasnt happy when he realised Dartnell was staying out overnight . The rest is history , as we know Dartnell send at least two messengers to camp which had the telling effect that LC decided to quit Isandlwana with half the force , therefore taking a crucial hand in the demise of the camp . If he has any other valid reasons I'm sure he'll post them for you .
90th

Little hand
simple answer. Where did the notion that the main impi was on the Mangeni come from? Answer: Dartnell's reconnaissance.
Chelmsford's response was to 'march to the sound of the guns' (or rather assegais in this case) and as 90th says, the rest is history.

And we must remember, in the first instance, LC refused to go to Dartnell's assistance. It was only after Glyn remonstrated with him, that he went. It must have been quite taunting out in the open with hundreds of Zulu close by. Perhaps he thought he had found the main Zulu army.

Just out of curiosity what was the relationship like between Glyn and Dartnell had there been a long standing friendship.

Chard I'm not to sure if Glyn remonstrated with LC ? , can you post where you came about this information ? . Glyn sent the final messenger ? and Clery from memory , straight to LC's tent , I've posted this previously, Glynn wasnt at the meeting between Clery & LC , neither of them say he was there ( Glyn ) , Glyn certainly never mentions he was with them when LC decided to pack up half the camp and leave ! .
90th

Littlehand.
Spot on, I do put some of the blame onto Dartnell. As Julian has pointed out, the force would not have been split that morning if Dartnell had obeyed his orders and returned to camp. But of course if the Zulu impi were only going to attack on the 23rd its highly possible that Chelmsford may have decided to move camp on the 22nd/23rd and been caught on the move. All speculation of course, but definite yes, Dartnell at fault.
Chard
That issue has been done to death, 90th is dead right there is no record of the altercation you speak of. Clery is very clear on the issue.

90th wrote:

Chard I'm not to sure if Glyn remonstrated with LC ? , can you post where you came about this information ? . Glyn sent the final messenger ?  and Clery from memory , straight to LC's tent , I've posted this previously, Glynn wasnt at the meeting between Clery & LC , neither of them say he was there ( Glyn ) , Glyn certainly never mentions he was with them when LC decided to pack up half the camp and leave ! .
90th

Blimey I will try. It was in a thread ( Can't recall which one) but you played an active part in the discussion, relating to Glyn remonstrating with LC to go. Will try and find it.

Hi Chard
Hahaahhahahaha , I doubt it ! , I would've been the one saying it didnt happen ! , if I have it correctly I pulled the information from one of Sonia Clarke's books , probably '' zululand at war ''? . It was one of the letters Clery wrote to Col Allison who was back in the UK .
90th

90th Chard is relating to Crealocks statement at the COE.

Extract from COE

"I was. not present during the conversation between Major Clery, Staff Officer to Colonel Glyn, and the Lieutenant-General, but the evening before, about 8.30 P.M., on this officer asking the Lieutenant-General if the 1-24th " Were to reinforce Major Dartnell in the Magane Valley," he said " No."  The General received, I believe through Colonel Glyn, a subsequent representation which caused the fresh orders at 2 A.M. the 22nd, and the orders to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford."

Impi / Chard, it doesnt really matter , this has been done to death , the bottom line , and the FACTS are , that , Glyn , DIDNT go to LC's tent with Clery , Glynn told Clery to take it to LC , Glyn stayed in HIS OWN tent ! . I dont know how , or why , Chard , or anyone seemed to think Glyn went with Clery to LC's tent , I've posted the sources several times and cant really be bothered to trot them out again ! . In a nutshell , Clery and I think LC also make no mention of Glyn being present , and certainly have never stated anywhere that Glyn was present and '' made '' LC change his mind and decide to leave the camp !!
If you both go through some of the books you own you should be able to find it as well !
90th

I wasn't debating that, I was purly showing you where the source was, as you asked some posts back.

And Springbok has already used the done to death bit. Then again about most of the subjects on the forum have!

Impi
I understood that , although you havent mentioned it , I also failed to mention the '' capitals '' werent me screaming , just my attempt to emphasize the facts . I know you didnt say I was screaming at you , but thought I would explain their use in any case
90th

90th I'm trying to keep up to speed with this.. You say

90th wrote:

Chard , or anyone seemed to think Glyn went with Clery to LC's tent

Please show me where Chard or anyone said or thought Glyn went with Clery. ? Springbok as mentioned Clery no one else. Impi was merely pointing out, that it wasn't Clery who stated Glyn made representation it was Crealock, Crealock was the one who mentioned that Glyn made representation to LC. Misreading reading posts, only complicates matters and sends the discussion down a different road.
If i have misread Chard or Impi's posts, then I'm happy to be corrected.

Evening Ladies!

Could someone point out in a bit more detail, how Dartnell cocked up, which led to his part in the fall of the camp. 

What little knowledge I have on ths subject, and Dartnell is this. So more than happy to be educated! 

Major Dartnell was sent , to recce the area to the south-east of the camp, ten or twelve miles away, with a dual objective of making contact, if possible, with a Zulu sub-chief in that area who was reported to be sympathetic to the British.  
(Taking some information from the COE)
"On the evening of the following day (the 21st) a message arrived from Major Dartnell that the enemy was in considerable force in his neighbourhood, and that he and Commandant Lonsdale would bivouac out that night. About 1.30 A.M., on the 22nd, a messenger brought me a note from Major Dartnell, to say that the enemy was in greater numbers than when he last reported, and that he did not think it prudent to attack them unless reinforced by two or three companies of the 24th Regiment."

So he's 12 miles away getting dark, he has come across the enemy, and made a tactical decision to form a defensive square, which was possibly the only option open to him at the time. (Based on previous discussions relating to a column on the move in open country)  sometime later he of the opinion that the enemy have somewhat grown in numbers. 
So are you saying, that he should have returned to the camp. If yes would that really have been a wise move. 

Am I also right in saying that is was always thought,that the enemy would have come from that direction, or was expected to be found in that location.

Sas1 Good to see you back on the forum! Hope your well.

If you look at the bigger picture. You will see, that certain members lay the blame on the shoulders of those who wasn't even at Isandlwana during the battle.

"When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command."

And that's just what Major Dartnell did.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

If you look at the bigger picture. You will see, that certain members lay the blame on the shoulders of those who wasn't even at Isandlwana during the battle.

Perfect timing because I just picked up a new pair of glasses today. Hmmm...it looks to me like I fit the description. Now refocusing on the bigger picture, it further looks to me like the overall commander (who was caught out by his opponent behaving impetuously) picked a subordinate with judgement not very different from his own...i.e. poor. And then he doubled down on the bad bet he'd made in the first place.

Chelmsford SHOULD have been at Isandlwana. He was just lucky he went out when he did. A lot of leaders who screw up that badly get killed but he dodged the bullet...or the assagai.

Click Here

CTSG
Unfortunately Dartnell was not an independent column commander, but you know that already. Therefore he didn't have automatic licence to defy his CO. Unlike Durnford, who was and did, and that by your own reasoning. Why do the words hoist and petard spring to mind?

SAS
My reasoning, wrong of right about Dartnell is that he was on a scouting mission to try and locate a specific target, around the South of malakathi along Mangeni then back down the plain to camp. Half way he encountered Zulu, and that's what he was sent to do. Instead of, in broad daylight, returning across the plain he elected to camp out and engage the enemy in the morning. All that with virtually no resources a comparative untrained NNC and a small number of mounted colonial volunteers. If he had spotted the impi it was then a pretty foolhardy decision, some would say rash. With that force he had no chance of success.
Later in the evening he starts to realise how under trained his force is and sends of a messenger to plead for help.
That plea forced Chelmsfords hand, his options were taken from him. If he had just sent of a couple of companies as requested, the force would still have not been enough. He had to send a significant force to counter what he believed was the main impi, and to try and rescue Dartnell from the fix he had got himself into.
Chelmsford had no options open to him.
So it comes down to dartnel firstly disobeying orders to return to the camp and then Dartnels poor judgement on the force facing him and third his misjudgement on the force at his disposal.

I don't lay blame 100% on Dartnel but there is no doubt whatsoever that the beginning of the end was there.

Cheers, nice to see you contributing again mate.

Dave
I agree , misreading posts do make things difficult as you well know ! , if you read Chard's second last post you will see that Chard wrote '' LC refused to go to Dartnell's assistance , it was only after Glyn remonstrated with him that he went '' . I was merely trying to point out that Glyn NEVER remonstrated with LC which resulted in LC deciding to leave ! . The series of events which transpired were the messenger from Dartnell went to Clery , who in turn went to Glyn's tent , who then told Clery to go straight to the General , which he did ! . This is where the confusion comes from ,
LC & Clery had a private discussion , possibly the messenger was with them , you could look it up I suppose in one of your books , I'm not home till friday , Both of them ( LC - Clery ) never mention , and also Glyn never mentions , being in attendance during the conversation , how or why Crealock says otherwise beggars belief ! . We know Crealock was hell bent on protecting LC and his own backside . Hope that helps .
90th

Hi Springy
Well said , couldn't have said it any better . From memory Dartnell was to have been back at Isandlwana before evening fell .
Dartnell staying out certainly made things interesting ! , all in the wrong way as it turned out , although I'm not so sure anything would've been any different as to the outcome , even if he did indeed manage to be back in camp as ordered , except the casualty figures which would've been much higher I imagine
90th

Crealocks statement has to be read with a certain care, he really was a devious SOB.

Crealock comments: I was not present during the conversation between Major Clery, Staff Officer to Col Glyn ( so anything he says is actual heresay ) and the Lt Gen. (This being the meeting early hours of the morning, ) but the evening before, about 8.30pm on this officer ( which officer does he refer to ) asking the Lt Gen if the 1-24th were to reinforce Major Dartnel in the Mangane valley he said no.
The General receive, I believe through Col Glyn, a subsequebt representation which caused the fresh orders at 2 am etc etc etc.

Crealock is a tad disingenuous whith his comments. He wasn't at the meeting between Clery and Chelmsford ( Early morning) but he was in the tent next door listening in, he admits that later. ( So he has tried to cover himself)
When he says "this officer", does he refer to himself? Clery? or Glyn. (Again a clever sentence construction that's wide open to interpretation.)

When he says the representation through Col Glyn, its again a clever choice of words. He doesn't say it was from Col Glyn, merely through. So he is factually correct in that Clery received the message, woke up Glyn who told him to take it to the General. So the message was delivered through but in saying that he gives the impression that it was from.

Nasty little bugger was our man Crealock.

Cheers