Durnford was he capable. 3

6PD
Wasnt there correspondence between the quartermaster and Coghill about the vehicle to be used for the transport?

springbok9 wrote:

Wasnt there correspondence between the quartermaster and Coghill about the vehicle to be used for the transport?

Sounds like you know better than I. But I am confused by what you are saying, considering how abrupt Chelmsford's decision was to sortie with the cannon. It seems to me that a decision was made out of hand and provision was made to bring the ammo wagon east with the tentage (and the rest of the heavy equipment) after Chelmsford & co had picked out a new campsite near the falls. Wasn't that the general plan anyway?

6pd
Possibly Im getting confused ( senility ) I seem to recall a note passing between the QM and Coghill concerning the size of the vehicle, this would be during the morning of the 22nd.
I will look it up in the morning.

Cheers

Hi Springbok .
Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post regarding the Wagons being moved within days after Isandlwana , who moved them and to where ?
I was of the opinion no one went back there ( On the British side ) for a consideable time after the massacre , or are you saying they were taken away by the zulu's ? . Sorry , I'm not at home so cant check the books . Can't really remember anyone saying at RD that wagons were brought back from Isandlwana within several days of the massacre ? . Happy to be corrected .
Cheers 90th.

PS. I'm fairly certain the majority of the Ammo left at Isandlwana finished up with the zulu and not back at RD , as did the supplies .
The Zulu Impi took everything that they could carry , I doubt they left much of anything of value behind . . Many quotes from those at RD lamenting the fact that they had nothing , so if wagons were indeed brought back I'm sure there'd be mention of it . As I said earlier , sorry if I've misunderstood your post .

Hi 90th,

In reality, the first team back on the Isandlwana battlefield visited there on 02/02/1879, some ten days after the battle.
The team was comprised of a 10 NMP escort under Maj Black.
They went there specifiically to look for the missing 24th colours. They started their search at the torn down guard tent of the 24th Rgmt. They found nothing, but noted utter devastation. However much money was noted lying about, it having no use to the Zulus.
Some loose unspent Mh rounds were found on the ground by Tpr Clarke , "up on the hill". Unused 7pdr RML rounds were also found in ther middle of the battlefield.
The team then went down to the Mzinyathi to extend their search for the colours. On the way there two dead pack mules were found by the aforementioned, on the Fugitives trail. They were dead, having beenn assegaied, but with their panniers intact and still loaded with ammunition which had been intended for delivery to the lines. No recoveries of wagons on any other equipment was mentioned.
The colours were found in the river and returned to Rorkes Dift that afternoon.
A previous post of mine on thiss forum covers all of this , and more.

regards

barry

90th
Sorry, must be my accent :p;:
I meant that the waggons were being removed by the Zulus in the days after the 22nd. And although the camp was plundered on the 22nd there must have been sufficient left overs for those waggons to be utilised by the zulu.
Or : if there was no booty why would the waggons be taken surely they were taken to carry the provisions away.
There are a couple of references to it being observed from Shiyane.

Cheers Mate

Quote :

if there was no booty why would the waggons be taken surely they were taken to carry the provisions away.

Did the Zulus not used the wagons to cart away their dead?

Fair point OH

:p;: . Hi Springbok .
Yes , I think it must've been the accent :p;: . I was fairly certain no wagons were recovered by the British within a couple of days of the battle . .

Barry.
I also remember posting the finding of the colours last year if not earlier . The Colour Pole was seen stcking up in the river from Memory by Charlie Harford, who relayed that fact to Lt Harber who actually recovered it from the river . As I said earlier I'm not home
to check my books , but nearly 100 % certain this was what transpired . What I posted was taken from Harford's Journal / Diary.

OH2 .
Indeed the zulu did use some of the wagons to take away their dead , along with whatever else they thought was useful . There were I think over 2 or 300 hundred wagons at Isandlana , when the Brtish returned I think in May or it may have been a bit later, to recover any transport which was sorely needed for the second Invasion , they themselves recovered 20 or 30 wagons.
90th.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

New Zealand Herald  19th September 1917, Page 9

Can anyone tell me how many men durnford had with him at middle drift and how many went onto isandlwana cheers

John Young is one of the better known Zulu War Historians. Came across this on another forum.

"At 3 a.m., Lieutenant Horace Lockwood Smith-Dorrien, of the 95th (Derbyshire) Regiment of Foot, a special service officer detailed to transport duties, was ordered to return to Rorke's Drift.  He carried orders for Durnford, instructing him to reinforce the camp at Isandlwana with the forces at his disposal"

Surly he would not write something that some say is incorrect.


Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ray seriously , how many times will this chestnut keep getting dragged up ! . The ACTUAL ORDERS are posted on this thread , please READ THEM ! . LC'S biggest fan CTSG , among a few others have seen the light and realise there is / was ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of Durnford to REINFORCE THE CAMP in his orders . . The capitals are not meant to be yelling , but for emphasis ONLY .

PS. Not sure if this your attempt to wind us up , but please read the original orders , once again , once you read them for yourself , you'll see and realise the word '' Reinforce '' is not on the paper...............anywhere ! .

Ray63 wrote:

Came across this on another forum...Surly he would not write something that some say is incorrect.

I think it's safe to say that, yes, he is simply trying to wind us up. That order is printed in every book on the topic. Anybody who is reading version two of this topic should have committed it to memory by now...unless he's winding us up. Just reread the sentence above 90th. Sarcasm. Next time Ray, why don't you post a joker after it e.g:

I don't think Ray is trying to wind anybody up. He is simply asking why John Young would have wrote that.

John
I agree, John Young is a well respected historian, who knows the true message. I can only assume that Ray has either taken things out of context or that Young was quoting an old publication.

Cheers

At isandlwana.
Approx 525.
Not to sure about Bengoughs command.
The Narrative of Field Operations gives Durnfords over all command as approx 3000.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

At isandlwana.
Approx 525.
Not to sure about Bengoughs command.
The Narrative of Field Operations gives Durnfords over all command as approx 3000.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

thanks for your help

Does anyone have this book.
Colonel Anthony Durnford: The Imperial Hero and the Contradictions of Liberal Imperialism.

Colonel Anthony Durnford's responsibility for the disaster at the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879, where a British column was wiped out by the Zulu army and where he lost his life, has distracted attention from his significance as an exemplar of a peculiarly Victorian heroic type, a type whose very virtues lead one back to the contradiction at the heart of liberal imperialism. He was a protector of African tribesmen and an opponent of overt racism; but he was also an imperialist whose very doubts amplified the destruction of the Zulu people in a war which he 'utterly' condemned but which he helped to bring about. This article explores this contradiction through a rereading of three texts written in different genres in the years immediately before and after Durnford's death: the biography by his brother, Edward Durnford, 'A soldier's life and work in South Africa 1872-1879' (1882); Frances Colenso's (and Edward Durnford's) 'History of the Zulu war and its origins' (1880), and Colenso's tale of imperial adventure 'My chief and I' (published in 1880 under the pseudonym of its fictional narrator, Atherton Wylde). All these works portray Durnford as a chivalric hero, defending a morally upright ideal, blind to racial prejudice, and sacrificing his life to protect others. Central to the rereading is the suggestion that two of these works are heavily based on Anthony Durnford's construction of himself in letters and accounts of his experiences to his mother and 'lover'.

Hi Timatson
According to the Hansard paper in Edward Durnford's book ( Anthony's Brother ) it's stated that the number of Basuto's who arrived with Durnford at Isandlwana was 400 - 450 , once you add on all the white troops with Durnford's No 2 Column  , Springbok's figure of Approx 525 seems close to the mark . As to the total at Middle Drift , sorry , I cant help there , I'm not home at the moment but if anyone has the  '' Narrative Of The Field Operations '' regarding the Zulu war I'm certain the numbers may be in there .
90th.

Ray .
I dont have it but have '' A Soldiers Life And Work In South Africa 1872 -1879 '' . I'm actually reading it and close to finishing it .
90th.

Don't forget that Bengough was part of No2 (Col Durnford's) Column, but Chelmsford wanted him (Bengough) and his men to form one arm of a pincer movement against the Matyanas (see Durnford's orders), and that is why he wasn't at iSandlwana. If I recall correctly, Bengough moved towards Sandspruit with his men, but I am not sure how many men he had with him.

90th wrote:

Ray .
I dont have it but...

I have MY CHIEF AND I, but if you are interested in this topic Ray, I would HIGHLY recommend THE VIEW ACROSS THE RIVER: Harriet Colenso and the Zulu Struggle against Imperialism by Jeff Guy.

Thanks.

Capable of what ?

Also think at ES, anyway apart from his Imperial soldiers, the rest is not worth much ...

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Don't forget that Bengough was part of No2 (Col Durnford's) Column, but Chelmsford wanted him (Bengough) and his men to form one arm of a pincer movement against the Matyanas (see Durnford's orders), and that is why he wasn't at iSandlwana. If I recall correctly, Bengough moved towards Sandspruit with his men, but I am not sure how many men he had with him.

Chelmsford wanted Bengough to act against the Matyanas, not Durnford. He was ordered to Isandlwana, where he took command.

Being in command at Isandlwana. Come Pascal, catch up!!!

LC !What Strategist !

After the first reports he has read! He should have left the camp hastily and join LC,by a very long detour to avoid the Zulu left horn !



That he could do it !

Pascal wrote:

After the first reports he has read!

Who???

When Durnford arrived in the camp, he has read all the reports received by Pulleine from 7.00 am on the presence of Zulu elements near the camp, right?

Yes! and also the Verbal report from Major Chard. So Durnford wasn't blind to the fact, that enemy movements were occurring around the camp.

Major Chard, thats a new one on me...............please go on?

yes Chard1879 keep!keep!keep!Please ...

Yes, ok John, have it your own way.

I suggest that you do a bit of reading on this subject before jumping to conclusions.

Obviously your mind is set against Col Durnford, and along with some others on this forum, you have been both judge and jury, and made your own minds up on this subject, ie; 'Durnford is to blame', and even when evidence shows different from your mindset, nothing will change your opinion about it, because you have closed your minds to anything that proves that you are wrong.

The one responsible for everything in every battle is the C-in-C !
Even if it is not present as to Isandhlwana

I always thought Durnford was to blame for the loss of the Battle of Isandhlwana, but the more I learn and read, the more I realise it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. (Durnford, Pulleine, Chelmsford, Glyn).

In a nutshell, this lack of clarity can all be pinned on one person.

Lord Chelmsford.

Kopie. And there's me thinking, we had a new level headed member. 

Looks like another one for the other team CTSG.

Cheers

Not so old chap! That responsibility was handed to Col Pulleine. Then on to Col: Durnford would assumed command as the senior officer when he arrived at the camp. All very tidy in the British Army.

Kopie. This is LC who placed Puleine and Durnsford in a galley!And it was not he who had rowing!


They had no chance though ... Unless they do, can be so Durnford was present, as soon as the arrival of the first reports received by Pulleine, around 7.30 am ...

Hi all


And if Durnford was present at Isandhlwana, as soon as the arrival of the first reports received by Pulleine, around 7.30 am, There Were changes?


Cheers


PTR

Yes they re-give the potatoes too hot, not to burn ...

Bvt Lt Col Pulleine was in command of the camp, but on his arrival at the camp Bvt Col Durnford would be the senior officer and would be deemed to be in command, however, he was NOT staying at the camp, so when he left, the command of the camp would be with Bvt Lt Col Pulleine.

Chelmsford never thought to leave any orders for Pulleine, it was Clery that took it upon himself to compose the orders and send them to Pulleine, he later talked about them with Pulleine and Melvill. No copy of these orders survived the battle, however, Clery said that he could remember them and gave HIS VERSION of them at the Court of Enquiry, so we only have his word for what he is SUPPOSED to have written in Pulleine's orders. Chelmsford failed to issue orders to Pulleine, he failed to issue any further orders for Durnford (which he said he would if there was any change to his earlier orders), it was Chelmsford's responsibility to see that Pulleine had his orders for the camp, and it was Chelmsford's responsibilty to see that the commander of No 2 column knew what he was meant to do on his arrival at the camp if there was any change to his earlier orders, Chelmsford failed on both counts, so who is responsible?

"At 10.30am, Lord Chelmsford had ordered Gardner to return to Isandlwana with a message for Lieutenant Colonel Pulleine of the 24th Regiment who had been left in charge of the camp"

If Chelmsford had expected Col Durnford to take command, why did he not send the order to Durnford?

A question thats been bugging me for ages!!!!

Hi Pete.
A very valid question , dont know why it hasnt been raised previously !
cheers 90th.

Pete,

Have you consider it was addressed to Pulleine, as he was in charge of the camp.

The transport; ammunition; tents and all the other impedimenta of No. 3 Column were in his charge.

Brevet Colonel A. W. Durnford's element of No. 2 Column was a separate command was its own logistic support.

Just a thought.

'Jimu

For Martin




When  Clery "composing " "his" orders for Pulleine, LC knew that, right ? It's was at the request of LC otherwise it would not have done, if not of what right he would have done? ...

 Chelmsford failed to give orders to Pulleine because Clery did and LC knew these orders and if he did not give new orders to Durnford is that there were no changes concerning Durnford orders. ..


And Pulleine had his orders of LC for the defense of the camp in case of attack (But orders very inappropriate )


Durnford  also had his orders (LC did not tell him to take command, if not ,Pulleine had no objections to Durnford for the deploiement for the defense of the camp), except that LC  was never asked Durnford to leave the camp to join him with some of his troops ...

Note once again, that point begins the attack, a messenger arrives to order Pulleine to break camp! It was quite an order of LC!

For Pete

LC  not wanted that Durnford control the camp ... What is impossible, Because Pulleine was lower level than Durnford ...


But in my opinion it is because LC knew that from his rank, Durnford automatically take command of the camp ...

But LC also knew that  Durnford would be required to obey the instructions that LC had left to Pulleine for the defence in case of a zulu attack, so it does change anything ,except that LC  was never asked Durnford to leave the camp to join him with some of his troops ...