Durnford was he capable. 3

Extract from post above.

Quote :

"With a certain class of writers, ignorant of military matters"

Looks like the reporter could see into the future.. Going by today's standards

They seemed to have missed out the most important factor! That being Lord Chelmsford failed to follow his own standing orders..

Well said John.

It also appears that 'The Timarn Herald' reporter swallowed and believed all the guff and lies that was put about by Chelmsford's cronies to get him off the hook, and dump the blame onto the scapegoat Lt Colonel Durnford.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Well said John.

It also appears that 'The Timarn Herald' reporter swallowed and believed all the guff and lies that was put about by Chelmsford's cronies to get him off the hook, and dump the blame onto the scapegoat Lt Colonel Durnford.

Perhaps, we are sometimes to quick to dismiss these articals written back in the day

6pdr wrote:

Julian Whybra wrote:

The term 'nervous breakdown' was first coined in 1870 but not in a medical journal. It was in an article in a magazine about the trials of 'modern living'. I don't know when it first entered the standard 'mental health' vocabulary. Any doctors or psychologists out there?

I'm not qualified as a medical professional but fwiw: "The terms "nervous breakdown" and "mental breakdown" have not been formally defined through a diagnostic system such as the DSM-IV or ICD-10, and are nearly absent from current scientific literature regarding mental illness.[1][2] Although "nervous breakdown" does not necessarily have a rigorous or static definition, surveys of laypersons suggest that the term refers to a specific acute time-limited reactive disorder, involving symptoms such as anxiety or depression, usually precipitated by external stressors."

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

6pdr. It looks like your having one :p;:

runner2 wrote:

Lying is an everyday occurence. Every national newspaper has been sued for this. The Met police have been sued for this. British rail have been sued for this, etc, etc. I could be here all day!!!!!!

Yes, it's an evolutionary adaptation for shifting blame. Anecdotal story: The monkey that first learned sign language used it to blame the maintenance personnel where it was kept when it defecated in places it had been taught not to. Told that the maintenance personnel could not have done so, the monkey shifted the blame to the head of the lab. True story.

Then it's a good thing we have those that believe and those that don't!!

impi.

Most newspaper articles 'back in the day', were written in such a way to deflect any finger pointing at Chelmsford, however, there were some people who could see through this web of lies put out by Chelmsford's cronies, and they wrote their own opinion of what actually happened in their journals and diaries, and also in letters to their families and friends, they didn't believe all that was written in the daily rags.

But we all know this to be true!!

Quote :

"Colonel Durnford thought otherwise, and instead of using his thirteen hundred men as a compact force, with, each component part acting harmoniously, and with effect, together, that officer elected too meet the enemy with a portion of this scant array, some miles distant from the place he was ordered to hold. This, then, was the cardinal blunder ; and the more strange that such a blunder should be perpetrated by an officer who, from special training, would have been supposed to know full well how to defend a camp against the attacks of foes whose strength lies largely numbers. "To defend the camp " meant, military parlance, to throw up entrenchments, thereby adding enormously to the defensive power of the tiny garrison. But nothing of the sort was done.

"

But Dave it isn't true.

Col Durnford was not ordered to defend the camp, Pulleine was.

---

Before Chelmsford left, he left strict instructions with Colonel Pulleine, then in command of the camp, "to defend the camp." Colonel Durnford, R.E., who senior to Colonel Pulleine, took command and full direction of affairs, and, as a matter of course, was bound, as much as Colonel Pullleine was bound, to carry out the orders of his General "Defend the Camp"

I dont think there is any need to take this any further as its been discussed and done to death several times over ! . No matter how you look at it , there are pro Durnford and Anti Durnford supporters , Dave not to difficult to see which camp you are firmly in ! .
90th

Dave.

Col Durnford had his own orders from Chelmsford, he was 'passing through' the camp to carry out those orders, however, on his arrival at the camp, Pulleine said that he was sorry Durnford had turned up, as with him being the senior officer he would take command. Durnford told Pulleine that he was not going to interfere with Pulleine's command of the camp, and that he was not staying (don't forget that Durnford had his own orders from Chelmsford).

It's not about camps with me! My decision it's based on the many eyewitness accounts, that state Durnford took over command from Pulliene. With that goes the responsibilities of carrying out the orders originally left with Pulliene, who gave over command. The fault lays at Col Durnford door step.

It's not a case of this discussion being done to death, it's for each side to convince the others they are wrong, the artical above, gives a clear indication of what some were thinking back in 1879. Personally I think this discussion has a long way to go. When I first joined, I was under the impression Chelmsford did use Durnford as the scapegoat, but now I can see that Durnford simply disobeyed the orders he inherited from Pulliene when he took command.

Dave you are welcome to believe in what you may . As I said it is about which camp you are in ! . Pro Durnford or Anti Durnford .
You clearly believe Durnford was at fault , so you are in the Anti Durnford camp ! . I believe like Martin that he was operating as he saw fit , after all he did have licence to do as he saw fit as he was in command of a force in enemy country , which LC had said he would sanction that course of action .
90th

Julian Whybra wrote:

...yes, you do lie to family, to save face, to explain your own behavior in a difficult situation, to cover your actions. You do it precisely because they are family - they mean the most to you and you want them to think the best of you. All survivors suffer from guilt. Read some psychology.

For example, it's interesting that not even the V.C. could make Gonville Bromhead play the role of hero. You would think if ANYBODY was ever entitled, but no, he could not be induced to revisit the battle in any detail, and never wrote a detailed account. Drove Wolseley to distraction apparently...but Gunny Brumhead just kept mum on the matter as much as he could.

Dave.

John rightly points out that Chelmsford did not follow his own standing orders at the camp, he goes off with about half the troops in the early hours and orders Pulleine to defend the camp. Pulleine then has many hours to organise some sort of defences, but fails to do this.

Durnford has his own orders from Chelmsford which he is in the process of carrying out when he arrives at the camp, don't forget that Chelmsford said that he would advise Durnford if there was any change to these orders, however, on Durnford's arrival at the camp there were no other orders waiting for him, so he would be expected to carry out Chelmsford's original orders to him. But on arrival at the camp he is informed of the Zulu activity in the area, he can see that Pulleine has done next to nothing to find out more about these Zulu's, so he organises his own men to try to obtain better information about these reported Zulu's in the area, and that is when a report comes to him about a large body of Zulu's heading in Chelmsford's direction, he now has no other option but to act swiftly on this information, which he does.

With him being senior officer whilst at the camp, he would be assumed to have taken over command from Pulleine, however, he told Pulleine that he would not interfere and that he was not staying at the camp (he had his own orders). Pulleine had many hours to organise some sort of defences at the camp, what could Durnford have done in the hour or so that he was there?

Chelmsford failed to follow his own standing orders, Pulleine was ordered to defend the camp, and had many hours in which to organise this but failed, Durnford had his own orders which he was in the process of carrying out when he arrived at the camp.

Col Durnford cannot be blamed for the failings of Chelmsford and Pulleine, however, with him being killed at iSandlwana and therefor not being able to say anything, it was easier for Chelmsford and his cronies to spin the web of lies that they did and put the blame on the scapegoat Col Durnford.

Dave, can't you see that all this stuff about Durnford inheriting Pulleine's orders and disobeying them are all part of Chelmsford's cronies web of lies? Durnford was in command of his own independent column, he had his own orders from Chelmsford, and he was in the process of carrying out those orders when he arrived at the camp, and that is why he told Pulleine that he wasn't going to interfere with Pulleine's command of the camp, and that he wasn't staying there.

But like 90th says, you are entitled to believe what you want, but please try to see through the web of deception before condemning Col Durnford.

Hi Martin,
Succinct and well put.
However, in passing, the question is begged why Col Pulleine did not defend the camp as per instructions.

regards
barry

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John rightly points out that Chelmsford did not follow his own standing orders at the camp,

Quote :

If that pamphlet Chelmsford wrote was intended to be treated as gospel would he have not corrected Crealock? But he didn't because he was a man in a hurry to track down what he anticipated to be an elusive enemy. Almost everybody on the British side shared that belief which was the root cause of the disaster.

Totally agree 6pdr.

I was trying to find that famous quote you used so often, it was in the letter Lord C sent to Durnford.

Would this be the one!!!

""Dear Durnford,
Unless you carry out the instructions I give you, it will be my unpleasant duty to remove you from your command, and to substitute another officer for officer for the commander of No. 2 Column. 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. Your neglecting to obey my instructions in the present instance has no excuse. You have simply received information in a letter from Bishop Schroeder, which may or may not be true and which you have no means of verifying. If movements ordered are to be delayed because report hints at a chance of an invasion of Natal, it will be impossible for me to carry out my plan of campaign. I trust you will understand this plain speaking and not give me any further occasion to write in a style, which is distasteful to me."

That's the one

And according to a lot of members, Durnford was acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country.

Up until he took over command at Isandlwana, after dinner he handed command back, and went back to acting SEPARATELY again!!!

Ah!!! Yes. as it was stated..

Quote :

"Colonel Durnford thought otherwise, and instead of using his thirteen hundred men as a compact force, with, each component part acting harmoniously, and with effect, together, that officer elected too meet the enemy with a portion of this scant array, some miles distant from the place he was ordered to hold. This, then, was the cardinal blunder"

Durnford was ordered to advance to Isandlwhana, he wasn't told what he was supposed to do when he got there. But It seems when he did arrive, he establish that he was Pulleine's superior took over command (Various eyewitness accounts) and started issuing some orders, according to Lt. Cochrane, (Witness) But he then decided that he would pursue the "retiring" Zulus to prevent them from joining up with those attacking Chelmsford (in his mind), contrary to Chelmsford's orders to defend the camp. He even wanted to take two companies with him to do so. It was unclear to everyone who was in charge. When the battle istarted,Col Pulleine sent troops out to support Durnford and the line of troops, of which Durnford formed one end, was so spread out that they couldn't effectively support each other. Ian Knights documentary stated that the men could have been up to four yards apart. If Durnford had remained in camp, such an extended line wouldn't have been necessary - I feel Pulleine must have felt obliged to support his fellow officer rather than abandoning him to his fate.

Quote :

he wasn't told what he was supposed to do when he got there

That's a very good point. So why did he find it neccessary to take over commard, he knew what Pullienes orders were, because Pulliene told him "My orders are to defend the camp" Being a senior officer Durnford must have know, the orders would have been binding on him, if he took command. He did take command, therefore the original order was handed to him. End of.

Quote :

Pulleine must have felt obliged to support his fellow officer rather than abandoning him to his fate.

You mean, like Durnford abandon the camp,

I wonder what Durnford would have done, if he had made it to a distance, that would have prevented the Zulus cutting him off and forcing him to retreat. Would he have made for Rorkes Drift, or Lord Chelmsford?

Of course the situation in the camp would have changed, in that Pulliene would not have needed to support him! Therefore enabling him to keep his men nearer the camp.?

John
Did Durnford abandon the camp?
is it not conceivable that he left pursuant to his orders from Chelmsford?
Is it also conceivable that he left a camp that was not under any perceived threat?
Last reports were that the enemy wwere retiring
Therefore where does the concept that he 'abandond' the camp come in?

To get rid of a hoary old point that Durnford was the cause of the line being over extended.
Popes company was allready deployed along the rocky ridge and the line of the donga. If Durnford had not taken up the position he did the left horn would have rolled up Popes Flank.
Pope would have had to have extended to counteract that no matter what.

Blame Durnford for a lot but not for every thing.

Cheers

impi wrote:

Ah!!! Yes. as it was stated..

Quote :

"Colonel Durnford thought otherwise, and instead of using his thirteen hundred men as a compact force, with, each component part acting harmoniously, and with effect, together, that officer elected too meet the enemy with a portion of this scant array, some miles distant from the place he was ordered to hold. This, then, was the cardinal blunder"

Could the same quote not be applied to Chelmsford, after all he pranced of across the plain, fragmented his force over a wide area of the Mangeni bowl, and all with limited ammunition, on his return he didnt have enough ammunition to fight of the zulu impi returning from RD.

Quite possibly this could be construed as 'the cardinal blunder'.

Second point on your quote ( God knows what ill informed 'person' made it ) show me one shred of evidence, just one, that says Durnford was ordered to hold a particular area and I will eat every book in my library.

As always i wait with baited breath for your responce

Cheers

Quote :

Quite possibly this could be construed as 'the cardinal blunder

No it can't. LC was doing what everyone expected him to do. The Blunder happened back at Isandlwana.
Pulliene was ordered to defend the camp. Durford was ordered to reinforce the camp. Durnford took over command. Pulliene handed over command. Durnford dishes out a few orders, the two officers have Breakfast. Durnford sends out patrols. Lt Raw stumbles across the main Impi. Fires a few shots into them, the Zulu 's retaliate, and give chase. Raw legs it back towards the camp, followed by the Zulus, who start to breakout in their traditional battle formation. Word gets back to the camp. Durnford feels that the Zulus were going after Chelmsford, so he takes his men out of Isandlwana. Doesn't get far forced to retreat back to the camp. Firing lines become over extended. Zulus rush in job done.

Chelmsford was issuing the orders. Goes with the Job. Orders issued "Defend the camp"

And no doubt you will get around to blaming Major Dartnell. Because you think he's gets of the hook when it comes to Isandlwana..

Dave seriously , no wonder there are errors etc concerning the zulu war , you yourself I'm fairly certain , is guilty of making a rather big one !
Durnford was as far as I'm aware was never told to '' Reinforce '' the camp as you suggest ! Check the Facts / Note , here it is again !! .
I quote '' You are to march to the camp at once with all the force you have with you of No2 Column '' , reading on there is no mention of as you say '' Reinforce '' the camp , happy for you to show me the primary evidence that does indeed state what you seem to take as factual .
90th

Reinforce, Stregthen. Either way he was instructed to go to Isandlwana. Was he ordered to take command No!! So why did he...

Dave luckily no historians of any note have your cavalier attitude to the facts ! . As for your '' Reinforce / Strengthen '' what part of dont you understand that those words, or any others you can dredge up , are not on the Orders ! . He wasnt ordrered to take command, and to work out why this didnt need to be an order , I strongly suggest you bother to read the previous posts stretching back many months on this subject .

Dave
Apart from taking a lot of issues out of context.
As you say Durnford wasnt ordered to take command. He was senior officer and therefore took steps to find out what was going on. He stated quite clearly that he wasnt going to stay in the camp area.

AS I have said on many occasions, I believe Durnford to have been at fault on a number of issues but you seem to want him to be blamed for everything without really putting forward a congent case to support your argument.

Cheers

90th

Quote :

" He wasnt ordrered to take command"

Then why did he!!!!

Impi I'll try to put it as simply as possible for you !!!! , He wasnt ordered to take command because when Durnford arrived at the camp
his higher rank automatically gave him the command !!! , as he was higher ranked than Pulleine , when Durnford left the camp as surely you will agree with ???? , the command again reverted back to Pulleine , do you follow this reasoning ?? . Hopefully yes ? , as I cant explain it any simpler for you . .

impi.

When Col Durnford arrived at iSandlwana he became the senior officer there, so Durnford would have been deemed to have taken command with him being the senior officer. Pulleine said that he was sorry he had arrived has he would now take command, but Durnford replied that he would not interfere with Pulleines command of the camp, and that he was not staying there (he had his own orders from Chelmsford). On hearing of all the zulu activity in the area, he could see that Pulleine had done next to nothing to find out what was going on, so that is when he ordered HIS OWN MEN to investigate, he then got a report of a large body of zulu's retiring in the direction of Chelmsford. He had not much option other than to act on this information, he could not risk this large body of zulu's cutting Chelmsford off, and he had to try to protect his general. Don't forget that at the time, no one knew that the main impi was hidden at iSandlwana, for all anyone knew, this large body of zulu's that had been reported was attempting to cut off and attack Chelmsford, so Durnford did what any good officer would do, he went to find out what they were up to, just in case they were trying to cut Chelmsford off.

impi
Im assuming your doing this for some idea of fun. Just in case you are seriously asking those questions then you do need to read a few books and take note of the testimoney of Cochrane Smith Dorean etc. All of whom refer to that conversation between Pulleine and Durnford.
Durnford was the column commanded of an independant command. As such he came under the direct control of Chelmsford . Ergo he was a seperate and independant command. When he arrived at the camp he was senior officer present, weather he took command for that limited period or not is immaterial. He made his intentions very clear to Pulleine that he would not interfere with him and did not intend to stay.
That is the conversation witness and testified to. Please do your research before discounting statements.

The order issued to Durford via Smith Dorrient overuled any orders he had previously received. Chelmsford was preparing to move when that order was dictated. The reason is quite clear as to why he wanted Durnford at Isandlwana, he was taking half of the force to engage the Zulu's. It makes sense he would organise reinforcement. Agree there were no specific orders telling him what to do. But has far as Chelmsford was concern there was not else he wanted Durnford to do, apart from move to camp.

Chelmsford was totally unaware of what was occurring at Isandlwana the same as everyone else with him and in the camp.

Durnford & Pulleine were in a situation that could and should have been handle better. They should have worked together and carried out the order to defend the camp.

Some members say, that Durford said he would not interfere with Pulleine command. So why take did he take command if that wasn't his intention?

Dave, what makes you think he took command?

Read the posts..

PS. I can't be bothered to reply to your posts. This the last reply you will get...

Dave, PM in box!

Dave.

The order brought by Smith-Dorrien did not countermand Durnford's earlier orders, the order from Chelmsford which was brought by Smith-Dorrien was part of them.

Quote :

The order brought by Smith-Dorrien did not countermand Durnford's earlier orders, the order from Chelmsford which was brought by Smith-Dorrien was part of them.

how do you come to that conclusion.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Dave.

The order brought by Smith-Dorrien did not countermand Durnford's earlier orders, the order from Chelmsford which was brought by Smith-Dorrien was part of them.

Absolutely right Martin, well said.

impi.

The orders have been discussed at length many times on the forum, all you need to do is use the search box and you will be able to read them for yourself, and hopefully you will see that the order S-D brought from Chelmsford was indeed part of the earlier orders.

Martin, if everyone had to keep going back over the previous posts. The discussion wouldn't move.

You say the ordered issued to Durnford by Smith was only part of his orders. Is this your theory or can you show providence to show this to be true!