Durnford was he capable. 4

Deleted unnecessary  comment. . And
Admin

xhosa - for your benefit
I'm afraid Luard and co. had nothing to do with the Durnford papers.  Whatever it was that he or A.N.Other was accused of picking up, it was not these documents as the timings do not fit.
In short, Durnford's orders were picked up by a colonial trooper and ultimately sent in 1885 to his brother and then the editor of the Natal Witness.  Their condition was such that they could not be read.  They were glued together with weathering and could not be peeled apart.  Someone seems to have sent them to the RE Museum.  Frances Colenso saw them at some point.  Being unreadable they were simply put in the drawer of an old map case in a packed dusty cellar along with other papers relating to Durnford and Isandhlwana.  They were collectively named the Durnford Papers.  According to the museum's ledgers no-one looked at them from that time till 1963 when David Jackson saw the glued-together packet but didn't know what they were.  Museum accession and indexing was not then the same as it is now and the RE Museum did not even know it had them.  There was a record of their existence in its ledgers but somehow the curators had never married up the entry with the contents of the drawer.  No-one else knew of their existence until in 1989 he and I asked the museum to have them scientifically separated, a process which took most of the year.  We were able to read them at the end of that year and realized their import.  Our article followed in 1990. It was reproduced and updated in Studies in the Zulu War I in 2012.

Thanks for that Julian, i'm sure others were unaware of that information!
A.N.Another certainly caused one hell of a fuss at the time!

" Colonel Crealocks orders might well have been removed from Durnfords body,
returned to headquarters, perused and quietly suppressed. The secrets of the
dead remain just that. and it is unlikely that the truth will ever be known."
L&Q..Z.V.

Julian wrote:

It was reproduced and updated in Studies in the Zulu War I in 2012.

Julian Are copies still available, should any new members be interested.

Hi
Yes, the article appears in Studies in the Zulu War I available from Bill Cainan at the 24th Museum.
There is still much that has not been said or written about the Durnford Papers and I intend to do just that over the next few years.

This is from a BBC Radio Historical series..This Sceptred Isle. the AZW section
it was produced in the 1990's, this version from 2005..please ignore the film!
its the contents of the audio that i wish people to hear, apart from the usual
silly and sloppy mistakes, i find the take on AWD bang on!..i dont know how 
to upload audio alone, and as usual i acknowledge any copyright, but  claim
the fair use!.

Well, quite forthright, not always with justification perhaps, and a few mistakes along the way, but heigh ho, that's television!

The audio recording, is a computerised voice recording from a book. I bet one of Colenso's books.

Wrong on both counts.

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

Steve

Still going with computer generated text. You type, and the computer reads back. Some of the word translations proves that!

xhosa2000 wrote:

This is from a BBC Radio Historical series..This Sceptred Isle. the AZW section
it was produced in the 1990's, this version from 2005..please ignore the film!
its the contents of the audio that i wish people to hear, apart from the usual
silly and sloppy mistakes, i find the take on AWD bang on!..i dont know how 
to upload audio alone, and as usual i acknowledge any copyright, but  claim
the fair use!.

Could you elaborate.

Hiya ray i see i woke you up a bit, but as usual..not
fully.; be wrong when you are! as i said its the up
dated version 2005 read by Juliet Stevenson  and
Christopher Eccleston chimes in!.. i downloaded the 
whole thing as mp3 files, picked the one i wanted ch
59..i trimmed the audio, picked a video file and wiped
the sound, put the vid and sound through windows live
movie maker, then put it on here, labourious and took
hours, but you lot are so worth it! 

Hiya Impi, yes of course i could!

Hi Steve.

I'm afraid that 'This sceptred Isle' is now 'This Septic Isle'.

Our once great country is now but a shadow of its former self.

If our ancestors could come back and see the state this once proud country of ours is in today, they would swear blind that we had been invaded and taken over by some foreign power, and they wouldn't be all that far wrong, they must be turning, nay! spinning, in their graves.

Good piece of video Les, and like you say, it does show that people (well, most people), have got themselves wise over the wrongful blaming of Col Durnford, and that the blame is entitrely with LC.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

If our ancestors could come back and see the state this once proud country of ours is in today, they would swear blind that we had been invaded and taken over by some foreign power...

But on the plus side Great Britain has finally produced a decent striker: Christian Bale.

Oh dear, Batman is Welsh as well! And Michael Caine got in on that act too.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Oh dear, Batman is Welsh as well! And Michael Caine got in on that act too.

Well, as he was in ZULU, he ought to know. Primary source material...

Quote " and like you say, it does show that people (well, most people), have got themselves wise over the wrongful blaming of Col Durnford, and that the blame is entitrely with LC."
I would of course Martin beg to differ on any statement that attempted to Whitewash either/any senior officer on the 22nd January 1879.
And the above statement falls within that category im afraid.

Cheers

I see Martin is still trying to lay total blame with LC and again with no foundation

The forum had been quite of late! there is of course room for all
opinions...sas1, would you please at least give an opinion.. the
above is a statement.. please add more, i would welcome more
of your views..

I as you all know full well, am not shy to stick in my twopenny
worth.. so i will put this in the most simplistic terms i know...
Who was the C in C.. so where does the buck stop?, where else
could it possibly stop!?.                                            xhosa

Les
Fully agree the buck stops at the top but I think the debate revolves around more the cause and the responsibility for that.
As a basis for that"
Chelmsford:
1.Lack of appreciation of his enemy.
2.Even though the iSandlwana camp was considered a transit, therefore temporary camp, there was still an arrogance that put the whole column in danger by a lack of defensive measures.
3.The total lack of knowledge as to what was beyond the Nyoni ridge.
Pulleine
1. A total lack of awareness as to his situation
2. An inability to plan a cohesive defence line.
3. Not tactically aware.
4. final responsibility for his camp.
Melvill, Degaucher, Younghusband
All had a responsibility to advise and assist Pulleine, and didn't.
Dartnel
1. ( My old hobby horse Im afraid). Didn't have a clue what he was facing at the Mangeni.
2. Attributed more to the merits of the NNC than he should have.
3. Caused through his ignoring of his orders the column to separate.
Durnford.
1. He had a responsibility that he didn't accept
2. His actions on the retreat
3. His lack of fore sight, he more than anyone knew what was coming at him and had a golden opportunity to consolidate the camp defence...............but didn't.
Crealock
1. He had one job, Military Secretary, and couldn't do it properly. That was the correct transmission of the CEOs orders.
Lt Brown
Should have had the gumption and curiosity to investigate his sightings of the 21st.

Need I go on?

After all, it wasn't McMillan that went around Bonking Christine Keeler? But his head did roll, history however records that Profumo was the cause of the Government falling.
You will notice that I deliberately have not placed any blame on Chelmsford for splitting his forces. he had no option once Dartnell called for help.

Cheers Mate

Springbok
I might add, "issued a set of instructions to be adopted in case of attack which were totally inadequate for dealing with the Zulu"
and
"failed to issue clear instructions to Durnford despite promising that he would, and failing to inform Pulleine of what instructions had been issued to Durnford"
I could go on.

Julian
Your quite right, my list was no where near comprehensive merely a 'starter pack'. But how about this one for either he or Crealock: 'Misrepresentation of messages received on the 22nd January.'
Again my list doesn't come close to recording all the errors of the day and was really a mechanism to show Martin that he cannot lay 100% of the blame on a single individual when the cause was a cumulative series of :'Unauthorised deviations from criteria based standards.' But Les and I are generally in agreement, the arrogance of assuming the Zulu were of the same metal as the Xhosa had to be the single most contributing factor to the battle.

Cheers

Well i noted the above with interest.. for those who like to compile
lists please tell me, what are the survivors accounts of this Battle?
who said what about whom!. i'm not interested in the ones who fled
early but those who saw and indeed were fighting as the line 
collapsed and they were obliged to fall back on the camp! actual eye
witness accounts please..                                              xhosa

Les are you attempting to suggest that because there are virtually no survivors from the line then errors in judgement and implementation cannot be attached to an individual? And look closely I have not attempted to 'blame', merely to point out errors, confirmed died in the wool documented cock ups.

Cheers Mate

Xhosa
That would run and run and run.  It would really require a long article on that - and who knows, one day you may get one.
There are certain things Springbok mentioned that cannot be proven for example what Melvill and Degacher said to Pulleine.  And I'm sure they would have said something - after all, Melvill offered his sixpenn'orth when Durnford tried to take the two 24th coys.  Gardner, as a staff officer, made an intervention too.  So, I'm sure good advice was offered (and may have been taken) consequently I'm not so hard on Pulleine or on Durnford, both of whom were acting under orders.  Yes, they share a portion of the blame for the outcome but for me Chelmsford must bear the brunt of it.  
It is through what appears not to have been said (because it wasn't acted upon) that one might surmise an attribution of blame BUT we cannot KNOW for certain what was said by one 'senior management' officer kia to another 'senior management' officer kia.  We can guess.  But guesswork is not fact.

Les
"The forum had been quite of late! there is of course room for all
opinions.."
And mine is and has always been, nailed to the mast with very large nails.
If as Julian has pointed out Melvill et al gave advice it leads to three possibilities, it was wrong advice or given to late or ignored. My bet is A or B. Hence I add them onto the 'cock up' list. The only people I would place in the blameless category are good old Tommy Atkins ( sorry don't think K had penned that yet) But again, it cant be proven, but hey its called an opinion, a considered opinion. And yes Chelmsford must take the lions share of the criticism but coming back to Martins original statement and my rebuttal, they all were to a degree guilty.
Cheers

Cheers

Thanks Springbok and Julian..yes Springbok we go around in ever decreasing circles
whenever this subject is resurrected! then it dies a death and subsides..Julian rather
teasingly suggests that a long article ((which i suppose would be the definitive last
word, accepted by all! account of this Battle!) might one day be written.. afraid not,
there is simply not enough source material to be collated and then corroborated.
simple reason..those who were not in the act of saving their skins..died! with out
exception..

Seems odd to me that all, have a ready excuse for people simply not doing their job.
which was as we know..soldiering, and i might add not just any old soldiers but the
very cream her majesty's army could muster! and their job that day was very simple,
using state of the art weaponry lay down such a concentrated barrage of fire that 
nothing opposing it could withstand..so as was believed back then in the immediate 
and post aftermath..something, things..went catastrophically wrong! iv'e listened to
this debate for more years than i care to remember and have watched people dissect
this to death.. Seems to me that the only one ( apart from the victors ) who had the
vaguest clue that day was Durnford! who fought a splendid text book fighting with
drawl holding his position's calmly and with a degree of clarity as he held the left horn 
back! he left to consult with line officers and ultimately went back to his position to
share the fate of his men! but the question is..what on earth were the other senior 
officers doing! of that there is no record, so for over the best part of a hundred and 
thirty odd years we have postulated and speculated apportioning blame as we see fit!
the establishment went to obscene lengths to cloudy the waters from the outset but as
those interested faded and died away alongside any concerned relatives we were left
with a vacuum, a void which was not attended to till modern historians and researchers
took the understanding to another level..and when they had presented their findings we
the interested parties had at last something substantial to aid our own modest research
and understanding of these events! then came the internet and suddenly everybody is an
' expert '...who was to blame for the loss of the camp at Isandhlwana?...please somebody
tell me! I'M DYING TO KNOW...                                                                   xhosa

Thanks Frank..i get that, but remember nearly 1600 men, many with dependents.. it was
different times sure. bffs, someone has to carry the can for all that carnage! lets all just
get over it and name that person! we all think it so why not just accept it..or do we really
just want to go around in ever decreasing circles? i suspect that we do..

Les
Have a careful read about that retreat, Durnford doesn't come across as 'Calm'. Snapping at the two who came to warn him, being really rough on the survivor of the Rocket Battery. Plus there is a survivors testimony that he 'lost his head'.
My simplistic view point is that he Didn't slow down the left horn one iota. 'IF' he had instead got back to the camp at high speed he would have gained possibly close to 25 minutes ( I have timed it insitu) Now how important could that have been to have an extra period to get the defence organised. Just a view point but one ive examined on the ground at great length and fully believe in.

Who was responsible for the loss of the camp.
All of the list I published above. In my humble opinion that is.

By the way Ive just finished reading HC Lugg A Natal Family. Theres some really interesting comments in there that I will post shortly.

Cheers

Interesting Frank, please don't think i am in any way a Durford
' groupie ' for want of a better word. when you say he was
 being really rough on a soldier, do you not think that he was a 
Lieut Col reacting to a rapidly evolving situation, and as a 
commander he was simply ' commanding!  and when you quote the 
phrase ' he lost his head ' please remind me, who said that and 
provide some context for our lesser knowledgeable members..
and then, that he did not slow down the left by one iota! where every
source tells me he was responsible for preventing the speed of the
Zulu encirclement which allowed many scores to proceed down the
trail with the slim chance for life! and who gave them that chance?
and who recounted how Durnford really behaved in that madness, and
gave them the order to leave the field in good order, so that they
reached the drift and again in splendid fashion allowed many the chance
to get over that raging torrent!.. good Christians all.

Finally Frank i know you have been over the ground many times..so have
others..but not under the direct threat of imminent horrible death. its 
not easy to second guess any part of this Battle, but i say again, in case
anybody still wonders why there was not a more organised defense..
there was simply not time enough to do it! you know full well Frank the
dispositions of the troops and the distances involved! please remember
the British were against the clock but at no time were they setting the
pace..the Zulu were! the clock alarm went off..time ran out for the
defenders..it really is as simple as that.                        xhosa

Xhosa
Who?
Why that's simple.
As I've said many times before...
the Zulus of course.

Julian (Laughing)..Yes to be fair, you certainly have!.

springbok9 wrote:

Julian
Your quite right, my list was no where near comprehensive merely a 'starter pack'. But how about this one for either he or Crealock: 'Misrepresentation of messages received on the 22nd January.'
Again my list doesn't come close to recording all the errors of the day and was really a mechanism to show Martin that he cannot lay 100% of the blame on a single individual when the cause was a cumulative series of :'Unauthorised deviations from criteria based standards.' But Les and I are generally in agreement, the arrogance of assuming the Zulu were of the same metal as the Xhosa had to be the single most contributing factor to the battle.

Cheers

I cannot see how the last message Dumford received could have been Misrepresented. It was direct to the point. Move to the camp. There was no other actions for Dumford to carryout. The last order he received would have preceded any other he received prior. Why! Because the game had changed. And that change came about when Dartnell sent a message back asking for assisitence! Whatever happen at Isandlwana after Durnford arrived was a matter for both Durnford and Pulliene. They were the senior officers present wether they cooperated or not, was not a concern for LC. He had his own task in hand.

Hi Les
Do you have Keith Smith's '' Source Documents ; A Zulu War Source Book '' or similar title ? , I'll check the title tonight when I get home . In his Isandlwana Chapter ( which I'm up to ! ) he has the actual testimonies from many of the survivors , which is excellent , as they are all together , in one book , in the one chapter , I'll have a stab in the dark ( no pun intended ) and think there are possibly 15 statements , which include some from the zulu side . I'm sure you have it ?
Hi Springy
I seem to recall there is only one eyewitness account where it's mentioned that Durnford '' Lost His Head '' , there are more stating he was calm , and behaving excellently , if not , a tad recklessly , by exposing himself needlessly to the Zulu fire at times . I do believe he held them up for what it's worth , him getting back to the camp would've made no difference in my opinion . You cant achieve much in 25 mins with 20,000 Zulu's wanting to slice and dice you ! . It would take hours or so to build some sort of entrenchment , you couldnt do anything in that allowed time (25 mins as you say ) today , with the machinery available in 2014 , or 2015 for that matter , seeing as it will be so in 24 days time ! , let alone 1879 on Campaign etc etc .
Cheers 90th ( 1 each LOL )

Surely Dunrford being an engineer, could have seen the benefits of using Isandlwana hill as a natural rear defense. Was this natural defense part of the consideration when the camp was first selected.

So the rumour transpiring from a letter, that an officer shot himself because he knew he had done wrong, could be true. Especially if as 90th points out " Durnford lost his head"


I read that there were roughly 60 Europeans who survived the battle. Do we know how many of the 60 actually gave statements?

Hi Ray
Read my post carefully , I didnt say Durnford ' lost his head ' I was commenting from Springy's post . I have read one , and only one which said he did so , I take it with a grain of salt , there are more reports to the contrary !

Ulundi
If you read the many , many other posts from Julian , Springy and I'll throw in myself ! , we dont believe the mountain could've been used as a ' natural defence ' it's to slopped and steep to do so , it isnt a flat bit of ground , like a floor and a wall that is adjacent to the other
90th

But if they had took up position in front of the hill, from the on set with a good supply of ammunition, it would have been nothing but a natural defense. I recall reading that back in the day, certain offices were at a lost as to why use of the hill wasn't made.

LC comment House of Commons!

"Said, that it was so stated in the evidence. They were ordered back to take up a final position under the hill, which they ought never to have left"

Ulundi
I've mentioned many times that it was impossible to set up in front of the hill due to the dead ground on the plain which the defenders would be facing . There is a largish village which cant be seen from near the mountain due to dip in the ground !.
This would be the main reason the firing line and the Guns were placed where they were on the day , The Zulu army could easily have got to this ground and been completely safe from the rifle fire . Officers of the day were at a loss as to why the mountain wasnt used as a defense ? , simply because LC's standing orders didnt include it , or any of the other natural features , as when his report was produced in Dec 78 he had little , or no idea of the country he would be traversing in Zululand . You must remember LC's orders were to defend the camp ! , you cant do that from way back behind it !! , as what you are suggesting .
90th

hHAHAHAHAHHAHA , I'm sure LC did say that after the disaster , funnily enough it WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN HIS ORDERS ! .
His orders were to protect the camp , you cant do that from under the hill ! WTF !
90TH

Hiya Gary, yeah mate i have all Smiths work, his
select documents was privately published by dp&g
only 50 in the world, i have one and i know about
a half a dozen who do to! yeah were in agreement
about AWD. but its all about opinions is it not! even
' itchy and scratchy ' above sort of have them..ish.   

Ulundi have you ever heard the term Flanking.. with
their backs to the hill with plenty of ammo..yeah they
would have lasted a bit longer because most of the Zulu
would be rolling about on the floor laughing, then they
would have got up..flanked both sides..and the ones who
were sent up the hill would have been peering down on
them, still laughing..read peoples posts carefully please
before you respond, i have read some of your older posts
your not that thick..so your a wind up merchant.    xhosa

90th
25 minutes? 'Give me 15 and I will build a nation.' Cant remember who said that?
However 25 minutes would have fully enabled a more apt defensive line to be established, I don't understand this obsession people have with trenching etc? And I certainly don't recall ever mentioning that. A gap of that description would have certainly allowed a defence based on the koppie. Note I said on the koppie.
Les
I will, again, post the sources, plural including Somtseu. But Im sure you have read them all. However.......... When do we get passed this point of having to prove every word that is fully recorded and in the public domain.
CTSG
The quote you have highlighted from my post was meant as a crit of Crealock, and the denial of receiving messages while out at Mangeni. Nothing to do with Durnford.

So far I haven't had ONE cogent argument against my post, passion and misrepresenting through not reading posts yes but no facts to support your arguments.

Cheers all.......................nice to see the Forum wake up from its slumber.

90th wrote:

hHAHAHAHAHHAHA , I'm sure LC did say that after the disaster , funnily enough it WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN HIS ORDERS ! .
His orders were to protect the camp , you cant do that from under the hill ! WTF !
90TH

Actually they weren't ! Chelmsford didn't issue any orders to Pullein, Clery did.
( Sorry for correcting you 90th, worried someone may ask for a source )

Les
My sources as to the state of mind of Col Durnford.
Harry Davies
William Johnson
Somtseu
Alfred Henderson

Molifes statement suggests a highly excited Durnford really not doing what a commander should do.

Mehlokazulu comments that the Left Horn was 'checked for some time.'

Sorry 90th, that's a large grain of salt., I look forward to your posts of 'Calm Durnford'. Mhoti perhaps?

Cheers Mate

90th wrote:

Ulundi
I've mentioned many times that it was impossible to set up in front of the hill due to the dead ground on the plain which the defenders would be facing . There is a largish village which cant be seen from near the mountain due to dip in the ground !.
This would be the main reason the firing line and the Guns were placed where they were on the day , The Zulu army could easily have got to this ground and been completely safe from the rifle fire . Officers of the day were at a loss as to why the mountain wasnt used as a defense ? , simply because LC's standing orders didnt include it , or any of the other natural features , as when his report was produced in Dec 78 he had little , or no idea of the country he would be traversing in Zululand . You must remember LC's orders were to defend the camp ! , you cant do that from way back behind it !! , as what you are suggesting .
90th

But they didnt defend the camp, they were defending the ground infront of it. Perhaps they should have stayed in the camp and defended it as per the orders issued to Pulliene.

Phew! Many posts.

CTSG
You must look again at Durnford's final orders and read all of it carefully. They are most ambiguous.
Ray
You cannot put your back to Isandhlwana and defend it.  Where do you put the end of your flanks so that you can't be outflanked on higher ground.  You always are.  And if you tried, you would have lost the camp anyway.
24th
Clery's verbal orders were to stay in the camp and defend it - a tautology?  Given the direction of the attack, the forces available, the natural defences available, the reported size of the threat, the reported location of the main impi, the need to deny access to the west and south of the camp, and the strictures of Chelmsford's instructions, Pulleine adopted the only perimeter line available to him.  One her very quickly, I am sure, he knew would not hold.

No matter how many twists and turns are made, there is no point in looking at events prior to the battle, the Orders issued by Lord Chelmsford to both Pulliene and Dumford were ignored on the morning of the 22nd Jan 1879. Both officers failed to defend the camp.

CTSG
That's just it. The orders were not ignored. And yes, both officers lost the camp despite that. And whose orders were they following?