Durnford was he capable. 4

Reality really does pass you by does it not! who will stand
by you? well i got really lucky the other day. i got the full 
set!! 8. what a joy, so easily dealt with, like swatting flies..
bit sad really..no knowledge..  but at Isandhlwana they
flocked to him at the end. making their family's proud..
Brave, Noble, Durnford!                              cheers xhosa

From "The Memoirs of the Gemini Generals..., 1896, by Maj-Gen Osborn Wilkinson, C.B. and Maj-Gen Johnson Wilkinson -

"...I know, of course, that Lord Chelmsford was condemned mercilessly for the Isandula disaster. I suppose the humblest soldier is entitled to his opinion, and if I am right in thinking that Colonels Pullein and Durnford received orders to act on the defensive, and that their camp was pitched on a very favourable position, with an inaccessible hill in the rear, I believe that had any other of our most successful generals been in command at that time, he would have been satisfied that with nearly eight hundred Europeans, Colonel Durnford had ample means to resist any attack that might be made on him ; and I believe Colonel Durnford, himself a most experienced and scientific officer, who was well acquainted with the Zulus, held the same opinion, and was confident in his ability to hold his own. I would venture to say thus much regarding the Zulus, that whilst every one would have given them credit for courage and daring which were not to be despised, yet I suspect that hardly a soul ever imagined that they were capable of displaying such reckless bravery and utter contempt of death in the face of the havoc-dealing fire of disciplined troops..."

None of that applies.. conjecture.

Explain, don't mind if you use you one liners.

"From "The Memoirs of the Gemini Generals..., 1896, by Maj-Gen Osborn Wilkinson, C.B. and Maj-Gen Johnson Wilkinson -

"...I know, of course, that Lord Chelmsford was condemned mercilessly for the Isandula disaster. I suppose the humblest soldier is entitled to his opinion, and if I am right in thinking that Colonels Pullein and Durnford received orders to act on the defensive, and that their camp was pitched on a very favourable position, with an inaccessible hill in the rear, I believe that had any other of our most successful generals been in command at that time, he would have been satisfied that with nearly eight hundred Europeans, Colonel Durnford had ample means to resist any attack that might be made on him ; and I believe Colonel Durnford, himself a most experienced and scientific officer, who was well acquainted with the Zulus, held the same opinion, and was confident in his ability to hold his own. I would venture to say thus much regarding the Zulus, that whilst every one would have given them credit for courage and daring which were not to be despised, yet I suspect that hardly a soul ever imagined that they were capable of displaying such reckless bravery and utter contempt of death in the face of the havoc-dealing fire of disciplined troops..."

Twin brothers just giving there opinion! same as everybody else
did back in the day. and up to this present time..inc me and you
now! your post is nothing special and the not further the debate.
the internet archive is not the only place to acquire knowledge, 
the book in question is available right now..ist ed reasonable
condition for its age. ( bit like me..smirk  ) one liners, your
having a laugh. you wish! does it hurt?.

Mate just read and post pictures from your Drooglever book. Outside that, your limited. Very limited. Happy & Good Night.

i will take that as a compliment from you, i hold you
in the greatest esteem as you know, i don't know how 
i ever thought i could further my education and advance
my understanding of this particular colonial adventure 
which is the Anglo Zulu War! but your clever insights
have enabled me to hope that one day! one day! i just
might be able to engage you on an equal footing.. but
for now sweet prince..do sleep well, i remain your own,
                                       your humble servant xhosa

Buy another book? Is coming.

The Gemini Generals memoirs have been shown to be invalid by modern day researchers and historians.

It was, at the time, an opinion that was brought about (by Crealock and others), to get LC off the hook and put the blame onto the scapegoat Col Durnford.

Sorry, do i know you?..like i said i had the full set the
other night! dealt with as usual..just to easy, so not 
you thanks all the same, it might tempt the others out
for their kicking, then you will ask admin to throw me 
off the forum..how very dull, what a drag! how very
very boring..i know tomorrow lets talk about the Zulu
War and all things pertinent! nite nite.           xhosa

Just a quick question?

If Durnford sympathise with the native cause. Why was he so keen to attack them.

Ulundi wrote:

Just a quick question?

If Durnford sympathise with the native cause. Why was he so keen to attack them.

He wasn't, he was the great pretender. To get in with the Coleno's. So he could have Fanny on Tap!

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Ulundi wrote:

Just a quick question?

If Durnford sympathise with the native cause. Why was he so keen to attack them.

He wasn't, he was the great pretender. To get in with the Coleno's. So he could have Fanny on Tap!

Impertinence...
A free interpretation of the thoughts of A. DURNFORD....
Cheers

Ymob, to make my point clear, Durnford is classed as a hero, credited with keeping the gates open, allowing others to escape. But if he had acted correctly in the first instance and defended the camp instead of going on the defensive. Well he might just have got that medal and reputation he longed for.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Ymob, to make my point clear, Durnford is classed as a hero, credited with keeping the gates open, allowing others to escape. But if he had acted correctly in the first instance and defended the camp instead of going on the defensive. Well he might just have got that medal and reputation he longed for.

Interesting point of view, seriously.
Near the analysis of Mike SNOOK for exemple and at least one member acclaimed of this forum.

Cheers

Have you ever read any of Col Snooks books, or have you been put off, by other members views on his work.

From the Moment the Zulu attack got into full
swing..the camp was gone, finished, eaten up!
no matter who did whatever! the Zulu were
master's of the field! fact!.                 xhosa

That misses out the facts you have difficulty with, and those are to do, not with Durnford's courage (beyond question), but with his character, temperament and his ability to operate as a field commander in a highly charged situation. Think on Xhosa, think on.

Thanks ctsg i will think on..i will address those last three characteristics
you cited and as usual demolish you with ease.

Dream on Xhosa dream on. You must be a good dancer, you side step very well. Anyway your boring me now!

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Have you ever read any of Col Snooks books, or have you been put off, by other members views on his work.

i am always curious of different opinions (I learn "every day" with a polite and honesty debate with different opinions).
Actually, i'm reading again for the third time "HCMDB".
This author has for me interesting theories, other assertions are wrong because insulting (Durnford the "cowboy")
My (personal) problem with this author, it's his lack of notes/sources.
For me it's a "big" problem...
Sorry, if i don't answer to your question (I am not sure to understand it)
Cheers

xhosa2000 wrote:

Thanks ctsg i will think on..i will address those last three characteristics
you cited and as usual demolish you with ease.

As usual
Not really seen much from you! In way of a debate. Sarcastic remarks yes!

ymob wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Have you ever read any of Col Snooks books, or have you been put off, by other members views on his work.

i am always curious of different opinions (I learn "every day" with a polite and honesty debate with different opinions).
Actually, i'm reading again for the third time "HCMDB".
This author  has for me interesting theories, other assertions are wrong because insulting (Durnford the "cowboy")
My (personal) problem with this author, it's his lack of notes/sources.
For me it's a "big" problem...
Sorry, if i don't answer to your question (I am not sure to understand it)
Cheers

You say lack of notes & Sources. Can you give another example.

Here is some reviews

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

John wrote:

Here is some reviews

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

Random opinions do not prove anything about how well a book is sourced. It's not. Snook's work is extremely uneven with both penetrating insights and laughable conjecture.  The trouble is that too often we're asked to take him at his word because...well...he's been in the army.  Having served in the 24th doesn't make him objective, doesn't make him a historian, and doesn't mean he was present at the battle like he would seem to like us to believe.  That said, I think his work is valuable if you can get by the constant (unto obsessive) Durnford bashing which is well beyond the pale.  He does make some good points overall but he also leaves holes you could drive a team of oxen 16 strong through.

Bonjour à tous,

On the absolutly necessity of footnotes for the control of the point of view, facts, assertion, analysis by an author
One example: Adrian GREAVES: "Isandlwana: How the Zulus humbled the British Empire" p.68, about the order to DURNFORD the 22 January:

"Chelmsford was aware that Colonel DURNFORD RE and his mainly monted column were still camped only six miles away at Rorke's Drift. As a precaution he instructed Major CLERY his staff officer attached to the 24th Regiment to order DURNFORD to move up from Rorke's Drift-but to where? CLERY later stated that this order to DURNFORD was very specific; he clamed he ordered DURNFORD to "take command of it", referring to the Isandlwana camp.The actual order was ambiguous and proved CLERY was not telling the truth'.

In reality, it was CREALOCK and not CLERY.
Otherwise, CLERY was not the staff officer of CHELMSFORD;
A "big" error for a "specialist" of this war!!!!!

Cheers
Frédéric

6pdr wrote:

John wrote:

Here is some reviews

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

Random opinions do not prove anything about how well a book is sourced. It's not. Snook's work is extremely uneven with both penetrating insights and laughable conjecture.  The trouble is that too often we're asked to take him at his word because...well...he's been in the army.  Having served in the 24th doesn't make him objective, doesn't make him a historian, and doesn't mean he was present at the battle like he would seem to like us to believe.  That said, I think his work is valuable if you can get by the constant (unto obsessive) Durnford bashing which is well beyond the pale.  He does make some good points overall but he also leaves holes you could drive a team of oxen 16 strong through.

Totally agree!!!
Cheers

CTSG
1.  I am no-one's mentor, except perhaps professionally and that doesn't apply here.
2. Your explanation as to how you produced such a confusing post was not helped by your use in it of the phrase "Durnford's original orders" which implies only one thing and certainly not what you claim you intended.
3.  My post which you asked MC to look at refers to Durnford's RETURN to the camp after being chased by the left horn. Please do not misquote me; it confuses the situation still further.  You really must be accurate in your postings.
4.  I really do find your language unhelpful and unkind and am lost as to why from time to time you write in this way for no apparent reason.

too late. The Zulus appeared in force to the front and left. Durnford then 

fell back slowly towards the camp, keeping up a steady fire, and disputing 

every yard of ground until his men's ammunition was expended, when they 

retired rapidly to the right of the camp to obtain more; then the Zulus swept 

down in hordes upon the camp, the infantry were broken, and fell back 

fighting hand to hand towards the right of the camp, where Durnford had 

rallied the white troopers, and with them and the Basutos still faced the 

Zulu left, keeping open the road across the ‘Nek,’ where retreat could yet be 

covered. About thirty of the 24th regiment, fourteen of the Natal volunteer 

carabiniers, with their officer, Lieutenant Scott, and twenty of the Natal 

mounted police held on with Durnford to this position when all hope of 

retrieving the day was gone; dismounted they fought on foot to cover the 

retreat of their comrades, and died to a man at their post. Four months 

later, when the general first allowed the battle-field to be visited, 

Durnford's body was found lying in a patch of long grass, near the right 

flank of the camp, a central figure of the band of brave men who had fought 

it out to the bitter end.
An ungenerous attempt was made at the time to throw the blame of the disaster 

on Durnford, it being alleged that he had received orders to defend the camp; 

but a copy of the orders he received was afterwards ascertained to have been 

recovered from the battle-field, and it is now known that no such instruction 

was given. In the judgment of those most competent to decide, Durnford acted, 

under the circumstances, for the best, and, as General Sir Lintorn Simmons 

wrote to the ‘Times,’ ‘fought and died as a brave and true soldier, 

surrounded by natives, in whom he had inspired such love and devotion that 

they sold their lives by his side, covering the retreat of those who were 

flying …’
Durnford's character is well summed up by Sir Henry Bulwer in the following 

few lines: ‘Colonel Durnford was a soldier of soldiers, with all his heart in 

his profession, keen, active-minded, indefatigable, unsparing of himself, 

brave and utterly fearless, honourable, loyal, of great kindness and goodness 

of heart. I speak of him as I knew him, and as all who knew him will speak of 

him.’


ctsg. held is position to the last! enabling others to flee!                    xhosa

You say lack of notes & Sources. Can you give another example. [/quote]

Bonjur,
If your question is strictly about the work of Mike SNOOK: "Like wolves on the fold"(few footnotes)
Cheers

xhosa2000 wrote:

too late. The Zulus appeared in force to the front and left. Durnford then 

fell back slowly towards the camp, keeping up a steady fire, and disputing 

every yard of ground until his men's ammunition was expended, when they 

retired rapidly to the right of the camp to obtain more; then the Zulus swept 

down in hordes upon the camp, the infantry were broken, and fell back 

fighting hand to hand towards the right of the camp, where Durnford had 

rallied the white troopers, and with them and the Basutos still faced the 

Zulu left, keeping open the road across the ‘Nek,’ where retreat could yet be 

covered. About thirty of the 24th regiment, fourteen of the Natal volunteer 

carabiniers, with their officer, Lieutenant Scott, and twenty of the Natal 

mounted police held on with Durnford to this position when all hope of 

retrieving the day was gone; dismounted they fought on foot to cover the 

retreat of their comrades, and died to a man at their post. Four months 

later, when the general first allowed the battle-field to be visited, 

Durnford's body was found lying in a patch of long grass, near the right 

flank of the camp, a central figure of the band of brave men who had fought 

it out to the bitter end.
An ungenerous attempt was made at the time to throw the blame of the disaster 

on Durnford, it being alleged that he had received orders to defend the camp; 

but a copy of the orders he received was afterwards ascertained to have been 

recovered from the battle-field, and it is now known that no such instruction 

was given. In the judgment of those most competent to decide, Durnford acted, 

under the circumstances, for the best, and, as General Sir Lintorn Simmons 

wrote to the ‘Times,’ ‘fought and died as a brave and true soldier, 

surrounded by natives, in whom he had inspired such love and devotion that 

they sold their lives by his side, covering the retreat of those who were 

flying …’
Durnford's character is well summed up by Sir Henry Bulwer in the following 

few lines: ‘Colonel Durnford was a soldier of soldiers, with all his heart in 

his profession, keen, active-minded, indefatigable, unsparing of himself, 

brave and utterly fearless, honourable, loyal, of great kindness and goodness 

of heart. I speak of him as I knew him, and as all who knew him will speak of 

him.’


ctsg. held is position to the last! enabling others to flee!                    xhosa

But it was his actions that led to his downfall, along with a load of men.

So his actions at the end of the Battle is his claim to fame. So prior to him losing his head (Sourced) what exactly did he do. Okay he sends out men to scout the hills. One of his men namely Lt Raw supposedly discovered the Zulus in a valley. He fires at, triggering the attack on the camp. So here we can see that the scouts sent out were not given any particular orders in the event of spotting the enemy. As Durnford stated if Zulus are seen we should attack them, that gents was his game plan.

ymob wrote:

In reality, it was CREALOCK and not CLERY.
Otherwise, CLERY was not the staff officer of CHELMSFORD;
A "big" error for a "specialist" of this war!!!!!

Frédéric,

OUCH! That IS more than a minor mixup because the officers in question -- or their seniors at any rate -- had opposing vested interests in the aftermath of Isandlwana.

In other words, Clery was trying to exonerate Pulleine and Crealock was trying to exonerate Chelmsford. I'll be that one had Ron Lock doing headstands.

John wrote:

So his actions at the end of the Battle is his claim to fame. So prior to him losing his head (Sourced) what exactly did he do. Okay he sends out men to scout the hills. One of his men namely Lt Raw supposedly discovered the Zulus in a valley. He fires at, triggering the attack on the camp. So here we can see that the scouts sent out were not given any particular orders in the event of spotting the enemy. As Durnford stated if Zulus are seen we should attack them, that gents was his game plan.

There are only a few problems with that:

1) Chelmsford was scouting in the same location earlier when he was interrupted by a call for help from the Mangeni and precipitously called off his reconnaissance. So Chelmsford wanted the area scouted. He just didn't do it; neither did Pulleine...which Durnford IMMEDIATELY saw the danger of.

2) Lt. Raw probably WASN'T the first man to discover the Zulu, but even if he was, others were stumbling upon them at the same time, not to mention they were spotted from the camp earlier. (That whole story about chasing herders over a hill and finding the entire Zulu nation sitting in circle below had been more or less discredited for a number of reasons, but it doesn't REALLY matter.)

3) Raw's firing did not trigger an attack on the camp. What triggered Isandlwana was Chelmsford's invasion of Zululand. That's why the Zulu went to the trouble of assembling and moving an army to the border to destroy the Center column. They were well aware of the British presence there.

4) Durnford has MANY "claims to fame" as you put it. You can blame him for Bushman's Pass or blame his overall conduct for defeat at Isandlwana, but little children should not be seen in public saying "By shooting at the Zulu Durnford's men caused the defeat at Isandlwana." It's embarrassing.

ymob wrote:

Bonjur,
If your question is strictly about the work of Mike SNOOK: "Like wolves on the fold"(few footnotes)
Cheers

Yes, but a good bit of ranting!

xhosa2000 wrote:

ctsg. held is position to the last! enabling others to flee!

Yes, of all people CTSG should appreciate a man like that!

What I don't get about the rubbishing of Durnford's last stand is that it simultaneously rubbishes those who stood with him.  They weren't sacrificing themselves so others might have a better chance of escaping...they were simply rallying around a lunatic in that telling.  That seems to me a rather...well...Scrooge-like interpretation of events...and human nature in general.

It was more like the INACTIONS of LC and Pulleine that caused the defeat and massacre of the men at iSandlwana.

If LC had followed his own orders he would have made sure the camp was laagered, entrenched, and properly defended. The whole area around the camp should have been properly recced but wasn't. LC split his force and went off seeking glory on a mad wild goose chase, leaving an almost undefended camp under the command of a pen pusher. Pulleine failed to take proper action when reports of zulu activity around the camp area first came in to him. He had quite a few hours to organise some sort of better defences and ammo supply just in case of a sudden attack but failed. He stuck blindly to orders given to him by a junior officer, and didn't use his own common sense when he became aware that the camp might be under threat. At least when Durnford arrived he did take appropriate action, and sent his own men out to recce the area to find out what the zulus were up to, and when it was reported to him that a large body of zulu's were heading in the direction of LC, he then followed his orders to support LC and went to try to find out where they were going. So it wasn't Durnford's actions, it was the inactions of both LC and Pulleine that caused this massacre.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Ulundi wrote:

Just a quick question?

If Durnford sympathise with the native cause. Why was he so keen to attack them.

He wasn't, he was the great pretender. To get in with the Coleno's. So he could have Fanny on Tap!

Got to be the best post in 2014. Outstanding. Any member who says That didn't bring a smile to his face is a liar!

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

It was more like the INACTIONS of LC and Pulleine that caused the defeat and massacre of the men at iSandlwana.

If LC had followed his own orders he would have made sure the camp was laagered, entrenched, and properly defended. The whole area around the camp should have been properly recced but wasn't. LC split his force and went off seeking glory on a mad wild goose chase, leaving an almost undefended camp under the command of a pen pusher. Pulleine failed to take proper action when reports of zulu activity around the camp area first came in to him. He had quite a few hours to organise some sort of better defences and ammo supply just in case of a sudden attack but failed. He stuck blindly to orders given to him by a junior officer, and didn't use his own common sense when he became aware that the camp might be under threat. At least when Durnford arrived he did take appropriate action, and sent his own men out to recce the area to find out what the zulus were up to, and when it was reported to him that a large body of zulu's were heading in the direction of LC, he then followed his orders to support LC and went to try to find out where they were going. So it wasn't Durnford's actions, it was the inactions of both LC and Pulleine that caused this massacre.

Now I understand why, they call you Mr Repetitve.

Well mate, if dear old CTSG can keep it up with his mind boggling repetitive Durnford bashing, then so can I with my defence of Col Durnford.

Anyway, I thought it was Mr Consistent I was known as

All the best sas mate, have a good one.

Its not the best post of 2014..the embarrassing truth is that ctsg
does not have the reply to his own question! why did Durnford
do that?  Shhhhh! all intelligent of course know i'm not addressing
this to you!.

‘Colonel Durnford was a soldier of soldiers, with all his heart in 

his profession, keen, active-minded, indefatigable, unsparing of himself, 

brave and utterly fearless, honourable, loyal, of great kindness and goodness 

of heart. I speak of him as I knew him, and as all who knew him will speak of 

him.’  

You ctsg, have an entirely different take on Durnford, could i have your own 
' take ' on him please! in your ' own ' words, just so i understand your point of 
view..after all you are quite entitled to form any opinion you like, i'm sure you
have stated your opinions of him many times in this place and that you have a 
reason for thinking the way that you do, but i would like to see them listed as his
merits are above.                                                         cheers xhosa

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Anyway, I thought it was Mr Consistent I was known as

Why change when you're right? Right?

xhosa2000 wrote:

Thanks ctsg i will think on..i will address those last three characteristics
you cited and as usual demolish you with ease.

Still waiting. So far you have given nothing apart form you personal opinion about Durnford being a soldier with a big heart. Your limited in your knowledge on Durnford. I'm more interested in the mistakes that were made by all concerned and the reasons why. On that note I can see no point in replying to your stupid comments. I'm sure Martin, and 6pdr will play with you, so run along and play.

True! CTSG I'm sure like me you have better things to do. Have a great Christmas.

They were not my opinions, but then you know that! i have
a reasonable knowledge on many aspects of the AZW and 
would be comfortable discussing them. but what i'm not
terrified of is being WRONG! as you appear to be..my 
knowledge on Durnford actually is not limited.. though i say
it myself i am literate and fairly intelligent and have a moderate
ability to retain information..you on the other hand  seem 
barely able to string a sentence together when it comes to the
crunch..think on that.                    all the best  xhosa

CTSG.

If you are genuinely more interested in the mistakes that were made by all concerned, then look no further than your hero Thesiger, who, along with Frere, plotted to overthrow the zulu kingdom without the knowledge or consent of the British government and its people, they thought that it would be just a walk in the park. These power mad idiots condemned thousands of people to much great suffering and a very horrible and painful death, if you wish to make heroes out of these sort of villainous halfwits, then it just goes to show what disregard you have for others, and what sort of mentality that you have. I bet you would make a great dentist.

Is it safe? IS IT safe? It it SAFE? zim-zim-zim IS IT SAFE!

Merry Christmas everybody, including CTSG especially. Where would we be without him?!

I've been looking at the Painting of the Battle of Isandlwana. by Charles Edwin Fripp. 24th Last Stand.
Which brings me to my question.

If Col Durnford was such a Hero at Isandlwana. Why has there never been a painting of his last stand. By a Victorian artist.

Brave, Noble, Durnford....

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