Durnford was he capable. 4

Thats an interesting question Ray. Fripps' is about the only painting of Isandhlwana that I can recall. And there don't appear to be any officers in it at all.

I think the only reason the Victorians would produce a painting of a great defeat would be to commemorate the passing of an entire battalion who had died bravely. Officers were expected to make the sacrifice.

Steve

A painting depicting Col Durnford's last stand would have certainly up set the civilians at that Breakfast.  

"The Engineer who lost the 24th"

Chard your sense of humor knows no bounds
90th

Ray
I suggest such a picture would not have had such emotive force.
Durnford surrounded by Natal policemen and carbineers would not have the sense of familiarity that a redcoat has and what would have been the substitute for the boy? But 600 redcoats means 1200 parents, 1000 wives and girls, children, siblings, relatives, 30,000 other redcoats, the wider reading public - an instant appreciative audience.
No. People would simply not have gone to see just Durnford et al.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Ray
I suggest such a picture would not have had such emotive force.
Durnford surrounded by Natal policemen and carbineers would not have the sense of familiarity that a redcoat has and what would have been the substitute for the boy?  But 600 redcoats means 1200 parents, 1000 wives and girls, children, siblings, relatives, 30,000 other redcoats, the wider reading public - an instant appreciative audience.
No.  People would simply not have gone to see just Durnford et al.

As I understood it, some of the 24th rallied to him. Red Jackets!

xhosa2000 wrote:

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

Alas so far from the camp and not a bullet between them!

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

And not a red jacket in-sight. Tit for tat I suppose!

Managed to shoot yourself in the mouth, and the foot!
most impressive..showing the Brave, Noble, Durnford. 

Absolutely more than happy to show Durnford the brave man and his last stand consisting of all 13 of them. The artist even managed to get Durnfords Cowboy hat in the frame! Xhosa. I would imagine it would be easy to be brave with other peoples life's.

Chard1879 wrote:

Absolutely more than happy to show Durnford the brave man and his last stand consisting of all 13 of them. The artist even managed to get Durnfords Cowboy hat in the frame!  Xhosa. I would imagine it would be easy to be brave with other peoples life's.

The Durnford apologists won't like that.

Chard1879 wrote:

Alas so far from the camp and not a bullet between them!

We'll discount the boy for the pistol for the moment which tends to discredit the use of this as a historical document.

But just on the basis of simple logic...if there is "not a bullet between them" why are soldiers on both the left and the right aiming their rifles?

And not a Red Jacket in sight! ..if the Artist had exercised his licence
a touch more to reflect reality he might have depicted a goodly
amount who had also gravitated toward Durnford.. chard..and, impi
why do you consistently get the basic's wrong? back to school for
you my lads.                                                               xhosa

Now, now Xhosa. Truth hurts I know...

Abandoned a lone private solider in the face of the enemy, after first telling him to go back towards the enemy to fetch the body of a dead man. Insane and despicable.

Unable to cope with tactical reality or crisis - we can't be surrounded, and if we are, we will cut our way through them (oh really?).

Gets Major Russell and his men killed (and loses Nourse's company from the orbat) as a result of a patently unsound manoeuvre.

Bad tempered with private troopers who were only trying to deliver key operational information (a time-critical warning) to him.

As the senior officer in the field, he can find nothing better to do than spend time unjamming carbines. (which, along with its excessive rates of fire, doesn't say much for the trained state of the much vaunted NNMC).

The truth about the unit he commanded, and which his apologists give him great credit for forming, is that it disintegrated in the face of the enemy, fled the field, and in so doing triggered a wider panic. So much for their 'devotion' to their colonel. Fine post-mortem words from one or two of them, which doubtless you will feel inclined to quote, but there were 250 of them, not one or two, and it didn't actually mean anything when it came down to it. They abandoned him.
CMS.
Xhosa. With more that an one liner, or harping on about what a brave man Durnford was. Which gets the discussion no where, give me you take on the above.

Hic! i love you impi, ctsg hic!...

Thanks Job Done.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

The truth about the unit he commanded, and which his apologists give him great credit for forming, is that it disintegrated in the face of the enemy, fled the field, and in so doing triggered a wider panic.

How do you substantiate that claim CTSG?

Job done! no my sad deluded tomato..read back carefully what
you have written, you try to appear intelligent, you fail for the 
simple reason.....your not. i had to pick myself up off the floor
i was laughing so much.. but enough. the party's about to start,
guest have started arriving.. you have a tiny brain my little
sausage, otherwise you might have remembered our little date
in the ring to sort this out once and for all, but oh yes.. you 
bottled it as usual.. shame. enjoy the rest of your evening and
let joy and merriment enter your heart! you will keep till boxing
day. now that will be far more appropriate, don't you think? soz
i forget..you don't or cannot. cheers ears.                  xhosa

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Abandoned a lone private solider in the face of the enemy, after first telling him to go back towards the enemy to fetch the body of a dead man. Insane and despicable.

Unable to cope with tactical reality or crisis - we can't be surrounded, and if we are, we will cut our way through them (oh really?).

Gets Major Russell and his men killed (and loses Nourse's company from the orbat) as a result of a patently unsound manoeuvre.

Bad tempered with private troopers who were only trying to deliver key operational information (a time-critical warning) to him.

As the senior officer in the field, he can find nothing better to do than spend time unjamming carbines. (which, along with its excessive rates of fire, doesn't say much for the trained state of the much vaunted NNMC).

The truth about the unit he commanded, and which his apologists give him great credit for forming, is that it disintegrated in the face of the enemy, fled the field, and in so doing triggered a wider panic. So much for their 'devotion' to their colonel. Fine post-mortem words from one or two of them, which doubtless you will feel inclined to quote, but there were 250 of them, not one or two, and it didn't actually mean anything when it came down to it. They abandoned him.
CMS.
Xhosa. With more that an one liner, or harping on about what a brave man Durnford was. Which gets the discussion no where, give me you take on the above.

Waiting for your reply Xhosa. Or you dancing again. 123 123 side step.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Ray
I suggest such a picture would not have had such emotive force.
Durnford surrounded by Natal policemen and carbineers would not have the sense of familiarity that a redcoat has and what would have been the substitute for the boy?  .

Bonsoir à tous,
The youngest colonial trooper KIA at Isandhlwana is Fred JACKSON, 16 years old (Natal Carbineers / trumpeter from memory)
Far from the "picture" of the "little boy" by Fripp....
His body was found beside the body of his cousin Malcolm MOODIE (there is a sketch of him on this forum)

Cheers

Frédéric

impi wrote:

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

About Fred Jackson, not a trumpeter, but a bugler.
Cheers

impi wrote:

Impi,
In my first post on Fred Jackson, i wrote he was a "trumpeter from memory".
I read (from you link), Jackson was a "bugler"....
So "trumpeter" seems to be a incorrect term for Jackson?
(I am not sure of the difference between a trumpeter and a bugler in the British army or (British) colonial troops...)
Cheers

xhosa2000 wrote:

Hic! i love you impi, ctsg hic!...

Well CTSG. Your right! A one liner

[quote="ymob"]

His body was found beside the body of his cousin Malcolm MOODIE (there is a sketch of him on this forum)


From a PM sent by a relative / descendent of Fred Jackson, Malcolm Moodie was not his cousin.
My memory his at fault....
Sorry for my mistake.
Cheers
Frédéric

Delicious irony old h, you said that in one line 
impi ctsg gtsg impi, who ever what ever, now let 
me get this straight, you expect me! to answer any
of your questions which you pose in the form of 
childish demands, you treat this forum like its your
own personal game of ping pong.. and you want what?
to see the monkey boy ( me ) dance.. to your agenda,
the agenda being what exactly?.

You all have or have seen, all the known facts on Anthony
William Durnford..they have been in the public domain 
for over one hundred and thirty five years, we know 
pretty much his life story from his birth till his demise
at Isandhlwana, we know his movements on that fateful
day the Zulu humbled the mighty British empire, with a
reasonable amount of accuracy.there is nothing much left
to say about that unless something new enters the public
arena. but! and its a big but! interpretation of even well
known events can and indeed must be distorted to varying
degrees, a little like chinese whispers if you will.

Now i address you shower..ever since, and before i even 
joined this forum i had observed the antics of you debating,
yes indeed i just said debating but really that is the wrong
word but i cant be bothered to go back and retype it..your
views and again that seems the wrong word when it is
applied to yourself s regarding Durnford and the Colenso's
for some reason never sits right with me, and for a long time
i could'nt put my finger on what was so ' out of kilter ' its 
not as though you advance the debate in any meaningful 
way.. i dont recall any lengthy discourse from any of you
using contemporary primary sources or even illustration's
when making what you suppose is your point.

If cornered in any situation, you go so far and after what seems
like a behind the scenes conflab, any one of a number takes 
over, and might i add never seamlessly but always obviously
that it fools no one..so.. what is the point!..i do not know for
but i can only hazard a guess...to be continued.

And there's over thirty six one liners there, 
construction into sentences was key. and i
even managed a few paragraphs..all written
with no malice and with no offence meant. 
                                                     xhosa

Xhosa the

I have got into trouble before about saying this but HCMDB was a character assassination of Col Durnford.
It aimed to elevate the pencil pusher Pulline into some sort of Achilles and relied on the authors military experience to brow beat any one with an objection to the central thesis which was that Col Durnford was the case of the defeat on 22 January 1879.
The work on Durnford by Drooglever is far more nuanced and balanced in my opinion.

24th. very laconic, your brevity would be admired, even seen as cool,
but, and its a big one, you lack the ability to respond adequately.. 
                                                                                  xhosa

dtsg, i agree, i had some lively debate with the late Col, 
he did not take that very well at all, i think i pushed him 
over the edge a bit.. now i'm not saying he was not 
entitled to write anything he wished to! in fact i bought
his works as soon as they became available.. but the bias
which was apparent right through HCMDB was to much 
even for a woolly liberal like my self.    some people
take it far to seriously in my opinion. it has a place in the
grand scheme of things, but the more discerning reader i
hope looked beyond the bluster and saw it for what it was..
 this is just my humble opinion, others no doubt differ!.
                                                                      xhosa

xhosa2000 wrote:

24th. very laconic, your brevity would be admired, even seen as cool,
but, and its a big one, you lack the ability to respond adequately.. 
                                                                                  xhosa

Funny that, many of us are waiting for your adequate reply to CTSG

Looks like this topic has come to a halt, apart from the back biting. If this continues the topic will be locked.

Les, I agree with you regarding Snook. I also bought his book, however, after starting to read it I could see where it was leading to, and that was blaming Col Durnford for the faults of Thesiger and Pulleine. He makes his own mind up of how he thinks events have happened and tries to implant these unfouded ideas in the readers mind, and it is more than obvious that some folk on the forum have been brainwashed by this method, and it is because of the lack of the little grey cells in these folk that they cannot see any further than the end of their noses. When they cannot debate properly in a civilised and polite manner, they will resort to personal attacks and insults, and this then results in the topic being locked down.

Anyone attempting to find the cause of the AZW can see that it was through the conspiring between Thesiger and Frere to overthrow the zulu way of life and takeover control. The loss at iSandlwana was a result of Thesiger not following his own orders, splitting his force and leaving a pen pushing officer in command. There then followed a conspiracy and cover up to get LC off the hook and put the blame on Col Durnford with a web of lies and deceit. And guess who believes all this nonsense? Well, you need look no further than the folk that cannot hold a decent debate without resorting to personal attacks and insults, and they know who they are, need I say more?

If Durnford had been an officer in good standing with the 24th Snook would have been fine with anything he did that day. The word for it is "biased." It's as simple as that. But that doesn't mean some of his other ideas...or observations really...don't have merit. He should be read. The parts about Durnford can easily be rebutted...and some of the rest is worth considering.

Martin, 6pdr   Admin..there is backbiting to be sure, but
your fully aware where it comes from! because its always
from the same place, we all see that..i respond because i
wont let ignorance bordering on attempted bullying, go un-
checked, i will always respond in the right way initially but
will not be cowed by certain members insistence that they
trot out the same old insults time after time..they seem not
to be interested in real debate on the subject that some of us
take very seriously..no! there more interested in ' pushing
buttons..' in order to get the reaction they really seek, 
which is of course so childish and pathetic. until they change
their ways this will continue, which is a real shame.xhosa

Did you refer to Mike Snook as "late"
Have I missed something

Frank made an important observation the other day. He spoke about the fact that, with 2000 registered members, it is a little surprising that more do not offer their views.

One way of encouraging all contributions, at whatever level,  is to ensure that this is a safe and welcoming environment in which to air views, without the risk of being insulted.

I thought we had hit a new low earlier in the week when the concept of "lesser members of the forum" was introduced.

Yes, shut this topic down again. But there is a wider concern.

The forum would be very much better without the negativity and personal attacks.

Steve

Yes, you shouldn't need the skin of a rhino to post here. Personally, I welcome the ad hominem attacks because for me it is confirmation that I am winning or have won the argument...but most people do not respond as such. Smugly yours, - 6pdr

Who was it that said, "I distrust anyone who has an unshakeable belief in the rightness of their case - they are the ones that cause wars to happen".

Perhaps it was me.

Steve

DTSG.

Les means that Snook is a 'late' Lt Col of the British Army, not that he has passed on.

Martin.. .

Well then i feel i'm on the right track by saying that
for certain members its just a case of ' button 
pushing '.. maybe because they are bored and seek
to provoke a reaction and because they know certain
members will always respond, their ' game is on '. but
it is such a shame..i have disagreed with most from time
to time and freely admit that i can go way over the top
mainly using sarcasm as my first choice, but i never seek
to initiate! and that's important. i found the use of the term
' lesser forum members ' beyond belief and as low as its is
possible to get! there is no higher echelon of poster's were
all in the same boat, seeking knowledge on the subject we all
in the main love no matter what level of interest we have..

My one and only example..for instance to illustrate this, is 
was when i was told i know next to nothing about AWD. well
that is patently absurd. i think i know as much as there is in
the public domain..its no big deal to be told this on a personal
level, but why? was that said over and over? to cause a reaction,
' pushing buttons! ) its not good enough and not worthy of this
forum.                                                                   xhosa

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

DTSG.

Les means that Snook is a 'late' Lt Col of the British Army, not that he has passed on.

Thank you for clarifying that

Hi Les mate.

Yes, I think a lot of us have all fallen for the 'bait' from the 'button pushers', however, we have tried to restrain ourselves with our responses to their attacks and insults, but it does test the patience.

You and Steve are quite right in finding the totally uncalled for remark (lesser forum members), made by a certain member of the forum earlier in the week as, shall we say, 'rather below the belt', there was no need whatsoever for that, but it does show the persons contempt for others.

I agree with you my friend regarding the forum, Pete has enough on his plate without having to try and sort out all the bickering between the members, and folk should have the decency to try to be reasonable with their comments, as this would make life a lot easier for Pete.

Hope you had a good party mate.

DTSG.

You are welcome.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Abandoned a lone private solider in the face of the enemy, after first telling him to go back towards the enemy to fetch the body of a dead man. Insane and despicable.

Unable to cope with tactical reality or crisis - we can't be surrounded, and if we are, we will cut our way through them (oh really?).

Gets Major Russell and his men killed (and loses Nourse's company from the orbat) as a result of a patently unsound manoeuvre.

Bad tempered with private troopers who were only trying to deliver key operational information (a time-critical warning) to him.

As the senior officer in the field, he can find nothing better to do than spend time unjamming carbines. (which, along with its excessive rates of fire, doesn't say much for the trained state of the much vaunted NNMC).

The truth about the unit he commanded, and which his apologists give him great credit for forming, is that it disintegrated in the face of the enemy, fled the field, and in so doing triggered a wider panic. So much for their 'devotion' to their colonel. Fine post-mortem words from one or two of them, which doubtless you will feel inclined to quote, but there were 250 of them, not one or two, and it didn't actually mean anything when it came down to it. They abandoned him.
CMS.
Xhosa. With more that an one liner, or harping on about what a brave man Durnford was. Which gets the discussion no where, give me you take on the above.

Admin as you can see. I have posted a reasonable post in this discussion above, yet for some reason, some members struggle to come up with a reasonable responce. That you can see for yourself. However based on the lack of knowledge regarding Col Durnford from those members who insist on contributing, I would agree with Steve! Lock it down.

Well said Martin..
Admin i will try to restrain my responses if
i'm allowed to! there is no need to shut this debate
there is a lot more to come re Durnford.   xhosa

Xhosa. Then I looked forward to your responce to my post above.