Durnford was he capable. 4

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic makes a good point, why don't the LC supporters put forward their defence for the many 'cock up's' that he made and his actions that resulted in the loss at iSandlwana, and thus the end of the first invasion of Zululand.

Because "the best defense is a good offense." In other words the other side can't score points while you hold the ball. Is the concept of "filibustering" familiar to members or is that just an American thing?

Bonjour Martin, Springbok,

Martin,
I don't know if i have made a "good point".
Sincerly it was not the aim of my answer to CTSG.
I would have cited anothers authors and others arguments....
I don't like the bad spirit of this debate...
The question to me by CTSG was a little bit provocative [I.E: "Have you read any of Col Snooks books, or have you been put off, by other members views on his work"]: my answer to him was in the same way/spirit (a "kind" provocation)
That's all...
As i have said previously, i am not yet ready to debate on the part of responsabilities in the disaster by PULLEINE and DURNFORD (i am ready only for CHELMSFORD)

Springbok,
First, happy to read you again.
Secondly, and with respect, i am not agree necessarily with your analysis "There seems to be a line of reasoning that we can find a participant Not Guilty by arguing another IS guilty. When there seems to be a series of parties responsible that becomes a non argument".
I think that the responsabilities of each of the protagonists in the defeat (CHELMSFORD, DURNFORD, PULLEINE, DARTNELL-LONSDALE...) are like a puzzle (or as a "rubik's cube").
For example (it's an example, nothing else, not an argument from me against CHELMSFORD) if the battle was effectively lost at 1h30 the 22 january (sentence by MS), the responsabilities in the disaster of DURNFORD and PULLEINE are necessary less important that the responsability of CHELMSFORD.
Do you understand that i mean?
But i answer  to your 2 questions:
Evidently,DURNFORD is not completely innocent of all charges levelled against him;
Evidently, CHELSMFORD is not completely innocent of all the charges levelled againt him.

Cheers

Frédéric

6pdr wrote:

[quote="

This is a VERY interesting point. In the American system of law (which is not based on the code Napoleon) there is a presumption of innocence.
.

Bonjour 6 Pdr,
In the French system of law which is based on the coade Napoléon, there is a presomption of innocence.
Cheers.
Sorry, i am
>Frédéric

Morning Frederic and 6pd.
having got two separate answers, virtually similar from both of you the next question would be of course.
a) Then in what way was Durnford guilty
b) In what way was Chelmsford guilty.
I don't believe the presumption of innocent cannade can be applied when History has been so judgemental.
The below was meant in the context of the forum debate, its become a habit to deflect a criticism of  either Durnford or Chelmsford by deflecting the argument to one or the other rather than trying to justify each of those Gentlemans movements/decisions/actions


Frederic
I hear what you say but would beg to differ, there are very specific charges that have been made on the forum, and indeed by history. Its those specifices that CTSG has highlighted that should be answered. The title of this string is "Durnford was he Capable", not is Chelmsford Capable, so perhaps to explore those accusations and try to put a logical reasoning/or lack of to each question would be a way forward.
Both your good self and 6pd have said Durnford was not an innocent man, so explain why wasn't he?

6pd
As for Frederic really, why wasn't Durnford an innocent man, what do you believe he was guilty of?

So for both of you transatlantic gentlemen I sit down and wait with baited breath, and a glass of fine Cape Shiraz.

Cheers



"There seems to be a line of reasoning that we can find a participant Not Guilty by arguing another IS guilty. When there seems to be a series of parties responsible that becomes a non argument".

In general I think the approach outlined by Frank is the way to proceed and my inclination is to favour what 6pdr is saying.

However, there is a real problem in pursuing this analysis under the current heading of "Is Durnford Capable". In the broad sense, for me , the answer is YES. But does that mean he was capable in every situation he found himself, NO.

If we are to tease out those situations where he was less than capable, and understand why, we inevitably have to analyse the failings of Chelmsford or others. At that point the die hard supporters of each camp weigh in with their personal comments and the bad feeling mentioned by Frederic is generated.

Incidentally, I think Snook has some interesting things to say about these issues and I will try and put some more of his thoughts alongside those mentioned by Frederic, to see what people think.

I suggest that the only way to avoid this subject degenerating once again is to agree some ground rules for the debate and for Admin to police them. It might then prove to be very instructive.

Steve

Morning Steve and compliments of the season to you, just been looking at those sun filled English sky's on TV.
Iagree that a separate topic should be opened to examine Chelmsford role. Ive suggested this way in order to try and isolate exactly what Durnford is deemed as being unsuitable for. CTSG has put down a list of items, Xhosa has taken up the gauntlet of answering and good for him. But I don't believe the way forward is by posting unnamed or unattributed articles. The response posted from Johnsons statement merely confirms what CTSG has posted and isn't a rebuttal at all. As this is a discussion forum I don't believe that merely consulting authors and doing a cut and paste is of any value. This type of discussion IS about personal views, and thats all the posted authors have, there own views. If we are to merely accept the printed word as gospel then this forum should become purely a reference forum, and ban anything printed in the modern era.
There has now been two consesions that Durnford wasn't without fault, let the two respondents outline why they think that's the case and in what way he was at fault. Possibly from that point a reasonable discussion can ensue ( just don't hold your breath ).

Cheers Mate and stay warm.

I should have added, in case I get accused of being on one side or the other, look at the first Durnford was he capable thread and see the hundreds of posts that CTSG and I argued through for month after month.

Cheers

Hi Springy.

Sure my friend, I will expand on what I meant by 'Crealock's arrangements'.

After the loss at iSandlwana it became clear to LC, Crealock and others, that the responsibility for this would fall on the shoulders of LC. The mistakes were many, here are just a few, ie; it was said that the camp position itself was a mistake, and LC disobeyed his own orders by not laagering or entrenching the camp. He divided his force in the middle of the night to go off on what became a wild goose chase, leaving an admin officer in temporary command of the remainder of the column at the camp, and he did not see to it that proper orders had been issued to Pulleine. It was then realised that some form of cover up had to be put into place to divert the blame from LC and put it elsewhere, and where better to lay the blame, well, on the dead Durnford of course, after all, he was the senior officer present, and he couldn't say anything because he was dead, so he was made scapegoat to get LC off the hook.

Crealock now put a plan into motion to divert blame from LC. This involed himself and LC arranging an enquiry, and the officers chosen to run this enquiry were picked by LC and Crealock as they knew that they would show favour to LC, these arrangements were discussed by LC and Crealock during a carriage ride to PMB. Crealock arranged an additional sentence to be inserted into orders to try to show that Durnford had been ordered to either take command or reinforce the camp, but this was a lie. And at one time Crealock also attempted to arrange things to make it appear that Glyn was to blame rather than LC, but Glyn did not take the bait.

These are just a few examples of how Crealock tried to arrange things in an attempt to divert blame from LC, there are other examples in Lock and Quintrells book 'Zulu Victory', in which they give some good examples of a cover up and a web of lies and deceit.

Glad you are feeling better and posting again mate.

Bonjour Frederic.

Sorry if I misinterpreted things when you wrote "What can answer a defender of LC". I thought that you meant 'what answers would the defenders of LC come up with if asked'. So if I got it wrong my friend I apologise.

Hi Martin
Im trying to put this onto a solid footing

Could you supply sources/proof that this sentence is fundamentally correct:

It was then realised that some form of cover up had to be put into place to divert the blame from LC and put it elsewhere, and where better to lay the blame, well, on the dead Durnford of course, after all, he was the senior officer present, and he couldn't say anything because he was dead, so he was made scapegoat to get LC off the hook.

"Crealock now put a plan into motion to divert blame from LC. This involed himself and LC arranging an enquiry, and the officers chosen to run this enquiry were picked by LC and Crealock as they knew that they would show favour to LC, these arrangements were discussed by LC and Crealock during a carriage ride to PMB. Crealock arranged an additional sentence to be inserted into orders to try to show that Durnford had been ordered to either take command or reinforce the camp, but this was a lie. And at one time Crealock also attempted to arrange things to make it appear that Glyn was to blame rather than LC, but Glyn did not take the bait."

Cheers mate

Good morning Frank. No snow whatever south of the Thames and that's what counts!

I know the history of the debate and it's abysmal. I don't think you can avoid quoting published works, but I agree it should not be confined to contemporary accounts. And it must be accompanied by an explanation of why you think the conclusions of the quoted author are right or wrong (not by insulting the author). Nothing wrong with setting out your own independent argument if you want to.

For my money, I think we should start by agreeing the questions we are trying to answer and in which situations. I agree that CTSG has provided a lead - are we content with those, or can they be improved?

I would also favour some way of trying to involve the wider membership. Perhaps, at a point where the arguments have been set out, to invite a vote. Or some other way of widening the discussion.

We might then reach some shared conclusions!

Steve

I have used the word Fundamental above in a very deliberate way. As you have unequivocally stated that the 'conspiracy' is fact, not conjecture but hard fact.
To support that your going to have to come up with a source for
The carriage ride conversation
The board composition being selected by Crealock
The terms of reference being dictated by Crealock
And the attempt to prove that Glyn was at fault.

Look forward to seeing those proven sources.

Cheers mate

Hi Steve
Good thoughts, but in reality this discussion is going to roam far and wide. The principle issue of the orders will never ever reach common consensus but the other points outlined may easily do so. The same with the issues raised by Martin.
Im more than happy to have the printed works offered, however I do correspond with a number of those Authors and this forum has a very low level of esteem in the way their works are subjected to cut and paste without being attributed. I fully agree with that. The second point in doing that is that we can end up with a purile and frustrating discussion that does lead to a touch of excitement.

Just seen the weather forecast again, bloody hell ! Me Im for cricket at Newlands next week with a cold beer or so.

Hi Frank.

Yes mate, just take a look in the book (Zulu Victory) I mentioned by Lock and Quintrell.

They have a chapter regarding the cover up and the web of lies and deceit, it is a very interesting read, and very informative, take a look Springy, you will see what I mean.

Martin, that's the authors take on things, open to interpretation.

Hi Martin
I do have the book, but again its very short on proof, that's why ive requested you prove your points. There are a lot of forum members that don't have large book collections, im sure we owe it to them to back up statements made on the forum

Cheers Mate

Springbok, you seem to think that by posting Johnsons
statement i somehow supported ctsg's  ridiculous tenant.
no! to find that look in L & Q's Zulu Victory page 190, i
had wondered why nobody had posted it before, the 
question posed is.. was Durnford Capable? so let all 
think about what that means! are we Talking in the round?
Durnford as a man, soldier, commander, are we taking in
all that we know of him, or are we talking about his actions
at the Battle of Isandhlwana.

The first of ctsg points was that Durnford had abused Johnson,
ordered him to recover Russells corpse and then abandoned
him to his fate, so what was happening at that time to make
Durnford behave so.(by the way it was an understood by the
officer class that a fallen officers body was not to be left in
possession of the enemy) so that was probably Durnfords
thinking..with all that was happening around him do you think
durnford had time to think about the fate of one lone man?
does any body really think that in such a fast and rapidly 
moving situation with the might of the Zulu army springing
its trap all around, that Durnford instantly forgot Johnson as
he reacted with speed to the need of his wider responsibilities.
for gods sake think what was happening, their was a major 
attack on the camp under way ,the situation called for clarity of
thought and rapid orders were barked out in the peremptory
way only a senior officer could. cold. concise and clear..

This from The Glamour and Tragedy of the Zulu War by W H
Clements, i will post shortly. again i must say keep in mind the
original question..postulation and speculation are not facts..
Durford left a lone soldier to his fate! what a farcical thing to
focus on when a major battle was on which resulted in a 
massacre!                                                                xhosa

[URL=https://s1297.photobucket.com/user/xhosa2000/media/Clements2.jpg.html][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/

Durnford described as ' cool and collected '. and of course
what he did go on to do ' bought much time and many lives '.
an odd thought strikes me as again i post ' pages '  that i am
perhaps alone in this place as the only one really doing that!
for which i seem to be mocked! a quick look in my photo
bucket reveals hundreds of items which any can see see and
download..my question is why dos'nt any one else do this, i
can think of only a few who do. i wonder why more don't? 
they say a picture is worth more than a thousand words, i 
believe that.                                                          xhosa

Hi Les, again there is nothing new in either of those cuttings that sheds any light on why Johnson was left to his fate. And I would dearly love to know the source of his skirmishing and counter attack plus his orders to the NNC to support the 24th. Considering the NNC were around a mile and a half away across the other side of the battlefield. Romantic yes but factual? Would be illuminating to be proved wrong. May I quote you: "Postulation and speculation are not facts."

Cheers

Yes you say that! but what do you offer instead..not extracts from
published accounts just your own opinion! which needs backing up
with facts, so lets have them..anybody?                        xhosa

Xhosa,Martin. All you are about is a continuance of the Colenso-E Durnford fiction. The reality is that any objective analysis by remotely competent historians albeit professional or amature will show that Chelmsford and Durnford both bungled, one at the operational level and one at the tactical level. Once you both get to grips with that, I'm sure this discussion will move on, to a more interesting chapter of Isandlwana.

CTSG
Im pretty sure you've never managed to prove any fiction from the Colenso/Durnford combination. In fact I do seem to recall that once upon a time you managed to even quote Colenso to back up an argument?
However disregarding that issue your second sentence I would fully endorse.

Cheers

Springbok wrote:

you managed to even quote Colenso to back up an argument?

Never in a million years would I ever have done that..

It was Colenso, that mastered the biggest cover up. Which has led to where we are today.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Yes you say that! but what do you offer instead..not extracts from
published accounts just your own opinion! which needs backing up
with facts, so lets have them..anybody?                        xhosa

I have posted sources for every statement Ive made, original sources not opinions from others. Ive also never been afraid to offer my own opinions, this is after all a discussion forum. And in trying to move the discussion forward ive never launched a personal attack, just commented on the posts made.
In line with the questions about Durnfords specific conduct over a fixed time period there has been but one rebuttal that tends to imply that one soldiers life was worthless. And I cant really equate that with a tender caring commander.

Cheers

CTSG
Its going to take a bloody long time but im going to make it a life mission, days without sleep or rest, to find that post you made and re post it.

Cheers

Next you will be accusing me of quoting Edward Durnford and Luchard.

No personal attack here! caring commander..your having a laugh surely!
think of wood, and how many lives he wasted or indeed cared about when
he conducted his bizarre funeral service, a more interesting chapter of
Isandhlwana..what would that be then?..this addressed to springbok and
ctsg.                                                                                xhosa

Wood wasn't at Isandlwana.

A more interesting chapter.
The truth about the unit Durnford commanded ( Supposedly independantly) is that it disintegrated in the face of the enemy, fled the field, and in so doing triggered a wider panic.

Springbok will check back later to see if you have discovered what your looking for. Not that you will.

Well ctsg i suppose that was addressed to me, but who knows,
but just in case, can i say your as wrong as a wrong thing can 
be, as always  , i dont  know and cant guess what specific
unit your referring to, be it the whole of the NNC or just Durnfords,
command. whatever the Edendale men behaved finely that day 
and even exceeded any expectations..

I see you and springbok have formed an alliance  it matters not!
it looks like its me and Durnford against all comers, nay bother, 
bring it on! make it pertinent, make it factual, that's all i ask.. xhosa

No alliance at all. Ive stated many times I take no sides, I lay the blame at the feet of all and sundry. What I wont accept is that any one of those senior officers was blamless.

CTSG
You've deleted it haven't you?

It wasnt addressed directly to you. It was address to anyone who wants to participate.

And no, no alliance has been formed. There is no need, we both do vey well on our own. I will admit, Springboks knowledge is far superior to mine, as mine is to yours.

Springbok wrote:

You've deleted it haven't you?

Possible, anything to do with Colenso, I would delete.

and ctsg, what is your source for the piece you posted
last night..highlighted darkly, i asked you then and i'm
asking again, and will do so till you it answer it..admin
again   insists that all posts are properly sourced, so
lets be having it please. and i noticed that my post re
why Durnford left Johnson was quite acceptable and even
beneath mentioning as being irrelevant regarding any of
your futile attempts to defame Durnford!. so why did you
not respond or even repeat your ludicrous accusation 
which you used in order to suggest that Durnford was too
unbalanced and unsound of mind to command effectively?
cat got your tongue?                                         xhosa

CTSG said
"The reality is that any objective analysis by remotely competent historians albeit professional or amature will show that Chelmsford and Durnford both bungled, one at the operational level and one at the tactical level."

Why can't we all agree with that and move on?

Steve

Your knowledge is greater than mine! your tripping,
i have never encountered a more ignorant person in
a long long life.. yeah sure you are. what a sick joke.
                                                               xhosa

Because rusteze what you said is to simplistic and basic
on any level.                                                   xhosa

Xhosa wrote:

command effectively?

Now we are getting somewhere. Please explain in your own words, how you think he was a effective commander. I'm Seriouly hoping you have found another book.
I'm just off to watch paint dry, more interesting. Hopefully you would have photographed a page from some where..

rusteze wrote:

CTSG said
"The reality is that any objective analysis by remotely competent historians albeit professional or amature will show that Chelmsford and Durnford both bungled, one at the operational level and one at the tactical level."

Why can't we all agree with that and move on?

Steve

Steve I just wish we could.

You have no answers..read your post back.your
not worthy to post. so embarrassing.  xhosa

springbok9 wrote:

Ive also never been afraid to offer my own opinions, this is after all a discussion forum. And in trying to move the discussion forward ive never launched a personal attack, just commented on the posts made.

Cheers

I don't want to write more on the subject (I.E: the responsabilities of DURNFORD in the disaster of Isandhlwana) for 3 main reasons:
-My difficulties in English language is a cumbersome and frutrasting disability to exprim my opinion;
-I have not started studying the battle "in depth" (actually only the period 11 January-22 January départure to the camp / and Chelmsford "in the Mangeni" and his return to the camp the 22 january in the evening)
-I have not yet the answers to some questions essentials (for me) to permanently base my opinion on DURNFORD (for example"It's really in the Victorian army a glaring omission not to indicate in the order who was in charge of the command? - see post: Chelmsford's orders lack of clarity: a habit? / The informal rules between a superior Officer and soldiers in the Victorian army - Incident between DURNFORD and the two Carbineers, incident with Johnson / letter d'Henderson to his father ...).
I think the subject of the responsabilities of DURNFORD (and PULLEINE) in the disaster is a subject more complex than the responsabilities of CHELMSFORD.
When i am sure of my opinion with -with rational arguments- i am never afraid to exprim it.
This interesting debate comes to soon for me.

Cheers

Frédéric

xhosa2000 wrote:

No personal attack here! caring commander..your having a laugh surely!
think of wood, and how many lives he wasted or indeed cared about when
he conducted his bizarre funeral service, a more interesting chapter of
Isandhlwana..what would that be then?..this addressed to springbok and
ctsg.                                                                                xhosa

Xhosa does have a point. I'm going with Wood being the caused of the diaster at Isandlwana.

Yes of course you are!  xhosa

A little light bedtime reading for you ctsg, one of the
most influential books ever written on tactics..Rusteze
i take it you have read this.   xhosa

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

I'm beginning to feel a little of what Durnford felt..surrounded.
thanks, i love it. make it factual, relevant, and in your case
ctsg, coherent..  thats all for now!                          xhosa

xhosa2000 wrote:

I'm beginning to feel a little of what Durnford felt..surrounded.
thanks, i love it. make it factual, relevant, and in your case
ctsg, coherent..  thats all for now!  xhosa

For the same reason. You rush in without thinking!