Durnford was he capable. 4

Guest

Moi! impetuous! Very Happy

you my friend answer nothing..totally
devoid of anything to advance this question, have you
ever read a book, just curious to know. and how about
that source.. xhosa

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

ymob wrote:

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

Ymob. Col Durnford took command ; he gave orders in the camp; he changed the dispositions of what had formerly been Pulleine's assets; Pulleine handed over to him. (All sourced) what is it that you are accusing Pulleine of, as I still have no idea what you think could possibly have lost the battle of Isandlwana before noon, is equally applicable to the self-evidently tactically inept Durnford.

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

xhosa2000 wrote:: Moi! impetuous! you my friend answer nothing..totally
devoid of anything to advance this question, have you
ever read a book, just curious to know. and how about
that source.. xhosa

Books do not hold all the answers. If they did there would be no point, in this discussion or simular discussions on other sites.
I'm afraid the Battle of Isandlwana always will be a " Never Ending Story" I do admire and respect your loyalty to Col Dunrford.

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

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,

I liked your ideas at the top of this page. Very constructive...but also very ambitious as we are already seeing by the bottom of the page.

That said, I can't wholeheartedly concur with the idea that Durnford bungled on a tactical level. Unlike Frank, whose opinions I always weigh heavily, I think he did quite well under the circumstances. I add "under the circumstances" because I evaluate in that present tense context and not against "ideal conduct." If we use ideal conduct (i.e. with 20-20 hindsight) as a standard then I suppose Frank may be right. But in no case do I think "bungled" and "Durnford" ought to be used in the same sentence at Isandlwana; suboptimal, maybe, but not bungled. Chelmsford on the other hand DID bungle...and egregiously.

Sorry to be a stick in the mud.

Posts : 94 Join date : 2009-02-13

Durnford was never in charge of the camp.
He had a separate command and instructions to support LC
That is what he did
Pulline had instructions to look after the camp and to move it to the new bivouac

Guest

Durnford, moved nothing! he suggested, was rebuffed, Pulleine made
the movements, the battle was lost because the Zulu's tactics were
infinitely superior..i asked you to get it right. why cant you! xhosa

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

No Les I havn't read that. I have said quite often though that overall I think Durnford was capable. But I do not believe he got everything right at Isandhlwana. To that extent I can agree with what CESG said in the extract - no more and no less than that.

In my view, he should have taken his mounted men and scouted for the main Impi to protect Chelmsford's flying column (which I believe is what Chelmsford intended him to do when calling him up to the camp). He should not have taken the Rocket Battery with him to do that.

But once the full scale of the Zulu force was understood and they attacked the camp and not Chelmsford, there was nothing going to stop them whatever Durnford did next.

6pdr

I don't much like bungled either, but I can live with it. I agree Chelmsford's was the greater bungling and Frere was even more culpable.

Steve

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:: he changed the dispositions of what had formerly been Pulleine's assets;

This is not true. And there is little point in continuing with this exercise if CTSG, or anyone, is going to make such bald unsupported assertions.

It an accepted matter of the historical record that Durnford ASKED for 2 companies of regulars to support his movement and did not receive them. In fact the companies at question were probably still eating. They were not extended any which way, and even if they had been, Pulleine should/would have responsibility for correcting his dispositions the moment Durnford's column rode from camp. Of course he didn't do so because THERE WAS NO NEED. It was merely a matter of a few words exchanged.

Cite an effing source CTSG!

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

durnfordthescapegoat wrote:: Durnford was never in charge of the camp.
He had a separate command and instructions to support LC
That is what he did
Pulline had instructions to look after the camp and to move it to the new bivouac

Durnford arrived at Isandlwana and, after some initial confusion over the GOC's intent had been cleared up, took command of the whole. No ifs, buts or maybes (All Sourced)

PS Pulleine was order to "defend" the camp not look after it.

Posts : 94 Join date : 2009-02-13

Durnford was instructed to support LC not take command of the camp.
LC should have been explicit in his orders if that was what he intended.
A strung out column in the middle of hostile territory was what LC created by charging off on his wild goose chase.
It was he who set t he scene for this disaster.
He created the setting and then confused the players so dooming them to fail.
Regardless of what Durnford did Islandwana was lost
He was and remains a scapegoat for others

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

Durnford took command. Any orders to Pulleine would have been binding on Durnford.

All this has been covered and explained. Go back to page one, and catch up.

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

ymob wrote:: I don't know if i have made a "good point".

Frédéric -- You have with regard to Snook, I think.

Quote :: Springbok... 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?

I do. Because Chelmsford was senior. To take it a step further though, this also means the battle was effectively lost at that moment, right?

The implication of this is that two officers who did not serve in the 24th are responsible for the defeat of the British Army at Isandlwana: Durnford and Chelmsford. Defending the 24th is Snook's agenda and it's why his reasoning is sometimes pockmarked, tortuous and convoluted...and other times very insightful. Reading his work one begins to assume the 24th would always function like clockwork absent the intrusion of officers who do not serve in its ranks. And of course that means the Zulu are also clockwork mechanisms like they are depicted in ZULU.

Guest

Explained!, its simply not correct! give it up!. Durnford should have took
command at least twice! fact is, he did'nt..there's no getting around it ctsg,
every word out of your mouth seems to be wrong.your not even off the first
page, and you simply ( no pun intended Very Happy

) don't have the knowledge to
debate me!. i'm still waiting for your source, have you lost it. whats the
problem. xhosa

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:11 pm

Q. If Durnford took command, then why did he need to ASK for 2 coy's??????

A. Because he DIDN'T take command, in fact he told Pulleine on his arrival that he WOULD NOT be staying at the camp.

Q. WHY

A. Because he had orders to support LC.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:22 pm

Let's get some things in order here.

Who plotted to start this invasion of zululand? Frere and Chelmsford.
Who was in command of the invasion? Chelmsford.
Who didn't obey his own orders? Chelmsford.
Who was very indecisive about his orders? Chelmsford.
Who didn't give clear orders to Durnford? Chelmsford.
Who split his force and went off on a wild goose chase? Chelmsford.
Who failed to leave proper orders for both Pulleine and Durnford at the camp? Chelmsford.
Who's head should have rolled? Chelmsford.

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

What did the people of Chelmsford do to deserve all this. But then it is in Essex.

Steve

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:30 pm

LOL, OK Steve, replace Chelmsford with Thesiger. Very Happy

Guest

Martin. concise, to the point, every point a fact! agreed!
xhosa

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:40 pm

Deleted most of the rubbish That has been posted. It's because it's Christmas I haven't locked it down. But if the personal attacks continue, I will lock it down. Merry Christmas

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:43 pm

Les and Springy are correct, the same people keep on asking and quoting the same things over and over again, they get the answers repeatedly, and they also know that many of the quotes and references they keep using as 'facts' have been disproved and are unreliable, however, they insist on using the same old chestnuts that have been disproved, and keep asking the same old questions that they have already been given the answers to time and again, and it does get rather maddening.

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Q. If Durnford took command, then why did he need to ASK for 2 coy's??????

A. Because he DIDN'T take command, in fact he told Pulleine on his arrival that he WOULD NOT be staying at the camp.

Q. WHY

A. Because he had orders to support LC.

Very succinct Mr. Cooper. Done and dusted.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:47 pm

Pete
I owe both you and Ray an apology. I do so unreservedly, must be the weather. Lifes a bitch in 35 degrees. That's centigrade of course. Very Happy

Sorry Guys.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:49 pm

Martin. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:51 pm

springbok9 wrote:: Pete
I owe both you and Ray an apology. I do so unreservedly, must be the weather. Lifes a bitch in 35 degrees. That's centigrade of course.

Sorry Guys.

Yes, it was out of Character for you.. Shocked

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:15 pm

We should actually be blaming Dave for all the mayhem, he started the original thread way back, around 2011 I think.

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

springbok9 wrote:: We should actually be blaming Dave for all the mayhem, he started the original thread way back, around 2011 I think.

Yeah, it was that Dave guy. Let's get him!!!

Guest

Er..no! i thought all was blaming Durnford. wheres
the consistency?

xhosa

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

xhosa2000 wrote:: Er..no! i thought all was blaming Durnford. wheres
the consistency? xhosa

Ooops...sorry...I got carried away there for a moment. scratch

Yeah, I remember now -- it's that Durndord guy's fault. Let's get HIM!

Guest

Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: 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.

Bonsoir Martin,
No necessary to apologize.
As i said previously, i don'like the "climax" of this debate.
It's a not a football/soccer (for 6 Pdr Very Happy

) match. I am not a supporter of DURNFORD or CHELMSFORD, or PULLEINE.
I am here for the research of the truth.
Bien à vous
Et bon courage à tous.
Frédéric

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:45 pm

LOL, OK Pete, point taken. agree

But in my own defence, I don't keep asking the same questions over and over again, and I don't keep quoting things that have been proved to be wrong. I do, however, defend the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and attempt to correct anything that appears on the forum that is wrong regarding this. I also try to offer my opinions in the defence of Col Durnford, but because there are some members that don't agree with defending Col Durnford, they try to belittle anyone that attempts to offer any defence for him, and that is because their minds are so set on blaming Durnford, that no matter what is put forward in his defence, they will either ignore it or resort to personal attacks and insults. I do try to be civilised and polite in my replies, but it does tend to test the patience.

Cheers Pete Salute

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

Have a look at the last letter in this sequence. There is a delicious irony about it.
I have to say that MS's book on the Nile Campaign is excellent, it runs to over 500 pages with copious notes and bibliography.

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

Steve

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:55 pm

Bonjour Frederic.

Yes, I think I must have misinterpreted what you meant.

The truth is something we are all seeking Frederic.

Thank you my friend for your understanding.

Best regards. Salute

Guest

rusteze, Yes good point, but its no more than the truth, Durnford
was shamelessly used, his being dead was very convenient as
some of us know, but those back in the day knew who was to
blame alright..even this popular fictional author..next post. xhosa

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

Popular fictional author? Very Happy

Steve

Guest

Your too quick for me my friend, lets see who guess's the author!
clue..he hoisted the jack when the transvaal was annexed in 77.

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

Guest

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

Posts : 1603 Join date : 2009-09-21

Let's start at the very beginning, as we are heading that way anyway.

"You are to march to this Camp at once with all the force you have with you of No. 2 Column.

Major Bengough’s battalion is to move to Rorke’s Drift as ordered yesterday. 2/24, artillery & mounted men with the General & Colonel Glyn move off at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distant.
J.N.C.
If Bengough’s battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Nangwana Valley).”

The above is the fresh order that Durnford received on the 22nd Jan. delivered by SD.
The first line is all that was expected of Durnford, nothing more nothing less. If it was to co-exist with any previous orders, it would have said so, if LC wanted him to assist him, it would have said so. If LC wanted Durnford to do anything else other than what it states in tne order, it would have said so.

It's simple ""You are to march to this Camp at once with all the force you have with you of No. 2 Column"

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

Now then Macumahzhan, who could that be..... Alan........ ah, Alan........no it elludes me! Very Happy

PS If anyone picks up on the previous post they must be mad.

Steve

Guest

Oi..shush, but i knew you would know! Very Happy

xhosa

Posts : 1603 Join date : 2009-09-21

Then perhaps it a good way to end the discussion, as I started it. Very Happy

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

rusteze wrote:: Now then Macumahzhan, who could that be..... Alan........ ah, Alan........no it elludes me!
PS If anyone picks up on the previous post they must be mad.

Quartermain? or to quote from YELLOW SUBMARINE, "Argentina?" Nada the Lilly?

Guest

Got that dave, but can we assume still, that Durnford was an
independent commander with latitude?. xhosa

Guest

Sugar, i really must be the only one, that when i press send.
and the new message blah pops up, i immediately ignore it
and send anyway..i think that might explain a few things..

xhosa

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

Deleted

Guest

Deleted

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

"2/24, artillery & mounted men with the General & Colonel Glyn move off at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distant."

The order is even telling Durnford. That LC & Glyn are moving to attack the Zulu force. And there is no invitation for him to join them. Bengough’s battalion however has been invited.

"If Bengough’s battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Nangwana Valley)"

Guest

Admin, if you had looked carefully..Finished was
the name of the Rider Haggard novel! Haggard
was on Shepstone's staff, we were being ' clever '
Hruumff.. xhosa

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Perhaps it's a good move, to disect the order first, then move on from them. The order is straight forward, so reading between the lines won't wash. And remember LC said he would send fresh orders in his prior order, the order received on the 22nd must be seen as the fresh order, it can be nothing else.

» Durnford was he capable.1
» Durnford was he capable.6
» Durnford was he capable.5