Durnford was he capable.5

Subject: Durnford was he capable.5 Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:16 pm

Yes, I see what you mean. But don't forget that LC had not left any orders for Pulleine, it was Clery that took it upon himself to do that (which really he should not have done, because he was junior to Pulleine). The order you speak of (reinforce the camp), was to have been sent to Durnford, and Clery at first was going to do this, but Crealock intervened and said that he should not be sending orders to an independent Column commander, this is when LC changed his mind and said that Crealock should do it, so really, Clery had no business informing Pulleine about this, nor should he have taken it upon himself to issue orders to a senior officer. Makes you wonder why Crealock did not include 'reinforce the camp' in the order to Durnford, unless of course LC had changed his mind about it.

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

Why is it saying topic locked?

Ah, I see it's not but I lost another post!!!

Steve

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

Clery was the Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column, commanded by Colonel Glyn

"Before leaving the camp, I sent written instructions to Colonel Pulleine, 24th Regiment, to the following effect:—" You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn; draw in (I speak- from memory) your camp, or your line of defence"—I am not certain which-"while the force is out: also draw in the line of your infantry outposts accordingly; but keep your cavalry vedettes still far advanced." I told him to have a wagon ready loaded with ammunition ready to follow the force going out at a moment's notice, if required. I went to Colonel Pulleine's tent just before leaving camp to ascertain that he had got these instructions, and I again repeated them verbally to him. To the best of my memory, I mentioned in the written instructions to Colonel Pulleine that Colonel Durnford had been written to to bring up his force to strengthen the camp. I saw the column out of camp and accompanied it."

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

rusteze wrote:: Why is it saying topic locked?

Where does it say that?

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

That's what I got, and lost another post!!!

Heyho I will try again.

Thanks CTSG for your earlier clarification of who you were addressing. That's fine.

Steve

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:36 pm

Yes Steve, there was some sort of glitch. I clicked to 'refresh' and got the thread DWHC1, so I don't know how that happened, but when I clicked 'refresh' again it went back to DWHC2, odd that eh? scratch

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:47 pm

I will try and keep an eye on the progress. But it looks like we will be starting a "Durnford was he capable 3" might be worth writing your posts to word, before posting, in the event you can't post them on the forum due to the page limit being reach. Another 27 posts will end the Durnford was he capable 2 discussion. Hope this makes sense.

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

May as well title this discussion the "Never Ending Story"

Guest

Having read all the posts carefully over the last three day's..
i feel it is now time to say..Chelmsford Was He Capable?.
xhosa

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Fri Jan 02, 2015 9:23 pm

Oh dear!

CWHC?

Now that will be another 'Never Ending Story'. Shocked

Guest

.. i know, but it does tie in rather nicely with
the latter parts of the discussion..we all know and
it is recorded how the strain of command was
telling on his lordship, i'm more surprised that the
AZW fraternity has seen fit to neglect this aspect
of the campaign..did Chelmsford suffer from either
anxiety or depression?.and did any of his decisions
impact on his command!.

From his letters and his actions post Isandhlwana, i
think there is enough there to ask the question..
xhosa

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Xhosa wrote:: From his letters and his actions post Isandhlwana, i think there is enough there to ask the question..

Can you post a link, or something that shows these letters. Much appricated.

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

"From "Blacks, Boers, & British: A Three-cornered Problem" by Francis Reginald Statham (1881), Chapter X., "Isandhlwana" -

"But who anticipated danger? Was it not said of the Zulus, as was the other day said of the Transvaal Boers, that their defence--for the idea of a march to Ulundi became popular during the few weeks preceding the actual commencement of hostilities--was it not said that the defence of the Zulus would collapse and break down? Did not Sir Theophilus Shepstone himself, when visiting Lord Chelmsford's camp six days before the great disaster, say so? And did any one know more about the Zulus than Sir Theophilus Shepstone? And so, when they marched out of the city, the little troop of some five and forty, with the military band at their head, and the crowd marching with them for a mile of the route, there was anxiety, but no apprehension. They were the Natal Carbineers, the heroes of the affair at Bushman's Pass in 1873. They were going to redeem their reputation, and to fight, if fighting indeed should be necessary, under the eyes of Lord Chelmsford himself. On one thing they congratulated themselves--they were not going to fight under Colonel Durnford, whose stubborn adherence to his orders not to fire the first shot brought them loss six years before in the passes of the Drakensberg...

Does any one in Natal remember--or rather does any one forget--that Friday morning, the 24th January, 1879, when the news came down to the capital of Natal of the dire disaster under the shadow of the hill at Isandhlwana? There never was a calmer, brighter summer dawn than there was in Natal that day. The whole thing is at this moment as distinct as if it were only yesterday. The dim feeling of undefined awe, when it was whispered that news had been brought of the disaster. Then the questions hurriedly asked of the highest colonial official obtainable ; the answer, "The news is just as bad as it can be ;" the question as to who was known to be killed ; the reply again, "Durnford's killed for certain, and Scott, and at least half the Carbineers." Durnford? How did he come to be there? He was supposed to be eighty miles away. But Scott!--the recently-promoted lieutenant of the popular Carbineers ; the best singer of a comic song ; the best amateur on the stage ; the very life of the cricket-field! Scott dead!--it seemed impossible to realise it.

But somehow it got realised as the day went on, and as the conviction settled down on everybody that half of the gallant little band who had marched out a few weeks ago would come back no more. And then, as the day wore, came sentences of indignation. How was it Durnford was there? How was it that the Carbineers came to be again under his command? Had it not been enough that he had led them into danger six years ago?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:21 pm

Looks like this 'Francis Reginald Statham' chap fell for all the guff churned out at the time about blaming Col Durnford. Pity that he couldn't see the wood for the trees.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:50 pm

Chard you left the last chapter out?

"So ran the tone at the moment, but it changed five months later, when at last--delayed by heaven only knows what reason--a visit was paid by Imperial troops to the field, and the remains of the dead were allowed to tell their own story. Durnford was there indeed, still plainly recognisable, with Scott close beside him, and the boys of the Carbineers lying dead all around. It was they who had made that last rally, in the vain hope of stemming the rush of Zulu warriors, and gaining time for a least a few more fugitives to escape. Could any one have believed that sun and weather would have so long left distinguishable remains which thus told one of the most pathetic stories ever known? Yet it was so. And can it be doubted that the memories of Bushman's pass are wiped out by the memories of the day when, in the last moments of existence, the mistake and misunderstanding of years was put right, and the boy fought side by side with the man in the conflict which both knew could only end in death?"

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

xhosa2000 wrote:: .. i know, but it does tie in rather nicely with
the latter parts of the discussion..we all know and
it is recorded how the strain of command was
telling on his lordship, i'm more surprised that the
AZW fraternity has seen fit to neglect this aspect
of the campaign..did Chelmsford suffer from either
anxiety or depression?.and did any of his decisions
impact on his command!.

FNrom his letters and his actions post Isandhlwana, i
think there is enough there to ask the question..
xhosa

Xhosa. What letters and actions do you refer. scratch

Post Isandlwana.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:38 am

Impi
Few posts back Julian was asking about a phrase you came up with re Crealock, any thoughts?

Cheers

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:45 am

impi
Ditto!
Julian

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

springbok9 wrote:: Impi
Few posts back Julian was asking about a phrase you came up with re Crealock, any thoughts?

Cheers

It seems that Springbok has the same idea behind the head that Julian Very Happy

Cheers

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:34 am

impi wrote:: Julian my fault.

"The General first ordered me to write to Colonel Durnford, at Rorke's Drift, to bring his force to strengthen the camp, but almost immediately afterwards he told Colonel Crealock that he (Colonel Crealock) was to write to Colonel Durnford these instructions, and not I."

But does it still not show that Clery was present at this point.

Is this it Springy and Julian?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:46 am

Impi yes it does. Julians point however is that after that conversation and Clery had left the tent then a continuum between Chelmsford and Crealock produced a different result.

Cheers

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:52 am

springbok9 wrote:: Impi yes it does. Julians point however is that after that conversation and Clery had left the tent then a continuum between Chelmsford and Crealock produced a different result.

Cheers

Maybe that is why the order did not say reinforce or strengthen, maybe Crealock persuaded LC to change his mind yet again.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:53 am

impi/springy/martin
Telling someone immediately afterwards that they are not to write an order but that the man in the next tent will do it himself (because he's of the requisite rank) does not mean that the first man was present while the second man at some later moment actually wrote the order.
martin
All we can say is that in the order that Crealock wrote there was no mention of reinforcing the camp. Come to what conclusion you will...

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:04 pm

Hi Julian, yes, I have been saying that the order of the 22nd did not have those words all along, however, others have interpreted it differently.

And if the pincer move between Durnford and Bengough had been cancelled, then why didn't Crealock say this in the order I wonder? As the way it is worded, it would give the impression to Durnford that it is still going ahead, ie; Bengough's move, and LC being about 10 miles distant, and I would think that Durnford took it to mean just that.

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

springbok9 wrote:: Impi
Few posts back Julian was asking about a phrase you came up with re Crealock, any thoughts?

Cheers

Springbok look at my post Yesterday at 6:12 pm

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:40 pm

impi, I have posted it for you, Springy and Julian have read it, they have replied (see above).

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

springbok9 wrote:: Impi yes it does. Julians point however is that after that conversation and Clery had left the tent then a continuum between Chelmsford and Crealock produced a different result.

Cheers

What source do we have that shows the conversation continued after Clery left the tent. . Or we talking reading between the lines or in hinesight.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:42 pm

Thanks impi
Salute

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:43 pm

impi
That's the question the eminent Mr Whybra is going to have to answer. Most probably in his essay.

Cheers

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:00 pm

Well, something must have been said between LC and Crealock, maybe that's why the order never contained the words reinforce or strengthen, and maybe that is why nothing was said to Durnford about cancelling the pre planned pincer move, who knows?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:09 pm

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Well, something must have been said between LC and Crealock, maybe that's why the order never contained the words reinforce or strengthen, and maybe that is why nothing was said to Durnford about cancelling the pre planned pincer move, who knows?

In your scenario martin then why did Durnford ignore the 'preplanned pincer movement' ? I personally have never ever seen an order or communicate that mentions a 'pincer movement'. Only that Durnfords column would be required to assist, nothing more than that.
For Bengough to cross at Elands would have been a good strategic move, but why then in view of a 'preplanned pincer movement' was the final order to join up in the (mangeni) valley. Surely that would negate your theory? Even if Durnford jaunting of up the Quabe valley doesn't?

Cheers

Guest

Or maybe, it was just forgotten! in the sudden movement, and recalled
post Massacre, when focus on all things suddenly went into sharp relief.
my comments for Chelmsford's state of mind remarks can be found in
various book's and comments, " Fire Faster" . maybe i'm way off the mark
here, but i doubt it..i will dig around a bit..FA cup third round today. xhosa

Jaunting Springbok?..

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Well, something must have been said between LC and Crealock, maybe that's why the order never contained the words reinforce or strengthen, and maybe that is why nothing was said to Durnford about cancelling the pre planned pincer move, who knows?

Neither did it say Take Command. Going by previous orders issued by LC the were to the point, so why would he sent and order just move to the camp, without further explanation. He would of at lease stated await fresh orders. I personally don't think LC knew what Crealock had written.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:20 pm

Les
Jaunting yeah, you got cross when I said 'Poncing'. Very Happy

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Well, something must have been said between LC and Crealock, maybe that's why the order never contained the words reinforce or strengthen, and maybe that is why nothing was said to Durnford about cancelling the pre planned pincer move, who knows?

Martin, I think you put to much faith in Keith Smith's work. Albeit good.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:26 pm

impi
Clery said in a letter written much later talking about obvious instructions that: 'One doesn't tell a friend to remove his hat when visiting ones sister.' In other words senior officer in camp automatically takes control, army tradition of hundreds of years. Even when the senior is a genuine prat, that happened at helpmakaar.
But as you say, what LC said could have been anything, what Crealock wrote could again be anything. But and it is a big but, Crealock was a pretty meticulous writer and at that time ultra loyal to Chelmsford so its odds on that he communicated exactly what the General wanted. Im interested in waiting for JWs essay. Should prove highly controversial indeed.

Cheers

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:31 pm

Springy.

I have found the original conversation between Julian and myself on Thursday November the 12th 2012, however, with the topic being locked I cannot insert the 'quote' to show you what Julian said. But if you look in the search you should find it, a quick run down is that Julian said.

"Bengough's battalion was one arm of the pincer, Durnford the other, with Chelmsford in the centre waiting to crack whatever nut appeared. The orders of the 22nd endorse those of the 19th and follow on naturally (or so it must have seemed to Durnford). It's one continuous narrative and would have been all perfectly in keeping. No fresh orders means stick to the plan as dicussed. And so he did"

Salute

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:35 pm

impi wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Well, something must have been said between LC and Crealock, maybe that's why the order never contained the words reinforce or strengthen, and maybe that is why nothing was said to Durnford about cancelling the pre planned pincer move, who knows?

Martin, I think you put to much faith in Keith Smith's work. Albeit good.

I don't have any of Keith Smith's work? scratch

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:36 pm

Springy, that should be November the 15th (caught the wrong key). Shocked

Guest

Frank.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:42 pm

martin I agree, loosely, with what Julian said, but there was a plethora of movement orders that to my mind ensured that concept was still born long before iSandlwana. Plus of course in our climate of demanding source material, Julian isn't, that was his opinion. And he is of course entitled to that. However where does one stop stringing orders together and when does one start? The final orders to Bengough once and for all destroyed any concept of a pincer movement. It was rather a procession along a single road, and that decision was made on the 20th. Look at those orders carefully and Im sure you will agree there seems to be a distinct lack of any strategic plan.

Cheers

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

The following is sheer speculation on my part, it has no basis whatsoever in evidence, either primary or secondary. So feel free to take it apart.

Frank mentioned something in passing a couple of days ago that prompted some thoughts about Chelmsford's intentions for Durnford.

Frank spoke about Durnford's mounted force forming a flanking screen for the rest of the camp, when it moved to join Chelmsford at Mangeni (perhaps later on the 22nd or the day after). I could buy that as a legitimate use of Durnford's assets.

Remember, Chelmsford had no thought for the defence of the camp at that early hour of the morning, he thought it was secure. He left no orders for Pulleine at all (neither did Glyn) He was focussed entirely on attack.

Now the order from Crealock never said protect the slow moving second half of the column, we know. But they would have been very vulnerable (much more so than in the camp) and we are trying to fill a gap in the information we have.

When Durnford reaches the camp, as ordered, something totally unexpected begins to unfold. But it's not a problem, the General wants the Zulu force to be engaged at all costs. Then it appears to Durnford that the Zulus are retreating. So, thinking they may slip out of his hands, Durnford pursues.

The rest is history, as they say.

Steve

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:43 pm

impi wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Well, something must have been said between LC and Crealock, maybe that's why the order never contained the words reinforce or strengthen, and maybe that is why nothing was said to Durnford about cancelling the pre planned pincer move, who knows?

Neither did it say Take Command. Going by previous orders issued by LC the were to the point, so why would he sent and order just move to the camp, without further explanation. He would of at lease stated await fresh orders. I personally don't think LC knew what Crealock had written.

impi. If you had ever been in the Army you would know that by Army protocol the senior officer is deemed to be in command, so Durnford would be deemed to be in command while he was at the camp, however, as soon as he left, command would be with Pulleine.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:56 pm

Springy, Not long ago you posted a simple 'worker-Boss- stores' scenario. It was easy to see what you meant, that Durnford had other fish to fry rather than stay at the camp. Therefor, you must think that Durnford did have another agenda to follow, and that this had been arranged by LC. Or am I missing something?

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

His agenda was his reputation.
I am down because I am left behind. But we shall see.

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

I think there is some truth in that. But you can take it as a positive or a negative influence. It can be said of many.

Steve

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:06 pm

Steve.

The report did say that the zulus were retreating in all directions, however, it also said that one large group were heading in the direction of LC, to which Durnford said, "If they are heading towards the general, we must stop them at all hazzards". If these zulus were indeed heading towards LC, they might have been trying to cut him off or attack him, and with Durnford's men being mounted, he had to try to see what they were up to and try to stop them.

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

Yes Martin, I agree. another reason to leave the camp (but not with the Rocket Battery before someone raises it).

Steve

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:15 pm

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:: His agenda was his reputation.
I am down because I am left behind. But we shall see.

Yes, he was rather miffed at being wrongly blamed for BRP, and he must have felt that he was being overlooked by LC. He was also given an unfair rebuke by LC for doing what LC had previously given him permission to do, so really, he must have felt that his reputation was very unfair, and that is why he wrote that he was down.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.5 Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:18 pm

I just cannot understand the reason why the RB was attached to Durnford's column in the first place. scratch

» Durnford was he capable.6
» Durnford was he capable. 4
» Durnford was he capable.2