Durnford was he capable.5

Steve, I reckon the RB was just a buggeration, they lagged behind on the way up to Isandlwana and im sure he, Durnford, really in probably exasperation just said they should follow on. Something that's allways nagged me though is that there was no way they would ever be involved in any fight that afternoon, Durnford was miles ahead of them so if he had a fight and then headed back to camp he would just have met them on the way back and told them to turn around. A total waste. OR did he intend to turn around? Just maybe he intended to carry on riding and camp out? Or meet up with Chelmsford? See my point?
Martin, the argument has been successfully put forward that Durnford was expecting to find the last sighting, 400 men, that's as many he could have handled. And that many wouldn't have had any effect on Chelmsford, and shouldny have been cause for concern, certainly not enough to ride of the way he did. Sorry but there has to be something else there.

Cheers

John sorry we crossed, does what Ive said make sense in view of your own comments?

Cheers

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John. Most of this that you are quoting was before Durnford arrived, Pulleine was the one who should have done something but didn't.  

Well of course it was. But you can see, just how many Zulus had be reported in the early hours and just before Durnford arrived. It wasn't 400 was it. What I'm saying is these reports should have given Durnford a clear indication as to the probable numbers threatening the camp.

springbok9 wrote:

Steve, I reckon the RB was just a buggeration, they lagged behind on the way up to Isandlwana and im sure he, Durnford, really in probably exasperation just said they should follow on. Something that's allways nagged me though is that there was no way they would ever be involved in any fight that afternoon, Durnford was miles ahead of them so if he had a fight and then headed back to camp he would just have met them on the way back and told them to turn around. A total waste. OR did he intend to turn around? Just maybe he intended to carry on riding and camp out? Or meet up with Chelmsford? See my point?
Martin, the argument has been successfully put forward that Durnford was expecting to find the last sighting, 400 men, that's as many he could have handled. And that many wouldn't have had any effect on Chelmsford, and shouldny have been cause for concern, certainly not enough to ride of the way he did. Sorry but there has to be something else there.

Cheers

Springbok.
"John sorry we crossed, does what Ive said make sense in view of your own comments?"

I think we all know,the RB were a stone in the hoof of Durnfords command. I don't think anyone could argue your point. Yes they were just dragged along, albeit miles behind. Still on the bright side there were survivors. Johnson gives a fairly good overview of what took place. Of course that overview doesn't put Durnford in a very good light.

John. I can see that you are doing your best to ridicule other opinions and lay the blame on Col Durnford, but don't you think that if LC had obeyed his own orders and properly protected the camp by Laagering, and if he had done some proper reconnaissance of the area, and not gone galavanting off on a wild goose chase, taking over half the column with him because Dartnell disobeyed his orders, then this whole affair might not have happened.

John
Some of the accounts you quote are retrospective - what did Barker/Scott do with what they witnessed? It only becomes important if someone knew about it.  In 2015 we can garner these accounts with hindsight - the fact remains that Essex can state that they had no idea of enemy strength at 11 am, Durnford had no idea, the last report indicated 400 Zulus retiring, and as far as the camp was concerned the impi was in front of Chelmsford.
Hillier by the way was NOT at Isandhlwana.  He was out with Chelmsford's force.
Please, I'm no oracle - I cannot prophesy the future.  I'm concerned with the past.  There, I've used it a third time.

Springy
1. "There is no question that Durnford was expecting orders to be waiting for him at Isandhlwana."  I hold my hand up to be accountable for a remark made in 2012, all right.  It might be surmised that Durnford having sent Shepstone to Isandhlwana on the 21st (with perhaps nothing concrete coming back, other than get a move on), then Hamer on the 22nd (with nothing coming back), was expecting there to be orders awaiting him at the camp when he got there.  As Martin has said, in the light of no fresh orders, carry on...
2. The Frere Papers are in the British Library: Asian and African Collection.  His correspondence from 1878-1880 is there.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John. I can see that you are doing your best to ridicule other opinions and lay the blame on Col Durnford, but don't you think that if LC had obeyed his own orders and properly protected the camp by Laagering, and if he had done some proper reconnaissance of the area, and not gone galavanting off on a wild goose chase, taking over half the column with him because Dartnell disobeyed his orders, then this whole affair might not have happened.

Martin I am not ridiculing anyone. Yes LC should have done what you say, we all agree on that.
But as CTSG posted many years ago, and changed my mind. Chelmsford wasn't at Isandlwana, Durnford was! And we all known Chelmsford didn't just walk away he was reprimand. So the COE did its job.

You are possibly feeling how Durnford felt, prior to Isandlwana.

You are down because you are left behind. Where's you Durnford courage. Come on say it " But we shall see"

Julian Whybra wrote:

John
Some of the accounts you quote are retrospective - what did Barker/Scott do with what they witnessed?  It only becomes important if someone knew about it.  In 2015 we can garner these accounts with hindsight - the fact remains that Essex can state that they had no idea of enemy strength at 11 am, Durnford had no idea, the last report indicated 400 Zulus retiring, and as far as the camp was concerned the impi was in front of Chelmsford.
Hillier by the way was NOT at Isandhlwana.  He was out with Chelmsford's force.
Please, I'm no oracle - I cannot prophesy the future.  I'm concerned with the past.  There, I've used it a third time.

Springy
1. "There is no question that Durnford was expecting orders to be waiting for him at Isandhlwana."  I hold my hand up to be accountable for a remark made in 2012, all right.  It might be surmised that Durnford having sent Shepstone to Isandhlwana on the 21st (with perhaps nothing concrete coming back, other than get a move on), then Hamer on the 22nd (with nothing coming back), was expecting there to be orders awaiting him at the camp when he got there.  As Martin has said, in the light of no fresh orders, carry on...
2. The Frere Papers are in the British Library: Asian and African Collection.  His correspondence from 1878-1880 is there.

Julian, as much as I enjoy your work, you do base a lot of it on hindsight. We can all do that, and come up with all kinds of sarnario's to make it fit in with what we want others to beleive. What I posted was from Lock and Quantrill. All sourced, no hindsight.

Sorted.. John, calm your passions!!!!

I will try!!

John
I'm glad you enjoy my work but I am careful always to base it on primary sources not hindsight.  I also always bear in mind what Pulleine, Durnford or Chelmsford knew at a particular moment in order to explain their actions.
It's important not to approach a problem with the solution already in mind and look for evidence to support it.
Instead one should look at the evidence and then come up with a scenario that fits the available intelligence.

I'm well aware that you quoted from L&Q but that of course is not a source in itself.
For example, you might like to compare the quotations from Barker in L&Q's book with Barker's actual account.
Hillier, I repeat, was not at Isandhlwana.
And I think it worth mentioning that Pope’s diary is often misquoted.  Many of the AZW books do misquote it so the actual words, punctuation, ordering,  and the way they were written are worth recording accurately.  It enables a proper assessment:

22nd January, 1879 – 4 A.M. – A,C,D,E,F,H Companies of
ours – 123*   N.N.C. – mounted troops and four guns off.
                        Great Firing.
                 Relieved by 1-24th.
                         Alarm.
3 Columns Zulus and mounted men on hill E.
                       Turn Out.
7,000 (!!!) more E.N.E., 4,000 of whom went round Lion’s
Kop.
Durnford, Basutos, arrive and pursue. – Rocket Battery.
             Zulus retire everywhere.
            Men fall out for dinners.

* I cannot get this to appear here as it does in the diary but it's 1 and 2 written above, either side of a 3 written below.
The line-by-line sequencing shows the time lapses between each entry and to what each entry might correspond (rather than reading parts of it as a continuum).

John wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John. I can see that you are doing your best to ridicule other opinions and lay the blame on Col Durnford, but don't you think that if LC had obeyed his own orders and properly protected the camp by Laagering, and if he had done some proper reconnaissance of the area, and not gone galavanting off on a wild goose chase, taking over half the column with him because Dartnell disobeyed his orders, then this whole affair might not have happened.

Martin I am not ridiculing anyone. Yes LC should have done what you say, we all agree on that.
But as CTSG posted many years ago, and changed my mind. Chelmsford wasn't at Isandlwana, Durnford was!  And we all known Chelmsford didn't just walk away he was reprimand. So the COE did its job.

You are possibly feeling how Durnford felt, prior to Isandlwana.

You are down because you are left behind. Where's you Durnford courage. Come on say it " But we shall see"

John.

Read it again, I didn't say you were ridiculing anyone, I said 'opinions'.

And if you agree with what I said regarding LC, who then is to blame?

It's all well and good saying that LC wasn't at iSandlwana, you could say that about Hitler not flying bombers and dropping bombs on Britain, however, it was down to him that it happened, if you see what I mean.

I don't feel down at all, in fact I am quite happy (Mrs Shifter's not moved my book yet).

Julian Whybra wrote:

John
I'm glad you enjoy my work but I am careful always to base it on primary sources not hindsight.  I also always bear in mind what Pulleine, Durnford or Chelmsford knew at a particular moment in order to explain their actions.
It's important not to approach a problem with the solution already in mind and look for evidence to support it.
Instead one should look at the evidence and then come up with a scenario that fits the available intelligence.
I'm well aware that you quoted from L&Q but that of course is not a source in itself.
For example, you might like to compare the quotations from Barker in L&Q's book with Barker's actual account.
Hillier, I repeat, was not at Isandhlwana.
And I think it worth mentioning that Pope’s diary is often misquoted.  Many of the AZW books do misquote it so the actual words, punctuation, ordering,  and the way they were written are worth recording accurately.  It enables a proper assessment:

22nd January, 1879 – 4 A.M. – A,C,D,E,F,H Companies of
ours – 123*   N.N.C. – mounted troops and four guns off.
                        Great Firing.
                 Relieved by 1-24th.
                         Alarm.
3 Columns Zulus and mounted men on hill E.
                       Turn Out.
7,000 (!!!) more E.N.E., 4,000 of whom went round Lion’s
Kop.
Durnford, Basutos, arrive and pursue. – Rocket Battery.
             Zulus retire everywhere.
            Men fall out for dinners.

* I cannot get this to appear here as it does in the diary but it's 1 and 2 written above, either side of a 3 written below.
The line-by-line sequencing shows the time lapses between each entry and to what each entry might correspond (rather than reading parts of it as a continuum).

So we have 4000 Zulu's going round the Lion's Kop meaning Isandlwana ? or the North of the camp - Tahelane Spur? So if Pope and co knew this before Col Durnford arrived, surely it would have been obvious to the camp that it was going to be attacked from the rear or at best outflanked from the North West or West?

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John. I can see that you are doing your best to ridicule other opinions and lay the blame on Col Durnford, but don't you think that if LC had obeyed his own orders and properly protected the camp by Laagering, and if he had done some proper reconnaissance of the area, and not gone galavanting off on a wild goose chase, taking over half the column with him because Dartnell disobeyed his orders, then this whole affair might not have happened.

Martin I am not ridiculing anyone. Yes LC should have done what you say, we all agree on that.
But as CTSG posted many years ago, and changed my mind. Chelmsford wasn't at Isandlwana, Durnford was!  And we all known Chelmsford didn't just walk away he was reprimand. So the COE did its job.

You are possibly feeling how Durnford felt, prior to Isandlwana.

You are down because you are left behind. Where's you Durnford courage. Come on say it " But we shall see"

John.

Read it again, I didn't say you were ridiculing anyone, I said 'opinions'.

And if you agree with what I said regarding LC, who then is to blame?

It's all well and good saying that LC wasn't at iSandlwana, you could say that about Hitler not flying bombers and dropping bombs on Britain, however, it was down to him that it happened, if you see what I mean.

I don't feel down at all, in fact I am quite happy (Mrs Shifter's not moved my book yet).

Then I could argue, Frere wasn't there, it was down to him. The Duke of Cambridge wasn't there it was down to him. Queen Victoria wasn't there it was down to her. Ect ect ect!

Hi Frank, Martin, Julian. not long in, nothing to
add to today'a discussion..except to say i'm
enjoying the the view's

Julian. no offence meant by my remark, i
have looked at it again, and it looks a bit
starker on the page in isolation. not my
intention. xhosa

Going off topic..

Tea time.

Pork Chops with Crackling..Mmmmmm! Apple sauce!

Xhosa
None taken.  Not in the slightest. Yes, today has been a good crop of intelligent posts.

john
Could Pulleine from his position see what Pope saw?  Was Pope's estimate accurate?  Did Pope tell anyone?  Did Pope record the events in the order he saw them?
Ultimately...Essex recorded that at 11 am no-one had any idea of the numbers of Zulus on the plateau...the last report of the Zulus had them retiring (one group in the direction of the general)...the last estimate of their strength was 400...at 11 am (I stress).  That's what Durnford had to go on.  That's the basis on which one has to assess his decision to ride out (and see for himself) bearing in mind the title of this thread.

"Then i could argue Frere was'nt there, it was down to him". says john.

Funny you should say that! xhosa

John.

Chelmsford was the Lt General in command of the invading army, he gave the orders to the others under him, hence the responsibilty for the actions are down to him.

Enjoy your tea, sounds good, if you lived nearby I would bring my knife and fork.

Hi Les, Yes, I was thinking on the same lines about Frere.

And beyond Frere...Hicks Beach? Dizzy?

Good point Julian.

John

Look at the sequence of notes in Pope's Diary posted by Julian.

When the 4000 were sighted going around the N of Isandhlwana the camp "stood to" to await an attack.

Later they are reported to be in retreat everywhere, so the camp stood down and had dinner.

Nowhere does Pope give the impression the 1500 or so in the camp couldn't cope with that kind of number.

Nor does he express any surprise that Durnford left in pursuit.

I don't think they were at all concerned about their ability to defend themselves at this point. How wrong they were!

Steve

Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon, in cahoots
with Frere..confederation. Hicks Beach was new, as 'Twitter's
predecessor, he was too weak to control Frere..and i would tend to
discount Disraeli who knew nothing..(or professed to ) when the
doo hit the fan after Isandhlwana, which in my opinion was Thesigers
fault alone..as commander in chief, South Africa the buck had to
stop with him. bit simplistic that last statement, there is a simple
explanation for that..it is that simple.. xhosa

Sorry that of course should read..successor. xhosa

Julian Whybra wrote:

And beyond Frere...Hicks Beach?  Dizzy?

And then of course Hick's Beach's Mum & Dad.

Selected Writings of the Late William Moorsom Laurence

"...I found rather an interesting relic in the shape of a diary kept by Lieut. Pope, who was in command of the company of the 2-24th that was destroyed. The following entry which I extract was evidently written very shortly before the final attack of the Zulus, and throws some valuable light on the proceedings of the day ; it is copied verbatim, but I have inserted in square brackets two or three words in explanation :

Isandlana [sic], 22, Wednesday.
Relieved [from picket duty] 4.0 a.m. by [I Company] I-24th.
A. C. D. E. F. H. [Companies 2-24th] l-3, [Ist Battalion,
3rd Regiment] N.N.C., [Natal Native Contingent],
Mounted troops and 4 guns off--Heavy firing.

Alarm.--Three Columns Zulus and mounted men over hill E.--
Turn out--7,000 (!) more E.N.E., 4,000 of whom went
round Lion's Kop--Durnford's Basutos arrive and pursue--
Rocket Battery [accompanies them]--Zulus retire every-
where--Men fall out for dinner."

JW, is this how it should look.

John wrote:

Going off topic..

Tea time.

Pork Chops with Crackling..Mmmmmm! Apple sauce!  

Sorry for the delay gents, but one must gets ones priorities right. Pork Chops first.

xhosa2000 wrote:

"Then i could argue Frere was'nt there, it was down to him". says john.

Funny you should say that!                                             xhosa

Come on Les, let's hear your take on Frere! Sounds like you know a lot about the chap!

Thank's for that john, i don't know about my knowing a lot
about him, only what has been published. i have dug out
Lady Victoria's book, i'm now pondering where the
Martineau's are and the other chap Basil Worsfold..so if there
is anything you wish to know in particular i'm sure i can tell
you or even put the pages of the relevant info on here!.
i hope that will be of help to you. xhosa

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Selected Writings of the Late William Moorsom Laurence

"...I found rather an interesting relic in the shape of a diary kept by Lieut. Pope, who was in command of the company of the 2-24th that was destroyed. The following entry which I extract was evidently written very shortly before the final attack of the Zulus, and throws some valuable light on the proceedings of the day ; it is copied verbatim, but I have inserted in square brackets two or three words in explanation :

Isandlana [sic], 22, Wednesday.
Relieved [from picket duty] 4.0 a.m. by [I Company] I-24th.
A. C. D. E. F. H. [Companies 2-24th] l-3, [Ist Battalion,
3rd Regiment] N.N.C., [Natal Native Contingent],
Mounted troops and 4 guns off--Heavy firing.

Alarm.--Three Columns Zulus and mounted men over hill E.--
Turn out--7,000 (!) more E.N.E., 4,000 of whom went
round Lion's Kop--Durnford's Basutos arrive and pursue--
Rocket Battery [accompanies them]--Zulus retire every-
where--Men fall out for dinner."

Must confess, the diary entries don't mean a great deal to me, would if I could understand it. But will have a go at a reply.

There seems to be a lack of times. Apart from 04:00am, so alarm three must have been around 10:25ish, based on Essex saying it left the camp around 10:30am

"At 0920 approx, some 40 mins before D's arrival, a body of Zulus estimated at 4000 (Pope's Diary and Chard's testimony refer) passed along the high ground (Tahelane Spur) in plain view of the camp, before disappearing to the NW (i.e. somewhere between Tahelane and the Manzimyama Valley). This was part of the 3 column enemy movement observed by Capt Barry on Mkwene Hill and reported to the camp immediately. Barry's report would have arrived with Pulleine about 9.45 a.m - barely 15 mins before D's arrival."
Source: Some posts back. 

Highlighted. I will have to call in Springboks knowledge, I take it Pulleine would also have witnessed the Zulus passing along the ( Tahelane Spur)

Second highlighted.
Barry report was given to Pulleine. So Pulleine must have made Durnford aware of the numberous sightings. Do you really think. Durnford thought there were only 400 Zulus's

As i said john, anything you really need to know about
Frere, you could find on line,,here's a small taste of his
policy re, federation. xhosa


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

So as you can see.. the Zulu War was a forgone conclusion in
the mind of Frere even before he knew what was really going
on..on the ground..so to speak. xhosa

You should start a new topic. " What was Frere's real intentions" might confuse this topic somewhat.

John.

Reports had been coming in about zulu movement in the area since the early hours. Pulleine, who had been left in command of the camp, had not done anything about it. He had many empty wagons he could have made use of to make some sort of defences (laagers), just in case these zulus became hostile, and although he was more of an admin officer than a line officer, he had line officers there who could have offered their advice, but it appears they did not, and as a result Pulleine was lost at what he should have been doing long before the arrival of Durnford. It appears that Pulleine was sticking to the unofficial orders that had been given to him by a junior officer (Clery), under the illusion that they had been officiated by LC (or Glyn). However, that does not excuse him for not using his common sense, or even asking for the opinions of his line officers as to what they thought he should do about these zulu reports. It would appear, however, that because of Clery wrongly telling him that Durnford was on his way to reinforce the camp, he was waiting for Durnford's arrival so that he could dump this zulu problem on him, and maybe that is why Pulleine was dumbfounded when Durnford said that he would not be staying at the camp. After telling Durnford about the zulu sightings, Durnford sent out scouts, then sent out his own men on reconnaissance to see what these zulus were up to, and that is when the reports came in about the zulus retreating in all directions, and that a large body of them were moving in the direction of LC, so what was he supposed to do about that? Ask yourself this, could he really afford the risk of these zulus outflanking or attacking LC?

Not possible i'm afraid..its a matter of historical record his
intention to force confederation on the African, both white
and black, he saw the Zulu as the only real stumbling block,
to enable him to realize his plans.. the problem was, it was
ill conceived. immoral, and poorly executed, Confederation
effectively died on the slopes of Isandhlwana and with it went
Frere's career.. a new topic, i don't think there would be any
appetite for that!.good suggestion though, i would be up for it.
xhosa

Ask Admin to add it to this.

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

By the way Springbok.. If you click on the link above, you may just find what you have been looking for,
Regarding you friend CTSG and Colenso and his use of her to back an argument.

It's at the point where 24th and 90th asks for the title of a certain book, from which he quoted.

John

It looks like Frank had a laughing fit four years ago. You have to think of his health now, you wicked man!  

Steve

Hiya John, if your asking me to ask admin, i don't get the point.
i read the link, but that was all a bit basic in my opinion, the
passage laid down by ctsg only provides more evidence of an
official colluding in the cover up! trotting out the establishment
line. iv'e moved on quite a way down the line to swallow any of
that, it's apparent by most of the forum members responses
that their knowledge of the bigger picture was less then..and now
would, i believe give different answers..but as you pointed out
quite rightly, this is straying too far from the original topic. xhosa

Durnford, was he capable? i think by carefully reading the back posts,
i have come to the conclusion that we are more or less in agreement
now! Durnford performed his duties well, given, how the day unfolded
on the 22nd of Jan, and given what we now know to be true, and more
importantly putting together all the known facts we seem to have agreed
a broad consensus, loosely speaking..that is just my observation! i'm
sure if i am mistaken in that belief then you will be sure to correct me!

But what then? will the Durnford debate end? and can the real one begin!.
i doubt that very much, are any really ready to give up what has been a
very juicy bone of contention.. and get on to the next level..xhosa

I have often thought that the title of this thread is odd. And wondered whether, whoever began it, actually meant  "Durnford was he culpable" (was it his fault the defeat occurred). That is what much of the history of the debate has been about. "Capable" is a much more difficult thing to decide about. Very few of us are totally capable/incapable of anything, we are somewhere in between.  So was Durnford.

But as I tried to clarify the other day, the ground for debate seems to have moved from "Did he disobey a direct order" (which no-one now seems to be saying), to "Was his judgement reasonable on the morning of the 22nd". Which is more to do with how capable he was, and is a matter of degree.

In that sense, I agree Les that we are probably now as close to agreement as we are likely to get, pending the discovery of further primary evidence.

But will it end, I somehow doubt it!.

Steve

John
That's exactly the one, Ive started laughing again. Thanks mate much appreciated.
CTSG......................busted.

Steve says..but will it end, i somehow doubt it.

Morning Les
No it wont, for the simple reason that this particular string has been a vehicle for discussion to really range far and wide.
Weve touched/explored/fought over, virtually every single aspect of isandlwana through it.
Long may it happen.

Cheers Mate

Yes Morning Frank, like i said a juicy contentious bone, most
are now doomed to repeat themselves, but the was Durnford
Capable element, has surely been answered to all's satisfaction,
people can continue to pick over the dead carcass of the rest.
xhosa

rusteze wrote:

I have often thought that the title of this thread is odd. And wondered whether, whoever began it, actually meant  "Durnford was he culpable" (was it his fault the defeat occurred). That is what much of the history of the debate has been about. "Capable" is a much more difficult thing to decide about. Very few of us are totally capable/incapable of anything, we are somewhere in between.  So was Durnford.

But as I tried to clarify the other day, the ground for debate seems to have moved from "Did he disobey a direct order" (which no-one now seems to be saying), to "Was his judgement reasonable on the morning of the 22nd". Which is more to do with how capable he was, and is a matter of degree.

In that sense, I agree Les that we are probably now as close to agreement as we are likely to get, pending the discovery of further primary evidence.

But will it end, I somehow doubt it!.

Steve

There are some who think he did disobey a direct order. He was ordered to "move to the camp" He obeyed up to that point. He Disobayed when he tryed to leave the camp.

I wonder if Crealock, tryed to jump on the bandwagon, of those survivors who stated Col Durnford assumed command on his arrival. Thus saying he wrote in Durnfords orders "take command of it"
Which of course we know he didn't.

Question, what do you think wold have happened, if on receiving the message " The Zulus are retiring ect" he didnt do nothing, apart from stayed in the camp. Just stayed there and kept his powder dry, so to say.

Dave without doubt.
A niggle that's always been at the back of my mind is actually the culpability of Clery. His 'presumption in issuing the orders to Pulleine could be interpreted as a major factor in the defeat. What I mean by that is IF that order, to draw in and defend the camp, had not been issued there is of course the possibility that a) the impi would have been seen at a more advantageous time and b) he possibly would have had a better defence strategy.
So was Clery, in his innocence of course, guilty to a degree.

Cheers