Durnford was he capable.5

You must have a better translater than the one I found, mind you, the one I found was made in.

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Try the Google.

Cheers

This nifty little book compiles Jacksons three original
65 articles in a much smaller format..i took the pencil
annotation on the front cover with the pinch of salt,
but what is interesting is The order which all have seen,
but the line which states Durnfords expectations..xhosa

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

Hi Les, I have his 'Hill of the sphinx', Great book.

Hi Martin
I've been to that place and or railway station that has the 30 letters or whatever !
Cheers 90th

Hi Gary,

Yes, it's more of a gimmick than anything else.

We used to work through this place when I was on the railway, the tickets never had that name on them, it was always Lanfair PG. If there was ever any need to write the name down, we always wrote for short LFPG, only the special 'platform tickets' had the gimmicky name on them, and of course the gimmicky station nameboard.

Cheers buddy.

Cheers Martin
90th

springy
That was something Jenkins might have said??

Xhosa
No blow, honest! I didn't even pick the thing up.

Hi Gary.

A little more for you on LFPG.

It was actually an early publicity stunt, it was artificially contrived in the 1860's to bestow on the railway station to give it the longest railway station name in Britain.

Specially made oversized platform tickets were made so that visitors and tourists could buy them.

So, like I said, it's really a gimmick.

Cheers mate.

Llanfair

Pwll

Gwyngy

Llgogery

Chwyrn

Drobwllllant

Ysi

Liogo

Gogoch

Actually, all RD defenders.

Steve

xhosa2000 wrote:

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

So has it happens, Jackson is doing what we are doing. He only submising what he thinks is reasonable for Durfords thinking, that he should support LC.
The order is simplistic in it's self. Move to the camp. So we could say, if we all agree that Durnford thought he was supporting LC, then his actions in attempting to carryout that thought in his head, led to the discovering of the Zulu Impi and then the lost of the camp. If he had stayed in the camp ( As ordered) their chances of survival may just have been greater.

LOL! Brilliant Steve, just brilliant, made my day mate.

John.

Can you please show everyone the order where it states Durnford was ordered to stay in the camp????

Okay move to the camp, he did. But show me where in the order is says leave the camp. Stick to the order, that was sent to Durnford on the 22nd Jan. After he got to the camp. Anything you say in connection with him leaving is speculation. There is nothing in that order, that states he should used the order in connection with those issue on the 19th Jan.

It all comes down to Durnford interpretation of the order, and his actions after his interpretation.

The order it's self (Wording) exonerates LC and the staff under him. 
Because its simply says move to the camp. 

John.

LC ordered Crealock to write the order of the 22nd to Durnford, if he had wanted Durnford to either reinforce, strengthen, take command or remain in the camp, that would mean that LC would know that Durnford (with being the senior officer) would have been in command, so why then did LC send a message addressed to Pulleine rather than Durnford?

Martin that's not the issue read my post.

It all comes down to Durnford interpretation of the order, and his actions after his interpretation.

The order it's self (Wording) exonerates LC and the staff under him. 
Because its simply says move to the camp. 

It is the contents of the order that Durnford received. That shows Durnford disobeyed the order by leaving the camp. It matters not who wrote it, who ordered it to written. Is the words in the order that counts.

John, you simply don't get it i'm afraid, Durnford was
ordered TO the camp. nothing in any order said he
Must REMAIN at the camp, its like you don't follow
whats being said,, you cannot
change history, it is what it is.. Durnford acted on the
intelligence he received, no offence intended. xhosa

Xhosa
No blow, honest! I didn't even pick the thing up.
Hmmm, funny you should have one to hand..
xhosa

Concentrate on the contents of the order. You are interpretating the order to your way of thinking. It's the words written in the order that must be obeyed to the letter.

There was nothing in the order to say he must remain, but there wasn't nothing in the order telling him he could leave, or operate independantly.

Correct "I don't follow what your saying," because is only speculation.

Your arguments are weak, because of your speculation. Look at the evidence.

Don't add words to the order!

John

I think you are overlooking what Chelmsford said as part of his earlier rebuke to Durnford. He said words to the effect that he fully expected a column commander to act independently while operating in enemy territory. Durnford hears that the Zulus are in retreat and 400 look to be heading towards Chelmsford. How is he wrong to respond to that by taking his 100 mounted men out to intercept?

Steve

John, you say that it is us that is speculating, then what do you think that you are doing?

Are you sure you have been following this for any length of time, because if you have, then you cannot be taking in what has been said over the last few weeks, months or even years.

Not all that long back springbok posted a very easy to understand scenario about the boss, the worker and the stores, take a look back at that, it just might help you to understand what the order of the 22nd meant.

this addressed to none in particular.. in my opinion as
things stand..F.W.D. Jackson wrote the definitive
account of the battle at Isandhlwana that has been
published to date, and that was in 1965, all modern day
authors and indeed historians tip their hats to him..if
any think that is incorrect would they please enlighten
me. xhosa

Well said Les, I have read his book 'Hill of the Sphinx' quite a number of times, like you say, it is very well put together, and many others do have to tip their hat to him, a remarkable piece of work.

Yeah Martin, and their are a couple on here who
are lucky enough to call him friend..

That is so true Les, they are indeed very lucky to be that close to the great man himself.

Mind you Les, we on the forum are lucky to have men like John Young and Julian Whybra sharing their thoughts and ideas with us.

rusteze wrote:

John

I think you are overlooking what Chelmsford said as part of his earlier rebuke to Durnford. He said words to the effect that he fully expected a column commander to act independently while operating in enemy territory. Durnford hears that the Zulus are in retreat and 400 look to be heading towards Chelmsford. How is he wrong to respond to that by taking his 100 mounted men out to intercept?

Steve

Steve, I have possibly missed something. But where does it say, when ordered to the camp on the 22nd Jan Durnford was still operating independantly. Happy to be corrected.

Crealock COE

"3. Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., was not under Colonel Glyn's command at this time; he had been moved from his original position before Middle Drift, with some 250 Mounted Natives, 200 of Sikalis footmen, the Rocket Battery, and one battalion of the 1st Regiment Natal Native Contingent to the Umsinga District, on the Lieutenant-General's seeing the ease with which the Natal frontier could be passed in that part of the Buffalo River. The Lieutenant-General's order was therefore sent to him by me, being the only Head Quarter Staff Officer (except the Aide-de-Camps) with him. These details formed part of No. 2 Column under his command.

If you can show he was working independantly, does that really change anything. It's obvious to us all, that LC plans had to change to accommodate Dartnells request. Moving a mounted column with and experienced officer, would make tatical sense, in that it would reinforce the the camp and it's provisions, which as we know was needed to carry forward the invasion. The fact Crealock points out that no2 column was under LC command must prompt us to see, that orders are orders and moving to the camp was all that was required of Durnford.

Steve wrote:

He said words to the effect that he fully expected a column commander to act independently while operating in enemy territory.

_________________
"Dear Durnford,
Unless you carry out the instructions I give you, it will be my unpleasant duty to remove you from your command, and to substitute another officer for the commander of No. 2 Column. When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command.  I trust you will understand this plain speaking and not give me any further occasion to write in a style, which is distasteful to me."

He had been ordered to the camp' where another section of another column was present. So it fair to say he wasn't really acting Separately. Also we know he gave some orders at the camp to another column, and asked Pulleine to send assisitence should he get into difficulties, we know he was issuing orders to the no 3 column officers. So I think we can safety say he was operating separately. And I thing your find that particular letter, was aimed at Durnford because he was quite prepaired to carry out an attack based on unconfirmed intelligence..

John.

This is from the War Office enquiry.

War office; Ref 4901-31/10. "It could never have been intended and doubtless never was intended to put an officer in command of another column over Lt Col Pulleine's head for a portion of a day.
Colonel Durnford's move up to the Generals 'co-operate' in the Generals own words, WAS ENTIRELY IN ACCORD WITH HIS PREVIOUS ORDERS.

Now is that the confirmation you want?

John, Durnford was always ' operating independently '
his was an ' independent command '. please understand
that..Chelmsford was out doing his thing, at the time in
question he still thought Pulleine was packing up!..we
know that was not the case..

Martin..yes we are. xhosa

John

I really think we are splitting hairs. Durnford is a full Colonel in charge of his own column and that does not change. He simply did not disobey any orders. You might also argue that even if he had been ordered to do something, that subsequently looked to him to be unwise, he had Chelmsford's authority to disobey that order based on his judgement as a column commander.

It is legitimate, in my view, to question his actions once in the camp on the basis of whether they were wise, based on what he knew. I think they were for the reasons I have said.

You also have to remember that at no stage is Chelmsford concerned about the camps ability to resist an attack if it happens. Don't you think Durnford might equally have been seen as at fault if Chelmsford's flank had been attacked and he, knowing it might happen, had done nothing?

Steve

John.

You have to be very wary of what Crealock said (he was, after all, a proven liar), and don't forget that he (Crealock), Chelmsford, et al, were all looking after their own backs and reputations and covering up their own mistakes. They were all in cahoots to deflect any blame from Chelmsford and dump it onto a dead man (Col Durnford), disgraceful behaviour, and not becoming of any officer of the British Army.

Steve LC was 10 Miles away. What risk really was there 400 Zulus on foot.

You are taking that letter out of context, it was sent for actions Durnford was going carry out with out orders.

And you have yet to show, that Durnford was acting separately. Which he could not have been, because he took command of the camp, consisting of the 3rd Column.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

John.

You have to be very wary of what Crealock said (he was, after all, a proven liar), and don't forget that he (Crealock), Chelmsford, et al, were all looking after their own backs and reputations and covering up their own mistakes. They were all in cahoots to deflect any blame from Chelmsford and dump it onto a dead man (Col Durnford), disgraceful behaviour, and not becoming of any officer of the British Army.

Martin your doing it again, personal view, no foundation. Like John says, it's the order that was sent on the 22nd that dictated Durnfords actions. He interpreted the order in his own way, the same as Steve is interpreting the letter from LC to Durnford.

Move to the camp. End of!

24th

1. Durnford did not know where Chelmsford was, nobody in the camp did. Neither could he be sure about the size of the Impi. He could not take the risk and would have been critiscised had it happened.

2. It could not have been solely about actions without orders, because it talks about disobeying orders being expected of a column commander by Chelmsford when circumstances dictated.

3. I don't have to show he was acting seperately at all, he said he was. It is irrelevant that he took command by default in the camp while he was there.

Steve

24th.

On the 8th Jan 1879, Chelmsford gave Durnford permission by saying that he (Durnford) was at perfect liberty to do that, however, when Durnford advised Chelmsford of whet he intended to do, and that he had been 'tipped off' about a possible incursion from the zulus by a trusted informer who just happened to be a Bishop, that is when Chelmsford sent the rebuke to Durnford. Why say he was at perfect liberty to do it, then send a rebuke? Because it was a Bishop that gave Durnford the information, that's why.

Your second point.

See my earlier post of 7.19pm. That will confirm what I am saying. It is from the War Office, and NOT my own personal view. READ IT.

1) Then there would have been no point in protecting LC rear if they didn't know where he was. No wonder he went off in the Wong direction.

2) He was not acting seperatly. He was working in conjunction with LC, Pulleine, LC ordering him to the camp. And Pulleine at the camp.
Why would LC say move to the camp, if he wanted him to do something else. Doesn't make sense.

3) Up until that point he obeyed the order. Handing in back but still requesting assistence is when he disobeyed the order.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

24th.

On the 8th Jan 1879, Chelmsford gave Durnford permission by saying that he (Durnford) was at perfect liberty to do that, however, when Durnford advised Chelmsford of whet he intended to do, and that he had been 'tipped off' about a possible incursion from the zulus by a trusted informer who just happened to be a Bishop, that is when Chelmsford sent the rebuke to Durnford. Why say he was at perfect liberty to do it, then send a rebuke? Because it was a Bishop that gave Durnford the information, that's why.

Your second point.

See my earlier post of 7.19pm. That will confirm what I am saying. It is from the War Office, and NOT my own personal view. READ IT.

Stick to the order Durnford received on the 22nd. That's when it all changed.

Sorry 24th you simply cannot be convinced. That's fine, but I am not going to say it all over again to no effect.

One thing generally is worth saying - aimed at us all.

We spend hours, days, months and years dissecting orders and motives and the actions of all these people. They often had just minutes to make up their minds and act. There comes a point when such detailed analysis is meaningless.

Steve

400?? Did someone go around counting them? NO, it was only a rough estimate, for all anyone knew there could well have been a lot more. How long do you think it would take the zulus to get 10 miles? They could run a lot faster than some men on horses, they knew their country, they could have been on Chelmsford like lightning. And for all anyone knew, wasn't Chelmsford supposed to be fighting with the main impi? and wouldn't a sudden influx of blood thirsty zulus attacking from the rear have caught Chelmsford on the hop? Durnford really had no other option than to try to find out where these zulus were going, he could not take the risk that the general might be attacked from the rear, he used his head, I just wish some folk on here would use theirs.

Steve, I have said it before, it's like trying to knock rubber nails into steel plating, impossible.

rusteze wrote:

Sorry 24th you simply cannot be convinced. That's fine, but I am not going to say it all over again to no effect.

One thing generally is worth saying - aimed at us all.

We spend hours, days, months and years dissecting orders and motives and the actions of all these people. They often had just minutes to make up their minds and act. There comes a point when such detailed analysis is meaningless.

Steve

Your right Steve.

When all we have to do, is stick to the order, and stop second guessing, what we think should have happen.

As I said simplistic orders.

"You are to march to this Camp at once with all the force you have with you of No 2 column – Major Bengough battalion is to move to Rorke’s Drift – as ordered yesterday.

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

if Bengoughs battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Naugwane valley)”

I have highted "Major Bengough battalion is to move to Rorke’s Drift – as ordered yesterday"

Note: how it states "As order Yesterday"

How easy would it have been, to add to Durnford bit. As ordered on the 19th.

That's enough for me!..it is, what it is, till somebody adds something
new! ever decreasing circles.you can lead the blind to water, but you
can't make them drink..bit sad really. xhosa

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Steve, I have said it before, it's like trying to knock rubber nails into steel plating, impossible.

Martin I love you to bits.

But you do flitter around.

1) It was your pincer movement
2) Then it was junior officers, issuing orders to senior not being valid
3) Then orders issued on the 8th
4) Then it was Clery's fault.
5) Then it was Crealocks fault
6) Then it was Dartnells fault

One day, I might be able to add. Then it was Durnford Fault!

And when someone comments that Durnford's heavey Guns was the Rocket Battery. Well yes you right. "trying to knock rubber nails into steel plating, impossible"

xhosa2000 wrote:

That's enough for me!..it is, what it is, till somebody adds something
new! ever decreasing circles.you can lead the blind to water, but you
can't make them drink..bit sad really.                                xhosa

Xhosa. Come on mate! Add something new!

John

You have turned it on its head. You are the one who is second guessing what you think should have happened - you think he should have stayed in the camp. I am talking about what did happen, and why that was.

But we are not going to agree are we, so best move on.

Steve

staid

Oops - but I saw it first!

Steve

We saw it the same time, but I captured you word!

That's the point, if he had obeyed orders. Nothing would have happened after. Maybe

Once it can be accepted that he did disobey orders by leaving the camp. Only then can we move on to what you want to discuss "

And theirs me thinking we were discussing " what did happen, and why that was" Unless you have another avenue,we can go down. Always happy to do that, always willing to learn!