Who was most culpable for the defeat at the Battle Of Isandlwana: Was Lord Chelmsford , Col Glyn, Col Pulleine, or Col Durnford.

Frank,
From memory, PULLEINE also told to Durnford that he was not delighted with his presence at Isandhlwana....
Cheers
Frédéric

Hi Frederic
RD: I stand corrected he WAS defacto senior officer but DIDNT exercise that right till the Zulu army was spotted.
Yes Pullein did express disappointment, but again I put it down to the officer class inate correctness.

CHEERS

PS Ive just solved a small mystery regarding RD and Bromhead. Need to just think it through then I will post it.

Frank Allewell wrote:

Hi Frederic
RD: I stand corrected he WAS defacto senior officer but DIDNT exercise that right till the Zulu army was spotted.
Yes Pullein did express disappointment, but again I put it down to the officer class inate correctness.

CHEERS

PS Ive just solved a small mystery regarding RD and Bromhead. Need to just think it through then I will post it.

I wonder if Bromhead, Bourne, et al, were even aware that Chard was senior? Chard wasn't the sort to have arrive at RD from the ponts (after finding out about Isandlwana and the imminent Zulu attack) and tell everyone he was in command.

An article about Bourne in the Epsom District Times stated :-

"Bromhead wrote a dispatch which he (Colour-Sergeant Bourne), had to copy. Not a man's name was mentioned in that despatch. Later, however, it was discovered that Chard was senior, and another despatch was written in which the names were mentioned. Those two officers were so free from selfishness that they did not trouble to discover who of the two was senior."

It may be possible that Spalding didn't even think it worth mentioning to Bromhead that Chard was senior. After all, he assumed he would be back shortly and that nothing would happen.

Neil

Frank Allewell wrote:

PS Ive just solved a small mystery regarding RD and Bromhead. Need to just think it through then I will post it.

WHAT

Frank Allewell wrote:

Hi Frederic
RD: I stand corrected he WAS defacto senior officer but DIDNT exercise that right till the Zulu army was spotted.

CHEERS

PS Ive just solved a small mystery regarding RD and Bromhead. Need to just think it through then I will post it.

Frank,
This point is important for me (for understanding the "whole picture"):
At Rorke's Drift, beetween the 20 january and the 22 January, DURNFORD was defacto senior officer from Spalding but didn't exercice that right, isn't it?

Cheers.

Frédéric

Hi Frank,

I think Pulleine would have made the assumption that Durnford would take command because he was told by Clery that 'Durnford was coming to strengthen the camp', I suppose Pulleine could have interpreted Clerys remarks as you are in command until Durnford arrives.

Durnford clearly felt that he had a choice in the matter indicated by his comment, 'I won't interfere' the rules of protocol would I think have dictated that the senior officer would take command. F Jackson states 'Under Queens regulations , where different units were employed together on any duty, 'holding the camp being such a duty', command was to be exercised by the senior combatant officer present.

Is seems to me that Pulleine wanted Durnford to take command, his comment 'I am sorry you have come, as you are senior to me, and will of course take command', is possibly the point where he (Pulleine) had passed the command to Durnford or it could have been when he had reported the state of the troops and the orders that he had been given from Clery.

With the exchange between Pulleine and Durnford it seems more likely that Durnford didn't want to take command of the defences, after all he still had a separate command which LC was well aware of and he (Durnford) had not been given any orders telling him what to do once he arrived at camp.

I would still contend that Pulleine knew that Durnford 'would or should' take command but I don't believe that Durnford would have offered to take command in light of the fact that he had other business to attend to.

So in a nutshell, Pulleine had correctly assumed that a senior officer would take command even though he had initially been ordered by Clery (not Chelmsford) to Command the camp. Durnford didn't follow protocol or Queens Regulations.

Kind Regards

Waterloo

Frederic
In theory yes he was de facto senior. BUT, he wasn't at the drift, his camp was on the opposite bank up on the ridge. So quite a distance away.

Neil
Doesn't Chard mention in his first statement that Spalding asked the question who was senior and then looked them both up in the army list?

Cheers

Waterloo
I think the key is in your last para, neither Pullein nor Durnford had any reason to doubt that the orders came from Chelmsford. It was only subsequently that it was admitted by Clery that he had written the order on his own initiative. So to a degree there was n order by the 'Army Commander' that would have to be obeyed.

Cheers

Frank Allewell wrote:

Frederic
In theory yes he was de facto senior. BUT, he wasn't at the drift, his camp was on the opposite bank up on the ridge. So quite a distance away.

Cheers

Thank you very much for your help.
Cheers
frédéric

Neil
Ive just had a re read of Chards Statements and I take your point. When Spalding looked up the Army list there seems to be only Chard present. Chard does mention in his first report that Spalding left him in charge, but yes interesting point as to how and when that would have been mentioned to Bromhead and Dalton. At some point it would have to have been broached, possibly at that meating with Bromhead and Dalton.
But yes interesting point.

Cheers

Frank Allewell wrote:

Frederic
In theory yes he was de facto senior. BUT, he wasn't at the drift, his camp was on the opposite bank up on the ridge. So quite a distance away.

Neil
Doesn't Chard mention in his first statement that Spalding asked the question who was senior and then looked them both up in the army list?

Cheers

Hi Frank,

Spalding asked Chard who was senior but Chard didn't know so he checked the Army lists. After doing so, Spalding told Chard that he was in command but did he also tell Bromhead? There is no mention of him doing so. Chard seems the sort of man who would not have made a point of telling Bromhead that he is senior. He was too laid back to bother making the point, especially at the time where nothing was amiss.

It begs the question - Would Spalding have thought it necessary to seek out Bromhead to inform him that Chard was senior, before leaving for Helpmekaar, or would he have just told Chard (who he was with at the time), and left it a that? If that was the case (and I realise there is no way of knowing), then it is possible that nobody actuall knew that Chard was in command - apart from Chard himself... Bourne's article could be construed as suggesting that is the case.

Just some random thoughts...

Neil

My last post clashed with yours Frank, but yes, I think it's a possibility that Chard did not even tell everyone that he was the commanding officer.

Neil

Hell now that's a thought for our reticent hero? I really do need to read back to see when or at what time he started issuing orders, but even then your theory could stand with both, in fact all three sharing command. Its just that first paragraph in the report to the Queen when he says 'Spalding left me in command'. So maybe after the fact but he is taking a stance that puts him in charge. Actually listen carefully and you can almost hear Dalton, that wonderful old soldier, saying "Right which one of you Gentlemen is the boss?"

I am looking at a copy of Queens Regulations for 1844. It is a bit earlier than events in question but I do not think anything changed. Under Command and Rank of Officers it says:

When Regiments or detachments are united either in Camp, Garrison or Quarters, the Eldest officer, whether by brevet or otherwise, is to command the whole.

There is also a paragraph that I do not quite understand. I do not know whether it has a bearing on the Pulleine/Durnford situation. It says

Officers with the rank of Colonel are not to be included in the roster of field officers: a distinct duty will usually be assigned to them as Colonels.

Whatever the case, we are left with the key word "united". Frank makes the point that Durnford's force was not co-located with those at Rorke's Drift, so were they united?

And at Isandhlwana Durnford's force comes into camp, but he is clear that it is not staying. So were they united?

It does occur to me that later in Durnford's fighting retreat he does indeed become united with the force at the camp. And must therefore be deemed to be in command at Isandhlwana for the final stages of the attack?

Steve

Frank, extract from Chards report to QV.

"Major Spalding told me he was going over to Helpmakaar, and would see about getting it down at once. Just as I was about to ride away he said to me 'Which of you is senior, you or Bromhead?" I said " I don't know" - he went back to his tent, looked at the Army List, and coming back, said "I see you are senior, so you will be in charge, although of course, nothing will happen, and I shall be back again this evening early."

He then says!

"I then went down to my tent by the river, had some lunch comfortably, and was writing a letter home when my attention was called to two horsemen galloping towards us from the direction of Isandhlwana. From their gesticulation and their shouts, when they were near enough to be heard, we saw that something was the matter, and on taking them over the river, one of them, Lieutenant Adendorff of Lonsdale's Regiment, Natal Native Contingent, asking if I was an officer, jumped off his horse, took me on one side, and told me that the camp was in the hands of the Zulus and the army destroyed; that scarcely a man had got away to tell the tale, and that probably Lord Chelmsford and the rest of the column had shared the same fate. His companion, a Carbineer, confirmed his story. He was naturally very excited and I am afraid I did not, at first, quite believe him, and intimated that he probably had not remained to see what did occur. I had the saddle put on my horse, and while I was talking to Lieutenant Adendorff, a messenger arrived from Lieutenant Bromhead, who was with his company at his little camp near the commissariat stores, to ask me to come up at once."

So it might have been during their conversation near the commissariat stores, did Chard tell Bromhead Spalding had left him in command.

The first orders he issued.

"I gave the order to inspan the wagon and put all the stores, tents, etc., they could into it. I posted the seargeant and six men on the high ground over the Pont, behind a natural wall of rocks, forming a strong position from which there was a good view over the river and ground in front, with orders to wait until I came or sent for them"

Steve
We will of course never know what happened during the battle but Im pretty convinced Durnford did exactly what you suggest and took command. There are two distinct parts to the battle, the fighting on the line and then a retreat/reform that is to my mind the point that Durnford took over. He said he wanted to get the men together, was it to Gardner, and that shortly after was attempted. Again the right decision just to late.
CTSG
Yes that's as far as Ive got so far, no mention of Bromhead being present when Spalding speaks to Chard.
That order you highlight is actually down at the ponts rather than at the camp. I would hazard a guess and say that Chard 'took' charge when he met up with Bromhead and Dalton, if at all !
Its a very interesting point.

Cheers

So you have Col Dunrford, asking for reinforcements, Col Pulleine sending reinforcements, and then Col Durnford ordering the retreat. I have said it before at that stage of the Battle, no one was in command. it was every man for himself.

Your reading it wrong.
There came a point in the battle where Durnford retreated from the Donga. The Carbineers set up a defence against the left horn closer to the camp ( and died there ) Durnford went across the camp ( I did an Essay on that some time back) The retreat was called and I believe that was instigated by Durnford. So it was at that point Durnford took command. Some body had to have been in command to order the cease fire and withdrawl.

Cheers

Took command of what?

At this stage in the battle there was still a cohesive front line being held, albeit slowly withdrawing. And that's the point Durnford ordered the Bugles to sound the ceasefire and retreat. I do stress its only my opinion.

The point I was making was that, in terms of Queen's Regulations, Durnford was deemed to be in command during the late stages of the battle. Frank is of the view that he took specific steps to take charge of what remained - that may be so. But in terms of his status at that point it matters not what was left to command or whether he took specific actions, he met the definitions contained in QR. It is doubtful whether he met them when at Rorke's Drift or when he arrived at Isandhlwana.

Steve

Can we see the Queens regulations that shows Durnford was right to take command.

Most of what I have read, just says Army Tradition.

See my earlier post.

1844 ?

Yes, I made that point in the post. If you are unhappy with 1844 why not do a little research to see if it changed. Will be interested to hear the result.

Steve

Steve you started the hunt for the Queens Regs, you can't base your argument on regs from 1844 until you have absolute concrete evidence, that the regs in 1879 were unchanged since 1844. Dont expect others do do your work for you. Perhaps you should have said " What if " the regs remained un-changed.
Or base it on one of your sarnario's

Perhaps you should concentrate on facts, not fiction.

I can't make up my mind whether you deliberately set out to be obnoxious or whether it comes naturally?

Steve

Looks like one of those " What if's"  Your  taking us

Thank you for the usual pearls of wisdom CTSG but I have no interest whatever in engaging with you. So please feel free not to respond to my posts if you find them lacking in some way. Your advice is not required.

Steve

I can just imagine Durnford saying that to Col Pulleine.. Steve that was just a Sanario, it didn't that place. But What if?

Back on topic.

"

Durnfords  actions at Isandlwana was a violation of the chain of command. The the orders of the GOC were to defend the camp, and Col Pulleine transmitted those orders clearly to Durnford, then it was incorrect for him to change the mode of action from defense to attack. Posters here may certainly argue Durnford's motives, his psychological reasons for leaving the camp, but I doubt he had the authority to do so. Just because he became the OC by virtue of rank, I don't think that would give him the authority to change the orders of the GOC in this situation. 

If Durnford really was concerned that the Zulus could attack Lord Chelmsford from the rear, he could have sent out a very small mounted recon to ascertain the whereabouts of the enemy. He actually set out to perform a "reconnaissance in force" (which can move to the attack if necessary), and reduced the ability to defend the camp by taking away somewhat substantial forces. He was prepared to attack the Zulu of his own accord, and was even prepared to take two companies of the regulars with him until Pulleine made the decision against that. 

He clearly made tactical errors, and errors in disregarding Chelmsford's orders to defend. A good argument can be made about how much difference his troopers would have made to the overall defense of the camp, and whether or not they would have made enough difference to change the situation. Considering the overwhelming Zulu forces, I have my doubts the final outcome would have been much different, but I think the Zulus would have suffered many more casualties had Durnford's troopers taken a defensive posture from the start."

Source: Ex-Member. Makes sense to me..

You could make a case for so many scenarios, for what ifs? The blame game. The fact is as Capt Benteen said after the Little Big Horn, " mistakes were made." In this case massive ones. Which impacted on my own family with the case of a dead great-great uncle at Isandlwana.

Totally agree Martinti Henry. The facts uncover the truth!

How accurate is this drawing.?

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

Your quite right MH, you can make a case for all sorts of scenarios and what ifs.

The abiding interest on this forum, and others, has been who was most culpable - that's the title of the thread after all. I would guess the subject, in one form or another, takes up at least 80% of the posts on the forum. The reason is that the facts are only partially known and the rest is conjecture - so the truth, far from being obvious, is hidden among those scenarios and what ifs and yet to be discovered evidence. The pleasure in discussing it is because you can explore possibilities (if its not a pleasure then why participate?). That pleasure is also tinged with a feeling of injustice among many of us who had relatives who perished as a result of the mistakes and who want to get nearer the truth of why that happened.

Long may the discussion continue!

Steve

But sarnarios and what if's confuse the issue. Any discussions relating to the Battle of Isandlwana fall out of bed, when prior events to the 22nd are brought in. It's the orders issued on that day that count, and who was there. All decisions on that day were made by the two Colonials at the Battle.

CTSG last post does make sense.

Littlehand

You are entitled to your view. There is no battle in history that can be understood if you only consider what happened on the day. And there is no avoiding trying to fill in the gaps in the story - the facts are incomplete. If that complicates it for you I am sorry, but I am afraid that is reality.

Steve

OH
Its pretty damned close, well researched by Ron Lock.
Littlehand
Common sense and CTSG in one sentence? My you do live close to the edge

Now, now Frank. You know it makes sense.

Can we honestly say, that Peter Quantrills original post has been answered. He puts Col Pulleine in the firing line for the lost of the camp, but it looks like the discussion has come back to Col Durnford & Lord Chelmsford. Nither of who were at Isandlwana when the first reports started coming in, and Pulleine was in sole command.

I think the problem with answering PQ's post is that, despite the arguments put forward, there is no consensus here on who was most culpable, which is the question asked. Undoubtedly Pulleine carries blame for not taking defensive action sooner and in a more positive way - all agree that. But some take the view that the greater blame still rests with Chelmsford for leaving him in an impossible situation. If I leave you with an inadequate force and bugger off elsewhere you can hardly be held entirely to blame for the result can you?

Then there is the camp which says Durnford is most responsible and they are unlikely to change their view unless fresh primary evidence emerges. And  I would bet some wouldn't change their view even then.

To my mind PQ did not really offer any fresh evidence to support his conclusion even though it was an interesting evaluation of what was already known about Pulleine's failings.

As Frank so rightly says, it is the enigma of Isandhlwana.

Steve

I would never wish to stifle debate - hell I enjoy it & I appreciate this forum & regard highly the views expressed. I am still feeling my way, I came onto the forum with my mind firmly made up. Now I realise my assumptions were incorrect. As for cupability I think, ( & it is only an opinion), it must be shared to varying degrees. I have a lot of further reading to do.

CTSG
There is a concerted effort to try and denigrate and whitewash, scenarios. But really all that your Ex Member has communicated is just that, a potential scenario not based on any substantial and incontrovertible evidence. That whole concept is based on one line: "Durnford took command." And that's where it falls down Im afraid. Probably 40% of all the posts on this website, and others, has been devoted to exactly that discussion without resolve, and without new evidence it never will be. So yes its a scenario, a very plausible one as well, but no more and no less.

Cheers

In an earlier post

CTSG stated 'A good argument can be made about how much difference his troopers would have made to the overall defense of the camp, and whether or not they would have made enough difference to change the situation. Considering the overwhelming Zulu forces, I have my doubts the final outcome would have been much different, but I think the Zulus would have suffered many more casualties had Durnford's troopers taken a defensive posture from the start."'

This statement aroused my curiosity,  if I understood your comment correctly you do not feel that Durnford and his men would have made any difference to the outcome except for a higher number of casualties amongst the Zulus.

So here is my question, why hold Durnford accountable at all? from my understanding and given the scenario that Durnford remained at the camp and took command from the outset, would Lord Chelmsfords orders have made any difference at all (If indeed you feel that Durnford disobeyed an order or Queens Regulations) and left camp and that his leaving the camp made little or no difference then you have to look at the individual in overall command and realise that his orders/plans fell well short of what was required to defend the camp. So does this make LC Culpable?

With respect  

Waterloo

rusteze wrote:

I think the problem with answering PQ's post is that, despite the arguments put forward, there is no consensus here on who was most culpable, which is the question asked. Undoubtedly Pulleine carries blame for not taking defensive action sooner and in a more positive way - all agree that. But some take the view that the greater blame still rests with Chelmsford for leaving him in an impossible situation. If I leave you with an inadequate force and bugger off elsewhere you can hardly be held entirely to blame for the result can you?

Then there is the camp which says Durnford is most responsible and they are unlikely to change their view unless fresh primary evidence emerges. And  I would bet some wouldn't change their view even then.

To my mind PQ did not really offer any fresh evidence to support his conclusion even though it was an interesting evaluation of what was already known about Pulleine's failings.

As Frank so rightly says, it is the enigma of Isandhlwana.

Steve

Come on now, it's getting really stupid. The force at Isandlwana was more than adequate, it was the way the force was used by those in command that was the downfall. If the men had been poistioned correctly with enought ammuntion the out come of Isandlwana would have been different.
So don't let's start going down the road of looking for more excuses to blame Lord Chelmsford..

CTSG I think our friend Waterloo was asking if it made Lord C culpable that the camp was so woefully ill-prepared. I don't think it should be taken personally. I don't blame anyone for my ancestors death, I celebrate his meeting his death as a brave man & a soldier.

I was replying to Steves post, or am I missing something.

No obviously I was

CTSG

Talk to Waterloo, he asked you a question. I have no interest in your views on my posts or your manner of responding to them.

Steve

The force at Isandlwana was more than adequate, I think not. Look at the outcome. Regardless of how the men were positioned. A better line of defence could have caused higher casualties to the Zulu but I honestly believe that the speed and numbers of the Zulus and the tenacity in which they fell upon the line would have overwhelmed even a well entrenched army.

The subject of ammunition supply has been covered on the forum before but its worth mentioning Ian Knights take on this myth, 'the expenditure of rounds by font line companies in battles of the Victorian era is suprisingly low . During the battle of Khambula three months later, the imperial infantry expended in four hours an average of 33 rounds a man. The fighting at Khambula was no less intense than isandlwana.' The doctrine of the day was a slow and steady rate of fire. Each man in the 24th started the battle with seventy rounds each.'

Somehow CTSG I don't think that there is anything that I could say that would alter your thinking on the situation, however, I respect your opinion and enjoy debating with you.  

Regards

Waterloo

Martini-Henry. At Isandlwana Who was first to fire on who!