Order to Pulleine from CLERY the 22 january about the defense of the camp

Bonsoir à tous, (amateurs, historians, researchers, "guiding star"...)

CLERY then realized that apart from the message sent to DURNFORD no instructions had been issued for PULLEINE in charge of the camp during the absence of GLYN.
So, on his own initiative, he gave his famous instructions to PULLEINE “to defend the camp”.
It does not appear that PULLEINE received any other orders.

CREALOCK in his private journal wrote “Major CLERY, (col. GLYN’s staff officer), said later in the day [22 january], in Col. CREALOCK’s hearing, that Col. PULLEINE had been distinctly ordered to draw his circle of picquet closer in, and to defend [CREALOCK’s emphasis] the camp.”
Source: The Royal Archives, Windsor, RA/VIC/O 33/34 quoted in “Zulu Victory” p.238)

In the supplement of the London Gazette of the 15 March 1879, CREALOCK again wrote that during the day of the 22 january:”I subsequently heard Major CLERY state that he had left precise instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel PULLEINE “to defend the camp” (point 8 p.2212)

These testimonies from CREALOCK are generally recognized as suspect by the authors, for it was only on the morning of 23 January at Rorke’s drift, that CLERY, for the first time mentioned to CHELMSFORD that he had given orders to PULLEINE.
“He [CHELMSFORD] was perfectly alive to the heavy consequences that might arise to himself, for neither he nor Colonel GLYN knew that I had issued orders and when on the morning after Isandlwana, after our return to Rorke’s Drift , he had gathered the facts that the troops were taken out of camp to attack the Zulus, he only remarked: “How unfortunate!”. But when I pointed out to him that this was directly contrary to the written orders I had left for the defense of the camp, he scarcely seemed able to for an instant to realize that I had left these orders and then said: “I cannot tell you what a relief it is to me to hear this” (letter to ALISON, 23 April 1879).
This vebatim statement has been accepted as historically accurate.

Edward DURNFORD in “A soldier’s life and work, (p.224)” wrote: “A captain* of the 24th regt, who marched out with the General’s force [the 22 january] distinctly says that neither Lord CHELMSFORD or his staff left any orders, but that, when miles aways from the camp, Lord CHELMSFORD asked what orders had been left for Colonel PULLEINE”.
Note*; “The officer is in India, and I have no authority to use his name, but he is well known to have taken a great deal of trouble to collect the best evidence obtainable (I.E: Penn-Symons????).

So it’s possible that the “vilain” of the piece", CREALOCK was right…
If it is the case, it seems to me that the others testimonies of CLERY are maybe questionable.

Cheers
Frédéric

I have always thought Crealock was responsible for the cover up. When his note was found, that showed he hadn't ordered Durnford to take command that was the telling evidence that showed something wasn't quite right. Perhaps LC relied on him a bit to much.

Hi Frederic.

Yes, it is true that LC never thought to leave any orders for Bvt Lt Col Pulleine.

I wouldn't know if Glyn had it in mind to issue any orders for Pulleine, because as you know, his column had been hijacked by LC, who had more or less usurped command of Glyn's column, making poor old Glyn take a back seat in all matters, as every order that was sent was sent by LC, even reports coming in were passed to LC, more or less making Glyn a passenger in his column.

It wasn't until LC was leaving on his wild goose chase in the early morning, that it dawned on Clery that Pulliene had not been issued with any orders regarding the camp, so he took it upon himself to issue Pulliene with some orders. Clery knew that this was totally wrong, because with him (Clery), being a junior officer to Pulliene, he was out of order doing that, ie; a junior officer cannot order a senior oficer.

There is a reference on the forum somewhere, in which Clery says that he knew he was wrong in doing it, and that he thought he would be for the high jump if it was found out that he had done this.

Sorry Frederic, I cannot think which thread it is in, maybe one of the 'Was Durnford capable' threads or even the 'Crealocks notebook' thread, but I do know that it was posted not all that long back on the forum (maybe search box might help).

Crealock's nickname wasn't 'THE WASP' for nothing, he would sting anybody to get himself and LC off the hook.

In the end, LC was only too glad that Clery had given Pulliene some orders, it was his 'get out of prison card' that helped him to alter things to clear his own backside and dump the blame onto the brave, but very dead, Col Durnford.

We only have Clery's word for what he is supposed to have quickly written and told Pulliene before he left the camp, so you never know, Clery may well have been involved in scapegoating Col Durnford.

It has always puzzled me why Clery's orders to a senior officer have been accepted by others, because if a junior officer cannot order a senior officer, then surely Clery's orders to Pulliene were unlawful, and therefor should have been null and void, however, it appears that they have been accepted by all concerned, ie; the Victorian Army (with all it's red tape), the COE, historians, researchers, amateurs, novices, learners, beginners, etc, etc, very strange.

You have made a very good point there Frederic, it will be nice to read some of the replies it gets.

Cheers.

Morning Frederic/Martin
Its always been a concern that a junior officer issued orders to a senior. And sure its possible that it was part of a 'cover up'. Expecially as no more than an hour earlier he had Crealock questioning his right to do so and that should have been fresh in his mind.
Looking at the other aspect of those orders, Clery was a Profesor of Tactics and what he had to say would have made sense in terms of the defence of the camp so from that point of view the orders were logical.
Was it part of a cover up?
I don't think so, and that's a personal opinion, Clery did have a good reputation and was ultra loyal to his CO, not so much to Chelmsford. His later letters and comments bare that out. So why would he want to cover up for Chelmsford ?
He could have course have lied about the note knowing that as it had never been sent it could never be found but that tends to be negated by the testimony that the orders were handed to Pulleine by Durnford and discussed out loud. So the burden of proof that the orders exist does tend to weigh down onto Clerys side.
Why would he have issued the orders?
Glynn himself was very withdrawn and took no/very little interest due to his being usurped by Chelmsford, possibly to the point of loosing interest in the running of his regiment. There is sufficient testimony to point towards a show of petulance on his part. That morning of the 22nd Clery seems to have bypassed Glynn in delivering the orders to Chelmsford and it could be argued that his issuing the orders to Pulleine, POSSIBLY IN THE NAME OF GLYNN, was just another example of a good soldier trying to do the best in the circumstances.
I would suggest that for Pulleine to have accepted those orders, and indeed Durnford, they would have to have believed that they emanated from Richard Glynn.

Good topic Frederic.

Bonjour,
There is no doubt for me that CLERY had given to Pulleine (written) orders (Stafford / Cochrane) for the defense of the camp.
My point is that during the "fight" about the blame, CLERY sought to protect GLYN and himself and put the blame for the disaster entirely on the shoulders of LC and CREALOCK.
This is the case by stating that on January 22 Chelmsford does not care during all the day whether orders had been given to Pulleine;
Cheers

Hi Frederic
I take your point and agree. Also evidenced by his later writings to Alison.

Cheers

Frederic

I think that Clery is providing directions for Pulleine in the absence of anything coming from Glyn. In my view it is exactly what a staff officer, using his initiative, should do. Remember he had already gone around and quietly raised the camp so that Chelmsford and Glyn could leave quickly with half the force. So in providing instructions for Pulleine about what was going on he was really doing no more than "tidying up". There is also nothing contentious about what he said,  it is a statement of the obvious. "You will be in command, you should act on the defensive, Durnford is coming up". I don't think he was part of any conspiracy and the reason he directed blame at Crealock and Chelmsford is because he felt they were culpable. It is a little odd that he said nothing to Crealock or Chelmsford until the 23rd. But by this time Glyn had gone from simply being withdrawn from events to  suffering deep shock and likewise Chelmsford. It must have been very hard for any of them to be rational.

Steve

Some good points there Steve, and like Springy says, he was very loyal to Glyn, but what a relief it must have been for LC when Clery said that he had given Pulliene some orders. Again, like Frank says, there must have been some written orders given to Pulliene by Clery as he showed them to Durnford when he arrived at the camp, however, we only have Clery's word for what he is supposed to have written in those orders, and Pulliene would have accepted them, as he would have assumed that they had come from Glyn or LC, he would not have known that they had not come from either of them, unless of course Clery told him that he had written them, in which case why did Pulliene accept orders from a junior officer?

Yes, poor old Glyn was devastated by the loss of his regiment, he must have had nightmares for quite some time after seeing the horror at the camp, as would most others who witnessed that.

It is Crealock who falsified things and told lies to cover himself and LC, and maybe Clery assisted unwittingly by giving those orders to Pulliene, and thereby giving LC a 'get out of prison card'.

Steve,
All Clery's testimonies are generally accepted as historical accurate and I think it's questionnable.
Cheers.
Frédéric

I see your point Frederic.

We only have Clery's word for what he is supposed to have written to Pulliene, and did he cover up the fact that it was he who had done it and just let Pulliene believe that the orders had come from either LC or Glyn? If he did tell Pulliene that it was he (Clery), that had made up the orders, then why would Pulliene accept orders from a junior officer? I suspect that Clery did not tell Pulliene, and that he let Pulline assume that they were from LC or Glyn.

A bit of a sticky wicket is that Crealock (in his journal), wrote that Clery said that he had ordered Pulliene to draw his circle of picquet closer in, and to defend the camp. But how do we know this for sure, as we only have Clery's word for that, or, then again, did Crealock just write that in his journal as an aid for himself and LC? Then yet again we have Crealock writing that 'I subsequently "HEARD" (my emphasis), major Clery state that he had left precise instructions to Lt Col Pulliene 'to defend the camp', could this be Crealock's way of using Clery in covering up for himself and LC?

Don't forget that Crealock and LC tried to implicate and burden Glyn with this, however, Glyn would have none of it, and Clery came to Glyn's aid in the matter.

It is more than obvious that LC was very relieved when Clery said that he had left orders for Pulliene, and could Crealock and LC then have used this information by adding or amending it to alter things to their own advantage, I for one wouldn't put it past them to do something underhand like that.

Cheers.

I don't quite see how Clery's evidence can be seen as covering his back. We know that Pulleine had orders to defend the camp. And we know that neither Chelmsford nor Crealock nor Glyn had issued them when they should have done. I think, in retrospect, Clery felt he had been put into a difficult position by all three of them and simply set out what he had done. I am not sure if you are saying he might have told Chelmsford about the order to Pulleine on the 22nd. Even if he did, I do not see that it changes anything and surely Chelmsford would have said so later?  If you are saying Chelmsford asked on the 22nd and Clery did not admit giving the order I wonder what evidence there is for that? I don't see any evidence for Chelmsford being concerned about the orders to Pulleine on the 22nd. You might conjecture that he would have begun to question himself once he had seen the destruction late on the 22nd, but the relief he is said to have expressed on the 23rd, when he did find out about the order from Clery, has the ring of truth about it.

You might say that the greatest fault lies with Glyn for not issuing any orders at all before he left a large proportion of his column to their own devices. It is not good enough, to my mind, to say he had been sidelined by Chelmsford and Crealock. I think Clery would have been only too keen to respond to any orders that might have been forthcoming, but there were none. Clery had a right to feel that he had been exposed by Glyn's inaction, but loyalty precluded him from saying as much. I don't think that blame for that can be laid directly at the doors of Chelmsford or Crealock. Glyn had capitulated command too easily to the detriment of the large part of his regiment and column that remained at Isandhlwana.

Steve

Ymob wrote:

These testimonies from CREALOCK are generally recognized as suspect by the authors, for it was only on the morning of 23 January at Rorke’s drift, that CLERY, for the first time mentioned to CHELMSFORD that he had given orders to PULLEINE.
“He [CHELMSFORD] was perfectly alive to the heavy consequences that might arise to himself, for neither he nor Colonel GLYN knew that I had issued orders and when on the morning after Isandlwana, after our return to Rorke’s Drift , he had gathered the facts that the troops were taken out of camp to attack the Zulus, he only remarked: “How unfortunate!”. But when I pointed out to him that this was directly contrary to the written orders I had left for the defense of the camp, he scarcely seemed able to for an instant to realize that I had left these orders and then said: “I cannot tell you what a relief it is to me to hear this” (letter to ALISON, 23 April 1879).
This vebatim statement has been accepted as historically accurate.

If this was the case, then the blame could have been laid at Pulleine's door, like Durnford he was dead.
which makes the Durnford the scapegoat issue null and void.

Impi,
This extract of CLERY's letter is not a new evidence.
This extract is cited in many books on the AZW and on this forum.
Sorry, but i don't see your point.
Cheers

This letter is quoted in "Zululand at war" p.128-129
Cheers.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Hi Frederic.



There is a reference on the forum somewhere, in which Clery says that he knew he was wrong in doing it, and that he thought he would be for the high jump if it was found out that he had done this.

Sorry Frederic, I cannot think which thread it is in, maybe one of the 'Was Durnford capable' threads or even the 'Crealocks notebook' thread, but I do know that it was posted not all that long back on the forum (maybe search box might help).


Cheers.

Bonjour Martin,
The reference is also in "Zululand at war", letter from CLERY to Archibald ALISON dated 28 April 1879 (p.128-129)
(I.E:And not 23 April, as i wrote wrongly in a previous post]
Cheers
Frédéric
.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

I see your point Frederic.


A bit of a sticky wicket is that Crealock (in his journal), wrote that Clery said that he had ordered Pulliene to draw his circle of picquet closer in, and to defend the camp. But how do we know this for sure, as we only have Clery's word for that, or, then again, did Crealock just write that in his journal as an aid for himself and LC? Then yet again we have Crealock writing that 'I subsequently "HEARD" (my emphasis), major Clery state that he had left precise instructions to Lt Col Pulliene 'to defend the camp', could this be Crealock's way of using Clery in covering up for himself and LC?

Cheers.

Martin, as I wrote previously they are two others witnesses who said that orders were really given to Pulleine to defend the camp. (Stafford and Cochrane).
-There is an excellent analysis of the Cochrane accounts in an essay written par Mr Julian Whybra: "The Cochrane accounts of Isandhlwana", "Studies in the Zulu War 1879: II".
-The testimony from Stafford (with a photo of him!) is quoted in "The journal of the AZWRS" (journal from Mr John Young not from Greaves-Mr John Laband) Volume n°2 issue n°1 (p.4-7 / "The flight from Isandhlwana: Survivor's desperate ride for life / source: "The Natal Mercury", Tuesday, Jan. 22nd 1929)

Cheers

Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

I don't quite see how Clery's evidence can be seen as covering his back. We know that Pulleine had orders to defend the camp. And we know that neither Chelmsford nor Crealock nor Glyn had issued them when they should have done. I think, in retrospect, Clery felt he had been put into a difficult position by all three of them and simply set out what he had done. I am not sure if you are saying he might have told Chelmsford about the order to Pulleine on the 22nd. Even if he did, I do not see that it changes anything and surely Chelmsford would have said so later?  If you are saying Chelmsford asked on the 22nd and Clery did not admit giving the order I wonder what evidence there is for that? I don't see any evidence for Chelmsford being concerned about the orders to Pulleine on the 22nd. You might conjecture that he would have begun to question himself once he had seen the destruction late on the 22nd, but the relief he is said to have expressed on the 23rd, when he did find out about the order from Clery, has the ring of truth about it.

You might say that the greatest fault lies with Glyn for not issuing any orders at all before he left a large proportion of his column to their own devices. It is not good enough, to my mind, to say he had been sidelined by Chelmsford and Crealock. I think Clery would have been only too keen to respond to any orders that might have been forthcoming, but there were none. Clery had a right to feel that he had been exposed by Glyn's inaction, but loyalty precluded him from saying as much. I don't think that blame for that can be laid directly at the doors of Chelmsford or Crealock. Glyn had capitulated command too easily to the detriment of the large part of his regiment and column that remained at Isandhlwana.

Steve

Bonjour Steve,

You know well that I respect your knowledge and detailed analyzes.
However, I do not appreciate your attitude towards me in this message.
So, I do not answer to your points.

With my respect.

Frederic

Frederic
I am not sure what I have said that has offended you, but if I have I did not intend it and I aplogise.
Steve

If I may clear up an issue gentlemen.
Its pretty conclusive that:
A) Clery did issue orders
B) In those orders were specific instructions.
From Stafford:
Durnford. "You have orders to draw in the camp."
Pulleine. "We can now discuss the matter."
Durnford."There is no time now, the scouts report the enemy is mustering behind the ridge."
From Cochrane:
Colonel Pulleine gave over to Colonel Durnford a verbal state of the troops in the camp at the time and stated the orders he had receive, viz., to defend the camp; these words were repeated two or three times."
And again when Col Durnford wanted to take out two companies:
"I think I can hardly do that, my orders are to defend the camp......................
So I would suggest its pretty conclusive that Pulleine had received orders and they did indeed contain specifics for him to follow.
The fact that Durnford backed away from his requests is also a pretty good pointer that he, Durnford, took cognisance of an order from a higher authority than he, being either Glynn or Chelmsford.
In my humble opinion Clery showed by his actions that he was a pretty good soldier. Just think if nothing had happened on the 22nd nd Chelmsford/Glynn had discovered those orders. Clerys career would have been over, he took a great chance and should be remembered for that.

Frederic
Not Steves style to insult mate. Kiss and make up my friends.

Bonjour steve,
Obviously, I misunderstood the tone of your message.
I believed (wrongly) that it was aggressive and I didn't understand why for the sames reasons given by "brother" Frank about your habitual behavior on this forum.
So I'm confused and I sincerly apologize .

Cheers.

frédéric

I.e: Frank, thank you very much for "your positive thoughts".

Frederic

That's a relief. I am sorry if I gave you a false impression, I very much respect your views and value your input.

Regards
Steve

If you consider the task ahead, i.e. preparation and organisation of the movement of troops in such a short space of time, there were bound to be some errors, for instance, LC first orders Clery to write to Durnford ordering him to the camp, when he should have asked Crealock and was corrected, but I’m thinking details like that weren’t that important at the time, the job got done anyway, albeit the original order LC wanted sent wasn’t, proving yet another mistake.
Clery was the senior staff officer to Glyn, I’m not sure but I would consider it part of his duties to ensure those under the command of Glyn knew what their responsibilities were in the absence of Glyn. Pulliene did not seem to have a problem with the instruction he received from Clery, if he did he could have quite easy made representation to Glyn. I would side with Frank in that Clery was a good officer.
It easy to point out the errors made from the comfort of our armchairs in 2015, perhaps some consideration should be given to their situation back then.
Miss-Understanding of orders in a Battle environment is nothing new, the Charge of the Light Brigade is testament to that. (Just one example)

Impi makes a good point. It is said that Durnford was used as the scapegoat?
LC now had the ammunition to show Pulleine was in command of the camp, and ultimately the loss of the camp was down to him.  So what is the point of attacking Durnford?

Now that's a good post. Well said LH

I think the reason Durnford was blamed rather than Pulleine comes back to Crealock. At the COI it is stated that Durnford had orders to come up and defend the camp whereas, as we know, he had left it with his force. That was enough to make him the obvious one to scapegoat. It is not until Crealock's actual order to Durnford is discovered, and it is seen not to have mentioned defending the camp, does the problem for Chelmsford begin. By then it is too late to draw back from blaming Durnford even though Pulleine is the only one who had actually been told to defend. Add to that the fact that Pulleine's order had not come from Crealock at all but from Clery and you can see why Chelmsford stuck to his guns. If he had switched horses and blamed Pulleine he would also have had to censure Crealock for not correctly passing his orders to Durnford. As Crealock was the only one of the three left alive it was easier to stick with the original scapegoating of "poor" Durnford.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

I don't quite see how Clery's evidence can be seen as covering his back. We know that Pulleine had orders to defend the camp. And we know that neither Chelmsford nor Crealock nor Glyn had issued them when they should have done. I think, in retrospect, Clery felt he had been put into a difficult position by all three of them and simply set out what he had done. I am not sure if you are saying he might have told Chelmsford about the order to Pulleine on the 22nd. Even if he did, I do not see that it changes anything and surely Chelmsford would have said so later?  If you are saying Chelmsford asked on the 22nd and Clery did not admit giving the order I wonder what evidence there is for that? I don't see any evidence for Chelmsford being concerned about the orders to Pulleine on the 22nd. You might conjecture that he would have begun to question himself once he had seen the destruction late on the 22nd, but the relief he is said to have expressed on the 23rd, when he did find out about the order from Clery, has the ring of truth about it.

You might say that the greatest fault lies with Glyn for not issuing any orders at all before he left a large proportion of his column to their own devices. It is not good enough, to my mind, to say he had been sidelined by Chelmsford and Crealock. I think Clery would have been only too keen to respond to any orders that might have been forthcoming, but there were none. Clery had a right to feel that he had been exposed by Glyn's inaction, but loyalty precluded him from saying as much. I don't think that blame for that can be laid directly at the doors of Chelmsford or Crealock. Glyn had capitulated command too easily to the detriment of the large part of his regiment and column that remained at Isandhlwana.

Steve

Steve, all,

My only concern with this topic is to be certain, to learn with the help of the others members,  if Clery and only him is a reliable witness in his narration of the events about the first campaign, particulary on Isandhlwana.
After reading in october all his letters in "Zululand at War", I fell that he sought to cover his back about the disaster of Isandhlwana.
At this stage of my thoughts, it's only an impression, nothing else.
I don't care whether he was a good or a bad Officer, this point is not my concern actually (same approach about Glyn, Chelsmford, Crealock, Pulleine...).
It's the reason of the hypothesis of this topic: his memory (or his recollection of events) is it "in fault" or not?
If it is the case (I.E: hypothesis: maybe in the purpose to cover his back) it seems to me that his others testimonies much be taken with a pinch of salt...

I have always in mind his famous recollection of the events of that famous morning of the 22 January when Lord CHELMSFORD issued his famous order to Durnford.
As you can see, my ambitions are limited, this topic for me has not others motivations.
That's all.

Cheers;

frédéric

Steve
I cant put my hands on it at present but I have a copy of the original report sent by Chelmsford to Frere from PMB. Open to correction but Im pretty sure that in there he refers to Poor Durnford leaving the camp.
If Im right then the blaming game started long before the COI

Cheers

About the sentence "I don't see any evidence for Chelmsford to be concerned about the orders to Pulleine the 22nd January" (Steve) we have:

-CREALOCK in his private journal wrote “Major CLERY, (col. GLYN’s staff officer), said later in the day [22 january], in Col. CREALOCK’s hearing, that Col. PULLEINE had been distinctly ordered to draw his circle of picquet closer in, and to defend [CREALOCK’s emphasis] the camp.”
Source: The Royal Archives, Windsor, RA/VIC/O 33/34 quoted in “Zulu Victory” p.238)

-In the supplement of the London Gazette of the 15 March 1879, CREALOCK again wrote that during the day of the 22 january:”I subsequently heard Major CLERY state that he had left precise instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel PULLEINE “to defend the camp” (point 8 p.2212)

I can not claim that such information was given by Clery (according to Crealock) at the request of LC.

-But according to E. DURNFORD, in “A soldier’s life and work, (p.224)” : “A captain* of the 24th regt, who marched out with the General’s force [the 22 january] distinctly says that neither Lord CHELMSFORD or his staff left any orders, but that, when miles aways from the camp, Lord CHELMSFORD asked what orders had been left for Colonel PULLEINE”.
Note*; “The officer is in India, and I have no authority to use his name, but he is well known to have taken a great deal of trouble to collect the best evidence obtainable.

I suspect that this Captain was Penn-Symons but I have not yet tested this suggestion...
Cheers

Frédéric

Frederic
Does Durnford have a source for the Penn Symons quote or would it have been given directly to him? I haven't picked up on that any where else.

regards

rusteze wrote:

I think the reason Durnford was blamed rather than Pulleine comes back to Crealock. At the COI it is stated that Durnford had orders to come up and defend the camp whereas, as we know, he had left it with his force. That was enough to make him the obvious one to scapegoat. It is not until Crealock's actual order to Durnford is discovered, and it is seen not to have mentioned defending the camp, does the problem for Chelmsford begin. By then it is too late to draw back from blaming Durnford even though Pulleine is the only one who had actually been told to defend. Add to that the fact that Pulleine's order had not come from Crealock at all but from Clery and you can see why Chelmsford stuck to his guns. If he had switched horses and blamed Pulleine he would also have had to censure Crealock for not correctly passing his orders to Durnford. As Crealock was the only one of the three left alive it was easier to stick with the original scapegoating of "poor" Durnford.

Steve

According to some authors, DURNFORD was the perfect choice for LC because he was not an infantry Officer.
Cheers.
Frédéric

Frank Allewell wrote:

Frederic
Does Durnford have a source for the Penn Symons quote or would it have been given directly to him? I haven't picked up on that any where else.

regards

Frank,
I copy verbatim the passage from the book of Edward Durnford.
The single note is "* Note: The officer is a ... India Obtainable evidence".
The interesting point is that E. DURNFORD was not a supporter of LC...

Cheers.
Frédéric

Hi Frederic
I understand where your going and your comments, Im just trying to fit that reported question of Chelmsford into the mental images I have of the man.

In terms of blame I would say that Durnford was blamed because he left the camp and that was seized on as weakening the camp. Once of course Crealock then told Chelmsford that Durnford had been ordered to 'reinforce' the camp Chelmsfords mind was made up. After that it was merely making the facts fit the story.

Cheers

Frederic

It is an interesting point and it would not be surprising for Chelmsford to ask about orders to Pulleine later on the 22nd when he had realised there was a real problem at Isandhlwana. My worry is that Crealock has his own agenda. He does not say who Clery was talking to when he overhears this supposed statement on the 22nd about leaving orders for Pulleine (Crealock always seems to be overhearing things!). The reference to testimony by a mysterious "officer of the 24th" by E Durnford is intriguing, but E Durnford also has an agenda I think. Whereas I tend to think that Chelmsford's reported relief the following day when Clery tells him he did indeed leave orders for Pulleine sounds genuine and not made up by Clery. But who knows? By the way, have you managed to get hold of a copy of Edward D's book?

Frank

I cannot see any reference to Durnford leaving the camp in Chelmsford's letter of 23rd Jan to Frere from RD. Nor in his letter to Cambridge of 1 Feb from PMberg. But that may not be the report you have in mind. However soon after the event the blame is laid on Durnford, I think Chelmsford has great difficulty in backing away from it.

Cheers
Steve

But my copy is not a first edition (modern edition).
I read somewhere that the notes of E Durnford had been removed after the first edition of one of his two books.
From memory, it's Mr Whybra (Rorke's Frift forum i think) who wrote this, but i am not sure.
Cheers
frédéric

Frederic
Which book do you have?
Steve

Ah then I would think Julian needs to answer the question nes pas ?

Steve
I need to do a search to locate the passage Im thinking/dreaming of. The phrase poor Durnford just sticks.

Get back to you. in the mean time can you look for the Higginson statement its bugging the hell out of me................................

In his report of the 24th January sent to London Frere makes note that the camp was under the control of Col Durnford and in a subsequent paragraph referes to the report of Lord Chelmsford in saying that: 'In disregard of Lord Chelmsfords intructions the troops left to protect the camp were taken away from the defensive positions they were in at the camp. With the shelter the the waggons parked would have afforded and that they were surrounded and fairly overwhelmed by force of number."
All that information came from Chelmsford or Archibald Forbes. Frere points to it as a product of Chelmsfords pen.
1) The camp was under Durnford
2) Orders were disobeyed
3) The wagons should have been laggered
4) troops were taken out of camp.
Those really are the 4 elements that were heaped on Durnfords head.

Im still looking for the Forbes report and the Chelmsfords PMB letter.

Cheers

Steve,
Your point of view is probable but not certain.
As you know, all Clery's testimonies are accepted as historical accurate by the authors but since I studied the Zulu war, I have learnt from Mister Whybra and Frank to take the allegations of the authors with a pinch of salt.
This learning  was very difficult for me!

Cheers.
Frédéric

From edward Durnford?
"A soldier's life and work in South Africa" ;
"History of the Zulu War and its origin";
"Ruin of Zululand" in two volumes.

Only the first is a modern edition. I bought my copy at the beginning of this month. (from memory the publisher is Military and Naval press). I have not yet finished to read it.
The 2 others are copies (by laser printer) of old editions.

For a "A soldier's life and work in outh Africa" it's Gary who kindly gave me the name of the publisher (I could not find copy of this book at a reasonnable price).
It's in this book, p.224 where I found the quote " A captain* of the 24th regt, who marched out with the General’s force ..."
Actually, i resarch a copy of the "Red Book"...at a reasonnable price.

Frank Allewell wrote:

Ah then I would think Julian needs to answer the question nes pas ?

Steve
I need to do a search to locate the passage Im thinking/dreaming of. The phrase poor Durnford just sticks.

I read this letter this week ("poor Durnford ") but I do not remember where!!!
I have a habit of studying several books at the same time...

Thanks Frederic. It is the "Soldiers Life and Work"I am after.
Steve

Steve,
I did not understand your request because I had given the source "for the Captain" in my first message of this topic!!!

Frederic

Yes, thank you, I saw your reply and I am just confirming that is the one I am after. I will contact Naval and Military Press.

Steve

So it would appear that what it all boils down to is that between them (Crealock and LC), made a pigs ear of the order that should have been sent to Col Durnford, ie; the order that Clery was originally going to write, but then Crealock interfered and did not write what was at first intended.

That order written by Crealock did not say to Durnford that he was to remain at the camp or to take command of it, and on top of that, there were no orders waiting at the camp for him on his arrival, and with Durnford's earlier orders being for him to more or less 'assist' LC, he would feel that he was quite at liberty to leave the camp to 'assist' LC.

Clery realised that no orders had been left for Pulliene, so he took it upon himself to issue them, and Pulliene accepted them assuming that they would have been from either LC or Glyn. When Durnford arrived at the camp, Pulliene showed him the order that he (Pulliene), was to defend the camp, and Durnford would also assume that the order had come from LC or Glyn. So when the report came in about zulu's heading towards LC, Durnford did the right thing and left the camp to find out what they were up to in order to protect LC's rear or flank.

After the battle, LC realises that he had left no orders for Pulliene and gets a sweat on, however, Clery comes to his rescue and tells him that he (Clery), had left orders for Pulliene. Crealock then realises that he had made a pigs ear with his written order to Durnford and added the lie that he told Durnford to take command.

Now both LC and Crealock (realising that between them they have made a right cock up), connive a plan to blame and scapegoat Durnford to deflect the blame from themselves and Pulliene, in which case it would seem that Clery was indeed an innocent tool that was used in their agenda.

But by doing what they did, they blackened the name of an honourable and brave officer, so shame be on them for doing that.

I wouldn't say "Made a pigs ear of things" The order Durford received it neither here or their, both of the orders still informed Durnford he should move to the Camp. Although Crealock stated at the COE the order he sent to Durnford told him take command (we know it didn't ) but we have evidence that Durnford did take command.

I agree with LH perhaps we should consider the situation at the time. I don't think LC would have had time to make sure every order was perfect, he had men under him to do that.

As far as I'm aware Durnfords name was, as you say blackened for leaving the camp?
We can argue as to why he left the camp, but based on the fresh order he received from Crealock he should have just moved to the Camp.

Glyn should have been the one to ensure Pulleine had received proper orders not LC. Clery was the senior staff officer and was under the command of Glyn.

Gents,
Reading the comments above and in other threads, it has been suggested that Clery would possibly have gotten into hot water by issuing these orders directly to Pulleine without reference to Col.Glyn or Lord Chelmsford. Others contend that they were therefore illegal. An opposite view is that as Chief of Staff, Clery had an absolute right to issue orders using the authority of Col. Glyn since he saw an omission.
Is anyone aware of the correct protocol/ regulations in use in the army at this time to cover this occurance?

Regards

Bill8183 wrote:

Gents,
Reading the comments above and in other threads, it has been suggested that Clery would possibly have gotten into hot water by issuing these orders directly to Pulleine without reference to Col.Glyn or Lord Chelmsford. Others contend that they were therefore illegal. An opposite view is that as Chief of Staff, Clery had an absolute right to issue orders using the authority of Col. Glyn since he saw an omission.
Is anyone aware of the correct protocol/ regulations in use in the army at this time to cover this occurance?

Regards

I have looked for reference to ranks and responsibilities, but so far no luck. It would push this debate toward if we did know.
That aside for me, I don't think Glyn was bothered one way or another. He had taken a back seat and went along with LC wishes. If you look at Glyn's evidence at the COE he says he corroborates what Clery says. That's it from him. So I guess in a round about way he's okay with Clery's statement that he had issued orders to Pulleine.

Clery himself thought he had acted incorrectly,

I'v just re-read all the posts on this thread.  A few observations:
1. A specific answer to a specific question: there were 2 editions of E.Durnford's book.  There is substantial additional material in one (e.g. uVE warrior's account).  It's worth getting both for comparison purposes.
2. Some contributors on this thread have confused the orders given by Clery to Pulleine with the orders given to Durnford and have confused the circumstances surrounding the issuing of both sets of orders.  This has not helped the logical flow of the debate.
3.  Frederic began the thread by questioning the reliability of Clery's testimony based on what he is known to have said (and when) and believed to have said (and when) concerning his issue of orders to Pulleine.  Because of this, he asked whether members felt that there was reasonable doubt to question his reliability as a witness in general in his other statements made about the day.  Were there any examples of this?  That was the original question.
4. The discussion has dipped into this question and out again and confused it with Crealock's reliability, Chelmsford's responsibilities, and the circumstances surrounding Durnford's orders.  I have not joined in with this thread because of this confusion.  Apologies gentlemen, the original question is an interesting one and worth taking further but I feel the discussion has lost the plot.