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

Such is the way of the forum, mental meanderings.


PS Clery was a good soldier, a gossip no doubt ( letters to Alison) but loyal to the hilt in backing Glynn. Possibly like most 'out going' fopps likes to add a touch of self aggrandisement but as a direct answer I would believe in him until its proved differently and that has yet to happen
Cheers

I corroborate Franks statement above.

Aw shucks LH yer a kind man.

Bonjour à tous,

Mr Whybra,
Thank you very much for your intervention and for your help, rational as usual...

Frank,
Your assertion (I.E: Clery was...loyal to the hilt in backing Glyn) is probably correct but remains questionable.
I dont forget some very harsh comments made by CLERY about GLYN
In y humble opinion, the true question is to know the motivations of CLERY in his defense of GLYN : pure selflessness, personal interest or for the two reasons...

I am off-topic, maybe this question needs an another threat...

Cheers.

frédéric

This is not a purely academic question: the answer to this question opens other doors... but I am

Hi Frederic
I would say that Clery was an out and out Sandhurst professor. A soldier born as they say. His loyalty really showed itself when Chelmsford started to direct questions at Glynn and were very adroitly intercepted by him. And that in true military terms so selflessness or personal interest no, I would say professionalism. Try and get inside the head of the Victorian officer class, there were things that could be done and things that couldn't, even the things that couldn't were done if done with 'class.' look at the way Browns supper was 'stolen' but was replaced with a bottle or such. That was theft really and in the lower classes would have been punishable, but in the upper class not seen as such.
It was not on for Chelmsford to try and critisize Glynn, but it was fine for Clery ( same regiment old chap). Condone M and C for leaving the field ( part of the regiment ) but berate the bloody Irishman for doing the same.
Does that make sense for you?

Cheers

Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879

From Clery after receiving information form Dartnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Crealock's intervention
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Clery's reason for issuing orders
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Frank,
It makes sence for me.
I have many interest to study the moral principles and the method of recruitment and promotion in the British army in the purpose to understand the power and domination of the British army in the world during the reign of Victoria.
You seem to forget that Isandlwana was an exceptional and inexplicable disaster for the British army, the Great Britain and the world, all the pettiness and rivalries between senior officers, the fascination of power, the defense of the honour of the name of the family, the possibly destruction of a military career for the responsibles of the defeat....
See all the actions of E. DURNFORD to defend the honor of his brother, see the action of Crealock, of Chelmsford after the disaster....


About the Captain unnamed:

The 2/24th Regiment was in India when E. DURNFORD wrote his book.
The 22 January, Captains CHURCH and HARVEY (2/24th) were with HARNESS;
W.P (PENN) SYMONS, also a Captain in 1879 is a plausible candidate: he wrote a manuscript of the battle of Isandhlwana which served later at the basis of the book "Historical Records of the 24th (...).
But I am not yet sure that he was with his battalion in India...

Cheers;

Frédéric

Coming back to E Durnford's book (Soldiers Life and Work in South Africa), I have been unable to find it on the Naval and Military Press site. Can I ask, Frederic, if you would check the publisher of your copy for me when you get a chance please. And do we know whether both of the versions mentioned by Julian are available as reprints please?

With thanks
Steve

Adding to your collection.

http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/rare-books/africa-travel-exploration/a-soldiers-life-and-work-in-south-africa-1872-1879/

Thank you LH. I know about that one but it's a tad more than I would want to invest!

Steve

I was referring to the two editions of:
Colenso, Frances E., and Durnford, Edward, History of the Zulu War and Its Origins, (London, 1880, 1st edition; 1881, 2nd edition).  The 2nd edition is the more fruitful.

Inter-library loan should be able to get this for you for a small fee (£3) from the British Library or for nothing if another library in your county owns a copy.

Thank you Julian, understood. Do you happen to know of a publisher of the second edition in recent times?
Steve

Steve
Possibly?
https://www.leonaur.com/index.php?route=product/search&search=zulu

Steve look in here!

Click Here

Bonjour Steve,
I am confused, The publisher is DP & G military and naval Publisher.
This book is not in the catalogue on the website but I bought to them a copy last month.
You can contact them at : info@military-naval-history.co.uk
To be forgiven, I can contact them for you........

For the book "History of the zulu war and its original" you can find an old edition for free on the website "archive.org" and many others books on the Zulu War (Gibson, Holt, Prior, Mitford, HB, Molyneux, Tomasson, Wood, Buller, Moodie, Wilmot...)
Sorry.

Frédréric

I bought to this editor "Local General orders" and "select document" by Keith I. Smith (not found elsewhere)...
They sent to me a gift: "dead was everything" by the same author....

Cheers

1880 Edition

https://archive.org/details/historyofzuluwar00colerich

Frederic
Select documents is going to be one of your best purchases.

Frank Allewell wrote:

Frederic
Select documents is going to be one of your best purchases.

I know Frank, i am very happy with this book

Steve, ensure you check that the modern publisher has reprinted the edition you want! They may not even know there WAS another edition!!

1881 Edition

http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/8561

ymob wrote:

Frank Allewell wrote:

Frederic
Select documents is going to be one of your best purchases.

I know Frank, i am very happy with this book    

I now look forward to the publication of "Studies in AZW 1879: III" by Mr WHYBRA.

Many thanks all.
Steve

THe boook could be beter wout colso

Not intending to interfere in any way, but I wonder if that agrees with the Evidence provided in the Supplement to the London Gazette (pg 2212 & 2213) which can be found at https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/24695/page/2199? I was hoping to use it as part of the bsais for part of my timeline, but digging into it soon had me rethinking.

Anyhow, I trust that this may be rather interesting indeed. I am currently reading "Maori" Browne's book "Lost Legionary in South Africa" and that also seems to shed some pondering over quite who had orders to do what.

Happy reading.

Arthur
Caution!
Re the Gazette - its publication is too close to events for any real thought to have been put into the veracity of its contents. Ensure independent primary-source corroboration before you use anything in your timeline.
Re Browne - it's written in 1912 and therefore cannot be taken as Gospel (faulty memory and age having played their part) plus he also has a reputation for embellishing the truth. Ditto re corroboration.

Many Thanks, Julian Whybra. Yup, I am taking all matters with due caution, I think. Re: Mr. Browne,, an adventurous tale and a yarn well spun, but a yarn none the less, me thinks. Tales of American frontiersmen etc quite similar, but, as noted and like many books, they are written for their audience and often perhaps some embellishment is included.
Even statements issued, have to be verified and corraborated as they may be apt to attempt to portray events as the writer saw fit. Your warning and caution well received, thank you. Also most relevant is also where such and such an individual was physically in relation to events and the recounting.
It is partially these above factors that has led me to put rather little stock in the "evidence" submitted by Crealock as times are qute distinct in one area but rather vague in others. Questions I try to keep in mind when reading anything are: Who was the article written for, for what purpose was it written, is the information first-hand knowledge or heresay? I do hope that I am not rather harsh in this approach, but I have become rather jaded and cynical of many things over the years.
All responses and suggestions are most welcome. I really do know almost nothing with regards to these matters of war, the Anglo-Zulu War and Isandlwana in particular.

CTSG
put your teeth back in.

Steve (Rusteze) wrote on another threat:"Even with eyewitness statements you need to look for corroborating evidence. If you cannot find any then it is wise to remain open minded...nothing to do with dismissing anything".

Of course, I am totally agree with this approach.
Who did corrobate the statement of Clery? (I.E: LC / 23-01-1879: "I cannot tell you what a relief it to me to hear this").
Cheers

About the Captain unnamed:
Captain CHURCH is definitely not a possible candidate:
"Captain CHURCH returned to England shortly after Isandhlwana. He sold his commission in 1880".
Quoted in "Invasion of Zululand " p.137 note 45

Cheers

Frédéric

Frederic

I agree, no direct corroboration. Comes back to your question, do we trust Clery or do we not? On balance I think I do, but I cannot be sure. There is some corroboration that Clery told Chelmsford he had left orders for Pulleine, because Crealock mentions it in his evidence, but he says it was later on the 22nd. Chelmsford later infers that orders were left for Pulleine by himself rather than Clery - but that is part of the "fog" that is being generated.

Keep looking my friend!

Steve

I will post again.

Clery's reason for issuing orders
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Bonsoir Steve,
All evidences (as you know) suggest that LC did not bother to give instructions for the defense of the camp to Pulleine before ( I wrote knowingly "before") he left the camp. He only gave evasive instructions to DURNFORD (we do not know for sure why: to strengthen the camp or for any other assignment) .

I stop searching, for the moment, inconsistencies in the testimonies of CLERY with others evidences given by Chelmsford, Crealock and others...


Bonne soirée.
Frédéric

....even if there are apparently others inconsistencies, for exemple about the site of Isandhlwana...I have already prepared a note on this subject.... in French !

Lock and  Quantril  comment on Clery's reasons (as quoted by LH) for leaving orders for Pulleine. They say that in going around to speak to all the commanders of the24th and the RA he would anyway have spoken to Pulleine. That it was obvious that once Pulleine was in command of the camp his duty would be to defend it (ie he did not need explicit orders to do so and it is no great ommision by Chelmsford Or Glyn). That it was clearly not too late for Clery to consult with Glyn (as Clery says it was). If you accept any of that as reasonable then perhaps it supports the idea that Clery's statements might be questionable.

Steve

Steve,
I am not sure to understand your point:scratch:
I wrote: "all evidences suggest that LC [not Clery!?!?!] did not bother to give instructions for the defense of the camp to Pulleine".
As, I wrote previously, all evidences show that Clery gave verbal and written order about the defense of the camp to Pulleine (Stafford, Cochrane, "the staff officer" who was Cochrane himself according to Mr Whybra) BEFORE leaving the camp.
I am not agree with the thesis of L&Q (from memory they wrote that CLERY didn't give WRITTEN orders to Pulleine, the death of his orderly of Clery was convenient for him etc)
It was certainlynot too late for Clery to consult with Glyn (as Clery says it was)...
Interesting point maybe about his "secret "motivations.
In realty, i have in mind inconsistencies in his recollection of events with others testimonies on the same event.
Cheers
Frédéric

My point is only that L&Q seem to question Clery's motivation for saying what he did (I understand you are asking about his consistency). But was it reasonable for Chelmsford/Glyn to assume that Pulleine would ensure the defence of the camp without the need for explicit orders? Nobody thought an attack was going to happen and, if it did, surely Pulleine could cope - what else was he there for?  I have a certain sympathy for that view.

PS I have just ordered a copy of Clery's book on tactics.

Steve

Not sure if this may help or further confuse the matter, but in his (Crealock's) evidence, he stated that '8. I subsequently heard Major Clery state that he had left precise instruction to Lieutenant Colonel Pulleine "to defend the camp".' Supplement to the London Gazette, March 15, 1879 available as PDF from their archives.
However, I am not able to discover what this was SUBSEQUENT TO, nor does he seem to mention whom Major Clery made this statement to.
Apologies if it only adds to the confusion, but such seems to be the form of the evidence submitted which has one other factor which troubles me and that is that the evidence, although signed by Crealock, who was Acting Military Secretary, has no date with the signature when the "statement" was made which I find a bit unusual for someone of such a position.
Its like making a jigsaw puzzle of a blank piece of paper where all the pieces are the same shape and size.

To add to the confusion, In the same abovementioned article, Capt Gardner states in his evidence that he "left the force with the general about 10:30am, and rode back to Isandlwana camp, with the order to Lieutenant-Colonel Pulleine to send on the camp equipage and supplies of the troops camping out, and to remain himself at his present camp, and entrench it.

Steve, as I said previously, i am also interested by CLERY's motivation. I have also a symathy for this view.

Some points about the "choice " of Isandhlwana:

« Hill of the Sphinx » p.17 note 22
“Clery report; he says that (on 20th January) the Isandlwana hill was “the point selected by the Lieutenant General commanding as the halting place for that night. “Crelaock noted against this that “the neighbourhood of the would have been more correct, had the General fixed the site. I know from his own lips, on the 22th, that It would not have been on the same post. Harford’s describes how the camp was laid out under Clery’s supervision before the move there, presumlably on 17th January when Chemlsford rode to Isandlwana and back . In a subsequent exchange of memoranda with Chelmford , Glyn mentions that he overruled CLERY on the relative positioning of two units camps, probably the 1/24th and an NNC battalion. Clerys says that the 1/24th was placed on the southern flank to protect it.

See the statement of HB on the same subject in “The lost Legionary”
See the statement of MANSEL about the choice of the site (“Zulu Victory” p.132)
See the statement of FINNEY (“Zulu Rising” p.251)

Finally, for the "worshipers" (Frank   ) of CLERY these words of Chelsmford himself:
“The camp here  shows that neither he  or CLERY habe learnt anything from Isandlwana! – The latter is I fear an impostor in the field –His place is that of Professor at a military school”.
(Letter from Lieutenant-General LC to Brigadier-General H.E. WOOD, Dundee 1 May 1879, quoted in “LC’s Zululand Campaign 1878-1879” by John Laband p.164-165)

The note of the editor of "Zululand at war" about the character of CLERY after the studying of his letters is also interesting:
"Vain, able,critical of friend and foe, egoctistical and amusing".
Captain J.F MAURICE (Wolseley's staff) wrote about him: "tendancy to belittle the services of good men ...he is the last man I should rely on to say a good word of me behind my back".

Sorry, but I have some difficulties to see in these words a "Gentleman" of the Victoria era....

Cheers.

I.E Steve, i don't have  a copy if this book, please could you tell us if it is an interesting book?

Arthur Wright wrote:

Not sure if this may help or further confuse the matter, but in his (Crealock's) evidence, he stated that '8. I subsequently heard Major Clery state that he had left precise instruction to Lieutenant Colonel Pulleine "to defend the camp".' Supplement to the London Gazette, March 15, 1879 available as PDF from their archives.
However, I am not able to discover what this was SUBSEQUENT TO, nor does he seem to mention whom Major Clery made this statement to.
Apologies if it only adds to the confusion, but such seems to be the form of the evidence submitted which has one other factor which troubles me and that is that the evidence, although signed by Crealock, who was Acting Military Secretary, has no date with the signature when the "statement" was made which I find a bit unusual for someone of such a position.
Its like making a jigsaw puzzle of a blank piece of paper where all the pieces are the same shape and size.

Bonjour Arthur,
Sorry, but this source is quoted in my first post on the subject.
Cheers
Frédéric

Time to go to bed.
It 's three o'clock in France.
Tomorrow, i work...Wake:6h30 a.m.
Goodnight.

Bonjour à tous,
Does someone know why Captain CHURCH (2/24th) is "returned to England shortly after Isandhlwana"?
and why did He sell his commission in 1880?.

Cheers

Frederic

He went off to Florida to grow oranges!

"Hugh Backhouse Church was born in Leitrim, Ireland, about 1842, and was assigned to the 24th Foot in 1863 as an instructor of musketry. He was a captain at by the time of the Zulu War in 1879. He retired from active duty with the rank of major by 1881, when he was living with his cousin at Brooks Mansion in Abergavenny. But, soon thereafter he and his wife joined the "English Colony" on Lake Conway, near Orlando, Florida. Here they were the organizers of an annual regatta until 1895, when the "Great Freeze" destroyed their citrus grove and forced them to return to Wales. Colonel [sic] Hugh Backhouse Church of Halidon House, Abergavenny, was listed as a magistrate for Monmouthshire as late as 1906."
Posted by forum member wsmorganv


Steve

I was about to post the same link!!
Thank you steve.

It was thought he had been KIA at Isandlwana! But of course he was out with LC!

Frank Allewell wrote:

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

Frank, Steve
About the sentence "poor Durnford".

Just the beginning of the answer about the source of this statement:
"and that it was upon their representation that the High Commissioner's telegram about "poor Durnford's misfortune" was sent"

Source: E. DURNFORD: "A soldier's life and work in SA" p.279

Cheers

Also page 554 of IK's Zulu Rising (hardback). "As early as 3 February the High Commissioner Sir Bartle-Frere wrote to the British Government back home referring to "poor Durnford's disaster"..."

Steve