Durnford was he capable.1

CTSG
It's just that the way you see is so ahistorical. You make your mind up what you're going to believe first, then any new evidence or information has to be bent to fit the picture you already have, rather than rejigging the picture itself. The first part of your forum name is really quite apt in many ways!

The other aspect to the orders being issued is probably the key one that we will never know about and thats the orders from Chelmsford to Durnford conveyed by George Shepstone on the 21st.

Regards

springbok

Exactly.


CTSG

I'm also intrigued by your posting:

"Chelmsford would not have known that he would be splitting his forces on the 22nd Jan. because of the call for assistance from Major Dartnell. The situation had changed. Durnford was then order [sic] to move to the camp. Which makes sense as the column there was reduced in numbers. Chelmsford would have ordered Durnford to follow him if thats what he wanted him to do."

How exactly had the "situation...changed"? The impi was still on the track ahead. The Column would still move forward. The next camp would still be sited on the Mangeni as planned. The orders sent to Durnford on the 22nd still conformed to the overall plan as outlined to him previously (and Durnford was not ordered to move to the camp and stay there. It may make sense to you in 2012 that it is common sense for him to have done so since the camp was reduced in numbers, but Chelmsford and Durnford did not have the benefit of hindsight. It does make sense in 1879 where the area behind Chelmsford was cleared and the impi lay ahead and was being monitored by Dartnell).

I put it to you that the situation changed only at 12.30 p.m. on the 22nd when the impi boiled over the escarpment and revealed for the first time the true extent of its numbers. Up until that time it was business as usual, or rather, business according to Chelmsford's big picture - you know the picture, the one you're already familiar with, where any new information is forced to fit into it, rather than change the shape of the picture itself.

Quote :

CTSG
It's just that the way you see is so ahistorical. You make your mind up what you're going to believe first, then any new evidence or information has to be bent to fit the picture you already have, rather than rejigging the picture itself. The first part of your forum name is really quite apt in many ways!

Julian the whole reason this Insandlwana issue is up in the air. Is because you bloody historians takes the facts jumble them around and add bits. None of you agree, you all have your own ideas as to what happen' then expect the rest of the world to see it as you do. Speculation, what if's and it didn't happen because it's written in a news paper, has to be primary source but because you can't find it in primary source it didn't happen. If it wasn't for Jackson " Julian Whybra would not exsitst" in the world of the Anglo Zulu war. Your whole perception of the Zulu War is base on Jackson's work.

Could have a worse mentor than David Jackson.

Seem to recall you getting your info at one stage from Wikepedia ? And once in desperation even quoting Fanny Colenso, on this string actually.

CTSG

So you think that new research is invalid and anything new discovered should be ignored and not allowed to alter the prevailing view? I'm sure you don't really. Your contributions to the forum are too passionate for you not to care about the truth.

As a by the by, I don't expect the rest of the world to see things as I do, though I do expect people to listen and assess and, if they disagree, to be able to disprove the conjecture in a logical fashion.

And, it's reasonable to expect the provision of primary-source evidence from an historian if something new is announced otherwise he could be pulling a fast one - and there have been plenty of those in the AZW.

Lastly, you're quite right, David Jackson has been a big influence on my thoughts (not the only one, though, I was corresponding with Morris, Emery, and Holme in the late sixties before meeting David in the early seventies, then Knight and Young in the late seventies, and then all the rest over the last 30 years). I'm assuming that you HAVE read Jackson's works in saying that my admiration stems from his being so meticulous, precise, and concerned with the truth that to gainsay him you have to nail down every last apostrophe. His view is difficult to argue against. He is also very generous with time, knowledge, and information. So, he's a decent bloke.

That said, my whole perception of the AZW is NOT based on Jackson's work. I won't have you telling me what I think. There are plenty of things David and I don't agree on, but there's no animosity; there's no point in being territorial about it (that would be childish); it's more a case of there are 2 or 3 ways of looking at a solution and neither of us knows which is correct - it's the fascination, you see...the old Voltairean thing about diasagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it.

And I don't insist that you BELIEVE what I write but I do insist that you RECOGNISE that there are alternative views. We should not be slaves to dogma or fundamentalist beliefs. Only open-mindedness will ever lead to enlightenment.

And, without the bloody historians there'd be no-one to write any bloody history and then there'd be no bloody forum!

Jackson's work is the best account of Isandlwana avalible, far better then most modern Interpretations of the battle.



Cheers

How very perceptive of you, DB. I wonder, do you think you could explain to CTSG why it is?

Hi Julian

No myths included, only 2 mistakes (one being a typo), easy to read, clear maps, clear sources
no opinion given so you can make up your own mind, no rubbish like ammo running out or Coys going down on
the retreat.




Cheers

What's the second mistake?

Where he says there's no reports of any men being found near the firing line, but Forbes and Bassage
record how a large body of the 24th was near the dongs.




Cheers

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Jackson's work is the best account of Isandlwana avalible, far better then most modern Interpretations of the battle.



Cheers

Hi DB14

Totally agree with you.


Regard
YMOB

:sleep:

DB
Actually Jackson wrote his account before the Bassage notes were discovered - on the other hand Bassage does not say he found 2/24th men on the firing line but records he found them where he'd left them that morning - on in-lying picquet duty on the far side of the Little Donga - not the same place at all. Forbes also does not say he found bodies on the firing line but lining the gully (the Little Donga) just beyond the camp lines. He was probably referring to the same group of 2/24th, presumably most of G coy.
CTSG
What's your problem now?

Two seperate issues are being mixed up.
Bassage recognised the bodies of the G company men, in the position of their prievious nights picquet. Thats the area between the two Dongas, mid point of the camp towards the right flank.

There were bodies on the firing line, refused, but not many. These were essentialy on the "knuckle" argueably members of the RA and close by the CS Wolff detachment, as recognised by Mainwaring. Along the line of the ridge there are also one or two cairns. These possibly from the companies, including Dyers, to the right of the Guns retreating back to the camp. From memory there are around 9 cairns stretching from the left flank of Younghusbands position down to CS Wolffs.
Outlying there are between the two dongas, closer to the 'little' donga, around twelve cairns and between the small donga and the edge of camp 6 or 7, from memory. The majority of cairns are from the eastern edge of the camp onwards.

Hope that helps.

...Also remembering that the cairns don't necessarily indicate the location of the bodies but where they were 'collated' for burial.

Julian I agree fully but what we can sumise is that in a particular locale there were a number of deaths. Could be over a radius of 50/100 metre but it points to an area of conflict.

I agree.

Mainwarings map 13/11/1879 although pretty sparce is, for me, probably one of the most enlightening. He emphasises the rocky ridge. " Signs of heavy fighting and determined stand having been made." And what I never realised was that on the southern end of the ridge was a kraal. Afterwards found, "full of dead Zulu". So a couple of possibilities, after the battle the bodies were collected there. ( Cant see that as most of them were taken away ) or the kraal was a shelter from the rifle fire. If indeed it was the second situation it shows again a very determined stand between the ridge and the camp area. And that is a fair distance of the firing line. This stand fits quite nicely into the position mentioned as being "a line of soldiers kneeling down and firing".

regards

regards

Why doesn't Black mention the G Coy men



Cheers

Quote :

Springbok. "Mainwarings map 13/11/1879 although pretty sparce is, for me, probably one of the most enlightening. He emphasises the rocky ridge. " Signs of heavy fighting and determined stand having been made." And what I never realised was that on the southern end of the ridge was a kraal. Afterwards found, "full of dead Zulu"

Mehlokazulu Kasihayo
Q: Where did you put the dead Zulu ?
A: They were buried in two grain silos in the Kraals, some in dongas and elsewhere. The Zulu died around isandlwana.

Hi Chard
Yep quite possible. There is the point that this particular Kraal was on the edge of the rocky ridge. Reallt really hard ground so I would doubt there would be a grain pit. They could have course just have been dumped in to the kraal area, but seeing as they went to a lot of trouble to clear the battlefield I cant really see that ! There is a donga around twenty metres away.
Interesting area though.

Cheers

Julian

If Durnford believed he was going to follow orders and join up with Chelsmford why did he instruct Capt. Barry's Coy of
NNC to accompany Raw and Roberts ?

Also why doesn't he mention his orders in the conversation ?

He sent Raw and Roberts out to scout, then on hearing the Zulus were retiring and may threated Lord C's Rear
he left to stop them "from joining up with the Zulu Chelmsford was already fighting with".




Cheers

DB
I shall pm you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Does anyone know the artist.

John wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Does anyone know the artist.

I don't know this particular one but it reminds me strongly of Jason Askews style

Hi All.
I also dont know the Artist but its a wonderful print and it is similar to Jason's work . I like it ! . If I had hanging space I'd be looking everywhere for one .
Cheers 90th.

The way the artist has captured the looks on the soldiers faces is amazing .

Hi all,
found it. it's one of Jason's works

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

4,500 bucks and it's yours :lol:

Some of his other paintings are also avaiable as prints for a (much) more affordable price .

[quote="John"]Hi Martin.

Clery states.

"I went to Colonel Pulleine's tent just before leaving camp to ascertain that he had got these instructions, and I again repeated them verbally to him. To the best of my memory, I mentioned in the written instructions to Colonel Pulleine that Colonel Durnford had been written to to bring up his his force to strengthen the camp[/color]. I saw the column out of camp and accompanied it.

"2nd Evidence.—Colonel Glyn, C.B., states: From the time the column under my command crossed the border I was in the habit of receiving instructions from the Lieutenant-General Commanding as to the movements of the column, and I accompanied him on most of the patrols and reconnaissances carried out by him. I corroborate Major Clery's statement"

Anyone saying "to the best of my memory" or " I corroborate so and so's story" immediately sets off my now I am suspicious alarm!
Remember what we have here. 2 Officers of the same regiment (Glynn and Clery), apportioning blame to a man of another, in an effort to exonerate one of their own chaps (Pulleine).

Mike Snook even today 133 years later is attempting precisely the same thing!!!

And there's me thinking, it was just Chelmsford trying to blame Durnford.

Again, it doesn't really matter what was said, and what wasn't said and who couldnt remember if they had said it. The fact remains and we all know Durnford was told to go to the camp and Isandlwana. He was not instructed to leave the camp, the decision to leave was down to him, for what ever reason.

And what Durnford was ordered to do, and what Durnford actually did do, does not matter either.
Whatever Durnford decided to do was done with the utmost sincerity and courage.
His decision to leave the camp may have been right, it might have been wrong, however, any decision he made was never going to save the camp - it was long lost beofre he arrived.
Durnford was an honest and honurable man and he did what he thought needed to be done. If this included taking the initiative to even "disobey an order" (which he had every right to do under the circumstances as outlined by Chelmsford himself) and doing what he thought needed to be done, he did not lack the courage to do so. He did not shrink or shirk from his duty.

Pulleine on the other hand?
He bottled it.
(And I am not sure I wouldn't have either in his dreadful situation).

Some good points there tasker, and I agree that Col Durnford was an honest and honourable man, it also shows what a well respected officer and down to earth man he was by the large attendance at his funeral. He was 'fitted up' good and proper by a mixture of Crealock, Chelmsford and Clery (and also a few others who sided with them). The court of enquiry was a sham, one only has to read chapter 8 'Web of Deception' starting on page 235 of the book "Zulu Victory" to see through the cover up and realise what a farce it was, and this web of deception blackened the character of this honourable man, and made him into the scapegoat for the defeat at iSandlwana.

Tasker, we may not agree on some things my friend, but this is one that I think we can both agree on.

Hi Martin

How does Clery set Durnford up ? ZV say he lied about giving written orders and that there is no evidence for them
ever being presetned to Durnford, yet Stafford clearly says the oposite, as do the officers of the 24th who were told
by a " special service offcier " that orders were produced. Also there is Clery's own statment that he left orders. So L and Q haven't done there homework on this bit.

So what message did SD take to Durnford when he was stationed at RD.

Why did Durnford go to Isandlwana.

Impi

You asked the same question a few months ago. Marin also answers it above.

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

I know, and I'm asking again. The point I'm trying to make, Is he was instructed to go to Isandlwana.

Impi, don't waste your time. I know what you mean.

Yes impi, Col Durnford was ordered to go to the camp at iSandlwana, however, in the original order, there is no mention of him being ordered to take command, reinforce or strengthen the camp.

All this mentioning of him being ordered to take command, reinforce or strengthen the camp is mostly assumption by others, and this came about due to Crealock altering orders after the carnage at iSandlwana (to save Chelmsford's backside), so that it would appear that it was all Durnford's fault because he disobeyed orders, which he did not.

I posted the original order to Col Durnford a few posts back (7th Sep 09.44 am), take a look impi, you will see that there is no mention for Col Durnford to take command, reinforce or strengthen the camp. Don't forget that Durnford was in command of an independent column, and I think that Chelmsford wanted him nearby just in case he (Chelmsford) ran into trouble at or on his way to support Dartnell near to Mangeni.

Impi

What Durnfords last order stated, what happened to it and why Crealock lied about it is explained in my article

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





Cheers

Longhurst stated that he had seen Stepstone remove packet the shape and size indicated to him that it might have contained official documents. It was Fanny Colenso who, jumped to the conclusion that it was Chelmsford’s last order to Durnford.
Regarding Stepstone being accused of removing these so called documents he was was cleared by a court of enquiry.

Thanks LH. So Longhurst never said it was the actual order. Just some documents.

Ulundi. The long and short of it, one has to make his own mind up as to wether the document found in the draw at the RE barracks Chatham, is the original. I think not.

A what if ??

What if Pulliene had given Durnford the two Compaines of the 24th, would this have not been benifical to the Battle it's self. We know Durnford was forced to retreat, but would that have been the case with the two companies of the 24th all good and steady shots, 6 to ten rounds per minute. That would have had a devastating effect on the Zulu ranks, coupled with the rocket battery and Durnfords own mounted infantry. Perhaps Pulliene was a bit to hasty in his decision. Would be interested to hear if members agree or think otherwise.

Quote :

Ulundi. The long and short of it, one has to make his own mind up as to wether the document found in the draw at the RE barracks Chatham, is the original. I think not.

LH. What makes you so sure it's not the original. See link posted by DB. It's pretty clean cut.