Lord Chelmsford as a Commander

A concise evaluation of L. Chelmsford as Commander that appeared in the Illustrated Police News of 22 March 1879 (originally in The Telegraph). In 130 years we have not really moved much, if at all,  from its conclusions, even on Durnford's opportunities.  Ever since that time, we have largely been re-stating the "bleedin obvious" (at least, most of us have). Despite the Court of Inquiry, they were not daft back then!


Steve

Gardner coming in for some populist approval, after the letters sent of by Clery he certainly needed it.

Cheers

So doe's LC, some very valid points there, regarding the various fortifications!

Good find that Steve. It appears that others could see back then that LC didn't practice what he preached in his own orders. I agree with Steve, the clipping states the "bleedin obvious", except I don't think that Col Durnford did have the time (about an hour or so), to rectify the "painful neglect of ordinary precautions" (error), that his general failed to carry out. On the other hand, Pulleine had quite a few hours to at least make an attempt at better defences long before Durnford arrived, especially after the numerous reports coming to him of zulu activity in the area.

I don't think that Col Durnford did have the time (about an hour or so), to rectify the "painful neglect of ordinary precautions" (error), that his general failed to carry out. On the other hand, Pulleine had quite a few hours to at least make an attempt at better defences long before Durnford arrived, especially after the numerous reports coming to him of zulu activity in the area....says Mr M Cooper!.

Reckon your bang on there mate, iv'e been saying that for more years than i care to remember,
and when it was sometimes very unpopular to say so! even up to ten years ago i could feel the
resistance and the ranks closing..i think most now accept the Whole portion of blame has
found its home..at his Lorships feet! nowhere else.

Yes which brings us back to TMFH!

Thanks Les.

You are not alone mate, I have also been saying it for years.

When you are not all that busy and have a bit (well, quite a lot really), of time on your hands, have a trawl back through the many threads regarding Col Durnford. You will find that there is some very interesting posts from both sides of the fence (so to speak). It will take you a while mate to sort out the wheat from the chaff, but there is some good reading amongst it all.

Cheers buddy.

If you read the artical correctly, it's referring to Col Dumfords miss-interpretation of the order.

Going back to your interpretation of the artical. Are you saying he didn't have time to draw the wagons into some sort of laarger, open ammuntion boxes, setup ammuntion stations, locate the men into formations nearer the camp.

CTSG
There really was no reason for him to have done that. The camp wasn't under threat at that point. He did what he should have done, send out recce parties to find out what was going on. If there is a fault to be found its in his, to my mind, impetuous dashing of in pursuit of an unidentified force on an unidentified course with an unidentified threat. He did have the option to do that considering the orders he was acting under and his roll as a column commander. BUT. There was no need for him to have done that, at that point in time. He needed to have understood more of what was facing him, in that he shares the same blame as Chelmsford, they both did exactly the same thing with a similar level of knowledge on what they were to face................. pretty much nil.

Cheers

Hmm. It doesn't say Durnford mis-interpreted the order, it says he could, on his own responsibility,  have made a wise interpretation of a vague order and thus rectified the error of his general.

Frank is right to say that he needed to have understood more about what was facing him, and in that he shares the same blame as Chelmsford. Indeed, given his long familiarity with the Zulu, you might have expected him to know rather better than Chelmsford what the camp was about to face.

Although he did not have very much time, he could surely have improved the defensive position if he had been minded to, with that many pairs of hands available.

Of course, it's all very easy with hindsight.

Steve

Hiya Martin, i did try to go back, but there is simply
to much of it! my views on Durnford, Pulleine, Clery,
North Crealock and himself are not likely to change
now, of the many things i cling too, the main three are
the Dunbar/Clery incident..Melvill's comment re the
layout and dispositions and this damming standing
order from the man himself..

Hi Les.

Yes, there is quite a lot isn't there, some good posts amongst it though, and well worth a read if you ever get the chance.

Cheers mate.

Hiya mate, i will go over it all this weekend.   


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

My on going problem with Clery : He was a Major, when he went to see Pulleine did he say the order was from Chelmsford? If so he should have been Court Marshalled for telling a lie to a superior officer, or did he say that the order was from him to a senior officer? Again that cant happen. So how would Clery have 'told' Pulleine what his duty was? No doubt the order was written, testimony about it being passed back and forth at the meeting between Durnford and Pulleine abounds. But if Clery went to Pulleines tent how did he handle it, personally I don't believe he did.

Just another can of petrol.

springbok9 wrote:

My on going problem with Clery : He was a Major, when  he went to see Pulleine did he say the order was from Chelmsford? If so he should have been Court Marshalled for telling a lie to a superior officer, or did he say that the order was from him to a senior officer? Again that cant happen. So how would Clery have 'told' Pulleine what his duty was? No doubt the order was written, .

Springbok,
But, who had written the order to Colonel PULLEINE?
As you say, CLERY was only a Major.  
Cheers

Clery says he wrote it, and it was written, but how would Clery explain the fact that he had written it to a superior officer? That is the query that puts his calling in person in doubt.

Cheers

Frederic, springy.

If I recall correctly LC failed to write any clear orders for Pulleine, so Clery took it upon himself to write the orders and took them to Pulleine. In his evidence he could not recall the actual orders he wrote and only made a guess at what he thought had written.

Pulleine was a Bvt Lt Col and senior to Clery, so as a junior officer, Clery should not have been making out any orders for him, besides, Clery was a proven liar.

Cheers.

Its called a cover up! Clery remember recalled it from memory. there was no order!
in my opinion..Look at the actions of the three Principles. LC, Crealock, Clery! one
really does not have to be deaf dumb and blind to join the dots..and think what a
certain Richard Thomas Glyn was doing, he was in the throes of a nervous break-
down! he never discussed Isandhlwana in public till the end of his life.. he in my
opinion could just about take the loss of his battalion! but the immediate stench came
not from them oh no! the cover up began immediately, it was swift and it was sure!
Glyn was i'm sure tipped over the edge..strong stuff even from me you might think?
yes it is...over a hundred and thirty years later some cannot or will not call it straight!.
the establishment still exists and still holds power..i am not a tin pot anarchist but a
plain speaker who has no vested interest in any of this!. so i'm free to speak my mind,
if i am wrong on other aspects of the AZW..people cue up to set me straight! and quite
rightly..a spade will always be a spade no matter what its called!. is this piece sheer
and wholly unjustified speculation? then tell me so..but then tell me Why!.

springbok9 wrote:

CTSG
There really was no reason for him to have done that. The camp wasn't under threat at that point. He did what he should have done, send out recce parties to find out what was going on. If there is a fault to be found its in his, to my mind, impetuous dashing of in pursuit of an unidentified force on an unidentified course with an unidentified threat. He did have the option to do that considering the orders he was acting under and his roll as a column commander. BUT. There was no need for him to have done that, at that point in time. He needed to have understood more of what was facing him, in that he shares the same blame as Chelmsford, they both did exactly the same thing with a similar level of knowledge on what they were to face................. pretty much nil.

Cheers

I think there had been to many reports coming in prior to Durnfords arrival to say the camp wasn't under threat. Then we have Chard report of seeing large masses of Zulu disappearing behind the hill, this he relayed to Durnford. But then it could be argued that if the camp wasn't under threats it certainly was after Raw opened fire on those Zulus in the valley.

It was Glyn who placed LC in an awkward position. As we know LC did not want to go to Dartnells assistance when it was requested he said NO! It was Glyn who made representation to LC to go to his aid. So either way LC was on to a loser, in that if he didn't go and Dartnell had been wiped out, he would have received the same responce has he had after Isandlwana.

I know CLERY says he wrote the order to PULLEINE.
But Springbok says he can't have "told" PULLEINE what his duty was (he was a Major / PULLEINE a Lt Colonel).
So, he can't had written the order for the same reason.
But, we know that PULLEINE had received the order (several sources: COCHRANE account / (PENN) SYMONS - a Staff Officer, probably COCHRANE).

-COCHRANE and (PENN) SYMONS did not mention the name of the author of the order...
-We know that CLERY had said that he was the author of the order, but there is no witness....
-So my initial question, who is the author of the order?
.CLERY?
.Other senior Officer for the same reason: Only GLYN or CHELMSFORD : If it was the case why CLERY had said he was the author of the order? and why GLYN (or CHELMSFORD) didn't say that he was the author of the order?

In realty, i think that CLERY had written and/or "told" the order to PULLEINE, but as Springbok says, i don't understand"how would Clery explain the fact that he had written it to a superior officer?"


Cheers

I can see the circumstances in which Clery would write the orders. He was after all Glynn's Staff Officer and so, notwithstanding that he was junior in rank to Pulleine, I think he took the responsibility  to issue the order he thought  was important and would otherwise not happen because:  
                                     
                                      a.  Chelmsford was focussed on his exploratory foray away from the camp.
                                     
                                      b.  He knew Glynn (from past experience) would only refer him to Chelmsford and not take a decision himself.


I can see no reason at all to include Clery in any conspiracy theory. He was doing what you would expect a thinking staff officer to do - in effect watching Glynn's back.

Steve

Clery evidence COE.

"The General first ordered me to write to Colonel Durnford, at Rorke's Drift, to bring his force to strengthen the camp, but almost immediately afterwards he told Colonel Crealock that he (Colonel Crealock) was to write to Colonel Durnford these instructions, and not I. Before leaving the camp, I sent written instructions to Colonel Pulleine, 24th Regiment, to the following effect:—" You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn; draw in (I speak- from memory) your camp, or your line of defence"—I am not certain which-"while the force is out: also draw in the line of your infantry outposts accordingly; but keep your cavalry vedettes still far advanced." I told him to have a wagon ready loaded with ammunition ready to follow the force going out at a moment's notice, if required. 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 force to strengthen the camp. I saw the column out of camp and accompanied it"

He's careful in that he says " Instruction" not "Order"

Key difference: A directive is mainly an order, usually issued by an authority. A directive may establish policy, assign responsibilities, define objectives and delegate authority to those working in and with the authoritative figure. Instructions, on the other hand, act as guidelines.

Good point Littlehand. I think our Major Clery was a canny chap, not a villain.

steve

Did i hear the distant rumble of footsteps rushing to
answer my post? that would be a no!. focus please
gentlemen and stop pussy footing around.    we
are talking about the blame game! agreed?. if so, i
would ask you to put aside the order! where it came
from!! Chelmsford, via Clery, Glyn, Crealock, it comes
from the same place! to suggest there was no conspiracy
despite what we now know is ludicrous..so like a bunch
of sheep you go back to the default position, who sent
the order, who wrote the order, who saw them write it,
who saw them say it!.you come so far and yet you all
will go no further..trust your instincts..if any of you think
the chain of events are pure serendipity then say so! if
you think there was a cover up then say so!

It does all credit that we attempt to reason this out! but
has this debate ever truly moved forward? i am at a place
for sometime now, where i note who does not respond to
my overbearing assumptions, but no longer wander why!
i think the reason is clear. inconvenient truth is tradition-
ally ill received, and it takes a very bold person to break
out of the mould, i am not talking about my self! but if any
one wants to grasp the nettle, be my guest..

Steve i think that remark, naive in the extreme. no offence
intended.

Rusteze, Littlehand,

Plausibe.
CLERY did not respect systematically the formal rules.
(I.E:the story on the reception of the first message sent by PULLEINE the 22 January: CLERY handed the message first to CHELSMFORD himself not to GLYN, the column commander)

Cheers

Frédéric

I.E: I am also naive...

Glyn COE.

"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."

Les,

I don't think that GLYN and CLERY were members of the conspiracy...
I am not sure there was a conspiracy (Lock and Quantrill thesis/ "Zulu Victory")
Arrangements with the truth by CHELMSFORD and CREALOCK: certainly.

Frédéric the sheep  

Les
You said it yourself. Overbearing assumptions.

It seems to me the truth has to fit your ideas about the dastardly "establishment" then and now. Conspiracy there may have been, but it did not necessarily include Clery.

Believe me, extreme naivety is not one of my many failings. Simply, your instincts on this are not mine.

No reason for me to take offence, I think your mislead by your assumptions, but thats an honest position for you to take.

Steve

Col Richard Glyn was supposed to be in command of No3 column, however, when LC and his staff attached themselves to this column, LC 'usurped' (if that is the correct word) command from Glyn. Col Glyn had no influence on LC going to the aid of Dartnell, it was LC who thought that Dartnell had found the main Zulu army, and thinking it would be an easy victory, LC decided to set off with over half the column to confront them. In his eagerness to depart, he failed to leave proper orders for Pulleine, or for Col Durnford for when he arrived at the camp. Clery took it upon himself to do this (or so he said), but could not recall the wording he used, however, he did make a guess at what he was supposed to have written. Chelmsford, Crealock and Clery were all in some way involved in the stitching up of Col Durnford, especially Crealock, and at some time even tried to dump the blame on Glyn, however, Glyn saw through their scheme and resisted their attempts to frame him. The nastiest piece of work amongst them was Crealock, who's nickname was 'The Wasp'. The court of enquiry was rigged by both Crealock and Chelmsford, carefully selecting certain officers and witnesses, and only taking certain statements, many people back home saw through the scapegoating of Col Durnford, including the Duke of Cambridge.

Sorry frederic no offence intended, baa.   
i didn't say or think for one moment that Glyn
was involved in anything! inc running his own
regiment!. " funny the General asking me! what
he already know's ".

Steve, Overbearing assumptions....
It seems to me the truth has to fit your ideas about the dastardly "establishment" then and now...
your instincts on this are not mine....
I think your mislead by your assumptions, but thats an honest position for you to take....

Thank you for your honesty..yes they are honest opinions! but where in all this are your's..
i have noted your style of debate, and they confuse me! take your second line down. how
and when did i ever state that ' the truth has to fit my idea/ idea's?. that would be nowhere!
do you not agree that i have been consistent with my theory that there was a concerted
cover up in the immediate aftermath of that Battle!. if not say so. i do not see conspiracy
everywhere. i'm calling it as i see it, my overbearing style has nothing to do with it! people
in this place are big enough to take care of themselves, i take that as read.

Question 1. does any body think there was a cover up?. if yes! who was involved.  
   "        2 does any body think there was not?. if not state your reasons please.

John ; I dont know where you get the idea that Glyn had anything to do with LC going to Dartnell's assistance      you need to read the posts that I , and others , have many times placed on here ! . Martin is correct , LC took off to Dartnell's position , for one reason , and one reason only , he thought Dartnell had stumbled across the main zulu army . From memory the messenger arrived at Isandlwana from Dartnell and went to Glyn's tent , Glyn told him to go to LC's tent and tell him , Glyn DIDN'T even go to LC's tent with the messenger ! . This is documented on here , if you look through the old thread on this subject under a different topic heading you'll find it / them     
90th

Hi 90th, to quote a portion of your reply.

" Martin is correct , LC took off to Dartnell's position , for one reason , and one reason only , he thought Dartnell had stumbled across the main zulu army". ....

That is correct! so why oh why did he not take the ammo? if he thought
he was going or might confront the whole Zulu army?.

That's quite enough from me..as usual. i'm off Zzzzzzzzing.

Hi Les
I dont know why he didnt take the Ammunition with him , possibly because he left in the dark ? , wanted to get there quickly as possible ? , not have to worry about the ammo wagons slowing him down ? , the terrain ? and probably other reasons . I'm not sure LC thought it was the WHOLE army but most likely he was expecting a very large force , let's not forget , LC's main worry was bringing the Zulu army on for a quick decisive blow ! . He therefore possibly thought his men with 70 rounds each would be enough , plus he had Artillery which he thought would be more than adequate , he didnt realise ( complacency / over confidence ? ) the difference between those natives involved in the Cape Wars compared to the Zulu ! . Have a good kip Les   
Cheers 90th   

Les

Sorry if I confuse you, I do my best. Didn't say anything about overbearing style, it was overbearing assumptions - a different thing in my book.

In the context of the supposed conspiracy you say " the establishment still exists and still holds power". I say this view of the  nature of "the establishment" colours your assumptions about what happened back then ( I would be interested, by the way, to know what examples you have in mind of the establishment holding such power today).

You ask what my opinion is, I thought I had set that out a couple of posts ago, but here goes. Chelmsford and Crealock may have conspired to mislead the Inquiry but more likely they simply supported each other (I don't regard that as conspiracy). Clery was not involved in that - he tried to do the right thing in representing to Pulleine what he thought Glynn would have ordered regarding the defence of the camp, by writing the instruction/order himself.

It wouldn't do if we all agreed would it, this forum would go the way of the other one.

Steve

Here is an interesting account of the Zulu War , although , Lt Fell wasnt at Isandlwana , he no doubt spoke to some of those who were out with LC ! . For Fell to be scathing on LC's conduct at Isandlwana , it does appear other Officers thought the same and relayed their thoughts to Fell , including those it would seem , who were out with LC . 2nd Paragraph for those who may be interested   

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

Cheers 90th

[quote="xhosa2000"]Sorry frederic no offence intended, baa.   

Bonjour less,
No problem for me, no reason for me to take offence!!!

  

Amitiés.
frédéric

Getting interesting but loosing track of my original thought. How could Clery deliver a message to a senior officer and say he wrote it himself? He couldn't, so that leaves a number of options, say it came from Chelmsford or say it came from Glynn. Look very carefully at that order, or at least what Clery says is the order, there are a number of highly contentious issues. He says that 'HE, Pulleine will remain in control of the camp', this after knowing that a more senior officer, Durnford, is on his way, and knowing that Crealock has been told that Durnford will assume command ( matters not that Durnford wasn't told that, Clery had heard the discussions earlier and would assume the message he had been told to send would be the one actually transmitted by Crealock) Surely there are contradictions there?
Clery's reference to drawing in the piquets etc smack of after thought.

Cochrane doesn't mention seeing an actual order, he specifically says the orders were passed verbally.
Stafford says in one statement that he saw the orders being passed between Pulleine and Durnford. But in a second statement says he remained outside the tent and 'heard' Pulleine explain the orders.
Smith Dorrien says he 'heard' a discussion about the orders, Essex makes no mention of the issue.

We do know that Pulleine had orders, this was debated by he and Durnford. We don't know what they were, except for Clery's reccolections. Clery really had no interest in protecting Chelmsford, in fact after the event he was a prime mover in protecting Richard Glynn. So would it be a possibility that Clery's whole motives in issuing those orders were to protect his Commanding Officer, not Chelmsford, and therefore by extension he issued the orders in the name of Glynn !

The fact that Chelmsford found solace and relief that Clery had issued that order is neither here nor there. I would say that it was Glynn that was being protected so Les a long round about way of answering your question as to the possibility of a conspiracy between Clery and Chelmsford.

Why Chelmsford didn't take the ammo ? Ive heard it said that he didn't want to be held up by slow moving wagons across the donga ridden plain. ( Gosset would have briefed him on the condition of the track im sure) If that's an acceptable reason then one has to ask the question why did he take the guns? They were so badly bogged down that whole company had to be left to guard them and a second route had to be found.

With regard to the conspiracy, I tend to go with Steve. Surely if Crealock did intend to leave the permanent stain on Durnfords character he would have burnt, buried or destroyed his diary instead of making it available and giving Edward Durnford the true text of his message to his brother. hell I would have.

More grist to the mill

Cheers

Hi Springy
Have you seen my post two earlier than your latest ? , very interesting and .......no , I'm not going for it !   
I have my eyes on a bigger prize    
Cheers 90th   

Hi 90th
Yep saw it, interesting auction this month. There are a few that MAY tempt me. Interesting to see that The Battlefields of South Africa by Gail van Lingen is back again. Still way over priced for what it is. Pretty sure its the same seller as well.
A good buy is the Historical Monuments of SA by JJ Oberholser. I have it and enjoy reading it. But its a big heavy book. The postage costs will kill it.
But the Fell at 4000 to 5000 dollars......................................................... ah.
Bigger Prize? Intrigued.

Cheers Mate

springbok9 says:
"He [CLERY] says that 'HE, Pulleine will remain in control of the camp', this after knowing that a more senior officer, Durnford, is on his way";(...)

From memory, Mister JACKSON in "Hill of hte Sphinx" had been surprised by this contradiction but didn't give explanation.
I am curious to know his "secret thoughts" on this subject. Maybe Mister WHYBRA (who has worked with him as you know) knows the answer.
It's also interesting to know the point of view of Mister WHYBRA.
In summary, for you, CLERY would have protected GLYN, as CREALOCK tried to protect CHELMSFORD...
The truth is certainly between the explanation of Rusteze (I.E: Yesterday 11.37 PM) and your.
We know that CLERY didn't respect GLYN ( I.E. "lethargic man" / letter to ALLISON from memory) but he has helped him in the affair of the blame after the disaster.
In this affair, by helping GLYN, he certainly (also) helped himself.
Cheers

Frédéric

Springbok,
Just a precision:

You had written:"Cochrane doesn't mention seeing an actual order, he specifically says the orders were passed verbally".

"The Cochrane accounts of Isandlwana" by Julian Whybra See note 8:
"According to the testimony of a special-service officer who was present (...),Col. Pulleine went into his tent and brought out his written orders, to which Col. Durnford demurred so far as to say,"Well my idea is, that wherever Zulus appear, we ought to attack (...). The special service'officer is almost certainly Cochrane".

Cheers

It certainly is a contradiction. I cant put any explanation other than in all the rush and excitement of the advance he just got confused.
Ive looked at the various statements, the one you mention is 'attributed to Cochran'. Cochran himself makes no mention of it himself, and that suprises me as in his various statements etc he has been pretty painstaking in recording issues.
Im aware of what Julian has written but there is a point to be made. The manner in which he has laid out the conversation tends to put that conversation as having occurred during lunch and was then followed up my Melvills intervention. As it occurred during that lunch it is also possible that it could be attributed to Essex or Smith Dorrien or even Curling. And I don't know from where its made its appearance. Jackson does'nt attach a specific footnote but as an overall to the paragraph says it comes from a combination of Cochran and Higginson. Ive gone through both of their statements ( plural for Cochran) and cant find it. Symonds fails to mention the incident either. I would assume that at some point Julian will read this and add a clue.

Cheers

LC as a commander?

Well, Garnet Wolseley was sent out to replace him after iSandlwana, however, LC must have got wind of this and pushed through the second invasion to defeat the Zulu at Ulundi before Wolseley arrived, but LC never commanded an army again, so it shows what they thought about him back home doesn't it?

No matter which way you look at it, Crealock, LC and others, conspired to put the blame on the dead Col Dunford in an effort to protect LC's and their own backsides. Between them they blackened the name of a brave and honourable officer and made him the scapegoat for LC's failings.

Springbok,

I have sent a PM to you.

Regard

Springbok haid said:
We do know that Pulleine had orders, this was debated by he and Durnford. We don't know what they were, except for Clery's reccolections. Clery really had no interest in protecting Chelmsford, in fact after the event he was a prime mover in protecting Richard Glynn. So would it be a possibility that Clery's whole motives in issuing those orders were to protect his Commanding Officer, not Chelmsford, and therefore by extension he issued the orders in the name of Glynn !
The fact that Chelmsford found solace and relief that Clery had issued that order is neither here nor there. I would say that it was Glynn that was being protected so Les a long round about way of answering your question as to the possibility of a conspiracy between Clery and Chelmsford.

Springbok,
From Keith I. SMITH (source RD forum Topic "How can men died better" / 2 Novembre 2005:
"We have only the evidence of Clery that the orders were indeed written, and there may be some truth in the suggestion that Clery did not in fact write them down but merely conveyed them verbally in his haste to depart the camp. It might be supposed that the writing of the orders was a later invention by Clery to protect his Lordship, a feature of Clery's personality which comes through very clearly from his letters to Alison".

SMITH and you are agree on one point: Clery's  motives were to protect a senior Officer, CHELMSFORD for him.

Hmmm.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Hmmm.

Hummm (also)  

As I said earlier, I would believe that Clery tried to protect Glynn. The fact that Chelmsford got benefit from it was his good luck. Collateral benefit. In that series of letters quoted by Steve there are abundant examples of him protecting Glynn at Chelmsfords expense. To that end I would disagree with Keith Smith.

Cheers

if it wriggles on the ground, slithers, and then spits out its
venom.. its a snake!