WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

Zulu Dawn: General Lord Chelmsford: For a savage, as for a child, chastisement is sometimes a kindness. Sir Henry Bartle Frere: Let us hope, General, that this will be the final solution to the Zulu problem
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
Major-General Sir William Penn Symons
( Isandula Collection)
History Buffs: Zulu
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Top posters
90th
 
littlehand
 
Frank Allewell
 
ADMIN
 
1879graves
 
rusteze
 
Chelmsfordthescapegoat
 
John
 
Mr M. Cooper
 
impi
 
Fair Use Notice
Fair use notice. This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website. If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution.
Top posting users this month
90th
 
xhosa2000
 
rusteze
 
Victorian Dad
 
Frank Allewell
 
SRB1965
 
John Young
 
ADMIN
 
Julian Whybra
 
Gardner1879
 
Most active topics
Isandlwana, Last Stands
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
Durnford was he capable.1
Durnford was he capable.5
Durnford was he capable. 4
The ammunition question
Durnford was he capable. 3
Durnford was he capable.2
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
The missing five hours.

Share | 
 

 Who was in charge at iSandlwana

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
impi

avatar

Posts : 2308
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 38

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:37 am

Dave wrote:
Martin you need to get a better understanding of what orders were issued, not what orders you think should have been and by whom!

Clery.

"The General first ordered me to write to Colonel Durnford, at Rorke's Drift, to bring his force to strengthen the camp, "

It makes know diffrence wether or not Clery had the rank to issued orders. LC ordered him to write the Order. If Durnford had received the order above he would have know what was required of him.
No mention of operating against Matyanas.

We know what order Crealock really sent, and again no mention of Durnford operating against Matyanas.

And we know, what order Crealock claims to have sent and again no mention of Durnford operating against Matyanas.

And I would have thought, LC would have been far to busy, to do everything himself, that's why he had staff under him.

 agree agree agree 
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2565
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:29 am

I agree with Martin.
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6908
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:56 am

Martin
First Paragraph, I agree, unless different instructions were issued at the meeting between Chelmsford and Shepstone on the 21st the ongoing battle plan called for Durnford to operate in tandem with Chelmsfords column.
This is where it starts to get foggy. On the surface yes the original battle plan was still in action. provided of course that Chelmsford was also following it, but was he? If the answer is no he wasn't then Durnford was left with the order of the day, which as we know ordered him up to iSandlwana and nothing more. He was an independent column up to that point but then in this scenario he has effectively joined with Chelmsfords column thus creating the debate with Pulleine on who would be senior in rank and in control of the camp. This conversation took place early in the visit. I don't believe Durnford took control but equal he was guilty of interfering with Pulleines command and I don't believe Pulleine was strong enough to stand up to Durnford. However that digresses.
In the second scenario if the answer to the above is yes then Durnfords obligations in respect there were no other instructions was very clear, follow the plan. And that we know he didn't.

So now the moment we diverge and the crux of that divergence.
You are of the opinion that because the situation on the ground changed Durnford had the freedom to adapt and pursue an alternate to the 'battle plan' laid out by Chelmsford. And of course did exactly that.
My viewpoint is different. I don't believe the situation had changed. The reports coming in, and those reports all come from the report of Cochran are over a period of time and don't reflect all the reports just a selection, hes pretty clear on that. Harry Davis mentions one other report, a Carbineer named Bullock. And that is probably the key report in that he says the impi is 6000 strong and was heading towards the general. But its a single report and we don't know where Bullock was when he sighted this impi. We do know that no sentry posts were further than the Quabe Valley So I would be sceptical if Bullock could actually have reported the direction taken by the impi with any degree of accuracy. That's proven by the known fact that it didn't exist The impis in question were swanning around over the top of the Nyoni ridge and as far back as the Ngwebini valley. So Bullocks report is questionable from a historical point of view.
Durnford obviously doesn't have the hindsight we have, but, he never confirmed any of that intell so it was more rumour, unsubstantiated rumour. He had his own troops scanning the top of the ridge, one would think that in the event of any sighting of a large scale force those troops would send back a message, which of course eventually did happen. But significantly later, late enough that Durnford would be half way down the Quabe valley. And that was not part of the 'battle plan'
So to sum up , on questionable information Durnford has abandoned the 'battle plan' of Chelmsford, really not knowing that in doing so he has put Chelmsford in trouble, and not knowing weather Chelmsford is expecting him to be the other half of the pincers or not and to what degree Chelmsford has committed his force to 'the battle plan'.
Or succinctly, Durnford has been as rash as he was at Middle Drift and ignored orders based on what he wants to do over ruling his Commander in Chief. Extremely Rash and I would venture to say that if the battle had not taken place that day then Durnford would have been relieved of his command on the 23rd for disobeying a second time an order from a superior officer.

If that doesn't cause some S**T to fly nothing will  Very Happy 

Cheers Mate
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:30 am

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana Today at 8:20 am Reply with quote
Whatever. No I'm sure there will be someone on here (Les) who will agreed with the way you see it..

If the x marked my spot!.
I dont agree with any body just for the sake of it dave. i have agreed with comments of your's in
the past, you would not know that.
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:16 pm

springbok9 wrote:
Extremely Rash and I would venture to say that if the battle had not taken place that day then Durnford would have been relieved of his command on the 23rd for disobeying a second time an order from a superior officer. If that doesn't cause some S**T to fly nothing will  Very Happy 

I'm sorry Springbok, but now you really have gone a bridge too far.  Had there been no battle that day the Zulu impi would have been discovered nonetheless through Durnford's various scouting initiatives.  Had that caused Chelmsford to relieve him the General would have an even worse reputation than he has currently.  It would have confirmed that Chelmsford preferred the weak and ineffectual "leadership" provided by Pulleine over a man who had demonstrated actual competence in an area where the column was severely deficient: reconnaissance.  So, IMO if your supposition is actually plausible it indicts Chelmsford even more conclusively as the root of the problem.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:34 pm

Got to agree
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 2084
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : France

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:48 pm

6pdr wrote:
Quote :
 the Zulu impi would have been discovered  through Durnford's various scouting initiatives.  
Exactly my thoughts !...that DURNFORD respected or not his orders, a fight with the Zulus this day was inevitable!
Cheers.

Frédéric
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:49 pm

Hi Springy.

Well, you do make some very good points mate, but I still think that Durnford was obeying orders.

In LC's rebuke he states that he would 'certainly expect him to disobey any orders from me if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column'.

The information Durnford had received could well have proved very injurious to LC and the rest of the column, so what was he supposed to do?

In your post you seem to be saying that Durnford should have kept to the pre arranged 'battle plan' regarding the Matyanas. So although Durnford had been informed of zulu movements around the camp by Chard, and then arrived at the camp and again been informed of zulu activity around the camp, and even though he could see that Pulleine had done next to nothing to find out what they were doing, are you saying that he should have ignored all this and set off to become the other part of the pincers with Bengough?

Yes, ok, the order of the 22nd did not cancell out the move against the Matyanas, in fact it more or less reinforced it. And it did not say that he should take command of the camp, it did not say that he was to reinforce or support Pulleine, but it did mention Bengough's move and it did say that LC had moved and would be around 8/10 miles distant, thus conveying the impression to Durnford that the move against the Matyanas was under way.

Well mate, maybe you are right, if Durnford had ignored the zulu reports by Chard and Pulleine, and just stopped by at the camp for a brew and a natter, then set off to become the other part of the pincers with Bengough, well, at least he couldn't have been rebuked again for disobeying orders.

It all boils down to the fact that LC should have made his intentions clear, and made sure that he had issued clear orders and instructions to Pulleine and Durnford as to what he wanted them to do, but he failed to do that, and Clery and Crealock can't really decide what they 'think' they wrote, one tells lies and the other can't recall the exact words he used, all in an effort to cover up LC's failures and get him off the hook and dump the blame on the dead Durnford.

Cheers mate.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:53 pm

Les, I hope that you got Dave's permission before you agreed with 6pdr  Very Happy 
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:58 pm

Mr M. Cooper wrote:
Les, I hope that you got Dave's permission before you agreed with 6pdr  Very Happy 

 Wink   Very Happy   Very Happy   Very Happy 
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:04 pm

6pdr.

 agree 
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6908
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:06 pm

Ah sorry chaps did I wake you up?
6pr
Sorry should have illustrated my point a bit more. IF the attack had not happened ( Yes Les It did and I do know your a realist but hear me out). If the attack had not happened and Durnford had just gone cruising of into nowhere Chelmsford would have boiled him in oil. So definitely not a bridge to far just a tad of extended supposition is all to illustrate the possible consequences of disobeying yet again.
Les
My contentions are not put out there to denigrate Durnford, he was an extraordinary man indeed, but to try and get to the man himself.
Martin
The above goes to you as well as Les, I do know your support for the man. My comments are in no way intended to diminish that but really just to explore who he had become and by extention his fallibilities,
I do believe that in the Bushmans pass incident he lost an enormous amount of credibility with Natalian Society and that affected him to a great degree, same with his stance on the disputed territories.
He was without doubt hell bent on improving that image and that says a lot again about his qualities. But in eulogising the man we cannot bury the faults or overlook them.
Martin I don't expect every body to agree with me, I had a pm saying: " you come in through some F***ing strange doors, one day one is going to close and bounce you up the A**se, but not this one."
That's from a well respected Author that's given me hell on some of my more outlandish thoughts. ( Outlandish Me???? )
But your last paragraph is the key one and says it all about Chelmsford, lousy communicator.

Cheers

Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6908
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:08 pm

agree Think out of the box.  Salute 
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:21 pm

Hi Springy.

It's like I said regarding Chelmsford's family motto.

Cor Enim Mauris.

 agree 
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:30 pm

springbok9 wrote:
agree Think out of the box.  Salute 

Thinking out of the box is invaluable because it forces us to confront our assumptions.* WRT Isandlwana, that's the only way any new insights are to be gained at this late date. And even if there are no new insights to be gained, it's better than Sudoku.

Party on, Springy!  Salute 

* That said, I can't see separating Durnford's actions (sallying forth from the camp) from the benefits of his actions (discovering 20K+ enemies encamped a few miles away.) That's just not cricket!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:50 pm

Les, I hope that you got Dave's permission before you agreed with 6pdr Very Happy

_________________
Remember The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment not the Hoax.

'Non te seducat a hoax walensium'. 'Omnis Honor et Gloria in XXIV'.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message
6pdr



Posts: 871
Points: 861
Join date: 2012-05-12
Location: NYC


PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana Today at 12:58 pm Reply with quote
Mr M. Cooper wrote:
Les, I hope that you got Dave's permission before you agreed with 6pdr Very Happy

Wink Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

As i said, its enough that i say anything, and it gets peoples back up!
i really do ' let it go ' when the exchanges are over! i never hold a gridge,
its just tennis and virtual tennis at that..back and forth..but on the whole
i have no regrets.. i just think i am an opinionated bore at times, but i can
live with that. nice is as nice does... Very Happy   Salute   Joker 
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6908
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:51 pm

6pd
Happy to discuss football with an American but not a chance cricket !
 Very Happy 
PS Did your parcel ever arrive?
Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:23 pm

springbok9 wrote:

PS Did your parcel ever arrive?

Oh indeed, and I am most grateful. I did send you a PM in that regard weeks ago. Some of my public posts have disappeared into the ether so I suppose that one must have as well. I wrote that I keep your vistas up on my screen for inspiration. I was amazed to see how much sheer work went into doing all those captures -- especially the ones from elevation. Invaluable stuff...simply invaluable...particularly for my uses!
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:43 pm

Hi springy.

I have been reading through your post again (@ 10.56).

In it you say,

"if the battle plan was still in action, provided of course that LC was also following it, but was he? If the answer is no he wasn't then Durnford was left with the order of the day, which as we know ordered him up to iSandlwana and nothing more".

Well if LC was not following the battle plan that he had arranged with Durnford, why didn't he inform Durnford of this, and also why didn't he let Durnford know what he was supposed to do on arrival at the camp? Did he really intend to leave Durnford guessing as to what he was supposed to do once he got to the camp, did he really intend that Durnford and Pulleine would be debating who would be in command of the camp? LC knew that Durnford was the senior officer and that if he remained at the camp he would be deemed as being in command. I don't think that LC would have wanted an officer of engineers in command of imperial infantry, and if LC didn't really trust Durnford, then why would he allow this, it just doesn't seem to fit.

Durnford's orders did not inform him that he was no longer required to proceed in the plan against the Matyanas, they didn't tell him to take command, they didn't tell him to reinforce or support Pulleine, because if they had, this would have affectively given command of the camp to Durnford with him being the senior officer, and I don't think that LC wanted that. So why didn't LC make it clear in the order of the 22nd what he really wanted Durnford to do?

Didn't Durnford send a messenger (Shepstone?), to LC on the 21st to enquire about any fresh orders? Is there any record of what was said between LC and Shepstone, or is there any record of any orders that Shepstone took back to Durnford, as there always seems to be a dark area about this, and I cannot recall anyone mentioning finding any orders regarding the 21st on Colonel Durnford's body (unless of course they were found but hidden away and later destroyed), makes you wonder doesn't it, can you shed any light on this Frank?

Cheers mate.
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6908
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:14 pm

Hi Martin
Yep its a 'two pipe question'. Unfortunatly commands are never given in the negative, ie: don't do this and don't do that etc. Just the positive ie: Do this! Therefore as far as Chelmsford was concerned he had issued the correct order: Reinforce the camp. Unfortunatly it didn't get delivered the way he wanted. And as far as he was concerned for a goodly time afterwards he believed he had indeed issued the correct order.
Shepstone did go up to iSandlwana on the 21st, he was seen there and his presence noted, There is speculation that he never got to see Chelmsford as he was out scouting the Nqutu plateau. But there is no record of any orders being passed.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2308
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 38

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:45 pm

Speingbok wrote:
Therefore as far as Chelmsford was concerned he had issued the correct order: Reinforce the camp. Unfortunatly it didn't get delivered the way he wanted. And as far as he was concerned for a goodly time afterwards he believed he had indeed issued the correct order.

As we have been saying for god knows how long, perhaps he will listen to you.  Question Exclamation 
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:32 pm

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:33 pm

He did quite well, thank you very much!

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:34 pm

Back to top Go down
sas1

avatar

Posts : 628
Join date : 2009-01-20
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:42 pm

Source!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:08 pm

Those that know...do...ask nice, manners please!
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:23 pm

Hi Springy.

When Crealock interfered and said to LC that Clery should not be writing orders to a senior officer (column commander), and LC agreed and said that he (Crealock) should write it, surely should LC himself not have read the order that Crealock had written to check its contents and then sign it before it was sent? If he had read it first, he would have noticed the discrepancy and had Crealock write it out again to get it right. So obviously he didn't check it first, does this not show a laxness in LC's professional judgement?

So you mean that Col Durnford got issued with the wrong order, and because LC did not check it before it was sent, he (LC) was under the illusion that the correct order had been sent?

What is so strange about this is that if the so called correct order had been sent, ie; 'reinforce the camp', then LC would know that Durnford was the senior officer and would therefor be regarded as being in command. I find it a little strange that LC would want this after the rebuke he had recently sent to Durnford, surely if he didn't really trust him, would he really want him in command of the remainder of No3 column at the camp? Pulleine had been issued with an order saying that he would be in command of the camp in Glyn's absence, so why would LC also want to tell Durnford to reinforce the camp knowing full well that Durnford was the senior officer and would therefor be deemed as being in command, it doesn't make sense.

Another thing that doesn't make sense, is why would LC send an order back to the camp addressed to Pulleine if he had ordered Durnford up to the camp to reinforce it, when he knew that by doing this Durnford would be deemed as being in command, so why did he not address it to Durnford?

There is something not adding up with all this Frank, and it makes me wonder if it all wasn't part of the web of lies and deceit and the cover up that was arranged by Crealock.

Might well turn into a 'four piper' this mate. Very Happy   

Get that calabash out Springy agree 
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:40 pm

Hi Les.

Good post @10.34pm.

Someone with 'the little grey cells' has seen the light, it must have been Poirot  agree 
Back to top Go down
Ulundi

avatar

Posts : 557
Join date : 2012-05-05

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:24 pm

Does it matter if Crealock got upset, because Clery was asked to send the order. Crealock sent the wrong order anyway. Either way, it shouldn't have had any impact on the outcome of the battle. Nothing was happing when, LC left. When Durnford arrived. The situation had changed, both Pulleine and Durnford should have switched to Military mode, not arguing about who was in charge. What Durnford hope to achieved by riding out and meeting the Zulus in the open beats me.
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 2084
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : France

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:36 am

ymob wrote:
springbok9 wrote:
But in the long run was it important or not that Durnford was in charge between 10.30 and 11.30?

Cheers
Bonjour Springbok,
You already know my thought on this specific point...
Cheers.

I do indeed Fredric
Theres been so much discussed that I felt it would be in everyones interest to just put it down for comment.
Maybe you could repost to see what the forums comments would be.


Bonjour,
The question of the orders given to PULLEINE and to DURNFORD is one of the essential key of the problem and was widely discussed on this forum.
However, the question is not what CHELMSFORD wanted, nor what CREALOCK intented, nor what we believe, but it was what PULLEINE and DURNFORD believed'.

Just a recall, the orders given to PULLEINE and DURNFORD were:

-To PULLEINE (given by CLERY on his own initiative):
“You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel GLYN. (…) Act strictly on the defensive. (…) Colonel DURNFORD had been ordered up from RD to reinforce the camp”.
Just before leaving the camp, CLERY went himself to the tent of PULLEINE to ensure that he had got the order. He saw him and verbally repeated what his mission was simply to hold and keep the camp.

-To DURNFORD (given by CREALOCK) :
“You march at once to this camp with all the force you have with you of n°2 column. Major Bengough’s battalion is to move to RD as ordered yesterday. 2/24th Artillery and mounted men with the General and Colonel GLYN move off at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distant”.
The real intentions of Lord CHELMSFORD concerning DURNFORD and his troops were in reality “to reinforce the camp”.CREALOCK misread the instructions of the General.



'When DURNFORD arrived in camp, no one in the camp seriously thought the camp would be attacked' by the whole impi of CETEWAYO.
On this subject, Lt CURLING said: “We none of us had the least idea that the Zulus contempled attacking the camp, and having in the last war often seen equally large bodies of the enemy never dreamed they would come us”.
'The only sounds of gunfire thus far had come from the Direction of CHELMSFORD's advance indicating that is above plan was sound and he was thus engaged with the “Two Matynas”'.
'The likelihood of two separate battles occuring within about ten miles of each other would have seemed remote thus further allaying the fears of an attack on the camp and leading DURNFORD (at least) to interpret the conflicting reports of Zulu movements that morning as part of those engaging CHELMSFORD'.
I recall 'that CHELMSFORD's greatest concern for the beginning of the campaign seems to have been the difficulty percieved in forcing the Zulus to give battle and his mind-set was likely passed down to his commanders'.
If an attack by the whole army of CETEWAYO had been expected at this moment by PULLEINE, he would have adopted a defensive position, 'informed CHELMSFORD and held back DURNFORD'.
'PULLEINE was certainly not stupid.' Zealous, thorough, energic, all adjectives applied at times to PULLEINE by his superiours. (“Zulu Rising” p.320)

'An obvious problem was presented with DURNFORD's arrival, who was in command?'
'Lord CHELSMFORD hasn't issued clear orders to DURNFORD and PULLEINE and that is where the confusion starts' between the members of this forum.

'DURNFORD was a substantive Lieutenant-Colonel; it is possible that he may not have been informed of his brevet promotion to the rank of Colonel on 31st December 1878'.
'Lord CHELMSFORD had left behind in command of the encampment Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Henry PULLEINE of the 1/24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.
'PULLEINE's substantive rank was that of Major, so he was outlanked by DURNFORD.'
In accordance with the protocol the protocol, 'while he was present in the camp, DURNFORD was deemed to have taken command of it'. (“Zulu Rising' p.326/327)

COCHRANE leaves little room for doubt on this point: “I entered the Isandula camp with Colonel DURNFORD about 10 a.m., and remained with him as acting staff officer. On arrival he took over command from Colonel PULLEINE (...)”.
So, it's DURNFORD who decided to let Gamdana and his followers leave the camp freely.
It's also him who ordered HIGGINSON to send some natives to the top of Isandhlwana to watch the hills around.
Another example, CAVAYE was sent out to replace the NNC Company which was on picket duty at DURNFORD's instigation (source ESSEX according to CHELMSFORD).
Finally, his “suggestion” to PULLEINE that the men be “stood down”.

PULLEINE who 'was insistant on formally handing over control, including written orders and giving DURNFORD a situation report' (COCHRANE), obviously accepted the authority on him of DURNFORD and gave him the command.
We know that he said to DURNFORD: “I am sorry you have come, as you are senior to me and will of course take command”.
So, PULLEINE directed the report from HIGGINSON towards him.
From an academic point of view, 'it's possible that DURNFORD didn't de facto take command but assumed command because of his presence'  in the respect of the protocol...

In conclusion, 'there was no necessity to order DURNFORD to take command at Isandhlwana: by the fact of his being there and his rank, he was obliged to take command'.
When DURNFORD left the camp, command reverted to PULLEINE in respect of the protocol.
'What is perhaps more intriguing is who was in command when DURNFORD returned from the Donga.(II)'
'The other question, open to debate, is whether DUNRFORD was ordered to proceed to Isandhlwana and remain there'(III).

Cheers
Frédéric

I.E:This “memorendum” of my opinion on this specific question had been “rewritten” from various “notes and sentences” taken on this forum and on the Rorke's Drift forum (often out of their context), essentially from Julian Whybra, Mike Snook  and Springbok.
Apologize to these three authors (and the others) for the “theft”!
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
24th

avatar

Posts : 1843
Join date : 2009-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:09 am

Ymod wrote:
To PULLEINE (given by CLERY on his own initiative

Clery was ordered to write the order!

Pulleine was in command of the camp, in the absence of Col Glyn. Who we know was out with LC.

That tell's me Pulleine was in-command until Glyn returned.

But Glyn did corroborate all of Major Clery's statement.
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6908
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:47 am

Well done Fredric a really good summary of events. Salute 

There is of course one other point to consider that hasn't been touched on and that is: 'Why did Durnford see it necessary to send James Hammer to iSandlwana on the morning of the 22nd to ask Chelmsford for instructions, seeing as he had just been given the note from Crealock?"
He never got to see Chelmsford as that portion of the column had already left the camp, and he did arrive around an hour before Durnford.

Just a another pebble in the water.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:20 am

Hi Les.

Good post @10.34pm.

Someone with 'the little grey cells' has seen the light, it must have been Poirot.....


 Salute   Very Happy 
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:40 am

Well springy, I would have thought that was because the order that was sent by Craelock was a bit vague. Yes, it did say to come to the camp, and it also informed Durnford that Bengough was to make his move, and it also said that LC was going to be on the move, so this would have given the impression to Durnford that the planned action against the Matyanas was under way. But it didn't say that he was to take command or reinforce the camp, nor did it say that he was to stay at the camp, in fact it didn't make it all that clear what Durnford was expected to do once he arrived at the camp. Was he still to co-operate and support LC has he had been ordered to do, or had there been some change to these orders, ie; did LC want Durnford to approach the Matyanas from a different direction, did he want Durnford to follow him to cover his rear, or did LC have some other plan in mind, the order sent by Crealock was very vague, so he maybe sent Hammer to LC in the hope that he could get some better information and instructions as to what LC wanted him to do.

I have to agree with you Frank, that is a very good post by Frederic, well done that man. agree 

Another good point that 24th makes is that Pulleine was in possession of written orders telling him that he was in command of the camp in the absence of Col Glyn, the order didn't say he was in command of the camp until Durnford arrived, it said in the absence of Col Glyn, meaning until Glyn returned, so I think that all this misleading stuff like 'take command', 'reinforce', 'support Pulleine', etc, could all be some of Crealocks 'red herrings', chucked into the mix to deliberately throw people off the scent in an effort to get LC off the hook and dump the blame onto Durnford.

Hell Frank, I don't know about a four piper, it might even be a six piper  Shocked 

Cheers mate.  Salute
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 2084
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : France

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:54 am

springbok9 wrote:
Well done Fredric a really good summary of events. Salute 

There is of course one other point to consider that hasn't been touched on and that is: 'Why did Durnford see it necessary to send James Hammer to iSandlwana on the morning of the 22nd to ask Chelmsford for instructions, seeing as he had just been given the note from Crealock?"
He never got to see Chelmsford as that portion of the column had already left the camp, and he did arrive around an hour before Durnford.

Just a another pebble in the water.

Bonjour Springbok,
I am sure you are a theory on this point.
Cheers.

Frédéric

I.E: Thanks at all for your kind words on my comment.
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:09 pm

sas1, source, 1. French, Lord Chelmsford and the Zulu War.
Photo..French. 2. Zulu Victory.L&Q.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:11 pm

Back to top Go down
6pdr

avatar

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2012-05-12
Location : NYC

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:34 pm

ymob wrote:
I am sure you are a theory on this point.

Perspicacious as ever Frederic. I agree. At this point Springbok has shed his mortal coil and emerged from the cocoon as a new form of living, breathing historical theory.  Joker   Salute 
Back to top Go down
John

avatar

Posts : 2547
Join date : 2009-04-06
Age : 56
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:45 pm

Mr M. Cooper wrote:
Well springy, I would have thought that was because the order that was sent by Craelock was a bit vague. Yes, it did say to come to the camp, and it also informed Durnford that Bengough was to make his move, and it also said that LC was going to be on the move, so this would have given the impression to Durnford that the planned action against the Matyanas was under way. But it didn't say that he was to take command or reinforce the camp, nor did it say that he was to stay at the camp, in fact it didn't make it all that clear what Durnford was expected to do once he arrived at the camp. Was he still to co-operate and support LC has he had been ordered to do, or had there been some change to these orders, ie; did LC want Durnford to approach the Matyanas from a different direction, did he want Durnford to follow him to cover his rear, or did LC have some other plan in mind, the order sent by Crealock was very vague, so he maybe sent Hammer to LC in the hope that he could get some better information and instructions as to what LC wanted him to do.

I have to agree with you Frank, that is a very good post by Frederic, well done that man. agree 

Another good point that 24th makes is that Pulleine was in possession of written orders telling him that he was in command of the camp in the absence of Col Glyn, the order didn't say he was in command of the camp until Durnford arrived, it said in the absence of Col Glyn, meaning until Glyn returned, so I think that all this misleading stuff like 'take command', 'reinforce', 'support Pulleine', etc, could all be some of Crealocks 'red herrings', chucked into the mix to deliberately throw people off the scent in an effort to get LC off the hook and dump the blame onto Durnford.

Hell Frank, I don't know about a four piper, it might even be a six piper  Shocked 

Cheers mate.  Salute

Crealock.

"1. Soon after 2 A.M. on the 22nd January I received instructions from the Lieutenant-General to send a written order to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., commanding No. 2 Column, to the following effect (I copied it in my note-book which was afterwards lost): " Move up to Sandhlwana Camp at once with all your mounted men and Rocket Battery—take command of it. I am accompanying Colonel Glyn, who is moving off at once to attack Matyana and a Zulu force"

Although we know, Crealock's order didn't state" Take command" He does say at the COE highlight above. So either way it was never intended for Durnford to get involved against Matyana, well not on the 22nd Jan anyway. Which bears out, he was only required to reinforce the camp.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:49 pm

John.

Can you please point out where the order written by Crealock says "REINFORCE THE CAMP"  scratch 

And where do you get the idea that it was never intended for Durnford to get involved against the Matyanas?

And how does your highlighted text bear out that he was only required to reinforce the camp?

And again, where does it say this????

Crealock was a proven liar, he would say almost anything to get himself and LC off the hook, how can anyone trust anything he said?
Back to top Go down
John

avatar

Posts : 2547
Join date : 2009-04-06
Age : 56
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:10 pm

Martin I put reinforce, because that is Probably what was required of him. I should have said " strengthen"
As that would have been what the original and correct order should have said, if Clery had been permitted to send it.

I did say where it came from the COE.

The highlighted text above, is what Crealock said. The real problem with your theories is, you have nothing to substantiate he was required to operate against Matyanas on the 22nd. No matter what the wording is in the last order, it all relates to him being ordered to the camp. And it's common sense that, he would be ordered to the camp, to strengthen, reinforce, or take command. Either way there is not a mention of anything else relating to any other duties.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:52 pm

Who can state for certain who ordered what! and when..what an
unholy mess they all made of it! one word will always suffice..
Complacency!. two extracts from Coupland..

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:57 pm

Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2522
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:59 pm

John.

Sorry, but;;; 'Probably', 'would have', 'should have', 'had been',,, aren't much good when it comes to the meaning of an order.

The COE was rigged by Crealock and LC (remember the 'private' carriage ride to PMV).

Crealock may well have said these things at the COE, but like I said in my post, he would say anything to cover his and LC's backsides.

As quoted before, Col Durnford's move up to the camp, to 'co-operate', in the generals own words, was entirely in accord with Durnford's previous orders. And they were to support LC, not to take command, reinforce or strengthen the camp.

An order has to be clear and to the point, it is no use when it does not state what the recipent is supposed to do when the order is received, guessing at what an order means is not much use when mens lives are at stake. Both Crealock and LC are guilty of not following protocol, Crealock should have handed the order he had written to LC, and he should have read the order that Crealock had written to check it for any mistakes so that they could have been corrected, then LC should have signed it before it was issued to Durnford. It is obvious that this was not done, and after iSandlwana, when it was realised what this meant for both of them, they conspired and planned the rigged COE and organised a web of lies and deceit to clear their own backsides and put the blame onto the scapegoat Colonel Durnford.
Back to top Go down
John

avatar

Posts : 2547
Join date : 2009-04-06
Age : 56
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:00 am

The conclusion of the author of the book you posted. Not fact.
Back to top Go down
John

avatar

Posts : 2547
Join date : 2009-04-06
Age : 56
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:11 am

Martin you write as though LC had all the time in the world. Show me anything of primary source, that states Durnford was suppose to act on prior orders.

He received fresh orders on the morning of the 22nd move to the camp! Whatever action Durnford carried out when he arrived, was based on his own interpretation of the order, those a actions we know we're partly to blame for the lost of the camp.

We know Crealock lied, about the take command order, we have evidence to show that, but can you show evidence, that proves he lied about other matters. Or are you assuming he did.

As its been said before, LC had staff under him, he was in a postion where he could order others to send orders, he was busy getting ready for the off.
Back to top Go down
Ray63

avatar

Posts : 704
Join date : 2012-05-05

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:18 am

I always thought Durnford arrived at the camp, around 10:30.

But according to Brickhill, Durnford was in the camp between 08:00-09:00
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He then says that Durnford horse arrived at 10:30. So had Durnford moved up to the camp, prior to his me arriving. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And why would Brickhill be taking the natives to Durnford and not Pulleine?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:27 am

The conclusion of the author of the book you posted. Not fact.

Thats fine john, it was not presented as fact.

08:00-09:00..says ray63..did you hear that Frank,
you can't agree with that!..  scratch 

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:29 am

your source for the above please ray.
Back to top Go down
Ray63

avatar

Posts : 704
Join date : 2012-05-05

PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:19 am

Sorry Les, I thought you was well versed in the eyewitness accounts of Isandlwana.

This was the give away. "But according to Brickhill"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Who was in charge at iSandlwana   

Back to top Go down
 
Who was in charge at iSandlwana
Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM  :: GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA-
Jump to: