WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

Film Zulu Dawn:Lt. Col. Pulleine: His Lordship is of the cetain opinion that it's far too difficult an approach to be chosen by the Zulu command.Col. Durnford: Yes, well... difficulty never deterred a Zulu commander.
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
» Prince Imperial Leave Request at Woolwich
Yesterday at 5:13 pm by Isandula

» Farnborough Hill
Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:46 pm by 24th foot

» Rorke's Drift
Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:25 pm by xhosa2000

» Missing five hours question
Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:59 pm by SRB1965

» Rifles at Rorkes Drift......not the usual Zulu/Martini question....
Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:07 am by SRB1965

» Captain Walter Stafford NNC medals
Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:04 am by 90th

» Gerald French, liar or not?
Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:24 pm by Frank Allewell

» A bit more fun research!
Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:22 am by rusteze

» Trooper H. Boik (NMP) and Dartnell patrol Isandlwana, 22 January 1879
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:55 am by whizz-bang

» Norris-Newman
Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:52 pm by Kenny

» Some fun research
Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:47 am by Frank Allewell

» Isipezi Hill
Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:19 pm by ALLENG

» Zulu shield question
Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:03 am by SRB1965

» Buyer beware!..
Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:47 pm by xhosa2000

» Colonel Farquhar Glennie
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:48 pm by SRB1965

Captain Ronald G.E. Campbell, Coldstream Guards. killed at Hlobane
[Mac & Shad] Captain Ronald G.E. Campbell, Coldstream Guards --killed at Hlobane (Mac and Shad) (Isandula Collection)
Rob Caskie at a Showcase Event 2014
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Top posters
90th
 
littlehand
 
Frank Allewell
 
ADMIN
 
Chelmsfordthescapegoat
 
John
 
Mr M. Cooper
 
1879graves
 
impi
 
rusteze
 
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
 
Frank Allewell
 
rusteze
 
John Young
 
SRB1965
 
Tee
 
24th foot
 
ALLENG
 
Kenny
 
Most active topics
Isandlwana, Last Stands
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
Durnford was he capable.5
Durnford was he capable.1
Durnford was he capable. 3
Durnford was he capable.2
Durnford was he capable. 4
The ammunition question
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
The missing five hours.

Share | 
 

 Durnford was he capable. 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 10 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
AuthorMessage
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:21 pm

Chard.

There are more 'Durnford was he capable' topics than this one, Pete split them up for some reason, click on the search, type in Durnford and you will find at least four topics of DWHC and DWHC2, unforntunately I can't remember which one it is in, however, Springy did post it on Monday October 21st 2013 at 11:20am.

I wish I knew how to post maps, pictures, etc, on here, but I don't. I could explain things better by showing you on a map how the pincer movement was supposed to take place, but I will try to explain. LC was to lie in wait some 8-10 miles from iSandlwana, Durnford was to move to the camp, Bengough was to move via sandspruit, then Durnford and Bengough would have come toward each other and swept the area to drive the zulus towards a waiting LC, and between the three of them they would try to force the zulus to surrender.

But through the message from Dartnell saying he had found a large impi, LC was under the impression that he had found the main army and set off without thinking to tell Durnford of any alterations to the plans. Crealock made matters worse by informing Durnford that Bengough should take the route via sandspruit, this must have meant to Durnford that the pincer movement was on, and with Crealock informing Durnford that LC would be about 10 miles distant from the camp, Durnford would be under the impression that LC was getting into position.

Don't forget that Durnford sent a messenger to LC at the camp on the 21st to get any change of or any further orders, however, it would appear that LC did not issue any, so when he got the order on the 22nd to move up to the camp, he would still be under the impression that he and Bengough were to perform the pincer, and that is why when he arrived at the camp he told Pulleine he would not be staying.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:23 pm

New Year in Oz is it, All the best Gary mate, don't get too much mate, hic, hic. Salute
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:31 pm

Oh no! Guess what's just starting on more4, "The Film", hell, that's 4 times it's been on already. Mad

Right time to turn over to The Vikings. agree
Back to top Go down
Chard1879

avatar

Posts : 1263
Join date : 2010-04-12

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:45 pm

Martin wrote:
If Bengough’s battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Nangwana Valley).” 

Pete did say somewhere each discussion forum as a limit. Between us we seemed to have hit the limit twice already, nearly a third with the on going one.

Anyway time to rest, it's news years eve, so we can stop arguing for the moment, enjoy and pick up in the new year. Bearing in mind, we are right you a wrong.

Happy new year to all. agree Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:50 pm

Chard mate, I think you will find that it was OH2 who wrote what you highlighted. Salute

Yes, you may be right, time for a rest and get ready for the New Year.

All the very best everyone, let us hope for peace throughout the world.

Best regards to all of you. Salute Salute Merry Christmas Merry Christmas

Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:06 pm

ymob has e-mailed me re this thread and I'm inclined to offer:
Clery definitely told Pulleine that Colonel Durnford “had been written to to bring up his force to stengthen the camp”. This was subsequent verbal information from Clery to Pulleine and not in Clery’s written orders to Pulleine.
BUT
Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery, Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented. As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford.
Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp).
The curious thing is that Clery should have written in Pulleine’s orders that he (Pulleine), although junior to Durnford in rank, was to be “in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn”. Perhaps he did this because he was not certain WHAT had actually been written in Durnford’s orders and decided to hedge his bets.
Thus Pulleine was given the impression that Durnford’s force would be strengthening the camp (and thus was perplexed when Durnford announced that he would not be staying) whilst Durnford’s orders did not specifically include reinforcing the camp (and thus Durnford appeared [almost] dismissive when Pulleine offered him its command).
As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2554
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:14 pm

Thanks Julian. So the original intention for Durnford, was to reinforce the camp. not a nice guy was our friend Cealock.
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 1935
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : france

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:52 pm

Mister Whybra,
Many tanks for your analysis .
Happy year
Frédéric
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
impi

avatar

Posts : 2309
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:21 pm

That make sense. As we thought Chelmsford original intention, was for Durnford to reinforce / Strengthen the camp. Nothing to do with assisting LC. Although he was assisting him reinforcing the camp. So why did he take command?
Back to top Go down
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2187
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:40 pm

Yes, thanks Julian. You have put me back to square one, if you have no doubt at all that Chelmsford's intention was for Durnford to reinforce the camp!

The rest of what you say takes some careful unpicking, and your final sentence is enigmatic to say the least. Can we tease a little more out of you about this "different story"?

I still like my theory though, and at least we all seem to be getting on ! Very Happy

Steve
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:10 pm

Hi Steve.

The original plan was the pincer move with Bengough and Durnford driving the zulus to a waiting LC.

What threw the spanner in the works was when LC got the message from Dartnell. LC then changed his mind, and origimally said that Durnford should move up to the camp to reinforce it, however, Crealock chirped in and said that would be improper as Durnford had his own separate independent command, so LC relented.

Now comes all the confusion. Clery tells Pulleine that Durnford will reinforce him, not knowing that this has not been ordered to Durnford. Crealock adds fuel to the fire by saying to Durnford that Bengough is to go by the different route, and that Durnford is to move up to the camp, and that LC will be about 10 miles distant, giving Durnford the impression that the pincer move is under way, and that he and Bengough are going to support LC in that move, hence Durnford telling Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp.

I think the thing that puzzles almost everyone is why on earth was the slow moving rocket battery attached to Durnford fast moving No2 column. scratch

Have a great New Year Steve. Salute
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2309
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:28 pm

Mr M. Cooper wrote:
Hi Steve.

The original plan was the pincer move with Bengough and Durnford driving the zulus to a waiting LC.

What threw the spanner in the works was when LC got the message from Dartnell. LC then changed his mind, and origimally said that Durnford should move up to the camp to reinforce it, however, Crealock chirped in and said that would be improper as Durnford had his own separate independent command, so LC relented.

Now comes all the confusion. Clery tells Pulleine that Durnford will reinforce him, not knowing that this has not been ordered to Durnford. Crealock adds fuel to the fire by saying to Durnford that Bengough is to go by the different route, and that Durnford is to move up to the camp, and that LC will be about 10 miles distant, giving Durnford the impression that the pincer move is under way, and that he and Bengough are going to support LC in that move, hence Durnford telling Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp.

I think the thing that puzzles almost everyone is why on earth was the slow moving rocket battery attached to Durnford fast moving No2 column. scratch

Have a great New Year Steve. Salute

Back Pedal. back pedal... Faster and faster. Happy new year Martin.. agree
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:39 pm

Back pedal scratch

This is what I have been saying for ages, read back and see for yourself.

Yes, thanks impi, Happy New Year mate. agree
Back to top Go down
sas1

avatar

Posts : 628
Join date : 2009-01-20
Age : 39

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:22 pm

Keep going lads. Keep going! Very Happy
Back to top Go down
John

avatar

Posts : 2528
Join date : 2009-04-06
Age : 55
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:49 pm

Julian Whybra wrote:
ymob has e-mailed me re this thread and I'm inclined to offer:
Clery definitely told Pulleine that Colonel Durnford “had been written to to bring up his force to stengthen the camp”.  This was subsequent verbal information from Clery to Pulleine and not in Clery’s written orders to Pulleine.
BUT
Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock.  Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”.  However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery,  Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented.  As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford.
Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp).  
The curious thing is that Clery should have written in Pulleine’s orders that he (Pulleine), although junior to Durnford in rank, was to be “in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn”.  Perhaps he did this because he was not certain WHAT had actually been written in Durnford’s orders and decided to hedge his bets.
Thus Pulleine was given the impression that Durnford’s force would be strengthening the camp (and thus was perplexed when Durnford announced that he would not be staying) whilst Durnford’s orders did not specifically include reinforcing the camp (and thus Durnford appeared [almost] dismissive when Pulleine offered him its command).
As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!

Now we are getting somewhere!
Back to top Go down
Dave

avatar

Posts : 1606
Join date : 2009-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:43 pm

So Chelmsford did intend for Durford to reinforce the camp. Which is a good indicator he didn't required his help, at that point. It was Crealock's miss-handling of the order that confused the issue.

So are we also saying that Durford should not have taken command.
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 1935
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : france

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:07 am

Julian whybra sais
Julian Whybra wrote:
ymob has e-mailed me re this thread and I'm inclined to offer:
“Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”.  However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery,  Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented.  As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford
Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp).  
(...)
As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!

Bonjour Mister WHYBRA,

I am not sure to understand what do you mean exactly:
Do you mean that the second intention of CHELMSFORD about DURNFORD was not to “reinforce the camp?” ("So CHELMSFORD relented / as  As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s")
In this hypothesis, the famous order given by CREALOCK to DURNFORD finally expresses (at least partially) the wishes of CHELSMFORD by not mentioning " reinforce the camp"
In this case, CREALOCK is somewhere a "scapegoat" for most of the authors in the disaster of Isandhlwana and finally it was CLERY who was in fault".!!!  Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
In this hypothesis again, what was ultimately the mission of DURNFORD in the mind of CHELMSFORD?
DURNFORD in support of him?

Very happy to be corrected

Cheers
Frédéric
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:43 am

CTSG, impi, ymob, rusteze, dave

Let me be quite clear lest in the unpicking of my previous post there is confusion.

Chelmsford's original intention was for Durnford to reinforce the camp.
In the light of Crealock's comment about impropriety Chelmsford abandoned this intention.
Chelmsford did not order Durnford to reinforce the camp and Crealock correctly interpreted Chelmsford's wishes in the orders to Durnford.

Crealock is not a pleasant character and certainly no hero of mine.  I am not his apologist but in the matter of Durnford's orders Crealock did not play the villain. There was no mishandling of Chelmsford's wishes.


rusteze, martin

Interpreting Durnford's orders is really a question of semantics.  I apologize for being enigmatic but I do not want to put all my eggs into this (forum's) one basket.  If I do, there's always the risk that I'll be reading my own ideas in someone else's book.  I'm sorry if this annoys CTSG but I am planning an in-depth essay on this subject in the future. Presenting a new historical argument requires rigour and its being watertight.  I like things to be watertight and not open to interpretation and am not willing to present any idea that is still 'half-baked'.


Happy New Year!
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 1935
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : france

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:02 am

Bonjour Mister Whybra,
It's a scoop!
Really great!
Many tanks to y ou for your thoughts
Amitiés
Frederic
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 am

I’d like additionally to respond to ymob’s post of 30th Dec 12.59:

It is true that we are relying exclusively on Clery regarding his verbal remark to Pulleine about Durnford’s force reinforcing the camp.  At the Court of Inquiry Clery was under oath and as an officer and a gentleman stated what he believed to be true.  That said, it is possible that Clery misunderstood Chelmsford as to his original intentions/instructions regarding Durnford.  Clery was not party to Crealock’s conversation with Chelmsford nor to the content of the actual orders to Durnford.
There is certainly no instruction to reinforce the camp in Durnford’s orders.  Molife in his account wrote that they were riding to Isandhlwana to ‘strengthen the camp’ but this was after the event and may simply have been his understanding of the situation.  No officer is recorded as confirming the notion of strengthening the camp.  Cochrane did write that Durnford had told him that they were to proceed at once to Isandhlwana but that remark contains nothing extraordinary (where else were they proceed to?) and indeed was qualified by a following remark.

Upcher and Rainforth were even further back in Natal than Durnford.  They contained no mounted element.  Chelmsford could not have summoned them in time even if he had wanted to.

Clery stated that he wrote in his orders to Pulleine that he would be in command in the absence of Col. Glyn.

Clery in his testimony to the Court of Inquiry was recalling conversations not events witnessed with his eyes.  I do not find it surprising that he qualified some of his remarks with “I speak from memory”, etc.
Back to top Go down
ymob

avatar

Posts : 1935
Join date : 2010-10-22
Location : france

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:52 am

Mister WHYBRA,
Many thanks to have taken time to answer to these argument.
Amitiés.
Frédéric
Back to top Go down
http://frbomy@hotmail.fr
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2187
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:36 am

Julian

Thank you for your further explanation of your thinking. I am glad I asked, and I feel a little better I must say!

I fully understand your reasons for not saying more, and I look forward to reading your future publication on the subject at some future date. In light of which I suspect any conclusion we manage to reach on this forum will, at best, be tentative!

Regards

Steve
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:40 am

Now that for me is as close to the truth we are going to
get! thanks Julian could not of put it better myself. Wink .
Essay. hmmm, that will be most interesting. xhosa
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6422
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:57 am

Always one doubting Thomas though.
Sorry Julian Im just not convinced. I hope to respond more fully in a couple of days.
In the mean time enjoy New Year.

Regards
Back to top Go down
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2187
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:28 pm

You old curmudgeon. Look forward to it Frank.

Steve
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:54 pm

Frank/Thomas
Doubts are good. I'll be pleased to hear your thoughts!
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6422
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:03 pm

Hi Julian
Ive reproduced below your illuminating post on Crealock:
BUT
Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery, Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented. As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford.
Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp).
The curious thing is that Clery should have written in Pulleine’s orders that he (Pulleine), although junior to Durnford in rank, was to be “in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn”. Perhaps he did this because he was not certain WHAT had actually been written in Durnford’s orders and decided to hedge his bets.
Thus Pulleine was given the impression that Durnford’s force would be strengthening the camp (and thus was perplexed when Durnford announced that he would not be staying) whilst Durnford’s orders did not specifically include reinforcing the camp (and thus Durnford appeared [almost] dismissive when Pulleine offered him its command).
As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!

The line in question ( for the time being) is the highlighted one above. In that you've stated that Clery did not know that Crealock had pointed out that he Clery should not issue orders to a column Commander.
This is the direct opposite that Clery states in his letter of the 17th February 1878 (1879) to Col Harman. In that letter Clery is very exact in his description of Crealock interrupting the conversation between Him and Chelmsford. Clery even comments that Crealocks intrusion was, 'very proper I think.'

After Crealocks intrusion Chelmfords response was "No let you do it.

Based on that then Crealock, Clery and Chelmsford were all part of the conversation as to who would issue the instruction. The mere fact that Crealock had overheard the whispered instructions would tend to point to him having heard the key phrase "reinforce the camp."
As far as Im aware there is no other mention of the content of that instruction. I would be more than happy to be pointed in the right direction if im wrong on that.

If one totally discounts that letter, and I don't believe you can, then the sequence of events doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
1) Clery is told to communicate with Durnford
2) Crealock is told to communicate with Durnford
3) Clery is told not to communicate with Durnford.

Those three actions would require two visits to Chelmsford, and I cannot find any record of that.

My rebuttal would be therefore that Clery did know that Crealock had been instructed to issue orders. That considering the order was discussed between Clery and Chelmsford, Clery would have every reason to believe that the order issued by Crealock was the same/similar.

Regards

Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6422
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:05 pm

"Tom, tom pick up thy musket."
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6422
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:49 pm

I took a couple of liberties not expecting anyone to pick up on it. Well done you two.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:58 pm

Clery took it upon himself to give orders to Pulleine, this was totally out of order because Pulleine was senior to Clery. Crealock pointed out to LC that Clery should not be giving orders to Durnford as he was in command of an idependent column, so LC relented and told Crealock to do it. I wonder if either LC or Crealock knew that Clery had took it upon himself to give Pulleine orders, it would appear not, as LC was very much relieved when he found out that Clery had given Pulleine orders. But then again, Clery had given Pulleine the wrong information by saying that Durnford was coming to reinforce him, and, by the same token, it would also appear that Clery had given Pulleine the orders about how he should set out his defence of the camp. Either way, the reponsibility for this is with LC, he should have made it perfectly clear what he wanted both Pulleine and Durnford to do, but he failed to see that this was done, and although both Clery and Crealock have their share of the blame for this, the responsibility for allowing this to happen lies with none other than LC, no wonder they did a cover up and tried to get themselves off the hook and dump the blame on Durnford, what an absolute shower of bounders. Not everyone back home was convinced by their web of lies, even The Duke of Cambridge saw through the cover up, and put forward a set of questions didn't he?
Back to top Go down
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2187
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:05 pm

Bravo Frank! Might have been best to leave Waterloo out though.

Steve
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:14 pm

From Clarkes Zululand at War, two extracts..


Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:15 pm

Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6422
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:16 pm

Hi Martin
I said it before and im happy to repeat it. I don't see Clery as being part of a cover up. He was extremely active in protecting Glyn and not allowing blame to fall on him, not the actions of some one involved in a cover up. He took a lot of flack over his recording of Chelmsfords " Theres nothing to be done on that" statement.
He passed onto Pulleine information that he had earlier been about to send to Col Durnford and really had no reason to doubt that information. He stepped into a void, and took a great risk in issuing those orders. His letters outline his fears on what could have gone wrong.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:27 pm

Yes I see your point springy, but he should not have been giving orders to a senior officer really should he?

Sam, is not North Country, nay, nay lad, it's frompt same place as thee owd lad, aye, it's fro good owd Lancashire, were all t' gradely folk come fro. agree

Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:02 pm

I wonder where Smith obtained the opinion, that Durford was to reinforce the camp.

"At about midnight I was sent for by General Lord Chelmsford and told to take a dispatch back to Rorke's Drift for Colonel Durnford, R.E., who was expected there with reinforcements consisting of native levies. I rode back, 10 miles, arriving at Rorke's Drift just before dawn on the 22nd, and delivered my dispatch. It ought to have been a very jumpy ride, for I was entirely alone and the country was wild and new to me, and the road little better than a track; but pride at being selected to carry an important dispatch and the valour of ignorance (for I only realised next day that the country was infested with hostile Zulus) carried me along without a thought of danger. Colonel Durnford was just moving off with his levies towards Sandspruit (away from Isandhlwana), but on reading the dispatch, which conveyed instructions to move up to reinforce the Isandhlwana camp (as Lord Chelmsford, with the main body of the force, leaving the camp standing, was moving out some miles to the east to attack the Zulu Army), he at once changed the direction of his march."
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:05 pm

Maybe he simply read the message? xhosa
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:21 pm

Good point, we're the orders sealed in an envelope or just on paper?
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:25 pm

No, he couldn't have done Les, because like Julian explained, the message did not contain the words 'reinforce the camp', so maybe (like many others), Smith-Dorrien was just jumping to conclusions.
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:30 pm

I'm thinking along the lines, of what Smith may of heard, or was told before he left. He must have got the word reinforce from somewhere, and Clery message had been allowed tI send it, contained the word reinforce. Just a line if thought.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:34 pm

Thanks Martin, well said, my mind was as usual. off.
at a tangent! i don't know if i have ever read about
the ' security '. of messages in transit..was it simply
a matter of tearing the paper off a pad/block..or
simply stuffing it in a pouch/bag..Gardner..or even
trouser pocket.. xhosa
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:37 pm

You may be right LH about SD hearing it or being told by someone, could it have been Clery who mentioned it to him I wonder? But he couldn't have read it in the message as it was not mentioned in that.

BTW, Happy New Year mate. agree
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2505
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:42 pm

Hi Les, they would normally be put in a dispatch bag.

Hope you had a good New Year buddy.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:00 pm

A dispatch bag, yes of course. doh!..
yeah mate, first time i have seen
the new year in with out a drink
for many years, different game
watching tipsy people when your
not. have a good un Martin!. xhosa
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7066
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:02 pm

Was there any need for that remark. Not really. This is exactly what members are on about. You can't be civil.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:08 pm

?.. just in case that was addressed to me, the
remark was civil. i genuinely thought that was
possible..hence my follow up remark's,i think
you might have the wrong end of the stick in
that instance. xhosa
Back to top Go down
Julian Whybra



Posts : 1804
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:11 pm

springbok

Thanks for the 'doubts'. Let me then clarify what I wrote earlier to incorporate your remarks and settle any lingering doubts:

I repeat that Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. Crealock, having overheard the Chelmsford-Clery conversation, spoke from the next tent pointing out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented, changed his mind and decided to give Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Clery then left the tent. Crealock dressed and entered Chelmsford’s tent. Clery was thus not party to the actual orders conveyed from Chelmsford via Crealock to Durnford. In fact, unbeknown to Clery, there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford.
Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp).

I hope that makes it clear.



littlehand/Martin
I am sure that S-D simply inferred from the message (which he stated he read) that Durnford would be strengthening the camp.
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2554
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:21 pm



I repeat that Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. Crealock, having overheard the Chelmsford-Clery conversation, spoke from the next tent pointing out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented, changed his mind and decided to give Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Clery then left the tent. Crealock dressed and entered Chelmsford’s tent. Clery was thus not party to the actual orders conveyed from Chelmsford via Crealock to Durnford. In fact, unbeknown to Clery, there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford.
Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp). 

Just getting me head around this. 
JW wrote:

"Crealock, having overheard the Chelmsford-Clery conversation, spoke from the next tent pointing out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command" 

Why would it have been a problem, he was only being asked to reinforce the camp. He would have still had command over his unit. 

If such an order like that was improper, what the difference with that and " moving to the camp" would that not have been improper? 
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:25 pm

Could i ask for the source's.. xhosa
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:27 pm

And, just for information, who was the remark
at 8.02 aimed at? thanks xhosa
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4   

Back to top Go down
 
Durnford was he capable. 4
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 18 of 20Go to page : Previous  1 ... 10 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

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