Latest topics | » Colonialism: A Moral LegacyYesterday at 7:25 pm by Julian Whybra » Punch's view of Chelmsford's tactics!Yesterday at 1:37 pm by lydenburg » Writing adviceTue Mar 26, 2024 4:26 pm by Julian Whybra » Private John Scott 24th Regiment a fugitive at largeWed Mar 20, 2024 2:53 pm by Dash » Sergeant W E Warren RA - VeteranTue Mar 19, 2024 11:32 pm by Matthew Turl » Your favourite line from Zulu or Zulu DawnTue Mar 19, 2024 6:52 pm by Julian Whybra » 100,000 posts!Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:20 pm by Julian Whybra » Zulu Dawn/Zulu - New Immortals Film The Way Forward ?Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:34 pm by jgregory » Badge on 2/60th and 3/60th foreign service helmets Sat Mar 16, 2024 1:05 pm by John Young » Corporal James Frowen Williams F Company. Fri Mar 15, 2024 11:08 am by Julian Whybra » British rations and moraleTue Mar 12, 2024 1:05 am by Julian Whybra » Blue Plaque to James Egan, alias Private HaganMon Mar 11, 2024 11:16 pm by ADMIN» A few questions regarding Rorke's Drift and IsandlwanaWed Mar 06, 2024 11:16 pm by Julian Whybra » William J Hoare 24th Regiment??Sun Mar 03, 2024 9:08 pm by Dash » Swinburn Carbine issue in AZWThu Feb 29, 2024 2:53 pm by Rob D » Australians who went to Zululand and fought in the 1879 war.Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:39 am by John Young » Philip Price Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:55 am by Julian Whybra » Alfred Fairlie Henderson Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:47 am by RoryReynolds » August Hammar Letter Dated 6th Jan 1879Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:34 pm by Stefaan » Bearing The Cross by Ken Blakeson | BBC RADIO DRAMA: Ken Blakeson's play tells the story of the Battle of Rorke's Drift and the effect it had on three of the soldiers who fought in it.Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:57 pm by Julian Whybra » Letter of officer during Zulu wars.Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:47 pm by Julian Whybra » About the second invasionTue Feb 20, 2024 11:14 pm by 90th » Zulu Festival Brecon July 2024Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:35 pm by John Young » Watford band boys killed at iSandlwanaFri Feb 16, 2024 10:26 am by Julian Whybra » Private J. McCrudden 1/13 Foot Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:10 am by 90th » Death of Michael Jayson (Zulu Dawn)Thu Feb 08, 2024 11:55 pm by ADMIN» The anniversary of 22nd January in 2024Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:51 pm by luke1997 » What was the distance?Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:46 am by Stefaan » Mrs Henry HookTue Feb 06, 2024 5:14 pm by Kenny » "With 6 good riflemen"Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:30 pm by Mr M. Cooper » What was G company supposed to do?Sun Feb 04, 2024 11:31 pm by Julian Whybra » Private 1445 Charles Meates 17th Lancers and his brother William WylieSat Feb 03, 2024 12:07 am by John Young » South Africa Medal With Clasp To Pvt J. Salter 3/60thFri Feb 02, 2024 5:12 pm by Foody » Weatherleys Border Horse FlagThu Feb 01, 2024 11:40 pm by Herbie » Edward Plantagenet Kemeys-TynteWed Jan 24, 2024 12:06 am by Edjg |
March 2024 | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
---|
| | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | Calendar |
|
Top posting users this month | |
Zero tolerance to harassment and bullying. |
Due to recent events on this forum, we have now imposed a zero tolerance to harassment and bullying. All reports will be treated seriously, and will lead to a permanent ban of both membership and IP address.
Any member blatantly corresponding in a deliberate and provoking manner will be removed from the forum as quickly as possible after the event.
If any members are being harassed behind the scenes PM facility by any member/s here at 1879zuluwar.com please do not hesitate to forward the offending text.
We are all here to communicate and enjoy the various discussions and information on the Anglo Zulu War of 1879. Opinions will vary, you will agree and disagree with one another, we will have debates, and so it goes.
There is no excuse for harassment or bullying of anyone by another person on this site.
The above applies to the main frame areas of the forum.
The ring which is the last section on the forum, is available to those members who wish to partake in slagging matches. That section cannot be viewed by guests and only viewed by members that wish to do so. |
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. |
| | chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? | |
|
+3Ulundi Chelmsfordthescapegoat ymob 7 posters | Author | Message |
---|
ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:07 pm | |
| Bonsoir à tous,
CHELMSFORD's orders: lack of clarity, a habit?
From "HCMDB" by Mike SNOOK (2nd edition / 2010)
#First point: Order to DUNRFORD the 22 january: p.88
"There was one glaring omission in the order: direction on command and control relationships" [at Isandhlwana between PULLEINE and DURNFORD]
Not debate for this point: we know that the order to DURNFORD doesn't mention who is in command of the Camp, PULLEINE or DURNFORD.
# 2nd point: Reconnaissance in force, 21 january: p.78
"The formal command and control relationship between DARTNELL and LONSDALE is not clear. It seems unlakely that the General had directly subordinated LONSDALE to DARTNELL. (...) If, as we might reasonably suppose, the arrangement was loose or unspecefied, then LONSDLE (...) probably felt obligated to follow the lead of the older, more experienced man. (...) Had LONSDALE listened to his subordinates [HB, DUNCOMBE...] and sent a message politely declining [ to DARTNELL] to become embroiled so close to nightfall, then the first invasion may not have endeed in disaster".
If Mike SNOOK is right on the second point, CHELMSFORD (or his staff) had made 2 similars enormous errors.
Cheers.
I.E: Frank, you can see that i am a reader of Mike SNOOK, but just a reader, not (yet?) a fan of his work!!! Bien à toi.
Frédéric |
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:15 pm | |
| Ymob, there's is already a discussions contains this information running at present. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:57 pm | |
| - Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
- Ymob, there's is already a discussions contains this information running at present.
Bonsoir, For me the first point of my post is not open to debate... All (?) the members of this forum know the contain of the order given par CHELMSFORD the 22 January -to DURNFORD; -to PULLEINE. I haven't doubt on the differents orders given to DURNFORD by CHELMSFORD after the reading of the many, many, many posts on this subject on this forum and on "the other" and after the studying of books and essays on the AZW. I have a "big" predilection for the meticulous analysis by F.W.D. JACKSON and Julian WHYBRA: "Isandhlwana and the DURNFORD papers" ("Studies in the Zulu war 1879 vol.1"). Do you have read it? If it's not the case, you can purchase a copy of this first volume directly to Julian WHYBRA. For me, only the second point of my post, the hypothesis of Mike SNOOK on the order given by CHELMSFORD (or his staff) to DARTNELL-LONSDALE is open to debate. Merry Christmas. Cheers Frédéric |
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Tue Dec 23, 2014 10:15 pm | |
| That's just there take on the matter, not the definitive answers. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:54 am | |
| - Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
- That's just there take on the matter, not the definitive answers.
I am agree only for the second point. In "zulu rising", Ian KNIGHT has wrote:(p.262) "The whole force, he [Chelmsford] decided, would be commanded by Major DARTNELL of the Mounted Police". But IK gives no source for this sentence...as Mike SNOOK (as usual with this author) The accounts on this specific subject by CLERY ( letter to Col. HARMAN 17/02/1879) and HARFORD (quoted in "Zulu war journal" by D. Child) don't tell us who was in command.... Cheers. Frédéric |
| | | Ulundi
Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-06
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:13 am | |
| - Ymob wrote:
- "The whole force, he [Chelmsford] decided, would be commanded by Major DARTNELL of the Mounted Police".
Not heard this one before. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:18 am | |
| - Ulundi wrote:
- Ymob wrote:
- "The whole force, he [Chelmsford] decided, would be commanded by Major DARTNELL of the Mounted Police".
Not heard this one before. Ulundi, I am talking about "the reconnaissance in force" of the 21 January. Cheers. Frédéric |
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:31 am | |
| Ymob, what exactly are you asking for, the order that shows Dartnell being placed in command of the reconnaissance in force. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:32 am | |
| - Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
- Ymob, what exactly are you asking for, the order that shows Dartnell being placed in command of the reconnaissance in force.
Exactly!!! |
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:51 am | |
| We have Major Clery who states: "I am Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column, commanded by Colonel Glyn, C.B., operating against the Zulus. The General commanding accompanied this Column from the time it crossed the border into Zululand. On the 20th January, 1879, at the Camp, Isandlwana, Zululand, the Lieutenant-General commanding gave orders to Commandant Lonsdale and Major Dartnell to go out the following morning in a certain direction from the camp with their men, i.e., the Native Contingent, and the Police, and Volunteers, part of the 3rd Column. On the evening of the following day (the 21st) a message arrived from Major Dartnell that the enemy was in considerable force in his neighbourhood, and that he and Commandant Lonsdale would bivouac out that night. About 1.30 A.M., on the 22nd, a messenger brought me a note from Major Dartnell, to say that the enemy was in greater numbers than when he last reported, and that he did not think it prudent to attack them unless reinforced by two or three companies of the 24th Regiment. I took this note to Colonel Glyn, C.B., at once, he ordered me to take it on to the General. The General ordered the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, the Mounted Infantry, and four guns, to be under arms at once to march. This force marched out from camp as soon as there was light enough to see the road. The Natal Pioneers accompanied this column to clear the road. 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."
Dartnell being Senior would have been in command. Possibly the order was verbal.
|
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:07 am | |
| [quote="Chelmsfordthescapegoat"]We have Major Clery who states: "I am Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column, commanded by Colonel Glyn, C.B., operating against the Zulus. The General commanding accompanied this Column from the time it crossed the border into Zululand. On the 20th January, 1879, at the Camp, Isandlwana, Zululand, the Lieutenant-General commanding gave orders to Commandant Lonsdale and Major Dartnell to go out the following morning in a certain direction from the camp with their men, i.e., the Native Contingent, and the Police, and Volunteers, part of the 3rd Column. On the evening of the following day (the 21st) a message arrived from Major Dartnell that the enemy was in considerable force in his neighbourhood, and that he and Commandant Lonsdale would bivouac out that night. About 1.30 A.M., on the 22nd, a messenger brought me a note from Major Dartnell, to say that the enemy was in greater numbers than when he last reported, and that he did not think it prudent to attack them unless reinforced by two or three companies of the 24th Regiment. I took this note to Colonel Glyn, C.B., at once, he ordered me to take it on to the General. The General ordered the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, the Mounted Infantry, and four guns, to be under arms at once to march. This force marched out from camp as soon as there was light enough to see the road. The Natal Pioneers accompanied this column to clear the road. 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."
Dartnell being Senior would have been in command. Possibly the order was verbal.
Thank you for your help but i have already read this statement by CLERY. As you know, CLERY doesn't say who was in command. You have wrote "Dartnell being Senior would have been in command". But, SNOOK a late Officer in the British army says "it's a glaring omission" not to indicate in the order who was in charge. Saul DAVID in his book on the Zulu war says the same thing. Is it really in the Victorian army a "glaring omission" not to indicate in the order who was in charge?
Cheers
I am going to bed, goodnight.
|
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:11 am | |
| There's is enough documentation that shows who was in command. Not sure it warrants the actual order, or if it would make any differences.
|
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:44 am | |
| - Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
- There's is enough documentation that shows who was in command. Not sure it warrants the actual order, or if it would make any differences.
I research this documentation that shows that CHELMSFORD said to DARTNELL that he was in command of the troops on the reconnaissance in force the 21 January... Certainly, it would makes any differences for the result of this "reconnaissance in force". But, if SNOOK is right, he proves that the lack of clarity of orders from CHELMSFORD or his staff on key point (I.E: Who is in command?) is a habit with fatal consequence the 22 january. I note that SPALDING before his departure from Rorke's drift to Helpmekaar has said to CHARD that he was in command of the post during his absence.... So my question, "Is it really in the Victorian army a 'glaring omission' not to indicate in the order who was in charge of the command?" Cheers Frédéric |
| | | 6pdr
Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:24 pm | |
| - ymob wrote:
But, if SNOOK is right, he proves that the lack of clarity of orders from CHELMSFORD or his staff on key point (I.E: Who is in command?) is a habit with fatal consequence the 22 january. I note that SPALDING before his departure from Rorke's drift to Helpmekaar has said to CHARD that he was in command of the post during his absence.... So my question, "Is it really in the Victorian army a 'glaring omission' not to indicate in the order who was in charge of the command?"
Frédéric, Yes, but even had he not done so there was a clear way to figure it out: seniority. One of the criticisms consistently leveled at Chelmsford was that he ignored such formalities and played favorites among his subordinates. As I am sure you are considering, the question is whether such backbiting after the event is merely a matter of blame shifting and 20-20 hindsight, or whether it actually contributed to the disaster. Correlation is not causality of course. Chelmsford's way of commanding -- trusting his inner circle to the exclusion of others of equal or greater rank -- was probably not so unusual. It can be argued that the situation you are investigating is no different from his virtually ignoring Glyn and his staff during substantive decision making. It comes up again with Major Dunbar who was raising perfectly reasonable questions about the safety of the advanced (construction) camp and the posting of videttes in general. For me this line of questioning is made more complex by the blow to the head Lonsdale took. His accounts of his own actions at Isandlwana raise questions about concussion and his state of mind in general. - 6pdr |
| | | sas1
Posts : 627 Join date : 2009-01-20 Age : 45
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:28 pm | |
| - 6pdr wrote:
- ymob wrote:
But, if SNOOK is right, he proves that the lack of clarity of orders from CHELMSFORD or his staff on key point (I.E: Who is in command?) is a habit with fatal consequence the 22 january. I note that SPALDING before his departure from Rorke's drift to Helpmekaar has said to CHARD that he was in command of the post during his absence.... So my question, "Is it really in the Victorian army a 'glaring omission' not to indicate in the order who was in charge of the command?"
Frédéric,
Yes, but even had he not done so there was a clear way to figure it out: seniority. One of the criticisms consistently leveled at Chelmsford was that he ignored such formalities and played favorites among his subordinates.
As I am sure you are considering, the question is whether such backbiting after the event is merely a matter of blame shifting and 20-20 hindsight, or whether it actually contributed to the disaster. Correlation is not causality of course. Chelmsford's way of commanding -- trusting his inner circle to the exclusion of others of equal or great rank -- was probably not so unusual. It can be argued that the situation you are investigating is no different from his virtually ignoring Glyn and his staff during substantive decision making. It comes up again with Major Dunbar who was raising perfectly reasonable questions about the safety of the advanced (construction) camp and the posting of videttes in general.
For me this line of questioning is made more complex by the blow to the head Lonsdale took. His accounts of his own actions at Isandlwana raise questions about concussion and his state of mind in general.
- 6pdr Was Londale the poor chap who was suffering from heat stroke. |
| | | 6pdr
Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:48 pm | |
| - sas1 wrote:
- Was Londale the poor chap who was suffering from heat stroke.
Yes, he was. But Harford also recounts how days earlier he had also fallen from his horse and struck his head on a rock, virtually paralyzing him initially. He "recovered" well enough to reassume command but it's a fair guess that he was less than himself during Isandlwana. |
| | | sas1
Posts : 627 Join date : 2009-01-20 Age : 45
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:51 pm | |
| He wasn't at Isandlwana. He rode in, saw some black guys in red jackets, got shot at and legged it. and made it to LC to submit his report. Not bad going! |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:02 pm | |
| Frédéric, Yes, but even had he not done so there was a clear way to figure it out: seniority. One of the criticisms consistently leveled at Chelmsford was that he ignored such formalities and played favorites among his subordinates. As I am sure you are considering, the question is whether such backbiting after the event is merely a matter of blame shifting and 20-20 hindsight, or whether it actually contributed to the disaster. Correlation is not causality of course. Chelmsford's way of commanding -- trusting his inner circle to the exclusion of others of equal or greater rank -- was probably not so unusual. It can be argued that the situation you are investigating is no different from his virtually ignoring Glyn and his staff during substantive decision making. It comes up again with Major Dunbar who was raising perfectly reasonable questions about the safety of the advanced (construction) camp and the posting of videttes in general. For me this line of questioning is made more complex by the blow to the head Lonsdale took. His accounts of his own actions at Isandlwana raise questions about concussion and his state of mind in general. - 6pdr[/quote] Bonsoir, Interesting pointy of view. Actually, i am studying all the decisions taken by Lord CHELMSFORD (and theirs consequences on the disaster) before and during the battle... I have no problem with yours others points. For your last point (LONSDALE), HAMILTON-BROWNE seems to be agree with you . Cheers Frédéric |
| | | 6pdr
Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:38 pm | |
| - ymob wrote:
- For your last point (LONSDALE), HAMILTON-BROWNE seems to be agree with you .
Frédéric, You cut me to the quick with that remark...I will have to do a rethink of everything! - 6pdr P.S. Charlie Harford agrees too...which makes me feel better.
Last edited by 6pdr on Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| | | 6pdr
Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:40 pm | |
| - sas1 wrote:
- He wasn't at Isandlwana. He rode in, saw some black guys in red jackets, got shot at and legged it. and made it to LC to submit his report. Not bad going!
He wasn't in the camp when the battle began. He was part of the campaign (which is what ymob was talking about) and witnessed (assuming you believe him) the last stages of the battle from a close vantage point. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Thu Dec 25, 2014 2:42 am | |
| - 6pdr wrote:
Frédéric,
You cut me to the quick with that remark...I will have to do a rethink of everything!
However I have been delicate with you: I wrote "HB is agree with you and not "you are agree with HB. It's not the same thing!!! Cheers Frédéric |
| | | durnfordthescapegoat
Posts : 94 Join date : 2009-02-13
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:22 am | |
| - Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
- We have Major Clery who states: "I am Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column, commanded by Colonel Glyn, C.B., operating against the Zulus. The General commanding accompanied this Column from the time it crossed the border into Zululand.
On the 20th January, 1879, at the Camp, Isandlwana, Zululand, the Lieutenant-General commanding gave orders to Commandant Lonsdale and Major Dartnell to go out the following morning in a certain direction from the camp with their men, i.e., the Native Contingent, and the Police, and Volunteers, part of the 3rd Column. On the evening of the following day (the 21st) a message arrived from Major Dartnell that the enemy was in considerable force in his neighbourhood, and that he and Commandant Lonsdale would bivouac out that night. About 1.30 A.M., on the 22nd, a messenger brought me a note from Major Dartnell, to say that the enemy was in greater numbers than when he last reported, and that he did not think it prudent to attack them unless reinforced by two or three companies of the 24th Regiment. I took this note to Colonel Glyn, C.B., at once, he ordered me to take it on to the General. The General ordered the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, the Mounted Infantry, and four guns, to be under arms at once to march. This force marched out from camp as soon as there was light enough to see the road. The Natal Pioneers accompanied this column to clear the road. 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."
Dartnell being Senior would have been in command. Possibly the order was verbal.
To be quiet frank CTSG this is a very good example of just how bad LC was at giving orders to his staff. The above is totally confusing all round. |
| | | 24th
Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:39 am | |
| Elaborate, please. Maybe it's just confusing for you.
|
| | | 6pdr
Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC
| Subject: Re: chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:44 pm | |
| I agree with 24th here. It seems to me that Darnell is clearly in charge. Or are you referring to Chelmsford telling Clery to write orders for Durnford and then switching to Crealock instead? |
| | | | chelmsford's orders: lack of clarity, a habit? | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |