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
» New Photos
Today at 7:10 am by ymob

» Rorke's Drift Diorama - 1:72 Scale
Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:09 am by ArendH

»  Isandlwana cultural centre
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:06 pm by ymob

» Studies in the Zulu War 1879 Volume V
Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:22 pm by Julian Whybra

» Proof , Proof , Proof
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:15 am by Julian Whybra

» RA at Aldershot
Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:04 am by 90th

» Colonel James Henry Reynolds, V.C
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:48 pm by 90th

» Just because I Iike it.
Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:56 pm by SRB1965

» Mystery Man
Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:16 am by John Young

» SAGS to Sissison's Horse
Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:16 pm by ADMIN

» Day of the Dead Moon
Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:52 pm by Richie Rich

» Final research query, Netley & Kneller Hall
Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:59 pm by ADMIN

» Captain. DENNISON, CHARLES GEORGE
Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:04 pm by John Young

»  Lt. G.H.B. Elliott 4th Foot Image Wanted
Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:44 am by John Young

» 'What if' Rorkes Drift question.
Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:47 am by John Young

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
ymob
 
Frank Allewell
 
rusteze
 
90th
 
John Young
 
Julian Whybra
 
SRB1965
 
barry
 
ArendH
 
Isandula
 
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 | 
 

 Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
AuthorMessage
The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2708
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:59 pm

Ian Knight's assessment in Zulu Rising repays some study. The following is my understanding of what IK is saying (so any misrepresentations are mine and not IK's).

We know that Chelmsford's plan was to engage the Matshanas before moving on to the main impi (that is what he describes in his orders to Durnford). It is a further stage in his mopping up of the local chiefs, as he had done with Sihayo a few days before. He even has some thoughts that Matshana may surrender rather than fight. He sends two of his own ADCs (Gossett and Buller) out with Dartnell on his reconnaissance and they report back to Chelmsford after Dartnell encounters the Zulus. There was nothing in their reports to alarm Chelmsford and he sends out some further mounted infantry and pack horses with extra provisions. He gives an order that Dartnell is to attack the Zulus when he thinks fit.

The second message arrives from Dartnell during the night reporting increased numbers of Zulus and saying it would not be prudent to attack them without some white troops. Dartnell's substantial NNC contingent had been spooked during the night and, understandably, he could not rely on them with just his 70 or so Natal Mounted Police and Volunteers.  

So why did Chelmsford take such a large proportion of his force out with him to join with Dartnell?

I like IK's reasoning a little better than the labels. It had not been unusual for Chelmsford to take substantial numbers of troops out on sweeps of the bush on the Eastern Cape Frontier  to  flush out the enemy and bring them to battle. Wood was, at that very time, doing something very similar 50kms to the north. And Chelmsford now has an inkling that a much larger Zulu force is in the vicinity and he fears that if he hunkers down his main force at Isandhlwana the main Impi will by-pass him without coming to battle and head direct for Natal. Each of those sets of reasoning are plausible and have some merit. To my mind they have nothing to do with arrogance or complacency. He was of course proved wrong for reasons we have already alluded to - but he was not the incompetent that we keep labelling him as.

Steve
Back to top Go down
The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2708
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:27 pm

Hmmm!. might be handy to make a list of what he said he would do..and then another of
what he actually did!.......or failed to do...


I look forward to reading it but suggest including "and why" to each category?

Steve
Back to top Go down
The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2708
Join date : 2010-06-02

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:10 pm

Good man agree

Steve
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:19 pm

rusteze wrote:
Ian Knight's assessment in Zulu Rising repays some study. The following is my understanding of what IK is saying (so any misrepresentations are mine and not IK's).

We know that Chelmsford's plan was to engage the Matshanas before moving on to the main impi (that is what he describes in his orders to Durnford). It is a further stage in his mopping up of the local chiefs, as he had done with Sihayo a few days before. He even has some thoughts that Matshana may surrender rather than fight. He sends two of his own ADCs (Gossett and Buller) out with Dartnell on his reconnaissance and they report back to Chelmsford after Dartnell encounters the Zulus. There was nothing in their reports to alarm Chelmsford and he sends out some further mounted infantry and pack horses with extra provisions. He gives an order that Dartnell is to attack the Zulus when he thinks fit.

The second message arrives from Dartnell during the night reporting increased numbers of Zulus and saying it would not be prudent to attack them without some white troops. Dartnell's substantial NNC contingent had been spooked during the night and, understandably, he could not rely on them with just his 70 or so Natal Mounted Police and Volunteers.  

So why did Chelmsford take such a large proportion of his force out with him to join with Dartnell?

I like IK's reasoning a little better than the labels. It had not been unusual for Chelmsford to take substantial numbers of troops out on sweeps of the bush on the Eastern Cape Frontier  to  flush out the enemy and bring them to battle. Wood was, at that very time, doing something very similar 50kms to the north. And Chelmsford now has an inkling that a much larger Zulu force is in the vicinity and he fears that if he hunkers down his main force at Isandhlwana the main Impi will by-pass him without coming to battle and head direct for Natal. Each of those sets of reasoning are plausible and have some merit. To my mind they have nothing to do with arrogance or complacency. He was of course proved wrong for reasons we have already alluded to - but he was not the incompetent that we keep labelling him as.

Steve

All being speculation.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   

Back to top Go down
 
Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?
Back to top 
Page 5 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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