WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

Lt. Melvill: Well done, Sir! Did you see that Noggs? Deceived him with the up and took him with the down. Norris-Newman: Well well, this one's a grandfather at least. If he'd been a Zulu in his prime I'd have given odds against your lancer, Mr.Melvill.
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
» A new memorial for the Gardners
Today at 1:15 pm by John Young

» John Dunn By Susan Nind-Barrett
Today at 12:49 am by xhosa2000

» The Marini Henry Carbine
Yesterday at 4:23 pm by timothylrose

» FIND-A-GRAVE WEBSITE
Yesterday at 3:25 pm by barry

» A Soldier Artist In Zululand
Yesterday at 2:47 pm by lionshead

» Martini Henry - Correct and real period butt stock markings?
Yesterday at 10:27 am by SRB1965

» What to do with your research when you have passed away.
Yesterday at 1:44 am by grahame_k

» Which Mkii or mkiii
Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:41 pm by SRB1965

» LEGACY: Heroes of Rorke's Drift' by Kris Wheatley
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:13 pm by louisafilby

» Medal auction
Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:23 am by Gardner1879

» Regimental Paylists
Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:37 pm by Bill8183

» Bassage Diary
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:34 am by 90th

» The first battle fought in Africa by the 24th?
Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:47 pm by Frank Allewell

» Admiral Sir James Startin, K.C.B., A.M
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:14 am by John Young

» Most Recent Members 2018
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:32 pm by ADMIN

Lt. (Brevet Major) J.R.M. Chard, 5th Field Company, Royal Engineers--Rorke's Drift and Ulundi
(Mac and Shad) Isandula Collection)
Rededication Rorke's Drift Defender William Wilcox. 8th May 2011 Dolton Devon.
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
Frank Allewell
 
rusteze
 
90th
 
SRB1965
 
John Young
 
xhosa2000
 
Kenny
 
Gardner1879
 
ADMIN
 
Julian Whybra
 
Most active topics
Isandlwana, Last Stands
Durnford was he capable.5
Durnford was he capable. 4
Durnford was he capable.1
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
The ammunition question
Durnford was he capable.2
Durnford was he capable. 3
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
xhosa2000

avatar

Posts : 1105
Join date : 2015-11-24

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:02 pm

Dave agreed! i have thought that for years..i always thought it was in Chelmsford mind that
he might indeed STUMBLE across the main Zulu army, which makes his decision to
leave the ammo behind even more baffling.. so what was it with him? was it just breath-
taking arrogance coupled with complacency and incompetence witch led to the massacre at
Isandhlwana..what a deadly combination that proved to be!. agree
Back to top Go down
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2564
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
xhosa2000

avatar

Posts : 1105
Join date : 2015-11-24

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:51 pm

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.
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...
Back to top Go down
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2564
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
xhosa2000

avatar

Posts : 1105
Join date : 2015-11-24

PostSubject: Re: Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?   Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:28 pm

Hmmm, saw what you did there Steve.. Very Happy i might do that over the
next few days or so.
Back to top Go down
rusteze

avatar

Posts : 2564
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 : 2306
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: