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
» Rorke's Drift
Today at 4:59 am by 90th

» Farnborough Hill
Yesterday at 2:10 am by 90th

» 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

» A number of SAGS for Sale at C Dixons
Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:38 pm by xhosa2000

» Zulu Arts & Crafts Event.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:50 pm by 24th foot

» Sir Henry Evelyn Wood VC, GCB, GCMG
Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:37 pm by xhosa2000

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
 
Tee
 
SRB1965
 
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 | 
 

 Exactly what was Chelmsford guilty of?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
AuthorMessage
xhosa2000

avatar

Posts : 871
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 : 2187
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 : 871
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 : 2187
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 : 871
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 : 2187
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 : 2309
Join date : 2010-07-02
Age : 37

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?
View previous topic View next topic 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: