Crealock's notebook.

Martin must say, i am some what disappointed by that comment.

Quote :

Like many of the Anti Durnford brigade on here

Going by some of your other posts i thought you were pretty clude up, and an asset to the forum.

Quote :

You know that the enquiry was a farce, you know that Crealock lied,

What are you refering to.

LH.

Durnford was a Bvt Colonel, he was an imperial officer, he was senior to Pulleine.
Tit for tat? childish? well your entitled to your opinion.

Ulundi.

You are also entitled to your opinion.

OH2.

That is self explanatory is it not?

Quote :

That is self explanatory is it not?

I wouldn't be asking old chap if it was!!

PS: Durnford's rank of Lieutenant Colonel was in a colonial force

[quote="old historian2"]

Quote :

PS: Durnford's rank of Lieutenant Colonel was in a colonial force

Don't think it was ?

Show why you don't think it was.

Durnford must share the blame. He is not the only culprit and he died bravely. We know the battle was un-winnable but should have been survivable for the regulars, with their heavy fire power, modern weapons, even if the less capable irregular components had been scattered to the four winds. But even so unambitious an outcome as this proved impossible and the reason for it was the Durnford imposed dispersal of forces.

Why would he only only be in a colonial force ?

Durnford must share the balme, but so should Chelmsford for the mistakes he made and the lies he
told trying to cover up.

Quote :

but so should Chelmsford

Must agreed the cover up part was rather stupid.

But the Battle is where it all took place. The Good Lord Chelmsford was miles away, he had no control over the battle. He didn't send out the extended line far from the camp. He didn't fail to set-up ammo dumps.

So ?

He still made loads of mistakes just becuase he wasn't there doesn't mean he was innocent




Cheers

He wasn't at intombi, he wasn't where the Princes imperial was killed, he was at Hlobane. We're those mistakes his fault!!

Little hand
Durnford's rank was NOT (I wasn't shouting before, I wanted to distinguish my answers from Ulundi's questions; I am shouting now) a colonial one. Repeat NOT a colonial one. I cannot make this any clearer. By insinuating it WAS, you are misleading members of the forum.
Durnford's rank in the RE was Brevet Colonel. This was his rank as commander of Column No. 2. It was not a local rank. It was his paid rank in the Imperial British Army.
The bulk of the men in Column No. 2 may have been colonials and volunteers but this had no effect on Durnford's rank, status, or command.

Quote :

Subject: Re: Crealock's notebook.   Today at 4:18 pm
Little hand
Durnford's rank was NOT (I wasn't shouting before, I wanted to distinguish my answers from Ulundi's questions; I am shouting now) a colonial one. Repeat NOT a colonial one. I cannot make this any clearer. By insinuating it WAS, you are misleading members of the forum.
Durnford's rank in the RE was Brevet Colonel. This was his rank as commander of Column No. 2. It was not a local rank. It was his paid rank in the Imperial British Army.
The bulk of the men in Column No. 2 may have been colonials and volunteers but this had no effect on Durnford's rank, status, or command.

Calm down Julian. Thank you for that information. Now could you, as you have always told us. Please name you source. Primary evidence would be the best way to back up your statement..

CTSG

I never mentioned intombi or the Prince, i mentioned Isandlwana were he made several major mistakes and lied
to try and cover them up.



Cheers

Examples would be nice!

CTSG
I am surprised I have to do this with someone of your knowledge - though of course you could just be having me on.
Hart's Army List 1879: Durnford R.E., Bvt. Colonel Anthony William.
Note: his brevet came through on 11th December though it is doubtful whether news of this reached him in SA before Isandhlwana.
Rothwell also gives local ranks where appropriate as with Russell.

Chelmsford was not to blame for every mistake and every life lost.
But as the leader of the campaign, he is responsible.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Ulundi

90th This is what we are trying to establish. Was he expected to take command. We think yes!. Did Chelmsford expect him to take command. Crealock, seems to think so. So what was the regulations in 1879?

ANY SENIOR OFFICER ARRIVING AT THE CAMP WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE BEEN HANDED COMMAND. THERE IS NOTHING TO ESTABLISH. IT WAS STANDARD MILITARY PROCEDURE.

Could Durnford hand the command back to Pulleine.

YES, ONCE HE LEFT AND ESPECIALLY SO SINCE ON ARRIVAL HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT BE STAYING.

The order issued on the 19th would have been the only excuse Durnford had to leave the camp. But it has since been shown. On the 19th he was order to RD end of, until he received fresh orders to move to Isandlwana.

THE ORDERS OF THE 22ND ASKED HIM TO MOVE FORWARD WHICH HE DID.


So are you saying that Durnford had the right to take command, and hand it back when he felt like it.

YES, DURNFORD HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE COMMAND - PULLEINE WOULD NOT HAVE QUERIED THIS - IT WAS EXPECTED BY HIM, THE NORM. HE COULD HAND BACK COMMAND WHEN HE LEFT THE CAMP, NOT WHEN HE FELT LIKE IT. DURNFORD ARRIVED, MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT BE STAYING, MADE DECISIONS AND ISSUED ORDERS AS SENIOR OFFICER WHILST IN CAMP AND THEN LEFT. COMMAND REVERTED TO PULLEINE. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHY SOME FORUM MEMBERS (NOT YOU) CANNOT GRASP THIS. IT IS SIMPLE ENOUGH.

It is difficult to see how this could be any clearer.
Sorry if it doesn't fit in with your biasd view, but we could all learn a lot from an historian of Julian's calibre.
Don't come back at him either with daft comments like "name your source" when it is all out there for you to read yourself.

Before someone asks...even without the brevet colonel rank, Durnford's lieutenant-colonelcy outranked Pulleine brevet lieutenant-colonelcy (the latter being a substantive major).

Before someone asks...even without the brevet colonel rank, Durnford's lieutenant-colonelcy outranked Pulleine brevet lieutenant-colonelcy (the latter being a substantive major).

Where's that from Julian...

Please don't keep coming back with comments like "where's that from?"

It is pointless. Read and learn - it is all out there for you to read yourself.

8 is bigger than 6.

Where's that from? Name your source!

As its been said before far to many, rely on Julian to provide the answers. No one it's doubting Julian's knowledge, but he has made mistakes he's human, he aloud to. But most of you ramble on, confusing issues, then expect Julian to come to your rescue. I have read Julian's last publication under the guildence of LH, ie which sources LH used to confirm Hall was the man. And it undoubtly was. But I do not agree with everything Julian's says. I like to check before jumping on the Julian band- waggon. Like you all do. If Julian said it was Younghusband who caused the loss, you would all agree. Some of us are not like that, hopefully Julian will respect that.

No. If Julian said it was Younghusband who caused the loss, we would all want to know why.
But basics like what rank is senior to another is not something for which you should be asking for clarification.
This is petty, verging on childish.

See this being locked down.

'fraid so.

There is none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

Tasker/CTSG

Please don't get into a tussle on my behalf. I'm perfectly aware this forum isn't a university seminar room and that forum members are not undergraduates. Some of you are far better in your thinking/knowledge than that; some are far worse. I expect no-one to accept anything I write and I certainly don't like the idea of being deferred to or of there being a 'Julian bandwagon' - that's not good history. There is far too much of that among AZW historians. No-one is a fount of all knowledge on the subject and of course I make mistakes too; my memory isn't perfect. I also do expect to be asked for sources. However I also expect some latitude over the latter where nothing controversial is stated and where the "bleedin' obvious is stated". The ranks of officers would be a prime example.

So, since you ask, CTSG, Hart's Army List 1879 (again): Pulleine, 24th Regt of Foot, Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Burmester. Check it for yourself.

On a separate matter, CTSG, I would be very interested to know what it was you disagreed with or were unsure of in the Brave Fugitive article I wrote because I was careful to substantiate everything I wrote and I am always keen to fill any missing gaps. Feel free to do this as a pm or via a separate or existing thread. Perhaps you weren't referring to this article but were speaking generally?

ADMIN

I hope that after this you will not lock the topic down.

And there are those that listen, but don't hear.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Tasker/CTSG

I also do expect to be asked for sources. However I also expect some latitude over the latter where nothing controversial is stated and where the "bleedin' obvious is stated". The ranks of officers would be a prime example.

So, since you ask, CTSG, Hart's Army List 1879 (again): Pulleine, 24th Regt of Foot, Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Burmester. Check it for yourself.

On a separate matter, CTSG, I would be very interested to know what it was you disagreed with or were unsure of in the Brave Fugitive article I wrote because I was careful to substantiate everything I wrote and I am always keen to fill any missing gaps.

.

Julian, thanks for that; indeed, the ranks of officers as being "bleedin obvious" is what I was pointing out. Asking for a source for this is, well, silly.
CTSG will disagree with anything if it doesn't fit in with his closed minded point of view, even if the Good Lord were to tell him personally. It is pointless debating with him, it is a waste of valuable time.
Most of us on this forum, I would like to think, are open minded and willing to be convinced either way based on the strength of arguments and evidence, not bias.

Mr Greaves wrote:

And there are those that listen, but don't hear.

Yes. The Same people.

Ctsg.
Your post of 2.45 am does appear or gives the appearance the penny is dropping / or dropped ! . As for Chelmesford not being part of the blame , you could say the same for Durnford as lets remember , HE , wasnt there either when the battle started ! . I agree with you in part , but there are a few more to share the blame . Harts Army list is the primary source of officer ranks , as from memory the Army used it ! . You cant get anymore Primary Source than that . I also havent agreed with Julian on certain points and we've had our spirited debates . I'm in agreeance with him on this though .
90th

90th if you go back over CTSG post you can see, he has never put the blame on Durnford alone, he has always implicated Pulleine, and its good to see, he puts some on Chelmsford.

90th

Quote :

As for Chelmesford not being part of the blame

Lord Chelmsford, whilst culpable in a number of regards, cannot be blamed for the shocking bad tactical dispersal of the force at Isandlwana - the principal factor in determining that the final outcome would be worse than merely bad (loss of the stores and oxen, rout of the NNC) but, instead, utterly disastrous (a battle of annihilation). The blame for dispersal rests partly with Pulleine, who should have been firmer with a man who was only his marginal superior, (though it follows that the original sin is logically not Col P's), but overwhelmingly with the man in charge - the overall tactical commander himself - and that's Durnford

A fair comment from CTSG.
It looks like we are coming back to the one logical and thinking person's conclusion.
A loss like iSandlwana can not be blamed on one man alone, but a whole raft of failings from several men.
And Crealock's part was as big as anyone else's for failing to convey LC's intentions to Durnford.
Combined with being totally outplayed by Ntshingwayo in round 1 of the contest.

Round 3 you mean.

Quote :

On a separate matter, CTSG, I would be very interested to know what it was you disagreed with or were unsure of in the Brave Fugitive article I wrote because I was careful to substantiate everything I wrote and I am always keen to fill any missing gaps. Feel free to do this as a pm or via a separate or existing thread. Perhaps you weren't referring to this article but were speaking generally?

Didn't see this, so will reply.

I didn't have an opinion, I put it down to speculation on your part. I was going to post something in regards to the publication relating to the Brave Fugitive, but run it past LH first, who quite rightly suggested I didn't post it without first checking the sources that he had used, long winded and boring, by what he showed me convinced me "Hall" was the man. And as you say, the pieces started to fit together.

However. I will not agree all the time because you are " Julian Whybra" if I think your wrong. I will say so.

But good work on the Brave Fugitive!

"Speculation"

Julian doesn't do speculation.


"first checking the sources that he had used, long winded and boring"

Thorough historians have thankfully done all of this hard work for us so we don't have to. When JW posts, read it, learn from it and take it for granted that the info is well researched and unbiased.

Would it matter if I locked down, someone would only start another. Considering this topic is
" Crealocks Note Book" is turned into " Durnford was he Capable"

Where possible try to stay on topic. And no personal attacks.

Perhaps it would be helpfull to analyse all of the orders issued to Durnford until his death on the 22nd.

Quote :

run it past LH first, who quite rightly suggested I didn't post it without first checking the sources that he had used, long winded and boring

I'll remember that!!!!!

littlehand wrote:

Quote :

run it past LH first, who quite rightly suggested I didn't post it without first checking the sources that he had used, long winded and boring

I'll remember that!!!!!

I think CTSG is saying that checking the sources was long winded and boring, not you LH!

He was hard work though.!!!

But it stills stands. originally posted by Ray63.

Chelmsford's order to Durnford on the 19th is below.

1. You are requested to move the troops under your immediate command viz: mounted men, rocket battery and Sikeli's men to Rorke's Drift tomorrow on the 20th inst.; and to encamp on the left bank of the Buffalo (in zululand).

2. No 3 column moves tomorrow to the Isandhlana (sic) hill.

3. Major Bengough with his battalion native contingent at Sand Spruit is to hold himself in readiness to cross the Buffalo at the shortest possible notice to operate against the chief Matyana & c. His wagons will cross at Rourke's (sic) Drift.

4. Information is requested as to the ford where the above Battalion can best cross, so as to co-operate with No 3 column in clearing the country occupied by the chief Matyana

There is nothing in that order to indicate, (as Bengough’s orders do) that Durnford was required to co-operate with No 3 column against the Matyana's. He was to remain on the left bank of the Buffalo!!!

You asked for it Pete, hopefully here it is.

An analysis of the orders.

With the few exceptions, it appears that most of you are having great difficulty trying to understand the orders that Chelmsford sent to Durnford. Some 'barrack room lawyers' seem to think they know what they mean, however, when asked to let us know, they remain silent, which must mean that they have no idea.

Firstly, Major Bengough was part of No 2 Column, under the command of Col Durnford, any orders for Bengough would have been conveyed via Durnford, hence Chelmsford mentioning Bengough separately.

Chelmsford made a hasty tour of the border defences, and rode to d'Almaine's to discuss No 2 column's roll with Col Durnford personally, this is when Chelmsford would have discussed his plans regarding Durnford's and Bengough's part in the attack on the Matyanas (the pincer movement), and two days later Durnford began the move to Sandspruit.

When the move from Sandspruit to Rorke's Drift was ordered, Bengough would remain there, and Durnford would move up to Rorke's Drift.

So part one of the order is telling Durnford to move up to Rorke's Drift.

Part two of the order is telling Durnford that No 3 Column is moving from Rorke's Drift to iSandlwana.

Part three of the order is telling Durnford to leave Bengough behind at Sandspruit.

Part four of the order is asking Durnford to seek a good place to cross the ford where Bengough can be of best use to offer his support in the attack on the Matyanas.

The reason why most of you don't understand the meaning of "co-operate with No 3 Column", is because Chelmsford could not make his mind up where to 'attach' Durnford's No 2 Column. He at first was going to 'attach' Durnford to No 1 Column as a sort of flying column to support (co-operate) with Pearson's No 1 Column. But then changed his mind and ordered Durnford to move closer to support (co-operate) with the centre column (No 3 Column).

Durnford now knows that he is required to support (co-operate) with Chelmsford in the attack on the Matyanas (one arm of the pincer), and that Bengough is to also be part of the attack on the Matyanas (the other arm of the pincer).

The order of the 22nd now tells Durnford that he is to come up to the camp, and that Bengough is to move to Rorke's Drift, as he was ordered to do yesterday. It also tells him that Chelmsford and Glyn are moving off to to attack a zulu force about 10 miles distant, and that if Bengough has already crossed the river, he is to move up to Nangwane Valley.

Durnford would have already been informed about Dartnell's encounter with the zulus, and through the order saying that Bengough should move up to the Nangwane Valley, he would be under the impression that the pincer movement that he is part of was now under way, and that he should get to the camp quickly to be able to support (co-operate) with Chelmsford ASAP. He would no doubt be expecting to find orders waiting for him at the camp if there was any change to this agenda, but there were none. When he arrives and gets the reports of zulus in the area of the camp, he can see that Pulleine has done little about getting better information, he sends out his own men to try to get better information, and that is when the report comes in about zulus heading towards Chelmsford, he has been ordered to support (co-operate) with Chelmsford, so he has no option but to act on this report, and sets off to find out what these zulus are up to and where they are going.

Sources on the above can be found in various books, including Zulu Rising by Ian Knight. All you have to do is read them like others have to do to find things out.

Impi .
If you go back over CTSG'S comments over his time on the forum you will see a dramatic change in who he proportions the blame , once upon a time it was never ever LC , and as I posted the penny has dropped / dropping in that he can now say LC
played a part , but as I've always said , so did all the others , it's never been the fault of one man , but several , and some generalship from Ntshingwayo ! .
90th

Hi 90th,

Hope you are keeping well downunder.
It is the wet season here and KZN in general, is gettting a pasting with much coastal flood damage.

I seem to remember it being recorded in the annals that Chelmsford remarked on the afternoon of 21/01/79, when being told of the loss of the Isandlwana camp and nearly all the defenders, saying quote : " I dont believe it, I left 1000 men to guard the camp".

Now , which 1000 men was Chelmsford referring too ?.

Specifically, did the 1000 include Durnfords column, or was it excluded. If it was the latter, it proves that Chelmford did not expect Durnford to be guarding the camp as he knew that he was obeying his ( Chelmsford's) instructions and was out of the camp and suporting him in the action against Matanya.

In my mind that is the clincher, and if so, Durnford has no blame to carry or charge to answer, whatsoever.

What is your view of this?.

barry

Barry, you mean the 22nd not 21st the 1000 men were still alive on the 21st.

I thought it was approx 800 before Durnord arrived, and 1000 when he arrived. And I think Chelmsfords comment was " I left over a 1000 men.

Martin. I think he meant the original orders. The exact wording. Not Martin's wording and interpretaion.We have that for the past two months.

CTSG
Your last post was forthright in laying the blame for troop disposition at Isandhlwana at Pulleine's door, saying that this was the primary cause of the disaster.
This was absolutely NOT the case.
The whole purpose of my Durnford Papers article was to demonstrate that Pulleine (and Durnford for that matter) were both following Chelmsford's 'grand plan' for troop disposition as described in his Instructions of 28.12.78. The extended-line disposition was thus certainly Chelmsford's and nobody else's. Read the article. It was no wonder Chelmsford did nothing to bring the Instructions to light. The most Pulleine (and Durnford) can be blamed for is blind obedience to the Instructions of their commanding officer - although I note that at the end Durnford broke with Plan A and tried to draw in the extended line and concentrate the troops - too late, too late!
Perhaps you could ask LH to take you through this article too. You might find it revelatory.

Barry/John
I think Chelmsford was speaking generally in a state of some shock rather than doing a mental calculation but, at the moment when he made the remark he did not know whether Durnford had reached the camp or not. So, Pulleine's command, alone, considering they were the men Chelmsford left there, consisted of:
6 imperial coys of the 24th = 606 men
72 artillerymen
5 NNC coys from the 1/3 and 2/3 = 500 men approx.
that takes you "well over 1,000 men" without adding the odds and sods.

Hi Barry.
I know C'ford was supposed to have said the remark he left a thousand men there , Dont think we'll ever now one way or the other if Durnford's men were to be part of the so called thousand . I'm not home so cant check anything in regards to numbers at Isandlwana . Hope all is well , it was 35 deg here today before the cool change and thunderstorms arrived about 4pm , the temperature dropped 14 deg in 14 mins . Thunderstorms are forcast for the next couple of days .
Cheers 90th.