Zulu: Lieutenant John Chard:What's our strength? Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead:Seven officers including surgeon, commissaries and so on; Adendorff now I suppose; wounded and sick 36, fit for duty 97 and about 40 native levies. Not much of an army for you
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.
Posts : 1096 Join date : 2009-01-14 Location : East London
Subject: Chelmsford’s replacement Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:54 pm
Chelmsford was going to be relieved of his command, by Sir Garnet Wolseley for the defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana, and because an invasion of Natal seemed likely as a result. However Chelmsford defeated the Zulus at the Battle of Ulundi just before the arrival of his replacement, which effectively ended the Zulu campaign.
Was Chelmsford disobeying direct orders? If he was going to be relieved of his command should he not have waited in Natal until Wolseley arrived?
Or was he trying to make things right in the eyes of the public back in England before he came home. Chelmsford receive all the credit for Ulundi, and he was awarded the GCB
Saul David 1879
Posts : 527 Join date : 2009-02-28
Subject: Re: Chelmsford’s replacement Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:10 am
Lord Chelmsford did disobey orders, he received a confidential message from Sir Garnet Wolseley, and the message ordered Chelmsford not to engage in any serious actions until he arrived.
Lord Chelmsford’s was about 24 miles from the Royal Kraal at Ulundi. Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived in Cape Town on 28 June. Lord Chelmsford, had no intention of letting Sir Garnet Wolseley acquire the honour of his labours, and did not reply to the telegram.
Sir Garnet Wolseley send a second message on the 30 June which read:
"Concentrate your force immediately and keep it concentrated. Undertake no serious operations with detached bodies of troops. Acknowledge receipt of this message at once and flash back your latest moves. I am astonished at not hearing from you."
Sir Garnet Wolseley, keen to snatch triumph from Chelmsford, intended to sail to Port Durnford and link up with the 1st Division along the coast. From there he hoped he could move the Division forward and get to Ulundi in time to lead the attack.
A last message was dispatched to Lord Chelmsford explaining that Wolseley would be joining 1st Division and that Lord Chelmsford should withdraw if he was compelled to. However rough seas meant that Sir Garnet Wolseley had to travel much of the way by road. As Wolseley was riding north from Durban, Lord Chelmsford was preparing to engage the enemy - Wolseley's frantic efforts to reach the front were unsuccessful.
Posts : 7086 Join date : 2009-04-24 Age : 51 Location : Down South.
Subject: Re: Chelmsford’s replacement Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:38 am
It appears Chelmsford was quite good a disobeying orders, even his own, taking into account the fortification of Isandlwana, It seems he was just a glory hunter.
Posts : 2583 Join date : 2009-04-24
Subject: Re: Chelmsford’s replacement Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:57 pm
You have to take into account; That Chelmsford was under pressure by the British Government, they were looking for a scapegoat for the Isandlwana disaster, by this time Sir Bartle Frere had taken a back seat and, if Chelmsford had came home without putting things right so to say, his military career would have been demolished my the news papers of that day. There was no way he was going to let someone else take the glory of the last battle that ended the campaign.
Posts : 10051 Join date : 2009-04-07 Age : 64 Location : Melbourne, Australia
Subject: chelmfords final battle Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:08 pm
im with ctsg on this one , you cant blame frederick for trying to right his wrongs , i think we all would have done the same thing , i know i would have !!. cheers 90th.
Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 57 Location : UK
Subject: Re: Chelmsford’s replacement Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:24 pm
Look what happened to Sir Bartle Frere. He died a broken man. I heard his memorial stone in St Paul’s was paid for by public donations.
Saul David 1879
Posts : 527 Join date : 2009-02-28
Subject: Re: Chelmsford’s replacement Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:35 pm
John good point. And you are correct with refrence to the memorial stone. Trouble was he was in to deep remember the heading above.
Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand without the knowledge of the British Government in the hope that he could Capture Cetshwayo, the Zulu King, before London discovered that hostilities had begun.