Durnford was he capable.1

Quote :

Dead men carry all burdens.

I'm happy to for admin to lock this thread. I think I have made my point. Enjoyable at times.

Touche

I would leave it open. I'm sure CTSG will come back with something sooner or later.

:lol!: And just when you least expect it. (i'll be back)

Deleted. sas1 This would be better sent as a PM.

CTSG

Knowing your fondness for the brave Durnford I researched this article for you.
Enjoy

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Written by one of the finest historians, if not the finest, in Zululand

Regards

Quite interesting until this part.

"Much argument has ensued over who was actually in command at the critical times - Durnford or Pulleine.The facts of the case are, however, that while Durnford was away the main attack by the Zulus developed and all troop dispositions to meet this attack must have been made by Pulleine. At no time did Pulleine diminish his own troops in order to assist Durnford. On the contrary, when Durnford became aware of the attack and the left wing of the Zulu army approached his own force, he made an orderly withdrawal to a big donga not far from the camp where he made a stand to hold the encircling left wing of the enemy at bay. During the main onslaught he was thus back in position to participate in the defence of the camp, but at that stage he had no longer any means of establishing contact with Pulleine or any one else. The time was now 12h20."

In yellow. Now we know that's not true. !!!!!

CTSG

YEH...........ish

Debatable really, I know your view, Pope being spread diminished the line strength. The other contention is though that the line was allways going to be outflanked because of the Zulu left horn, so was the strength diminished?
SB writes, or used to, a mean article though.

Regards

Springbok. Maybe we should look to the words that were said of Chard. But using Durnford instead.

He was good at everything apart from soldiering.

CTSG

I will reply tomorrow, right now its of to the Cape Town Stadium for tonights World Cup Match.

Regards

:lol!: Gives you a bit of time to think about it.

CTSG

Thouroghly enjoyed the football but didnt get to much chance to think. :lol: However not to much thought needed really.
Yep, agreed.
He was without a doubt a match for his peers, not a soldier above the rank of Major amongst them.
Heres a thought for you, speculation of course. What if Wilson Black had been allowed to play a more prominent roll in the defence.
To my mind the most outstanding soldier in the column. It was because of him that the red Barron marched back to the camp. In the aftermath he was a prominent figure, finding Mellvill, the colors, visiting the camp etc.

Regrads

CTSG Here’s a letter from Hooky. Some mention of Major Black.

From Private Henry Hook, B Company, 2-24th Regiment to his mother, Mrs E. Hook, Drybridgestreet, Monmouth.
Rorke's Drift..

"After the enemy had fled from the general's camp, they came across the river here and attacked our commissary stores but fortunately we got an hour's warning and made a fort. By-and-bye down they came in thousands---one black mass---so many we did not know where to fire first, they being so many and we were about 100 all told. But, thank God, after a night of great fighting, we drove them off and we saw the general's forces coming over the hill and that gave us great relief, I can tell you. There were four Monmouth men killed, viz. Sergeant Maxfield (Cinderhill-street), Private Hopkins (formerly a servant at Gibraltar House, Monmouth and later a policeman stationed at Llanarth), Private Charles (Penalt near Monmouth) and Thomas Bennet (Monnow-street). Sergeant Maxfield was burnt alive in the hospital; the enemy swarmed around and burnt the place before we could save him and, as he was raving mad with fever, he could not save himself. Hopkins and the others were killed in the fight at the general's camp. I had a very narrow escape, for I was in the hospital and when the enemy set fire to it, I had to get out of the window and fight my way through them .... I am now servant to Major Black (his man having been killed) and a nice gentleman he is and I like him very much... "

Springbok. Just out of curiosity. Why would you champion Black as being capable of doing things right.

O H
Probably working on the Micawber theory, I cant find to much that he did wrong.
When he lead the various forays into the battle zones he apears to have been pretty well organised. Following the fugitives trail, finding Smith, M &C and also the colors, or at least being in command of the partie that found the colors. Even with his later, albeit minor independent comands hes performed well.
Lets face it not a lot of other officers did.

Regards

Quote :

Following the fugitives trail, finding Smith, M &C and also the colors, or at least being in command of the partie that found the colors

I'm not sure this would have been too hard to do. As there was a trail of dead soldiers from start to finish.

CTSG
My point being that he did it without the endemic cock ups.
regards

Lets take alook and Black's Career.
Sir Wilsone Black 10 February 1837 – 5 July 1909

Place of birth Glasgow, Scotland.
Allegiance United Kingdom.
Service/branch British Army.
Rank Major-General.
Commands held South Wales BorderersCommander of British Troops in China and Hong Kong.
Battles/wars Crimean War9th Xhosa WarAnglo-Zulu War.
Awards Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath.


"Was a British military officer and colonial administrator.

Black was commissioned into the 42nd Regiment of Foot in 1854. He served in the Crimea War from 1855 and was present at the Siege of Sebastopol. He was appointed a Brigade Major in Nova Scotia in 1867.

He transferred to the 6th Regiment of Foot in 1873[1] and to the 24th Regiment of Foot in 1875.[1] He served in the 9th Xhosa War in 1877. He also served in the Anglo-Zulu War and was mentioned in despatches in 1879. He recovered the Colours of the 1st Bn of the 24th regiment which had been lost in the Buffalo River after the Battle of Isandlwana.

He went on to be Commanding Officer of the South Wales Borderers in 1880, Assistant Adjutant and Quartermaster General in Nova Scotia in 1882, Assistant Adjutant General in Gibraltar in 1887, Commander of the Troops in Jamaica in 1891 and Commander in Belfast in 1893.

He became Commander of British Troops in China and Hong Kong in 1895 and was Acting Administrator in Hong Kong for a short period between February to November 1898.

He retired in 1899. His life is commemorated on a memorial tablet in Brecon Cathedral."

His career certainly puts him head and shoulders over Durnford and Pulleine.
But the Good Lord Chelmsford obviously saw this and used his capabilities elsewhere.

Men like Black were not needed at Isandlwana. I mean the good lord Chelmsford left 1000 men there

hi Springbok9.
You are correct , Black was in Command of the party which found the colours , but didnt actually find them himself.
That honour goes to LT. HARBER who waded out to get the pole after HARFORD asked ' whats that sticking out of the water ,
it looks like a colour pole ' ?.. Or words similar to those .
cheers 90th.

Very interesting Artical.

"Another major error caused by Lord Chelmsford was that the British army, as well as originally splitting into several columns, then went on to once again split his main column at Rorke’s drift, albeit for a hospital camp. Despite this resulting in a second battle which was successful for the British, through doing so he lost a few hundred of the natal native contingency, which did not contribute to the battle of Rorke’s drift, but would have been an important part of the battle at Isandlwana, due to the fairly small number of soldiers in the actual battle itself. So Lord Chelmsford split his forces to many times in the build up to the battle, and shortly before the battle itself split his forces again.

Apparently, Lord Chelmsford should have expected these things to cause him problems, according to Lieutenant Colonel Edward Durnford, brother of Colonel Anthony Durnford, a casualty and highest ranking officer present during the main battle. Edward Durnford claimed in 1882, three years after the battle took place, that a veteran of fighting Zulu’s said “Be on your guard and careful. Place your spies far out, and form your wagons into a circle for defence. The Zulu’s are more dangerous than you think.” Apparently Chelmsford ignored this advice, believing that the Zulu’s were inferior. This coincides with several other similar reports, and apparently other, smaller groups of Europeans had in the past been attacked by Zulu’s in Zululand, and had been defeated fairly easily, even those who took precautions. This has lead many people to believe Chelmsford was overconfident and did not respect the ability of the Zulu fighters; this could have caused a lapse in the planning or preparations made, and then resulted in the British defeat as a consequence. Perhaps this can be forgiven, almost all conflicts with African cultures resulted in easy victories for the British solely because of the superior weaponry, and in Chelmsford’s case, large numbers. So, one of Chelmsford’s serious mistakes was overconfidence and this could easily have caused the defeat regardless of whether this mistake is understandable."

Source: socyberty

sas1. Don't believe everything you read.

Quote :

"Edward Durnford claimed in 1882, three years after the battle took place, that a veteran of fighting Zulu’s said “Be on your guard and careful. Place your spies far out, and form your wagons into a circle for defence. The Zulu’s are more dangerous than you think.” Apparently Chelmsford ignored this advice, believing that the Zulu’s were inferior. "

He also claimed that General Gordon nursed Anthony Durnford, back to health.

Whatever Edward says about Chelmsford ,is speculation, unfounded he produced no evidence to back up his claims, that’s why it was largely ignored?

Colenso was Durnfords Lover and Edward was his brother. (That rhymes)

I'm not sure its worth bringing Edward into account when we discuss Anthony Durnford. He wanted to clear his brother's name, but failed to do so.

Hi all.

Not to knowledgably on the Durnford –Chelmsford issue. But it makes interesting reading. Here's my contribution.

Why would a man of Durnford’s rank be asked to reinforce the camp Instead of take command?

Of course the real problem here, is the ones that could answer those questions were of course killed in action. So I’m trying to see where we could go with this. Is it just a case of I like Durnford and I like Chelmsford.

To me it appears that it was just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, particularly in Raw’s case.

Chelmsford declared, "I can't understand it, I left a thousand men there".

This I think was a reasonable statement, and doe’s beg an answer. Taking into consideration the modern firepower the British had available to them.

There were ample supplies of ammunition. Was it getting to the firing line (Not Sure?!) but the officer in command (Who ever that was) should have set-up ammunition stations around the camp. He also failed to draw in his firing lines (Even though he was ordered to) the tents were left erected; the instructions are clear, strike the tents when under attack. Again he failed to do that. So whether it was Pulleine or Durnford, They were both officers at Isandlwana and both failed to protect the men under them.

Like I said I’m not knowledgably on this issue, so i hope it sounds like I have a basic understanding.

Happy to be corrected. Head will always be above the parapet

Impi. Yes you have a very good understanding of this issue. Yes the officers failed to protect the men.

And those same officers failed to follow direct orders from the Good Lord Chelmsford. If they had followed those simple orders we would not be discussing the disaster of Isandlwana. We would be discussing the Victory of Isandhlawana.

But if we look at the bigger picture, If we have had won on that day, the Zulu War would not have lasted as long as it did. But because of the orders not being follow ,more battles insued. Costing what I would say uneccessay life. I call it the Isandlwana Knock on effect. But no one see's that.

Quote :

I call it the Isandlwana Knock on effect. But no one see's that.

:lol!: :lol!: :lol!: :lol!: :lol!: :lol!:

That's made my day.

Impi. Lets just say you have very basic understanding of this issue. But not bad for your first an attempt. There’s a bit more to it than that. I’m sure CTSG adversary Springbok will have something to say.

Goodnight.

S.D.

Thanks for replies so far.

"CTSG adversary Springbok will have something to say."

Only because you can't say it yourself. There's nothing Springbok can say. The facts are there. (Court of enquiry)

Time to lock this toipc.

hi sas1.
We must remember you cant blame Chelmsford for what occured at R.D he was obliged to leave troops there and some of the
N.NC. were left there to do the menial camp tasks which the Soldiers wouldnt have been doing , The NNC numbering about 200 -300
deserted when they knew what they were going to be up against and I most certainly think it was a blessing in disguise and Chard
also has said the same . So as for C'ford splitting his force again at R.D , I dont think he did so at all .
cheers 90th.

Impi
A few things to bear in mind.
CTSG is a die hard Red Baron Supporter, his views cant be changed by fact.
Facts and conjecture are all that survive from 1879, the facts are compelling and well covered in this string.
1) The camp was defended in a linear formation. As per Chelmsfords standing orders.
2) Pulleine didnt have the guts to challenge the standing orders.
3) Pulleine was critisised by Durnford and told to pull his lines in.
4) Wether Durnford joined the line or not the formation was allways going to be outflanked.
5) Durnford was not given orders to reinforce/take command of the camp.
6) Chelmsford deliberatly lied about those orders, as did all his syncophants.

Read back over this string, all the above are supported with FACTS not hearsay or conjecture.

Enjoy

Impi
Try reading this, its biased as hell against Chelmsford, it does however pose some interesting comparisons. Draw your own conclusions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Regards

The court of enquiry was a farce, empowered along very narrow guide lines to block the truth being told and to protect the commander in chief. Lies were told and allowed in as evidence, history condemns the lies, so called testimony was never put to cross examination ( it was later, in parliament and in the public domaine and found wanting). A key witness could not testify because he was ordered to convene the COE.
The cover up was engineered and endorsed by the two men with most to lose, Frere and Chelmsford. Both were proven liars.

The COE can not be used in any serious debate as anything but a tool to indicate the crassness of the verdict it produced.

Hey but what do I know, my view points are formed by scholars and historians.

" Not many people know that".

Regards

Quote :

The court of enquiry was a farce, empowered along very narrow guide lines to block the truth being told and to protect the commander in chief.

May I remind you of the Queen's Regulations.

Queen's Regulations the conditions under which the Court sits— A Court of Inquiry may be assembled by any officer in command to assist him in arriving at a correct conclusion on any subject on which it may be expedient for him to be thoroughly informed. With this object in view, such Court may be directed to investigate and report upon any matter that may be brought before it; but it has no power (except when convened to record the illegal absence of soldiers as provided for in the Articles of War) to administer an oath, nor to compel the attendance of witnesses not military. A Court of Inquiry is not to be considered in any light as a judicial body. It may be employed at the discretion of the convening officer to collect and record information only.”

That's exactly what the Good Lord Chelmsford did, He himself probably needed to understand what went wrong after all he did “leave a thousand men there.”

Springbok. Thank's for the link. I wlll have a read of it when I get time.

CTSG. Queen's Regulations the conditions under which the Court sits. I didn't know that. Thanks.

Just because an action takes place does not confer its legitimacy on the event.
Ask the Guildford 5 (6?)

Regards

Hi All. I don't mean to complicate the discussion but.!

"Court may be directed to investigate and report upon any matter that may be brought before it; but it has no power (except when convened to record the illegal absence of soldiers as provided for in the Articles of War) to administer an oath, nor to compel the attendance of witnesses not military.

"A Court of Inquiry is not to be considered in any light as a judicial body."

Was there a reason, why there was not an official court of enquiry. Either there or back in England.

Impi. I don't think an offical court of enquiry was held, Which caused a few problems in the house of Lords with some of the MP's

Impi. This would give you the best over-view and facts about what really took place.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Zulu Victory: The Epic Of Isandlwana And The Cover-Up synopsis
The battle of Isandlwana - a great Zulu victory - was one of the worst defeats ever to befall a British Army. At noon on January 22nd, 1879, a British camp, garrisoned by over 1700 troops, was attacked and overwhelmed by 20,000 Zulu warriors. The defeat of the British, armed with the most modern weaponry of the day, caused disbelief and outrage throughout Queen Victoria's England. The obvious culprit for the blunder was Lieutenant General Lord Chelmsford, the defeated commander. Appearing to respond to the outcry, he ordered a court of inquiry. But there followed a carefully conducted cover-up in which Chelmsford found a scapegoat in the dead - most notably, in Colonel Anthony Durnford. The popular conception of the Anglo-Zulu War is that of a conflict between British redcoats and Zulu Warriors. It is seldom realized that over 60% of Chelmsford's army was composed of black auxiliaries, and that the cavalry mostly comprised colonial settlers. Zulu Victory: The Epic of Isandlwana and the Cover-Up traces the history of the Zulu kingdom and its British neighbors, the Colony of Natal. It also details the composition of both armies from individual Zulu regiments to the tribesmen of the Natal Native Horse who fought on the side of the British. Using source material ranging from the Royal Windsor Archives to the oral history passed down to the present Zulu inhabitants of Isandlwana, the authors shed new light upon this famous Zulu victory in all its bravery and horror, and the scandal that followed.

Quote :

I don't think an offical court of enquiry was held, Which caused a few problems in the house of Lords with some of the MP's

There was no need to carry out an official court of enquiry. Officers that took part in the Battle freely gave their evidence, as it appear to them on that fateful day. They had nothing to lose and nothing to gain for clearing the Good Lords Chelmsford name.

The book in question is very good, but if it were based on fact then this information would have been available very soon after the event. The problem with writing what may have taken place can only be based on speculation, as there is no one alive to say otherwise. When will people understand the Good Lords Chelmsford was not present at the Battle of Isandlwana? He had no control over the events that took place. The disaster lies with those officers that were there. No one else. There was no cover up, because there was nothing to cover up.

Hitler wasnt there when they bombed London, doesnt make him less culpable.
Why is Charles Manson in Prison, he wasnt there!
Why does the world blame Bin Laden for 9/11, he wasnt there either.

The arguement is dissingenuous.

Regards

Hitler gave direct orders which lead to London being bombed -ok . So you are saying that the defeat was as a direct result of orders given by Lord C. ?

Gary
Partly yes. This whole string has been about culpability. Its been my contention that the blame is shared by a variety of officers, among them Chelmsford.
I dont believe that sole responsibility can be apportioned to Durnford. Or to Pullein. Or to Glyn. etc etc.
CTSG maintains that Chelmsford is blameless, hes probably the only person in recent history to have that view, however its his opinion and I respect that........................

Look through the string Gary my argument about responsibility plus the facts, not hyperbole, that I have presented havent been countered with any thing but character assasination or innuendo.
As an example of DIRECT blame. Chelmsford set out a plan for defence of a position in his standing orders, that was obeyed by Pullein. As a consequence the Zulu tactic of encirclement was totally ignored.
Military historians are unnanimous in condeming the camp site for its exposed position. Although Chelmsford didnt select it, he most certainly didnt object to it.
So to argue that he is blameless because he wasnt there doesnt do a lot for me.

Regards

Good Point Gary.

Quote :

Hitler gave direct orders which lead to London being bombed

Chelmsford also gave direct order's, but has we know they were disobeyed. Chelmsford cannot be held accountable based on those grounds. He did not plan for the disaster at Isandlwana.

Quote :

Military historians are unanimous in condemning the campsite for its exposed position. Although Chelmsford didn’t select it, he most certainly didn’t object to it.

Why should Chelmsford object, He and a whole campaign to worry about? If we are saying Chelmsford Should have made every decision. Then there would have been no point in having officers on the field.

I don’t recall Pulleine complaining about the location?

The words of the good Lord Chelmsford.
When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command.

So Basically He’s saying. If I have issued an order, and that order jeopardises the column. Then but all means do what’s right to prevent a disaster. He obviously and stupidly trusted the officers under his commarnd to make their own decisions.

"When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command."

So if the officer’s had a decided makes necessary changes to prevent injurious, to the column (As Chelmsford putts it.) And the results were the same; Chelmsford would still say they didn’t follow orders. The above is nothing more than a backside covering exercise. Very cleaver.

See your point there Admin.

hi all .
I have read the orders that the Good Lord issued to ALL THE COLUMN COMMANDERS on the 23 / 12 / 78. And there is NO
MENTION of ctsg's post under the heading of ' What The Good Lord Said , ie - ' When a Column is acting seperately ....etc ,etc .
You will find this order was issued to Pearson and Wood after the Isandlwana Debacle !!. Happy to be corrected .
Please ctsg, do yourself a favour and actually read the Good Lord 's orders issued to column commanders circulated on
the above date . You will find them in a few publications . For the sake of this post I used them from A. Greaves in
The Anglo Zulu War Historical Society Journal no 5 , pages 1 - 5 . I have no idea how to put them on a computer ,
hopefully someone has a copy of either this publication or another and may find the time to post them. As I have said
on this subject many times previously , This isnt a witch hunt to put down Chelmsford , but merely to include him as one of the
culprits who helped with the demise of the camp . .
cheers 90th.

ps. If anyone has The Anglo Zulu War Journal no 13 , can you also post page 42 . Very interesting !.
cheers 90th .

Quote :

Quote
"And there is NO MENTION of ctsg's post under the heading of ' What The Good Lord Said , ie - ' When a Column is acting seperately ....etc ,etc ."

"Dear Durnford,
Unless you carry out the instructions I give you, it will be my unpleasant duty to remove you from your command, and to substitute another officer for officer for the commander of No. 2 Column. When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command. Your neglecting to obey my instructions in the present instance has no excuse. You have simply received information in a letter from Bishop Schroeder[sic], which may or may not be true and which you have no means of verifying. If movements ordered are to be delayed because report hints at a chance of an invasion of Natal, it will be impossible for me to carry out my plan of campaign. I trust you will understand this plain speaking and not give me any further occasion to write in a style, which is distasteful to me."


It was in the same letter Chelmsford, sent to Durnford regarding not obeying orders. So he actually told him personally, not that that made any difference. He still disobeyed orders anyway. Durnford was a one armed one man band.

There was this estate manager. Who had the responsibility of redecorating the master bedroom for his employers?

He hired in some professional decorators, and instructed them, that the bedroom was to be painted rose red and gave them a note with the colour and paint number ,to ensure they understood. The estate manger was then called to one his employers other estates, A day later he received a telephone call from his employer, who sacked him because the master bedroom had been painted sky blue pink. Was this fair?

Was this fair? Yes.

Admin. May I ask how you came to that conclusion.

The Estate Manager should have provided the paint. Therefore leaving no room for error. Give them the right tools to do the job in the first place. As we know Orders get miss interpreted.

As this got anything with to do with the Isandlwana Knock on effect. ("Just asking") :)

S.D