Durnford was he capable.1

Hi Dave.

That is a good 'what if'.

I have said before in other posts that I think that this is what Col Durnford had in mind when he asked Pulleine for the two companies of the 24th. I think he wanted them to form a sort of defensive wall to fall back on if there were any difficulties He wanted to try to cut off and turn back the Zulus that he thought were trying to outflank or attack Chelmsford, so that the rocket battery and the NNC that accompanied them could open fire on the Zulus, and with the aid of Durnford's men they could drastically reduce the ranks of the Zulus. If in turn the Zulus then came towards the Rocket battery and their accompanying NNC, they could have fallen back behind the defensive wall of the two companies of the 24th and all could have opened up a withering fire on the Zulus and/or made a fighting and ordered withdrawal back towards the camp.

Now that would have made more sense. I doubt if the Zulus would have held. If they had stopped that Zulu formation the other formations to would have failed. So in theory Pulliene robbed Durnford of a victory or at least held the camp.

Hi Dave .
I dont think taking two Co's with Durnford would've had any effect at all regarding the zulu's . One point is that ALL the Co's at Isandlwana were not at full strength , so instead of 100 men as per Co , they were down to 80 from memory and less in others .
Let's say 80 per Co , its only 160 men at best . In the numbers that the zulus attacked they would have out manoueved the two companies one would think fairly quickly , especially if the Durnford force was stationary which is what happened to Durnford at the donga in any case . G Co was sent to reinforce Durnford who withdraw quickly therefore exposing Pope and his men who were steamrolled in Minutes . I'm sure the same scenario would've been played out with the two companies as well . Once the zulu would have been closing in on Durnford and the two companies , Durnford would've had no choice but to withdraw and quickly !. Therefore leaving the two companies stranded well away from the camp , granted the zulu would or may have lost more men in this engagement , in the long run their casualties may have been less for the battle as the camp would have been 2 companies down before the zulus got near it . Therefore the battle would have been over far more quickly without those 160 rifles in the firing line. Hope this makes sense !.
Cheers 90th.

What I find very confusing with the supposed order regarding Durnford taking command, is that there are eye witness accounts from other officers, who state Durnford assumed command of the camp. If he hadnt been ordered to take command why did they say he did. Your replies would be greatly appricated.

Hi Gary.

I don't think that Durnford wanted the two companies to accompany him all the way, don't forget that Durnfords men were mounted and they would soon outpace the infantry. What I think he had in mind was for the two coys to form a defensive wall out from the camp (perhaps in a donga), so that if there were problems Durnford and the battery could all fall back behind this wall and make a good fighting withdrawal back to the camp. I think that he wanted to try to turn back the Zulus from attacking Chelmsford, so that the rocket battery and NNC could open fire on them, and with Durnford and his mounted men also firing into them, this would have reduced their ranks very much. If the Zulus had then turned their attention towards the rocket battery and the NNC, they could have then fallen back behind the defensive wall formed by the two coys, and with the withering fire they could have all put up; ie; rocket battery, NNC, the two coys and Durnford's men, this would have been a withering wall of fire power, and maybe the Zulus would have themselves made a withdrawal, however, if not, and they still came on, then all of them could have made a good fighting withdrawal back to the camp.

Uludi.

"Assumed" is the right word here. Yes, Col Durnford was the senior officer when he came to the camp, so everyone "assumed" that he would take command, however, Durnford was in command of his own independent column, and there were no orders for him to take command of the camp, that was Pulleines responsibility. Pulleine had done very little about the many reports of Zulu activity around the camp area, so Durnford tried to find out what was going on. When he was told of a large body of Zulus heading in the direction of Chelmsford, he acted as any good commander would do, and went to find out where they were going, just in case they were trying to attack Chelmsford. He asked Pulleine for two coys of the 24th, but Pulleine refused, which scuppered his plans. If you read my other post above, you will see what I mean.

littlehand wrote:

Longhurst stated that he had seen Stepstone remove packet the shape and size indicated to him that it might have contained official documents. It was Fanny Colenso who, jumped to the conclusion that it was Chelmsford’s last order to Durnford.
Regarding Stepstone being accused of removing these so called documents he was was cleared by a court of enquiry.

LH

Longhurst and Davis stated papers were removed from Durnfords body, Shepstone denied this stating the body was coatless, he was lying Durnfords body did have a coat on it. Why would he lie about that ? And then what happened to Durnfords last order ? It wasn't on his horse and it wasn't with his other papers, he had recieved it mounted on horse back, there for the only other place he could have put it was on his person. With regards the enquiry that was a farce, many witnesses were either refused leave to attend such as Longhurst, or other people changed there statments, very suspisious don't you think ?

You are doing exactly what Colenso did and that was to assume the last order was in this envelope that was supposely removed from the body by Stepstone, Dont forget Stepstone lost his brother in the battle, so i don't think for a moment that Stepstone would have let Lord Chelmsford get away with it by trying to blame another officer for his brother death. Colenso was on a path of destuction with this obsession to clear Durnfords name. And anyone with any sense would have destroyed the order, not kept it.

Surely your missing the point. A copy of the last order issued to Durnford was in Crealocks notebook. Found on the battlefield, and never disputed after it was made public. If I recall corectly the orders found on Durnfords Body/Museum were the standing orders to column commanders and I think the admonishment letter sent by Chelmsford to Durnford. So the issue of Longhurst et al is a side issue that has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity of the last order issued to Durnford.

Was Shepstone found not guilty? Or was the enquiry dismissed through lack of evidence? Big difference.

The Shepstone family was huge in Natal, and indeed the cape, Theopholis knew exactly which side his bread was buttered on and had ever single motive to supress critisism of Chelsmford and by implication Frere, the sacrifice of a son was a small price to pay. No coincidence the biggest profits from the war went to the Frere syncophants.

Cheers

Ulundi/Martin

Does it have any consequence weather Durnford took command or not? If he did it was for a matter of an hour over breakfast and 'possibly' resulted in a company being sent to the ridge. On leaving the camp, as he had every right to do, the command devolved again on Henry. So what issue does Durnford being in command for an hour raise?

Cheers

Quote :

the sacrifice of a son was a small price to pay.

That is the ultermate sacrifice any one could pay. 

Trooper A. Pearce, of the Natal Carbineer, and Civil Surgeon Charles  O’Grady Gubbins, Medical Officer with the l7th Lancers, both took papers a fact only disclosed six years later in response to an advertisement placed in a newspaper by Edward Durnford the Witness Office’. In an affidavit dated the11th June 1886, of which was copied to Stepsone and reproduced in The Times of Natal, Gubbins swore that to the best of his recollection what he had sent to Frances in response to the advertisement was  ‘an instruction from Lord Chelmsford to Colonel Durnford as to the commanding of the troops at Isandhlwana’

Colenso was a very clever women, she had roped in a lot of people in believing her course. But she went to far and a lot of companions in this cause backed out including Edward Durnford and Luchard, two of her main players. The trouble with the above is, if she had received the order from Gubbins, why didn't she go public. 

She made a statement which as far as I'm concerned shows just how obsessed she was. 
"People think me hard for taking the part I have, but I cannot help it.... And while I live, no power on earth shall prevent my doing all in my power to discover the truth. I would not pause though it lost me every friend I have."

Forgot to add.

She also believed that Chelmsford had a copy of the order buried in his garden. :lol: Fact!!!

Hi Martin .
I see what your saying , but sorry I dont think it would have been very plausable , dont forget the two companies would've been understrength
as they all were at Isandlwana , so I dont think it would have been that much of a withering fire in the long term , would've been extremely difficult attempting a fighting withdrawl with 2 infantry co's , Rocket Battery , NNC who most likely would have bolted as the withdraw started and Durnfords Mtd men , cant see how they would've succeeded in getting back to the camp intact .
Cheers mate , 90th .

Hi springbok.

Some very good points there mate. Yes, Durnford's last orders were found in Crealocks notebook, but later did Crealock not try to confuse the issue by adding a line to them that said something like "you are to take command", or words to that effect, in an effort to deflect the blame on Durnford and cover Chelmsford's backside?

You are correct in that Durnford had every right to leave the camp, especially when the report came in about a large body of Zulus heading in the direction of Chelmsford, yet others say that he shouldn't have left the camp as he had no orders to do so. Surely, with being in command of his own independent column, he had every right to leave the camp to try to find out where these Zulus were going in an effort to stop them attacking Chelmsford.

In my opinion, the blame game was played unfairly, and the blame was deflected towards Durnford in an effort to protect Chelmsford's backside, in other words, Durnford was made the scapegoat.

How many men would there have been in one company.

Hi Ray63 .
100 men was from memory the standard number , but I've read and cant remember which book it was that all
the Co's at Isandlwana were understrength .
Cheers 90th.

I see it as Pulliene should shoulder the blame, he was ordered to DEFEND the camp, bit he failed to do so. That responsiblity was never relentquished even when Durnford arrived. But you would have thought,on seeing Pulliene had done nothing in anyway to defend the camp except to have the soldiers facing the enermy, he would have put his soldiers head on and took over or pointed Pulliene in the right direction regarding what it meant to defend the camp.

Dont forget over the preceeding 3 days Durnford had been receiving orders from Chelsford, the last being the day before the battle. They have been published on the forum before but in essence Durnford was advised by Chelmsford that he, chelmsford was prodeeding against the Matshanas and Durnfords rols was outlined. Is it not therefore feasable that when Durnford was ordered to proceed to iSandlwana he believed that Chelmsford plans for him, to back up his assault on Matshana, was therefore to be obeyed and that in fact is what he set out to do.

The Blame game has been played for 133 years, still fingers are pointed at individuals when the defeat was a cumulative affair. Even with Durnfords troops in the camp they still stood no chance at all. Force of numbers and the will of the zulu would have prevailed.
We cant look for excuses for a defeat without acknowledging a brilliant Zulu victory.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers

Hi Springbok .
Agreed , there were several others who should've been given some proportion of blame .
Cheers 90th.

Hi Gary.

I think that what we are both forgetting here is that the Zulu strength was not known at that time. Durnford did not know that the 'large body of Zulus heading in Chelmsford's direction', was in fact the left horn of the very large Zulu army. Don't forget the very good stand that Durnford and his men put up from the donga, and if it hadn't been for getting low on ammo and the Zulus trying to get round to his right, then Durnford could well have held the left horn back for much longer. His men only had 50 rounds as apposed to the 70 of the regular troops, but if they had had the help of the two companies to fall back on (which Pulleine refused), then I reckon that the left horn would have been stopped. It was a bad stroke of fate that Pulleine decided to move Pope just as Durnford was forced to pull back from the donga, however, things might have been different if Pulleine had listened to Durnford in the first place.

I see what you mean about the NNC bolting, they did that anyway when the rocket battery ran into the Zulu ambush, but again, if they had had the 24th company to fall back on, this might have just steaded their nerves, and they might have stood their ground and made a fighting withdrawal back to the camp.

All in all mate, I think that Durnford had the right idea, but that circumstances went against him on that fateful day.

Hi Martin .
I certainly dont have a problem with Durnford leaving the camp , he had to try and see what was happening with the zulu retreating in the direction of Chelmesford's force . Pulleine's inactivity had to be acted upon , but not Pulleine's fault either , he was ordered to draw in his defences which basically made it impossible for him to do anything of any substance !.
Cheers 90th.

Quote :

I see what you mean about the NNC bolting, they did that anyway.

Martin what else was they supposed to do, bearing in mind they only had one rifle to ten men and as many rounds. Did the British hold their position when the ammuntion ran out. We're the British posted the furthest away from the camp. Who left the rocket battery behind, while they raced back to the camp on horse back. Springbok it does not matter what Orders where given to Durnford prior to Isandlwana. It's doesn't matter what Durnford thought he should be doing or not doing. The whole sarnario had changed from the moment he arrived, at Isandlwana as it did for Pulliene and every man in the camp. It no longer mattered what was happening or should be happening outside Isandlwana. Dunford had his own little war to content with, he was more that capable of sending a message to Chelmsford outlining the situation, he managed to send a message to the bishops daughter " I'm obliged to stay with my infantry" the idea of trying to score brownie points with chelmsford should have been the last thing on his mind.

That's the problem LH. People busy themselves with what happen prior to the battle. Totally agree the whole picture changed, therefore their tactics should have changed to compensate. Both Dunford and Pulliene were at fault. The whole emphases should be based on those who were their, not on those that wasn't. As I have said before many times every officer could have spoken to Chelmsford with regards to how they felt about the camp at Isandlwana prior to The Good Lord Chelmsford leaving to assist Major Dartnell. Glynn supposedly spoke to brown, but brown was not the man to speak to. And it's no good moaning after the event.

Ray63 wrote:

I see it as Pulliene should shoulder the blame, he was ordered to DEFEND the camp, bit he failed to do so. That responsiblity was never relentquished even when Durnford arrived. But you would have thought,on seeing Pulliene had done nothing in anyway to defend the camp except to have the soldiers facing the enermy, he would have put his soldiers head on and took over or pointed Pulliene in the right direction regarding what it meant to defend the camp.

I think you see it pretty well Ray63. Pulleine had hours to prepare, Durnford walked into a loss-loss situation with Hell unfurling around him.
As we can all see, CTSG is revelling in the fact that Durnford and Pulleine are being blamed for the disaster by forum members atthe moment, but let's not all forget that Chelmsford must take the overall responsibility and blame, it not the immediate blame for the loss.
Those men shouldn't have been there at that time and Chelmsford spread the complacency like a virus, from the top down.

But I can't see how Chelmsford's to blame. When all he was doing was going to the assistance of Dartnell. How could all of the men had gone, the camp needed to be packed up, which would have taken hours, perhaps to late for Dartnell.

Being new to this subject, I can honestly say, I'm leaning towards Pulliene and Durnford as being responsible for the loss of the camp. CTSG' does have a point, when he says Chelmsford was not at Isandlwana during the battle. Perhaps it would be beneficial to concentrate on Isandlwana its self and on those who were there, and the responsibilities that goes with the rank they held.

Ray, it's good to have someone on board, who can see the Battle of Isandlwana for what it was. And your correct, look at the people who were there. Everything and everyone was under the Command of the two officers in question.

Quote :

CTSG is revelling in the fact that Durnford and Pulleine are being blamed for the disaster by forum members atthe moment

Just pleased to see, that new members are seeing things in a different light.
Instead of going along with what the historians say.

Quote :

She also believed that Chelmsford had a copy of the order buried in his garden.

I have this image in my head of DB looking for Chelmsfords house with a spade in hand.

Hi LH.

Yes mate, you are right. The NNC didn't have many rifles between them, but I did say that if the 24th coy had been there for them to fall back on, then this might have steadied them, and they could have made a good fighting withdrawal back to the camp. The British were making an orderly withdrawal, however, again it was the NNC who withdrew far too quickly and left gaps between the companies which the Zulus rushed into and kept the companies from forming up together. Regarding the fate of the rocket battery, after they ran into the Zulu ambush, they were left high and dry when the NNC bolted, and it was Durnford and his men that rescued the remnents of them as they retreated to the donga.

Can I ask you if you have ever found anything in your web searches on George Hamilton Browne's service in America? You do find some very interesting stuff, and it is always appreciated when you post your findings.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice one impi, well done mate.

"It is interesting to note that in most early accounts of the battle, the auxiliaries of the Natal Native Contingent were often blamed for the disaster.  Undoubtedly poorly armed and trained, it was said that the NNC broke and fled at the crucial moment, allowing the Zulus to pour in through gaps in the line, and overwhelm the 24th.  The NNC were, of course, ideal scapegoats at the time, they had black skins, and few champions to defend their cause.  In fact, there is no evidence that the NNC did anything other than hold their positions until the entire line retired; it was only at that point that they refused to rally.  Once again, their flight was not so much a cause of the collapse, but a result of it.  Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that some elements of the NNC made gallant stands around their officers. "

Source Ian Knight.

Littlehand
What happened before hand and the orders issued are of extreme importance in looking at Durnfords movements. You cannot look at a circumstance in isolation in order to try and prove a very thin point.
Pullein had allready written of the camp circumstance to Chelmsford in his capacity of camp commandant.
Comments such as "scoring brownie points " are demeaning to the man.
I believe the comments about messages to Fanny Colenson are more Hollywood inspired than factual.

Cheers

Quote :

What happened before hand and the orders issued are of extreme importance in looking at Durnfords movements.

But it has no bearing on what took place at Isandlwana. if the order read

Dear Mr Durnford, you are to move with all your force to support me and Major Dartnell as quickly has you can. On you way through could you stop at Isandlwana and ask Pulliene if he could get my sunglasses.

So Durford moves to collect hs sunglasses, while there the camp is attacked. Does he get the Sunglasses and carry on as detailed in the order,and leave or does he stay, because he is senior to Pulliene.

You see what happen before or was supposed to happen after is of no consequence. The situation changed when he got to the camp.

Quote :

I believe the comments about messages to Fanny Colenson are more Hollywood inspired than factual

.
Read her book.

I see we have moved on from Sublime.
I have read her book, its still unsuported, unsubstantiated and inconsequental.

Cheers

Quote :

I have read her book, its still unsuported, unsubstantiated and inconsequental.

Why is it inconsequental. and how is the book unsupported.

littlehand wrote:

Quote :

I have read her book, its still unsuported, unsubstantiated and inconsequental.

Why is it inconsequental. and how is the book unsupported.

Wouldn't this be her first hand account?

Gent's let me know your thoughts on this. I think it opens new avenues regarding Durnford interfering with Pullienes orders. But hey I'm not after an argument, I know we don't beleive what it says in the newspapers, but i think this is as near as dam it from Chelmsford himself. He gives a description of the camp, that only those who had been to Isandlwana will understand. That would be your good self Springbok. Any way enough talk let me know your thoughts. As you will see the artical was dated 1880.

Click Here

DB.

"Longhurst, Seaward ( - 28/10/1925)
He qualified MRCVS (London) on 31 March 1873 and with his regiment, the first Dragoon Guards, saw service in Natal from 1879 to 1880. In his book entitled "Lord Chelmsford and the Zulu War" (John Lane the Bodley Head 1939), Major General French D.S.O. records the following sequence of incidents involving veterinarian S. Longhurst of the K.D.G.s (King Dragoon Guards).

On 21 May 1879 when the British columns revisited the battle ground of Isandhlawana for the first time after the massacre on the 22nd of January, a report was made to Miss Francis Colenso (daughter of Bishop Colenso) by Longhurst that he had seen Mr Theophilus Shepstone (son of Sir Theophilus) remove objects as well as correspondence from the dead body of Colonel Durnford. This action on the part of Shepstone smacked of concealment. At the time it was common knowledge that Miss Colenso was in love with Colonel Durnford and as he could be blamed for the unnecessary loss of life at Isandhlawana she felt that the correspondence removed from his body by Shepstone may have contained written orders which rendered Durnford blameless, and Lord Chelmsford blameworthy.

Subsequent enquiries proved that Shepstone had found no papers on Durnford's body (as it was coatless), but that his portmanteau had been handed to Miss Colenso unopened. Amongst the papers in this portmanteau was a despatch from Lord Chelmsford placing Durnford in sole command of the troops and therefore it could be assumed that he had been responsible for the massacre.It is possible therefore that Longhurst was guilty of make a false statement and that Miss Colenso in her turn was guilty of concealment.

In 1880 Longhurst succeeded T.P. Gudgin as P.V.S. of the Army Veterinary Department for a few months and in turn was succeeded by J.D. Lambert. He died on 28 October 1925 at Ash."

That would make sense. She had the order, gave in to Edward Durnford who in turn gave to Luchard, who was in the Royal Engineers, who had access to the Royal Engineers barracks Chatham, shoved it in a draw. With the intention of bringing it to light in a few years. Things turned bad, his wife was murderer, he threw himself under a train. And the letter remained in the Draw until Jackson found it. Mystery solved.

By the way, I heard on the grape vine that Luchards wife wasn't happy with Colenso and her husbands relationship.

Wouldn't it be amazing if that was what happened.

LH's paper artical.

Who was the un-uniformed man who brought the message that the enermy were retiring in all directions.

I'm sure i am reading the article correctly, but it seems it was Durford who sent the men out not Pulleine. Pulleine originally placed his men infront of the camp. But if Durnford wasn't in command ? why did Pulliene allow him to move his men?

LH

Thats wrong and also not primary, Crealocks copy of the order was found on the field by Black in June and returned to him, the message inside his order book was read and proved Crealock lied.

The original order was lost and has never been recovered, i don't know why CTSG and others seem to think its at the RE museum, it certainly isn't, and has never been. Others orders from the 19th of January and the standing orders from Lord C are at chatam and i've seen them, and photo's of them are publsihed.

With regards the missing last order,

Davis wrote

"Once the papers and maps on Durnfords person had been removed a pile of stones was placed over the body."

Longhurst wrote

"Capt S searched the Body & saw him distinctly take it two finger rings, a pocket knife with your brother’s name engraved on the metallic handle, also a packet of letters from his coat pocket."

What makes people think the order was on his body.

"Amongst the papers in this portmanteau was a despatch from Lord Chelmsford placing Durnford in sole command of the troops and therefore it could be assumed that he had been responsible for the massacre"

The portmanteau has never been mentioned before, or not that I can think of. That would have been the best place to put it. DB As the suggestion been made, what sources do you have to say it wasn't inside the portmanteau. By the way a "portmanteau" is a suitcase"

Quote :

By the way, I heard on the grape vine that Luchards wife wasn't happy with Colenso and her husbands relationship

I recall reading, she nearly got into a relationship with Edward, but not heard of this one.

Hi All .
I dont care much for who was in love with who ! , the crux of the matter is that the orders never , never , ever said Durnford was to move his force to Isandlwana and take COMMAND !. We all know that is BS !.
Cheers 90th.

I would totally agree with that 90th, but I can't help thinking, what some of the officrs accounts say,

"Durnford took command" or, "Durnford assumed command"

They must have witnessed an exchange of words in one way or another but they all say "Command"

Hi Dave .
Quite possibly the word command was bandied around and overheard by others within earshot , but the actual orders never stated Durnford was to take command . If he did take command he would've relinquished it when he departed the camp .
Cheers 90th.

Quote :

but the actual orders never stated Durnford was to take command.

That we will never know. well not until new evidence comes to light.

Hi OH
Actually we do know, the orders have suvived in Crealocks notebook so we know exactly what Durnford was ordered to do.

Regards