Durnford was he capable.2

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:01 pm

Dave wrote:

Quote :: Well, they probably did lay thick about him in the immediate aftermath, until Zulus returned at a later time to recover their dead.

It which case "Wood" woundn't have seen them.

No, but Wood was clearly writing poetically here, he wasn't writing a witness statement.

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

Quote :: Well, they probably did lay thick about him in the immediate aftermath, until Zulus returned at a later time to recover their dead.

But this can never be proven, because the British had either been killed or had escaped. Only the Zulu's knew the end result. We can only speculate...

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:16 pm

Dave wrote:

Quote :: Well, they probably did lay thick about him in the immediate aftermath, until Zulus returned at a later time to recover their dead.

But this can never be proven, because the British had either been killed or had escaped. Only the Zulu's knew the end result. We can only speculate...

There are Zulu statements that can be read first hand Dave. Ian Knight uses many in Zulu Rising and the Zulu witnesses make no secret of the fact that the camp defenders involved in the last, final stands in the camp fought desperately and bravely to the end, taking many Zulu warriors down with them before eventually being over come.

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

We know that, we are talking the amount of dead that laid around Durford. I have seen no Zulu statements to confirm this. Would be happy to see on though...!!

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:27 pm

Dave wrote:: We know that, we are talking the amount of dead that laid around Durford. I have seen no Zulu statements to confirm this. Would be happy to see on though...!!

On the balance of probabilities, there would almost certainly have been a fair amount, it stands to reason. Evelyn Wood obviously thought so.

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

My only thought being they had no ammuntion. So it would have been hand to hand, which the Zulu's were undoubtly better at. We're all the soldiers killed, or we're some captured alive. There is an account about numberous bodies being found with their hands bound together.

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 26

The Zulus still say that when they were surrounded the soliders were still firing and according to the Zulus
all the soldiers were killed on the spot, it isn't the Zulu way to take any prisoners.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:43 pm

Dave wrote:: My only thought being they had no ammuntion. So it would have been hand to hand, which the Zulu's were undoubtly better at. We're all the soldiers killed, or we're some captured alive. There is an account about numberous bodies being found with their hands bound together.

As DB14 says, no prisoners were taken. In those last final stages, some were still firing, others would have been out of ammo. I understand, without checking my books, that the mounted men around Durnford, probably rallied with the last remaining remnants of Pope's company and these guys were firing to the end.

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 26

Tasker

It was QM Pullen and Durnford with the mounted men that had a stand, most of Pope's company didn't make
it back to camp, Bassge records finding there bodies.

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

Quote :: it isn't the Zulu way to take any prisoners

I never said they did. I was merely pointing out that dead British Soldiers were found with their hands bound behind their backs. Which would have taken place before they were killed. Leading to two possibilities, did they try to surrender, or were they wounded soldiers.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:31 pm

Dave wrote:

Quote :: it isn't the Zulu way to take any prisoners

I never said they did. I was merely pointing out that dead British Soldiers were found with their hands bound behind their backs. Which would have taken place before they were killed. Leading to two possibilities, did they try to surrender, or were they wounded soldiers.

Don't know why the Zulus would have bothered to tie up any soldiers before killing them, unless of course, they interrogated them first. I have heard of this Dave, but never thought a lot about it. Possibly one of the many myths that was propagated by the men of the burial parties. Might be worth you posting a thread in its own right to see what everyone else's views on this are.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:41 pm

There was an eyewitness account from an officer, who saw men's hands bound. When I have time will dig it out.

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 26

LH

it wasn't an officer it was Bassage a corpral in C company 2/24th.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:52 pm

Could you post the account, then I will know if it's the same account. Salute

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 26

First visit to Isandhlwana to bury remains 20th June 1879. My pocket ledger was recovered by Pte Carlton. Second visit 23rd June 1879 bodies found in heaps as if great resistance was shown Lieut. & Acting Adjutant Dyer’s body was found surrounded by about eleven men. Sixty four were found in a square. Four companies found. Lying as they fell fighting back to back. G Company 2/24th Regiment with the exception of a few men was found lying in the place where they were posted the previous night as an outlying piquet. In fact the whole sight was of a most horrible nature. the remains of Mules bullocks horses and harness all lying in heaps. Most every man had his interals let out and privates cut off some their hands and feet tied together. In this position they died an horrible death it must have been as could be discerned by the features as a few were still recognizable."

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:11 pm

DB Is this the same as what you have. I don't know who the author is but someone might.

"First visit to Isandhlwana to bury remains 20th June 1879. My pocket ledger was recovered by Pte Carlton. Second visit 23rd June 1879 bodies found in heaps as if great resistance was shown Lieut. & Acting Adjutant Dyer’s body was found surrounded by about eleven men. Sixty four were found in a square. Four companies found. Lying as they fell fighting back to back. G Company 2/24th Regiment with the exception of a few men was found lying in the place where they were posted the previous night as an outlying piquet. In fact the whole sight was of a most horrible nature. the remains of Mules bullocks horses and harness all lying in heaps. Most every man had his interals let out and privates cut off some their hands and feet tied together. In this position they died an horrible death it must have been as could be discerned by the features as a few were still recognizable."

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:12 pm

Posted the same time however there is another account.

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 26

Black, Forbes and Norris-Newman don't mention anything like that, surely Noggs would have done.

Cheers

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:24 pm

"Penn Symons, 24th Regiment, in his detailed reconstruction of the battle, steers clear of it. He does say that many bodies were found tied by the hands and feet with strips of rawhide, and he acknowledged the Zulu practice of disembowelment. But he stopped there; 'further details', he says, 'would be too sickening"

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 43

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

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

As I said.

Quote :: Leading to two possibilities, did they try to surrender, or were they wounded soldiers

Posts : 1095 Join date : 2009-01-14 Location : East London

Do we know, where these bodies with bound hands & feet were found on the Battlefield. Based on Penn's account, there were many bodies. The most likely place would have been the camp area, where most of the soldiers fell back too.. Confirmation would be appricated... Salute

Posts : 747 Join date : 2009-10-18

These accounts are very few, and far between. I'm sure one of the Zulu accounts would have mentioned of this, if it had occured.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:17 pm

Mr Greaves wrote:: These accounts are very few, and far between. I'm sure one of the Zulu accounts would have mentioned of this, if it had occured.

Quite. Brings us back into the realms of little drummer boys hung up on butchers' hooks.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:46 pm

No Zulu interviewed would have mentioned something which might have led to retribution. Most are very cagey when speaking about specifics at Isandhlwana.
It could be that these poor souls were wounded and incapable of resistance.
It could be they were overpowered.
It could be they laid down their arms and were then murdered (but I doubt it very much; many Zulus said afterwards they offered men mercy if they surrendered but that none understood them, and so they fought till they died).

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:02 pm

Quote :: It could be that these poor souls were wounded and incapable of resistance.

I would go with this one..

Subject: Durnford was he capable. Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:08 pm

We all know that we cannot rely on films to give us the true picture (so to speak, and pardon the pun), but near the end of the film (Zulu Dawn), it showed some poor bloke who appeared to be on his knees, and tied to a post with his hands bound above his head.

I was wondering if this was just a piece of 'licence', or was it rumour (soldiers stories). or was it something that had been actually seen and reported, and therefor used in the film for a more dramatic effect. Also I was under the impression that the Zulus did not take any prisoners, so if any men had surrendered, it makes you wonder what torments and tortures these poor souls would have gone through before being killed, doesn't bare thinking about does it?

Salute

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:19 pm

Probaly as close as they good get, to the Drummerboy myth, being hung on meat hooks.

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

If Durnfords wasn't directly responsible of the lost of the camp, as it appears that the orders he received weren't clear. Should he have not used common sense when it came to the situation the camp was. As I understand it he was senior to Pulliiene army protocol, but he still thought it was right to leave the camp to do what he thought was best. But in doing so did he not make the matter worse, by not taking command and. Depleting the numbers in the camp. But I'm starting to see what LH has being saying, however you read the orders it still comes down to Durnford being ordered to the camp, command or support in hine-sight he did neither...

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:58 pm

Ulundi
You are both right and wrong in what you say. Durnford did use common sense, did he not? When he arrived at the camp, where was the impi as far as anyone knew? What was on the plateau, as far as anyone knew? How would his plan of action make such a scenario worse? I'm afraid the orders do not read that Durnford was ordered to the camp. As for 'command or support', well, he was passing through; it wasn't his job to take over command at Isandhlwana - he had an independent command with other fish to fry; and it wasn't his job to support Pulleine but it was to support Chelmsford. And that's what he did by his actions.

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Julian Whybra wrote:: It could be that these poor souls were wounded and incapable of resistance.

That seems highly counter intuitive. If they were too weak to resist, why take the time and trouble to bind them before killing them? If it were some sort of ritual maybe, but there is no such Zulu practice that I've read about. Come to think of it, were bound soldiers ever found after other Zulu victories whether in this war or another?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:30 pm

6pdr
Without wanting to get involved in this (I don't really feel it's going to go anywhere) what I meant to convey is that a soldier wounded in the leg, for example, cannot run away but he can still 'resist' and might have to be restrained.

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Julian Whybra wrote:: 6pdr
Without wanting to get involved in this (I don't really feel it's going to go anywhere)

On second thought, I agree. Wise to just drop it for a waste of time.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:35 pm

Julian Whybra wrote:: Ulundi
You are both right and wrong in what you say. Durnford did use common sense, did he not? When he arrived at the camp, where was the impi as far as anyone knew? What was on the plateau, as far as anyone knew? How would his plan of action make such a scenario worse? I'm afraid the orders do not read that Durnford was ordered to the camp. As for 'command or support', well, he was passing through; it wasn't his job to take over command at Isandhlwana - he had an independent command with other fish to fry; and it wasn't his job to support Pulleine but it was to support Chelmsford. And that's what he did by his actions.

Well said. Salute

No one man can be held responsible for the loss of the camp; least of all Durnford.
Durnford was an honourable man who did his duty to the best of his ability.
He didn't bottle a sticky situation, he didn't flee, he did not procrastinate, he did his duty to the end.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:45 pm

But we could argue, if he hadn't gone looking for the Zulu, the battle may not have taken place. Just a theory.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:37 pm

LHand
And if he hadn't, but his suppositions about Zulu intentions had been correct then Chelmsford could have had a nasty surprise from his left rear. And Durnford would have got the blame for sitting on his hands.
The 'if' game.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:52 pm

Don't you mean "Hand"

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

Quote :: LHand And if he hadn't, but his suppositions about Zulu intentions had been correct then Chelmsford could have had a nasty surprise from his left rear. And Durnford would have got the blame for sitting on his hands. The 'if' game.

But it didn't happen like this. How long can we keep using the " If's" the observation should be based on what took place, and the actions by the who were there. Durnford was order to support Pulliene not Chelmsford.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:10 am

Ulundi
"But it didn't happen like this" - that's exactly my point. It is an avenue not worth going down.
"Durnford was order to support Pulliene [sic] not Chelmsford." - read Durnford's orders again.
Little hand
Ho ho!

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

On the 19th Jan 1879 Chelmsford sent Durnford a letter from Head Quarter camp near Rorkes Drift.

Quote :: "No 3 column moves tomorrow to Insalwana hill and from there, as soon as possible to a spot about 10 miles nearer to the Indeni Forest.
From that point I intend to operate against the two Matyanas if they refuse to surrender.
One isin the stronghold on or near the Mhalazkazi Mountain, the other is in the Indeni Forest. Benclough ought to be ready to cross the Buffalo R, at the gates of Natal in three days time, and ought to show himself there as soon as possible.

I have sent you an order to cross the river at Rorkes Drift tomorrow with the force you have from the vermarks.

I shall want you to operate against the Matyanas, but will send you fresh instructions on ths subject. We shall be about 8 miles from Rorkes Drift tomorrow."

After Durnford received this letter, what other instructions / Orders did he receive apart from the one ordering him to Isandlwana. Obvisouly the situation had changed, due to Dartnell's request.

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 60 Location : UK

Did he not receive hs reprimand from Chelmsford after this letter.

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

John, Durnford received the letter you mention on the 14th Jan.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:03 am

Ulundi
You keep writing about the order 'Durnford received ordering him to Isandhlwana'. I know what you're referring to, but read it (the original) carefully.

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

On the 21st Jan 1879
Chelmsford sent a letter to Sir Bartle Frere from the head quarter camp Isandlwana Hill.

The letter gives an overview of the journey to Isandlwana and his intended movements. In the letter Chelmsford states that he had sent a memorandum to Col. Durnford and to Col: Bray which will show the arrangements made for moving forward.

Doe's anyone know what this memorandum actually said.

Posts : 1095 Join date : 2009-01-14 Location : East London

Not heard of this memorandum. Where's this from.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:56 pm

Ulundi
What Chelmsford wrote to Frere about what his (i.e. Chelmsford's) intentions were regarding the orders/movements for Durnford is not the same thing as what was written in the actual orders Durnford received and is not the same thing as Durnford's interpretation of them.
Look at the original order.

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

I realise that, I just wanted to know what was in the memorandum sent to Bray & Durnford. The letter sent to Frere had aready outlined Chelmsford anticipated movements.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:57 pm

littlehand wrote:: But we could argue, if he hadn't gone looking for the Zulu, the battle may not have taken place. Just a theory.

We could also argue that if everyone had stayed at home, the battle would not have taken place.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:06 pm

Ulundi, you answered your own question 3 posts ago:

"Obvisouly the situation had changed."

If you ordered me to look after your lawnmower in your shed, and I subsequently saw a burglar enter your garage, would you not expect me to use my initiative and act accordingly to the changing situation in front of me?
You would think me pathetically pedantic if i were to sit on my hands in youre shed and allow a thief to enter your garage and subsequently ride off with your bike, later to claim, "you ordered me to guard your shed."

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

Sorry Tasker. You have Lost me.

» Durnford was he capable.1
» Durnford was he capable.6
» Durnford was he capable. 3
» Durnford was he capable. 4
» Durnford was he capable.5