Durnford was he capable.2

Has anyone read the " Memorandom by Major General Lord Chelmsford" Dated Februay 1880.

Page 220 in the book titled " Lord Chelmsford,s Zululand Campaign" 1878-1879.

He hits on quite a very things that could have been done at Isandlwana on the 22nd Jan 1879. Some of which have been discussed in various topics on the forum. And to be honest what he has to say doe's make sense....

I don't have this book. Are you able to post the Memorandom by Major General Lord Chelmsford.

It a bit to long to type out. I have sent a PM to another member who maybe be able to help with an idea I have.

Ulundi wrote:

Sorry Tasker. You have Lost me.

Then go back and read your own 2 posts of 5th November, in which you state:

"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... "

"Durnford was ordered to support pulleine, not Chelmsford"

Quote :

Durnford was ordered to support pulleine, not Chelmsford"

But he didn't he rode out to support Chelmsford in a round about way.

Hi tasker.

I think that you might have gotten a little mixed up my friend. Col Durnford wasn't ordered to support Pulleine, he was ordered up from RD to the camp, where he would have expected other orders to be waiting for him from Chelmsford, but there were no orders there for him. His earlier orders from Chelmsford indicated that he (Durnford), would be supporting Chelmsford against the Zulu's, and with no further orders waiting for him at the camp, he would have refered to his earlier orders to support Chelmsford. However, things had changed a lot since Chelmsford had left the camp in the early hours of the morning, and Durnford found himself in a rather odd position. He was the senior officer, but had no intention of taking command of the camp from Pulleine, and on hearing all the conflicting reports of Zulu's in the area, he sent out scouts and troopers to try to find out what on earth was going on around the camp. On hearing that a large body of Zulu's were heading in the direction of Chelmsford, and with him being in command of his own separate column, he would have refered back to his earlier orders from Chelmsford, and he did what any good officer would do, and went to find out where these Zulu's were going, just in case they were attempting to cut off or attack Chelmsford whilst they were strung out in column, he was not to know that this was a ploy, and was furious when he was informed by the carbineer.

Take another look through Julian's splendid work, and you will see what I mean tasker mate.

Martin.

Thanks impi, Martin. The points you make I fully understand. I was attempting to convey these to Ulundi! :lol:
(In a round about way)

Quote :

Col Durnford wasn't ordered to support Pulleine, he was ordered up from RD to the camp, where he would have expected other orders to be waiting for him from Chelmsford, but there were no orders there for him. His earlier orders from Chelmsford indicated that he (Durnford), would be supporting Chelmsford against the Zulu's, and with no further orders waiting for him at the camp, he would have refered to his earlier orders to support Chelmsford. However, things had changed a lot since Chelmsford had left the camp

Martin. It's states, " You are to march to camp at once will all the force you have with you of No 2 column. Major Bengoughs battalion is to move to Rorke's Drift as order yesterday' 24th, artillery & mounted men with the General move off at once to attack a Zulu force 10 Miles distant"

With regards to Durnford expecting fresh orders to be waiting for him at Isandlwana, This is speculation on your part.

But even with Crealock recalling what he said, (above) it still doesn't give any indication that Durnford was at liberty to do what he wanted to do, that includes leaving the camp or protecting the Generals rear.

Not meaning to sound disruptive. But we only have the word of Jackson and Whybra that the story behind the orders being found in the draw at Chatham is true. There is no other authority to substantiate their information is correct. Such an important find would surly have been brought to the attention of some military department to allow them to confirm and set the record straight, and to put to bed, officially that Durnford was not entirely to blame. 

I don't think the two authors in-question would put thier name to something as important as this, if they hadn't done their research first. Have you got Julian's book. If not suggest you read it, then form an opinion. But with regards to what the order contained, I still stand by my post above...

Quote :

"But even with Crealock recalling what he said, (above) it still doesn't give any indication that Durnford was at liberty to do what he wanted to do, that includes leaving the camp or protecting the Generals rear"

This is true. If this is the order Durnford received, does this not take him away from the fact that some members claim Durnford was acting independently.

CTSG

The last order Durnford recieved was lost, but Crealock's own copy in his notebook was found and read.

The orders at Chatam weren't the one refered to by LH above.

We've been saying this for over a year



Cheers

DB. What did the order you talk of say?

I don't have Julian's book. But I doubt there is nothing in it, that already hasn't been written before..

Here's an example.

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

CTSG
The Durnford Papers are entered into the Museum's Accession Book (if you know what that is) with a date of 1885. The accession numbers appear in the book if you'd bothered to read it. David Jackson is considerably older than I am but even he cannot claim to be old enough to have slipped forged documents into the Museum 127 years ago. Also the museum's (then) assistant curator, Beverley Williams, was with us when we found them.
The important find was brought to the attention of the RE Museum at the time, published as an article in the Victorian Military Society's Journal, and given as a lecturer in successive years at the RE Museum annually and was a centrepiece of its Red Earth Exhibition and launch relating to the Zulu War. None of which you know anything about of course because you've not bothered to research the facts behind your ridiculous insinuation.
I do of course resent the implication made in your remarks and hope that you are sufficiently a gentleman to apologize.
With regard to the reference you offered, you obviously have a lot to learn. It is not wise to pass remarks about the validity of an article one has not read; one tends to get shot down in flames.

Hi LH.

This from Ld Chelmsford to Col Durnford.

"I have sent you an order to cross the river at RD tomorrow with the force you have at vermaaks.
I shall want you to operate against the Matyamas, but will send you fresh instructions on this subject."

So would Col Durnford not have been expecting to have further orders either sent to him or waiting for him at the camp in the care of Pulleine?

There is no question that Durnford was expecting orders to be waiting for him at Isandhlwana. This is a known fact.

Quote :

"I have sent you an order to cross the river at RD tomorrow with the force you have at vermaaks.
I shall want you to operate against the Matyamas, but will send you fresh instructions on this subject."

Martin, what date was this sent?

Quote :

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."

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Not meaning to sound disruptive. But we only have the word of Jackson and Whybra that the story behind the orders being found in the draw at Chatham is true. There is no other authority to substantiate their information is correct. Such an important find would surly have been brought to the attention of some military department to allow them to confirm and set the record straight, and to put to bed, officially that Durnford was not entirely to blame. 

How ridiculous!

These words are quite desperate.

Atheory he above order was issued tI Durnford, what was the one after. Was it the one Durnford received from SD.

Sorry mate, can't make out what your trying to say. Could you re-check your post...

Many thanks for the confirmation Julian, much appreciated.


Hi Dave.
It was sent on the 19th January 1879.

Martin, Littlehand states this in his post above, along with the rest of the order.

Yes, thanks Ray. I was just thanking Julian for confirming what I had said in my other post about Col Durnford expecting orders to be waiting for him at iSandlwana, and also answering and confirming to Dave that the date was the 19th Jan 1879.

Cheers.

Can anyone post the order to Durnford that follow the one above that is dated the 19th Jan 1879

Hi Ulundi.

I think you might be refering to this order (below), Crealock at first tried to con people into believing that the order said that Col Durnford was supposed to take command of the camp, however, it was later proved that this was not the case.

This is the order.

"You are to march to this camp at once with all the force you have with you of No 2 Column. Major Bengough's battalion is to move to Rorke's Drift as ordered yesterday. 2/24th, Artillery and mounted men with the General and Col Glynn move off at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distant"

There is no mention of Col Durnford taking command of the camp, there is no mention of Col Durnford supporting Pulleine at the camp. Chelmsford had stated that he would issue fresh instructions regarding the Matyanas, so Col Durnford would have been expecting further orders from Chelmsford waiting for him at the camp, but there were none.

Hope this helps.

Just to get other members thoughts? Why did Durnford take command?

LH.

Do you mean 'Why DIDN'T Durnford take command'?

Col Durnford didn't take command of the camp, he left that with Pulleine, Durnford was in command of his own independent No 2 column, and had orders from Chelmsford (sent on the 19th), to support him in his attack on the Zulus (the Matyanas). The orders he received on the 22nd just instructed him to move to iSandlwana, they did not tell him to take command of the camp or support Pulleine. Durnford would have expected other orders to be waiting for him at the camp in the care of Pulleine (regarding his instructions against the Matyanas), but there were no orders waiting for him.

OK, yes, I suppose it could be said that he was 'technically in command' as he was the senior officer whilst he was at the camp, but he had made it clear to Pulleine that he would not be taking over the command of the camp.
If Durnford had taken command, he would not have had to ask Pulleine to lend him two companies of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, he would have just ordered it.

After a brief discussion with "Procrastinate" Pulleine, Durnford left the camp to cover LC's rear - something that Durnford believed was the correct decision at that point in time. (Whether it was or not, is a seperate debate).

The moment Durnford left the camp, Pulleine was once again in charge.

Martin
Despite Durnford's saying he wasn't going to interfere, he did take de facto command (he had no choice, as he was senior officer). He did try to get his way but didn't force the issue, and certain things were ordered. As Tasker states, once he left, command reverted to Pulleine. And once, Durnford returned...
I shall be exploring this a little in volume 2 of Studies in the Zulu War.

"returned..."???

I wouldn't say Durnford returned!

Durnford retreated in haste to a donga some distance SE of the camp to continue the fight. This was not he returning to the camp and even if it were, he was in no position whatsoever to exercise his right to command from that position.
There is a danger of splitting hairs and becoming over-pedantic if this line is deemed fertile territory to explore.

Julian. Looks like you anticipated what my reply was going to be, relating to Martin’s reply to my question...

Quote :

Despite Durnford's saying he wasn't going to interfere, he did 'ake de facto command (he had no choice, as he was senior officer.

There were plenty of eye witness accounts relating Durnford taking over command. And reading what Julian as written above, this would have been expected. So after being ordered to the camp and seeing the situation. Did he have the right to leave, and hand the command back to Pulliene. I think Chelmsford would have expected Durnford to take command if that was the military protocol of the time.

Tasker
What you say is true but AFTER the retreat to the donga, he did return to camp to seek out Pulleine, and he did give certain commands (as senior officer), e.g. his desire to concentrate the troops. This of course all blurs who was in command when during the final stage of the struggle.

In some respects it seems fairly easy to piece together what most likely happened before the battle.

Col Durnford received orders sent on the 19th telling him that he would be required to support Chelmsford against the Zulus (the Matyanas), but that he would receive further instructions about this.

He then receives an order to move up to iSandlwana, and most likely expects these further instuctions regarding the Matyanas waiting for him at the camp, but no orders are there.

He arrives at the camp (and is now technically in command, being the senior officer), but he is in command of his own independent No2 column, and knows that Chelmsford wants him to support him against the Zulus (the Matyanas). When he is informed about all the various reports of Zulus in the area, he sees that Pulleine has done little about the situation, and sends out scouts and troops to try to get some better information regarding the situation.

Confusing reports start to come in, but one of the reports says that a large body of Zulus is heading in the direction of Chelmsford, Dunford has to act on this, he cannot afford to dawdle, these Zulus may be trying to cut off or attack Chelmsford whilst he strung out in column, he does not have much other option but to at least try to find out where these Zulus are going.

He leaves the camp in an attempt to protect his General by finding out where the Zulus are going, and, if necessary, try to turn the Zulus away from Chelmsford.

We have to remember, Durnford did take over command. The fact that he was expecting orders to be at the camp is neither here or there. The situation in the camp should have been his first priority, not protecting Chelmsford. Pullienes orders would have defaulted back to Durnford. " Defend the Camp"

Dave/Martin
True. But not if he was not ordered to remain at Isandhlwana.

Julian, the way I read it, Col Durnford was not ordered to take command or assist Pulleine, nor was he ordered to remain at iSandlwana, but on arrival at the camp he would have been the senior officer, and therefor others would assume that he had taken command. However, he had earlier orders from Chelmsford (sent on the 19th), to support him against the Zulus (the Matyanas), so although he was the senior officer on his arrival at the camp (and therefor technically in charge), he had no intention of remaining there because of these earlier orders that Chelmsford had sent on the 19th. His duty (which his orders of the 19th stated), was to support Chelmsford against the Zulus, not to remain in the camp.

Martin
Correct. There is one other thing I'm holding back from the forum (although it endorses what you say) because I'm due to publish it in an article subsequently.

Thanks Julian.

If the article you mention is going to be published in your 'Studies In The Zulu War 1879 Vol 2', then I eagerly look forward to it being published. The first volume was a very good read, some great researching there Julian, very well done.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Tasker
What you say is true but AFTER the retreat to the donga, he did return to camp to seek out Pulleine, and he did give certain commands (as senior officer), e.g. his desire to concentrate the troops. This of course all blurs who was in command when during the final stage of the struggle.

Julian, I do see your point here and I take your point..
However, I still believe that "who was in command when during the final stage of the struggle" is purely an academic question. In the real world, at this stage, it would have been every man for himself, to which the number of officers/men on horseback who fled illustrate.

In 1991 a short distance from the Iraqi border, as a lowly trooper in the 4th armoured brigade, I saw Lt General Peter de La Billiere entering the brigadier's tent.
At no stage did I or anyone else for that matter, believe DLB was taking command of the camp.
In more recent times, I was fortunate enough to be present when Prince Charles visited the hospital in Bastion, in a very, very high ranking army uniform.
At no point did the Lt Col present or anyone else in the hospital for that matter assume His Royal Highness was taking command. What is all this BS about when Durnford entered the camp he was automatically in command?
Have I been missing something, or is this another one of those illiogical, stupid, latter day Victorian protocols?

I have gave this some consideration. Could it not be said, that Durnford was order to the camp, on the basis Chelmsford knew where he was, and knew he could call upon him, if required to do so. Mounted infantry could move quite rapidly over the terrain in Zulu Land. What Chelmsord didn't know like everyone else that day that the camp was going to be attacked. I beleive there are to many witnesses to the fact that Durnford did take over command when he arrived. We know that Dunford was a professional soldier
And knew the ways of the Zulu. It must have become apparent to Dunrford that all was not right. So why did leave. I have my doubt's it was to prevent a rear action against Chelmsford.

Tasker 7.48 post
For me it is not an academic point because at that point the battle had not been lost. The melee and sauve qui peut you speak of came afterwards. I do wonder what confusion the command structure was in at that moment. It is a fact that Durnford wanted to concentrate the troops and shorten the line and did go back to look for Pulleine and it is a fact that the bugles did sound the retire after this...I wonder what else was ordered and who ordered it...

Tasker 7.49 post
What you write is true in terms of pure rank - but you know as well as I do that Pr Charles holds an honorary rank for purely ceremonial purposes and that de la Billiere was visiting the brigadier when the camp was not under attack. If however the camp had come under attack at that moment I wonder whether de la Billiere would have come into his own.

Ulundi
The surviving witnesses do say that in the back of Durnford's mind was the threat to Chelmsford's rear. However, I do believe that Durnford was simply 'en route' and would have left anyway. The fracas (or so he thought) on the Nqutu he must have seen as just a temporary delay. Didn't everybody tell him the impi lay on the track ahead and was not Chelmsford engaged with it at that very moment? Remember, the men in the camp heard the guns firing, or so they thought.

I'm now failing to see, what difference the Order makes. Take Command- Reinforce or other. They were all in the same boat, as Chelmsford wasn't present during the battle, should the blame not point to the senior officer in command. Do we know for sure that Chelmsford actually knew what Crealock had written to Durnford. 

Thanks Julian, I can see there is a lot more going on with regards to your first answer. You know far more about the closing stages of the battle than me, so thanks for the extra clarification.

I understand your point about Charles, but honourary or not, if he had asked me to fetch him a brew, I would bloody well have been expected to go and get him one, at the double! And having met DLB on a couple of occasions, I would second guess with some certainty that the answer would have been NO. He would have left the defence of the brigade to those that he had previously delegated this responsibility to, with out interference.

tasker
Well, getting a cup of tea is a bit less risky than ordering a sortie, as for DLB I defer to your experience (more of a case of Outram and Havelock at Lucknow).
impi
On your first point I'm inclined to agree with you. As to whether Chelmsford actually knew what Crealock had written to Durnford, I seem to recall that Crealock said he had read the order back to Chelmsford, but I can't be certain, my memory may be failing me and I shall have to check that. No doubt someone will beat me to it.

Its been asked before, but did Chlemsford know what the order stated, that Crealock sent to Durmford. If yes how do we know.

tasker
My memory was at fault. There is no record that Crealock read back to Chelmsford the orders he (Crealock) issued for Durnford. He may of course have done it but there is no record that he did.
Ray
Chelmsford famously told Clery to instruct Durnford to move up to Isandhlwana. Crealock asked from the next tent whether he should not be the one to do it and Chelmsford assented. The record of this comes from Clery himself.