Durnford was he capable.2

Guest

Hello Julian

Yes this is true and what a mistake !

Cheers

Pascal

Subject: Durnford was he capable Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:03 pm

The Rocket Battery is a major failing in Durnford's handling of his part at Isandlwana . I still cant work out his reasoning in sending it forward , with no real defensive measures in place for its protection , once it was outstriped by the mounted troops .
Butchered basically Suspect

.
90th.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:08 pm

90th
It is perhaps a sign of the underestimation of the plateau Zulus' numbers (as if that wasn't already indicated by Raw and Roberts being sent on to the plateau!)
It is also a sign that in his mind Durnford was not bound for Isandhlwana. He had other fish to fry.

Subject: Durnford was he capable Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:38 pm

Julian .
Quite possibly .
90th.

Guest

Given the miserable infantry escort of the rocket battery, Durnford not even imagine what happened to him ...

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:54 pm

Ray63 wrote:: Were the Zulus that were annoying Dartnell hoping to push him back to Isandlwana. That would make sense why they wanted to attack on the 23rd have the lot in the camp at the same time.

Sorry for late reply Ray, but this is a good thought of yours, one I haven't heard postulated before. It is possible, of course. However, unless the Zulus were so utterly, stupidly, naiively and supremely confident that they could easily overcome the 3rd column, I doubt it. And I don't think they would have been.
Military logic would suggest that the division of the force, as opposed to having it at full strength, would have given the Zulu a better opportunity and they would have known that.

I am sure the Zulu would have been delighted when they observed LC's column split off - divide and conquer!
This splitting of the force is what precipitated the Zulu attack on the 22nd as opposed to the 23rd, imo.

Guest

What should not be read :lol: if it was the case, they would have attacked much earlier. Salute

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

I think this is what 90th was talking about... Regarding Crealock bothers.

"Sir Garnet Wolseley, took a dislike to both brothers, writing: 'They are both snobs and, as they were not born gentlemen, they cannot help it.' John North was known as 'the wasp' and Wolseley described him as Chelmsford's 'evil genius'"

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:49 pm

Wolseley was never short of an opinion about anyone or anythng!

Guest

Hi Gentil Tasker

Tell me, thought that Wolseley of LC

Cheers

Pascal

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Well he gave the credit to Chelmsford, for ending the Zulu War at Ulundi.

Wolseley, never had a good word the say about anyone. He was a wannabe VC.

Guest

Wolseley still thought well of Gordon in Sudan...

Wolseley was a much better general that LC, with him, no disasters in the Zululand ..

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:35 am

Chard1879 wrote:: Well he gave the credit to Chelmsford, for ending the Zulu War at Ulundi.

Wolseley, never had a good word the say about anyone. He was a wannabe VC.

He resented the VCs to the RD defenders. He used the simile "rats" believe.

Guest

Yes Wolseley is lucid, he can recognize the real " heroes "...

Posts : 706 Join date : 2012-05-05

Found this on the web.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If we can take this as fact, it's certainly shows the Dunford did take command, and sent men away from the camp. His actions all show that Pulliene needed to send men to the front to cover Durnfords fall back.

Posts : 747 Join date : 2009-10-18

Chaps. Like Tasker I'm a bit confused. So have I got this right.

The original debate. Was Durnford ordered to take command of the camp.

The campaing headed by F Colenso, and Edward Durnford was to prove Durnford wasn't ordered to take command of the camp.

In 1882 Crealock showed Edward Dunford his note book which confirmed Durnford wasn't ordered to take command.

On the 22nd Jan 1879. Col: Durnford received orders to move to the camp. On arriving he assumed command and dictated some of the movements of the soldiers. He then leaves, handing command back to Pulliene. He then is forced by enermy activity to fall back to the camp.

Am I up to date, or am I still confused...

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

That's how I see it Mr Greaves. Makes Colenso's campaing pointless, does any one know when Edward Durnford called it a day with the Campaing. Was it in 1882.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:00 pm

Quote :: Durnford called it a day with the Campaing. Was it in 1882

Good question Dave... Well it all seemed to come to an end in 1886.

"
Extract from By Dr Charles Swaisland.

Luard set out to dispel the notion, not only with Clarke’s help, but, later, by attempting to restore Durnford’s reputation through the Court of Inquiry set up at Offy Shepstone’s request by Lt. General H. Torrens, C-in-C at the Cape. Before the inquiry opened late in March l886, Torrens wrote to Luard:

" I have taken measures to limit proceedings and to prevent, I trust, the possibility of other names, distinguished or otherwise, being dragged into it."

" He also penned a note to Chelmsford on hearing that he was gratified at the action taken. Of course the General was gratified for he was safe. Offy was cleared and Luard commanded to make him a public apology".

Writing to Frances on 30 August l886, then on her final visit to Britain, Luard wrote:

The further prosecution of this business about Colonel Durnford is not, I think, to be undertaken. Anything in the shape of a public exposure I should myself be extremely opposed to, as the profession to which I belong would, I fear, suffer thereby. One can prove nothing against anyone, except perhaps, against Offy, though the practical difficulties in the way of doing even that much are enormous. You can publish nothing that will not be libellous to be effective and the case is not sufficiently conclusive, or of sufficient public importance to be taken up by a member of parliament whose influence would have sufficient weight to move the mass of government, or the masses of the people.
‘ ...I have done my best and failed. I have been told to swallow a dose - a very bitter one, and I have obeyed orders. I have seen Sir Andrew Clarke and have asked him to do nothing further in the matter’"

" Edward Durnford, too, was under pressure, as he made clear in replying to a letter from Frances that must have been an uncomfortable one to receive:

I am not a free agent, as you surely know.... I fear, my dear Nelly (40), you let romance run away with you a wee bit....the only course for me is to submit to the inevitable. I grieve that you take all this as you do.

Edward then went on to defend Luard.

"As regards Colonel Luard, "circumstances alter cases". You must look at his home circumstances. His wife has probably denounced his intimacy with you and demanded that it should cease. This is, of course, only my idea of the situation."

Guest

Ok , but Durnford was he capable ?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:04 am

Ray63
The newspaper report you have provided a link to is the well-documented narrative of Lieut. Cochrane (WO32/7726/079/1472) of 8th February 1879 in the National Archives. Cochrane's evidence has been quoted many times above.
There is no doubt that Durnford took over command while he was in camp - that is beyond question. And when he wasn't, he didn't - that is beyond question.
Was he capable, Pascal? Yes, he was. You don't need to be incapable to lose a battle. Rommel was capable but he lost eventually. Napoleon was capable and he lost too. Gordon was capable and he met his Waterloo at Khartoum. This whole question of capability is a dead end - it has nothing to do with Isandhlwana.

Guest

Any ways, my dear Julian, this battle is unwinnable ...By the British....

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:03 am

Very probably.

Guest

But it could have been won, or at least, the human disaster avoided if others had been there in place of Pulleine and Durnford...

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:59 am

You're on your own there Pascal.

Guest

What does this mean ?

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

Pascal MAHE wrote:: What does this mean ?

That he doesn't share your POV. That the course of the battle was not substantively altered by the supposed failings of Durnford and Pulleine. That your assumption is wrong. Or, to put it another way, the parrot is dead.

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

Julian Whybra wrote:: Ray63
...Napoleon was capable and he lost too...This whole question of capability is a dead end - it has nothing to do with Isandhlwana.

I think the Napoleon line sums your argument up perfectly. That said, I am curious about your contention that the "whole question of capability...has nothing to do with Isandhlwana." On its face that sounds like a pretty radical position. In particular I am curious about (which not to say critical of) for your views on Chelmsford's capability, or as I think of it, his culpability for the defeat. Now obviously I do not mean in the tactical sense...as he was not present at the time the Zulu overran the camp.

My question is actually very basic. If another of Britain's Victorian generals had been placed in command would we have ended up with the same result, more or less? Or, to put it in a more polemical fashion...in your view, starting with the supposition that British leadership was indeed capable, are we dealing here with a blunder by command elements or historical inevitability? Question

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

90th wrote:: Durnford as you are well aware was by protocol to take command when he arrived at the camp , which he did for the short time he was there . Command then again reverted back to Pulleine the time he set off to gather some intelligence on what was happening beyond the confines of the camp .
90th

Nicely put.

Guest

If LC had already been there, there would be less confusion ... But more men killed. :lol:

With the military talents of Bonaparte is like the military talents of Lee, when you scratch a little :lol: ...

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

90th wrote:: The Rocket Battery is a major failing in Durnford's handling of his part at Isandlwana . I still cant work out his reasoning in sending it forward , with no real defensive measures in place for its protection , once it was outstriped by the mounted troops .
Butchered basically.

I think you are right about this being Durnford's major failing; especially if we start from the supposition that he must have had one. In hindsight his treatment of them seems dismissive/ignorant, if not callous.

Is it likely, I wonder, that Durnford simply didn't know what to make of these troops...so he kind of unconsciously ignored them...and the difficulties of deploying them in an integrated fashion. (With 20-20 hindsight it seems clear they should have been left in camp...or at least, that's my assumption.)

Or another possibility that makes Durnford less sympathetic is that he did understood their strengths and weakness but regarded them as more or less useless...if not exactly "expendable."

So, (absent a specific statement from Durnford about them,) I'm asking do you have a sense of what the "average" Engineering officer of that time might have made of those rockets or how best to deploy them? Question

Guest

If the rocket battery had been left in the camp, it would have been particularly useful ...

Sacred Durnford, he should have stayed in the camp, too :lol:

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Why did Durnford wanted to fight the Zulu's in the open. We know this was Chelmsford ambition from the on-set. Was Durnford trying to steal the glory...

Posts : 947 Join date : 2011-10-21 Location : Algoa Bay

Hi 6pdr
I think Durnford would have known then, as we do now that that particular rocket system was pretty much useless. There does not seem to be any history of them doing damage to anything other than their own launch teams. So, the rocket question and the efficacy of their deployment has little bearing on the outcome of the events on that day.

regards

barry

Posts : 629 Join date : 2009-01-20 Age : 44

There are those who believe Durnford was under the impression that he was to carry out the order he received on the 19th Jan. What leads them to think think this???

Guest

What glory?

I think to send, so many troops in front of the Zulu, there is something that I eluded him ...

I want to know what they thought or knew Zulu for face this way ...

About who was the most experienced among the senior officers of the Third Column for fight versus a charge of brave nguni warriors ?

There is therefore no one in the Third Column who would not have committed the idiocy of Durnford / Pulleine?

Guest

IIn any case it is a chance for Durnford to have been killed or have committed suicide as has so often said by someone on this forum,(this is not me, but such theories, it made me :lol: :lol: :lol: ) otherwise his life would have been hell ...

Guest

I think the Durnford would sit on a rocket before it was light, and he could join LC in a few instand to ask what to do in the camps... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:18 pm

Pascal,
1. read the posts that other members have written.
you seem to have learned nothing from them and you keep parrotting the same nonsense over and over again.
2. please post something new or something to move the discussion on.
3. do yourself a favour and read the posts in this thread, then click off your browser and have an early night. Salute

Guest

I think what I want ... And if it displease you my little Tasker, there do not pay attention :lol: :lol: :lol:

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:30 pm

Quote :: There are those who believe Durnford was under the impression that he was to carry out the order he received on the 19th Jan. What leads them to think think this???

If he was following the orders he received on the 19th Jan, then he had no right to take command at Isandlwana. However he received orders on the 22nd to move up to Isandlwana.

To me it doesn't matter wether or not he was ordered to take command. He did take command and the orders issues to Pulliene were binding to Durnford when he took command. And part of that order was to draw in the men.

As I have said before the campaign, to clear Durnfords name was pointless, based on the fact he did take command wether by default or other.

The fact that he left to meet the Zulu's in the open depleted the force at the camp, along with the need to send more men to the front to support his retreat.

Guest

He took command of the troops, as it is the highest rank present at the time of the attack ...

Otherwise Pulleine never would have left Durnford send companies of the 1/24 th so far of the camp ...

Durnford has also triggered the attack, because without Raw, when the Zulus would attack ?

Durnford had no order to stay in the camp and Pulleine also had to leave the camp,but when for this latter ?

These guys, had no experience to control as many troops in a battle as Isandhlwana...

To the mass of reports on the Zulu presence, they had 5 hours to understand what would happen and they understood nothing ...

And Pulleine he obeyed strictly at the tactical instructions left by LC (Regulation 1877) a disaster ...

Is there been in the history of the British colonial wars, troops commanded so bad ...?

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

I'm not to sure much more can be said.

The killing shot as to be, he wasn't ordered to take command but he did. If as Martin say's Durnford was carrying out the orders he received on the 19th Jan, then he Disobayed that order when he took over command at Isandlwana. As that was not in the order he received on the 19th.

Subject: Durnford was he capable Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:04 pm

Ulundi .
It's straight forward really , command of the camp reverted to him ( Durnford ) when he entered the camp , and so it reverted back to Pulleine when Durnford left the camp !. Durnford wasnt ordered to take command because , as I see it , Chelmesford not leaving any specific orders in the camp for Col Durnford must've wanted him to not stay in the camp, but to be mobile and support him ( Lord C. ) as was mentioned in the 19th orders if I remember rightly . Happy to be corrected .
90th.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:10 pm

Ulundi wrote:: Durnford was carrying out the orders he received on the 19th Jan, then he Disobayed that order when he took over command at Isandlwana. As that was not in the order he received on the 19th.

There is no order that states "you are not to take command of the camp" as far as I know, unless you can show otherwise.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:18 pm

It's very straightforward.
Durnford automatically assumed control on entering the camp; control automatically reverted back to Pulleine whn he left.
It is not a question of orders; it was standard military protocol.

Subject: Durnford was he capable Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:19 pm

Hi 6pdr.
I agree with Barry , I dont think anybody had a great understanding of the Rocket Battery . I doubt anyone in command had used them before , happy to be corrected . That's what puzzles me why Durnford took them with him , they arent mobile and were going to be massacred at an early stage once the zulu army was going to fight . They should have been left in the camp . I think it's another instance of those in command not expecting the zulu to fight in the way that they did .
It's primary purpose was basically a show of bluff and bravado . From what I've read those in command were hoping that the noise of the rockets traveling through the air would have a detrimental effect on the courage of the zulu warriors .
But in Hindsight we know that wasnt to be the case !. Allthough they only fired 2 or 3 from memory and were overcome quite quickly at the beginning of the battle .
90th

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable.2 Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:46 pm

But would they have been engaged, if they had stay on the their original route.

Subject: Durnford was he capable ? Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:58 pm

Littlehand .
I assume you are referring to the RB attempting the shortcut ? . No doubt they would've been attacked , no matter which route they took , as they were slow and cumbersome , it would've only been a matter of time , no matter where they were on the plain .
It was a mini massacre just waiting to happen .
90th.

Guest

Not only they did not know how to use the rocket battery...

But if Durnford were less stupid he would have left in the camp saw the kind of escort she possessed ...

He certainly did not intend to take her back LC with him because it would have delayed ...

Durnford, has sent literally to death, this small unit ...

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

Quote :: Durnford took them with him , they arent mobile and were going to be massacred

It has to be remembered, that the Rocket Battery wasn't massacred, some escaped.

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