Durnford was he capable.2

Yes and it's incredible...

Massacred may be a bit rich I suppose , overun is more to the point , 3 or 4 survivors from memory , happy to be corrected .
90th.

Yes you are right as usual.

But they survived, because he did not take the route used by other fugitives, moreover, they were mounted beings, it helps in this kind of situation ...

As far as I'm concerned. The order wether or not to take command, has been done a dusted. We all know he wasn't. But for what ever reasons he did take command.

So from the point of him taking command would it not be a good idea, to discuss, what mistakes Durford made and what were the consequences of his actions. It goe's without saying that some of his actions had a snowballing effect on the rest of the men in the camp.

what mistakes Durford made and what were the consequences of his actions ???.
A disaster and Pulleine really helped him ...

Why? Because they were both novices ... Imagine that LC had been present with Glyn...In place of these two novices...

It was Chelmsford who left these 2 "novices" in charge, so if you fee the need to blame someone, blame Chelmsford.

I am of the opinion, that had they remained in the camp, it may well have gone better for the British.

I think we are beyond, blaming Chelmsford, I think most agree the two inquestion are Durnford & Pulliene.

Mistake's
It's been mentioned that, Durnfords orders were unclear, regarding what he was suppose to do.

There was no reason why he couldn't have sent a messenger to obtain clarification from LC or any other of the General's staff.

Yes LC is responsible for everything because he is the C-in-C ... but this is too simplistic reasoning.

But as it goes, the more I think he was very badly served and so it goes more in my esteem, week after week.

He misjudged the possibilities of Durnford, Dartnell and Pulleine, it is still his fault ...

Ah if the winner of Centane has been present at Isandhlwana ...

As I have me mentioned before. "Saying that Chelmsford was in overall command so the responsibility must be his is nonsense; that argument takes us up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief in London, the Duke of Cambridge - and, to prolong this ridiculous argument, to the Queen herself"

I have read, that if the tents had been dropped, it would have alerted others that the camp was under attack. Pulliene is critised for not doing this. When Dunford arrived and took command, should it not have been him, who should have ordered the tents to be stuck. The camp wasn't being attacked at the time Pulliene was in command.

And is the failing of not striking the tents partly responsible for the loss.

Extract from Curlings statement court of enquiry.

"The enemy advancing still, we began firing case, but almost immediately the infantry were ordered to retire. Before we could get away, the enemy were by the guns; and I saw one gunner stabbed as he was mounting on to an axle-tree box. The limber gunners did not mount, but ran after the guns. We went straight through the camp but found the enemy in possession. The gunners were all stabbed going through the camp with the exception of one or two"

Is he saying the RA were left by the infantry when they were order to retire, and that no covering fire was given to the RA.

I didn't realise the subject "Durnford was he capable" cover two threads total replies to this topic is 1'551 that's amazing.

Quote :

And is the failing of not striking the tents partly responsible for the loss.

I had a look at the court of enquiry statements, can't find one mention from any of those who escape about the tents not being struck, yet this was suppose to be army protocol.

Possibly would have made a difference in respect of LC & co would havd been aware earlier that the camp was being attacked.

LH :

The commander-in-chief in London, the Duke of Cambridge - the first minister and the Queen herself can not held beings responsible because they were not aware...

I think I can say that these are the Zulus, who are responsible for the defeat ... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Others, even if the tents were dismantled, LC would not had time to get ...

Pascal. Are you referring to the start of the Zulu wars, or the Battle of Isandlwana. If it is Isandlwana LC wasn't aware either,well not straight away.

After reading and contribuiting to this thread, I really don't have clue what was going through Durnford's mind on that day. I was going along and understanding the substance of the matter. But on the commencement of Littlehand's participation, I got totally lost, but then reaiised what he was saying did make sense.

And on going though the posts again from start to finish I'm more convinced now that Durnford actions and his interfering with Pullienes orders was the reasons the Zulu's had a decisvive victory.

Deputy Adjutant General, Col. Bellairs, forwarded the Court’s findings to Lord Chelmsford with the following observation,

"“From the statements made to the Court, it may be gathered that the cause of the reverse suffered at Isandhlwana (sic) was that Col. Durnford, as senior officer, overruled the orders which Lt. Col. Pulleine had received to defend the camp, and directed that the troops should be moved into the open, in support of the Native Contingent which he had brought up and which was engaging the enemy”.

And really that's how it was..

Chard1879 Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:42 pm

Pascal. Are you referring to the start of the Zulu wars, or the Battle of Isandlwana. If it is Isandlwana LC wasn't aware either,well not straight away.

Pascal

Yeah and it was not there anymore !

LC broad back with other subordinates, he would have been less miseries

Chard1879 Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:07 pm

After reading and contribuiting to this thread, I really don't have clue what was going through Durnford's mind on that day. I was going along and understanding the substance of the matter. But on the commencement of Littlehand's participation, I got totally lost, but then reaiised what he was saying did make sense.

And on going though the posts again from start to finish I'm more convinced now that Durnford actions and his interfering with Pullienes orders was the reasons the Zulu's had a decisvive victory.

Pascal

LC has left Pulleine with very precise tactical instructions on how to defend the camp in case of attack , it is the regulations of 1877. They were very bad in front of a Zulu attack...

Pulleine has obeyed like a good little soldier well disciplined, no initiatives !

The arrival of Durnford has only precipitate the disasters, these guys has demonstrated that they had no experience of this kind of situation.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:55 am


Deputy Adjutant General, Col. Bellairs, forwarded the Court’s findings to Lord Chelmsford with the following observation,

"“From the statements made to the Court, it may be gathered that the cause of the reverse suffered at Isandhlwana (sic) was that Col. Durnford, as senior officer, overruled the orders which Lt. Col. Pulleine had received to defend the camp, and directed that the troops should be moved into the open, in support of the Native Contingent which he had brought up and which was engaging the enemy”.

And really that's how it was..


Pascal

That is exactly right!

Cheers

Pascal

Dave wrote:

There was no reason why he couldn't have sent a messenger to obtain clarification from LC or any other of the General's staff.

Dave

He sent Hammer ahead to speak to Chelsmford, but the general was gone by the time Hammer arrived at Camp.


Cheers

With regards Tents, there were hundreds of them, tkaing them down would have been a huge job and all the men were stood to attention infront of the camp, who would have struck the tents ? Also remember the tents were in the rear of were all the men were formed up.



Cheers

Quote :

He sent Hammer ahead to speak to Chelsmford, but the general was gone by the time Hammer arrived at Camp.

There's was no reason why he couldn't have sent a messenger, after The Good Lord Chelmsford. Dartnell managed to send messengers, Gardener came from column to Isandlwana, Pulliene sent messages. No excuse.

There was enough, Civilians, cooks, bandsman ect to strike the tents.

Hi CTSG.
I dont think you realise how hard it was to contact L.C. Pulleine sent LC a message which he did receive at some time in the morning ,I dont know if he sent anymore . Hamilton - Browne later on in the day sent LC 4 messages which he DIDNT receive so LC claimed !. I assume you mean Dartnell's sent message at 2 am ? , that was easy enough because Dartnell knew LC would be tucked up in bed at Isandwana . Gardiner coming to the camp was easy enough as the camp wasnt moving all over the veldt as LC and his forces were . So I dont think you can use any of these instances as an excuse as to why Durnford didnt send more messages to LC . I'm assuming you are talking about Durnford contacting LC , which is what this reply is based upon . If not forget the above .

DB14 .
In regard to the tents I think they needed 5 people to collapse a tent .

cheers 90th

It destroyed the tents in anticipation of an attack.

Otherwise we do not have time ...

Despite the mass of reports,Pulleine and Durnford had not expected an attack, so the tents are still standing ...

More LC has not ordered in its instrutions to Pulleine, to dismantle the tents in case of attack ...

Quote :

I dont think you realise how hard it was to contact L.C

We will never know, as he did even consider it. Not sure why you say the messenger from Dartnell had it easy, the countryside was swarming with Zulu's. Must have been quite nerve racking.

Yes communications were not easy for the armies of that time ...

There have been two heliographs in each columns

But none at Isandlwana.

Yes alas but in South Africa in the same time ?

Ulundi wrote:

I didn't realise the subject "Durnford was he capable" cover two threads total replies to this topic is 1'551 that's amazing.

Have to agree.
I think this thread has meandered off topic enough and is going round and round in circles as more people belatedly join it.
For example, earlier on, people were arguing that Durnford DID NOT take command but SHOULD have done at iSandlwana as he was ordered to (incorrect).
Latterly people have been arguing that he DID take command when he eneterd the camp but SHOULD NOT have done.
Not for me to say but perhaps it is time to lock this thread down.

At the beging of this discussion i firmly believed Chelmsford was to blame for the diaster and loss of the camp. But I have to agree with Chard1879. Littlehands participation, and the points that he raised and argued, changed my mind, Durnford was to blame. Pulliene was a close second, but his orders were interfered with when Dunford took over command.

And as find as the campaign to clear Durnford's name goe's what a wast of time, because he took command anyway, by default or other. So he put himself in the firing line when it came to who was in command on that day. You don't take command, cause a problem, and then hand the command back along with the problem.

So once again for me " Durnford was to blame"

Dave, what do you think the specific "problem" was for which Durnford was responsible?
And how did this alter Pulleine's preparations for and the outcome of the battle itself?

Martins point got me looking at this from another angle, that being the order issued to Durnford on the 19th Jan. but there is no substance to the argument, it was a personal observation, and that being what Durnford may have thought. He was order to the camp, but he took command, albeit army protocol. It was he who took the men away from the camp. We all agree, it was he who lost the RB.

The debate over wether he was ordered to take command, achieved nothing, because he took command.
And I agree with Crealock, who stated that the orders issued to Pulliene would have been binding to Durnford.

Durnford is the most likly candiate for the loss of the camp. It's time to stop blaming Chelmsford and Pulliene. It's fair to say Pulliene done nothing prior to Durnford arriving, but as forum member 90th debated, they didn't know they were going to be attacked. So why should he have done anything?

Quote :

Dave, what do you think the specific "problem" was for which Durnford was responsible?And how did this alter Pulleine's preparations for and the outcome of the battle itself?

Tasker you stated a few posts back, that this discussion is going around in circles, what your asking Dave as been discussed indepth previously.

Impi. "

Quote :

It's time to stop blaming Chelmsford and Pulliene.

" Why???

Because Chelmsford wasn't there!!

For me Durnford and Pulliene... As I have always said..

Tasker

The reports were of several thousand Zulus, not 20,000 Zulus, a couple of Thousand Zulus would not have overwhelmed the camp.



Cheers

[quote="Chelmsfordthescapegoat"]

Quote :

There's was no reason why he couldn't have sent a messenger, after The Good Lord Chelmsford. Dartnell managed to send messengers, Gardener came from column to Isandlwana, Pulliene sent messages. No excuse.

CTSG

The messenger would never have made it back anyway



Cheers

impi wrote:

Quote :

Dave, what do you think the specific "problem" was for which Durnford was responsible?And how did this alter Pulleine's preparations for and the outcome of the battle itself?

Tasker you stated a few posts back, that this discussion is going around in circles, what your asking Dave as been discussed indepth previously.

Exactly. See what I mean?

:lol:

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Tasker

The reports were of several thousand Zulus, not 20,000 Zulus, a couple of Thousand Zulus would not have overwhelmed the camp.



Cheers

"Several" is more than a "couple."
If in doubt, if the intelligence can't be more specific, the commander employs the precautionary principle and makes plans for a worst case scenario.
Pulleine did not, and this failure is his alone.

Tasker

He had to defend over 1,000 yards of ground, what did you think he should have done ?


Cheers

Mr G. The moment Chelmsford left to support Dartnell. effectively, takes him and the troops with him right out of the story.

Ulundi. Good point regarding the tents...

As you know Chelmsford sent Lieutenant Milne of the Royal Navy up a hill to observe the camp at Isandlwana. As you point out (standing orders were for tents to be dropped when a camp was attacked) unfortunally in this case if the tents had been struck, that would merely have told Chelmsford that Pulleine was obeying the orders he had sent to move the camp to Mangeni Falls, and not necessarily that the camp was being attacked. Probaly should have been taken into consideration before sending Milne up the hill..

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Tasker

He had to defend over 1,000 yards of ground, what did you think he should have done ?


Cheers

Something.

Tasker.

Quote :

Here you fall down, entirely on your own logic and words! Pulleine should have done a lot more than "done nothing prior to Durnford arriived." If Durnford had not arrived when he did, it is fair to say Pulleine would still have been contemplating his own navel when the chest of the Zulu impi had crested the ridge to the North of the camp.
And to say "they didn't know they were going to be attacked" is indefensible! 20,000+ Zulu warriors a few miles away, mass reports coming in of Zulu movemenmts! HELLO! Wake up and smell the coffee!

Tasker. I did bring this up earlier on in the discussion. But was shot now, with the excuse that the British didn't know they was going to be attack. I'm still debating wether they knew they were going to be attacked after the battle. :lol:

Thanks LH,
Don't think you have ever said directly who you think was responsible for the loss of the camp.

I don't blame Chelmsford... With regards to Col: Durnford & Pulliene. To early to say. Still looking at various sources.

Source's are there any left.

Who knows? Don't forget Julian Wybra, is working on a new publication, that just might send this discussion in a new direction.