Initiative by Clery...!!!???

Guest

Hi all

Why Chelmsford did not leave any orders for Pulleine and why Clery Took it upon himself to do this??

January 22, LC knew initiative by Clery...Otherwise ,of what right Clery would do that ?

Cheers

Pascal

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

Hmmm!! Because he was busy!

Subject: Initiative by Clery !! ?? Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:17 pm

Impi you are correct , LC did indeed try to run the whole campaign by himself , and to cut it short he did indeed forget to leave orders for Pulleine , Crealock and Clery realised this so they acted on it .
90th.

Guest

LC as commander of troops in the field, it was not worth anything!

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Some may disagree!

Guest

Yeah, and where?

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

I would have thought Pearson was glad to see him. And the Zulus certainly wasn't at Ulundi.

Guest

In fact LC missed everyone, January 22, 1879!

Imagine that LC have been killed at Isandhlwana, he would become a hero!

Subject: Re: Initiative by Clery...!!!??? Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:18 am

Even then the orders should have gone from Chelmsford to Glynn and then to Pulleine. Glynn knew what what was happening and should have imposed himself. Clery should never have been involved, by Glynn backing away orders were given to a (temp) camp commander by a junior officer ( one who was admonished for attempting to do the same moments before with Durnford).
Blame Gylnn.

Cheers

Guest

The case is complicated, but it is super interesting! Very Happy

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

springbok9 wrote:: Even then the orders should have gone from Chelmsford to Glynn and then to Pulleine. Glynn knew what what was happening and should have imposed himself. Clery should never have been involved, by Glynn backing away orders were given to a (temp) camp commander by a junior officer ( one who was admonished for attempting to do the same moments before with Durnford).
Blame Gylnn.
Cheers

Sounds like your still going to those swingers parties.

I remember you saying Glyn, had no choices as the 3 Column was under the command of The Good Lord Chelmsford.

Subject: Re: Initiative by Clery...!!!??? Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:26 am

CTSG
Still consistant. Glynn was the one who should have been involved in the chain of command. The fact that he wasnt is down to Chelmsford usurping command.
Hows the ornithology.

Guest

Chelmsford and all the senior officers of the 3rd column that were not at Isandhlwana, are all good to put in the same bag:Salute:

Subject: Initiative by Clery Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:46 am

CTSG.
I have sent a letter to Pete written by Clery regarding the going on's at Isandlwana , if you WILL take Clery's own words as the '' proof Positive '' you'll soon see that poor old Glyn never had a chance of being in command , because, your good Lord Chelmesford as Springy says , '' Usurped him '' and its written there in Clery's words in black and white !!
90th.

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

And there is another account by Clery, when he saying Glyn was a useless command. Or along those lines.

Guest

Say that Glyn have commanded the part of the 24 th with LC, if there had been a battle to Malakatha and Hlazabazi Ridge the 22 nd January 1879...

Subject: Initiative by Clery. Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:12 am

CTSG it doesnt mean anything if Clery thought Glyn wasnt up to it , the fact is LC took over any command that Glyn held , with the exception of keeping the camp clean , a menial task at best for one of Glyn's rank I'd expect !
90th.

Subject: initiative by Clery Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:34 am

CTSG.

You keep on quoting old hat and unreliable stuff that has been disproven many times, why should we to take the words of these unreliable people and the words of proven liars as being 'fact'.

Guest

The irony is that most are not at Isandhlwana, some LC in head have found a way to lie about what really happened!Poor Durnford...

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: CTSG.

You keep on quoting old hat and unreliable stuff that has been disproven many times, why should we to take the words of these unreliable people and the words of proven liars as being 'fact'.

Perhaps you to should read the first sentence of the post inquestion!

You see Martin what is old hat, is when your pushed into a corner, you start having a rant taking the discussion off topic. You rest your laurels on a Historian, and Jackson's book is the only one you can relate to. It's been said many times, you don't have to contribute to a discussion if it is as you say old hat.

Subject: initiative by Clery Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:40 am

CTSG.

'Old hat' is the stuff that you and others keep using in your attempts to blame Durnford. You keep using this same 'old hat' nonsense even though it has been proved wrong, unreliable or even lies (ie; Crealock, Thomas, etc).

"Rest my laurels on an historian and Jackson"? Good god man, I have read many books by different authors on this subject, more than I care to mention, and maybe it would help you (and others), if you would only read and digest more on the subject and broaden your minds, who knows, it might help you to get over your obsession with blaming Durnford.

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

Martin, don't get to involved. but when say proven, to what are you referring to.

Subject: initiative by Clery Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:09 pm

Hi OH.

What I mean by 'proved wrong', is the old, and ill researched material, that was later copied by many other authors and quoted as being fact. This sort of material has since been proved wrong by modern day and good researchers. For instance, Crealock said that the orders said that Durnford was to take command of or reinforce the camp, this was believed for years, but since the orders were found, and years later were painstakingly and carefully opened (they still had Col Durnford's blood clogging them up), it was proved that the orders did not contain what Crealock had said, yet many still believe and still quote that Durnford was to take command or reinforce the camp. So even though it has been proved wrong, it is still used by some people against Durnford.

Hope this helps.

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

Martin wrote:: is the old, and ill researched material, that was later copied by many other authors and quoted as being fact.

Not a nice accusation to make! Maybe we will see a public announcement from you shortly. There are some very good authors out there.

But you stick with "Jackson" Martin. Who only wrote one book.

Look at the credits, and see who Jackson credits with helping him?

Subject: initiative by Clery Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:58 pm

impi

There you go again, putting your foot in it, as per normal.

READ THE POSTS FIRST BEFORE JUMPING THE GUN.

Guest

90th when you read this, you realize that the poor Glyn has nothing to do with Isandhlwana !

"In fact in a word, Colonel Glyn and his staff were too See That keep the camp was clean, the guard maintained, ect ..."

Subject: Initiative by Clery Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:25 pm

Hi Rascal.
Yes , I agree , but it's been known by many that Glyn had no say in what happened . Basically LC took over the 3rd Column.
90th Very Happy

Subject: Re: Initiative by Clery...!!!??? Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:28 pm

impi
Actually no he wrote two. I dont recall Hill of the Sphinx ever being critisised for being inaccurate, missleading or partisan. Why you should seek to denigate it therefore is strange.Or is it a case of the more books you write the more accurate you are? Saul Davids et al must be overjoyed that you aprove.

Guest

The book of Saul Davids, this is ....! Very Happy

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

springbok9 wrote:: impi
Actually no he wrote two. I dont recall Hill of the Sphinx ever being critisised for being inaccurate, missleading or partisan. Why you should seek to denigate it therefore is strange.Or is it a case of the more books you write the more accurate you are? Saul Davids et al must be overjoyed that you aprove.

Quite right Springbok.

Guest

Bravo Springbok:Salute:

Guest

Le Major Clery wrote : "The General first ordered me to write to Colonel Durnford, at Rorke's Drift, to bring his force to strengthen the camp, but almost immediately afterwards he told Colonel Crealock that he (Colonel Crealock) was to write to Colonel Durnford these instructions, and not I "

Why the Colonel Crealock and not the Major Clery, LC did not trust ?

Best regards

Pascal

Guest

Major Clery wrote : "but almost immediately afterwards he told Colonel Crealock that he (Colonel Crealock) was to write to Colonel Durnford these instructions, and not I. "

LC has changed his orders and did not write by Colonel Crealock, he would have written by Major Clery?

Best regards

Pascal

Guest

The General, Lord Chelmsford ,who frequently sent orders direct to unit commanders,had not to give any to Pulleine; so Clery

(acting on behalf of Colonel Glyn but without reference to him or Chelmsford ) composed orders himself, sent them to

Pulleine,and takeld them over with him and his adjutant,Lieutenant Melvill, before riding out with Glyn,before riding out with Glyn.

Alas no copy of these orders survived the battle,but as Clery remembered them at the Court of Inquiry they were as follows:

" You will be in command of the camp during the abscence of Colonel Glyn;drawin" (I speak from memory)" your camp,or your line of defence"(I am not certain which) "while the force is out; also drawn in the line of your infantry outpost accordingly,but keep your cavalry still far advanced."

Source:

Clery,C.of I.

" What I wanted to convey," wrote Clery later,"was this-'keep a sharp look out with yor Cavalry. Get your Infantry outposts back closer to your Camp. Fight compact if you are attacked.Act stricly on the defensive and hold the camp."

Source:

Clery,report.

Subject: Initiative by Clery ! Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:35 am

The Clery report came to light AFTER the battle , he no doubt put it together with the benefit of hindsight . He even states
something like '' I'm not certain which ? ''.
90th

Guest

Yes Marsupial ,but It has a sacred responsibility anyway !

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

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

Guest

Read in the newspaper THE STAR, friday, January 19, 1900

Lord Wolseley has ever held Clery in hight esteem ...

The story run that had Clery's advice been followed they would have escaped ?

He advised Lord Chelmsford to fortify the camp on 24 th ...

Clery's suggestion been adopted,the massacre would not have occurred...

Cheers

Pascal

» Durnford was he capable. 3
» Clery's advice to Chelmsford
» Maj. C. Clery, Principle Staff Officer,
» Order to Pulleine from CLERY the 22 january about the defense of the camp