Durnford was he capable. 3

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

JW wrote:: In my personal opinion, I imagine Smythe was with Durnford

That's another one added to the list. Another officer who was with Durnford, I think of the same regiment as Smythe, thought Dunford hadn't got clue what to do, and stated he wish he hadn't never served under him.

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

This is a terrific find Littlehand. You are most certainly to be congratulated. But reading it made me smile and shake my head.

littlehand wrote:: Sir Theophilus thinks that Sir Bartle
Frere will be glad at the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley, as it will relieve him of
enormous responsibilities.

Spin doctoring is quite obviously nothing new... Today here in the US we would say, "Sir Bartle looks forward to spending more time with his family after being away from them for so long." Rolling Eyes

Quote :: He expressed doubts of the genuineness of Cetewayo’s overtures for peace...

Since T. Shepstone was always a pillar of sincerity, I would be quick to take him at his word on this too. Rolling Eyes

Quote :: Captain Smythe, of the Native Contingent, who escaped from Isandlwhana, has also returned to England. He thinks that Colonel Durnford was chiefly responsible for that disaster, [/b][/color]and that owing to the difficulties of transport a speedy end to the war cannot be hoped for.

I think we hit the trifecta here...or three on a match...which unfortunately was pretty typical of Victorian journalism. Chelmsford turned out to be pretty good at solving transport problems when his reputation was on the line.

Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France

impi wrote:: It will have been based on the work of several authors including the inimitable Norman Holme.

Bonsoir Impi,

It's a curious comment because yesterday, you have said about SMYTHE, "Who's this chap"?
In "The Noble 24th" appendice 4, "European survivors of Isandhlwana", SMYTHE is on the list BUT with"?" (HOLME's note).
In "They fell lihe stones" by Mister John YOUNG, SMYTHE is also on the list of the survivors (Greenhill Books -1991- p.67).
For a constructive debate, can you give us (or "CHARD 1879") who are these "several authors"?, What are your source?
Many thanks for that.

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Ymob, you should read all the posts. Click on link below, then scroll down to the 14th post, there you will find the source:

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

Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France

24th wrote:: Ymob, you should read all the posts. Click on link below, then scroll down to the 14th post, there you will find the source:

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

Bonjour 24th,
Sorry, but it's not the same topic!
Impi or Chard 187 have given their source in the topic. " David Jenkins" ?
Curious. OK- Why not ? Very Happy

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 61 Location : UK

ymob wrote:

impi wrote:: It will have been based on the work of several authors including the inimitable Norman Holme.

Bonsoir Impi,

It's a curious comment because yesterday, you have said about SMYTHE, "Who's this chap"?
In "The Noble 24th" appendice 4, "European survivors of Isandhlwana", SMYTHE is on the list BUT with"?" (HOLME's note).
In "They fell lihe stones" by Mister John YOUNG, SMYTHE is also on the list of the survivors (Greenhill Books -1991- p.67).
For a constructive debate, can you give us (or "CHARD 1879") who are these "several authors"?, What are your source?
Many thanks for that.

Ymob, the source was JW. It's in the link posted

Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France

Ymob, the source was JW. It's in the link posted[/quote]10.24.2013J

John,
I know that.
It's me who have given this source (Julian Whybra / England's sons ) in a précédent post!!!!

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

I read that some Zulu' s gave themselves in, prior to the Battle at Isandlwana, but we're released. Was this not a mistake, in that who ever theses prisions were, had knowledge on the state of the camp, which could be used against the British. Or did his not happen?

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

Durnford let them go, based on Brickhill saying they could be trusted. So we could say they were released on Brickhills opinion!

Not sure if these Natives returned to the Zulu army. But yes stupid move.

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

Ulundi wrote:: I read that some Zulu' s gave themselves in, prior to the Battle at Isandlwana, but we're released. Was this not a mistake, in that who ever theses prisions were, had knowledge on the state of the camp, which could be used against the British. Or did his not happen?

It happened twice actually.

First, on the day before the battle, Chief Gamdana came in with a group of his men to surrender firearms. This was in keeping with a prior agreement with Chelmsford who had been concerned with his attitude toward the invasion. Although nowhere near as important, Gamdana was a border chief which put him in a position similar to Dunn (i.e. between a rock and hard place.) Faced with having to pick a winner, like Dunn, he decided to make a gesture of concession to the British. So, Gamdana walked into the camp and offered firearms to Chelmsford. The guns he brought were rejected as too antiquated or useless. The chief promised to do better the next day and departed.

On the day of the battle 8 of Gamdana's advisers returned with 11 guns just before Durnford arrived...so around 9:45-10:15. This is basically when the battle was was beginning. (More sightings were coming in etc...) Different accounts speculate on who said what to whom. I think it's likely Durnford was one who interviewed them (along with Brickhill.) In any case, after their guns were taken they asked permission to leave because they said they were afraid the Zulu would be seizing their cattle soon. Brickhill, the man who escorted them through the camp to the column headquarters area was careful to take them BEHIND the tents so they wouldn't be able to see the paraded Regulars. GIven the timeline of the battle it is virtually impossible these 8 men would have been able to share what they saw with anybody on the Zulu side before the actual gunfire erupted.

But what could they have seen that was not visible from the heights all morning or more anyway? IMO very little of enough value to alter the battle because there were no fortifications and the troops were standing in plain sight. About the only POSSIBLE information they might have gleaned was that there were no additional troops in the camp. Again, there has never been any indication that Gamdana or his people communicated anything whatsoever to the Zulu army. In fact, if Mehlokazulu's account can be believed, the Zulu were not even aware that Chelmsford had departed with half the strength of the camp overnight! One would have thought they'd noticed that.

I think the real question is how did Gamdana's people know with such specificity when the Zulu army was going to be in a position to seize their cattle. THAT SHOULD HAVE PUT THE BRITISH ON ALERT, but of course, overconfident as they were...they didn't follow up on the conversation at all.

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

They asked to leave because the general wasnt there, along with wanting to collect their cattle, as they had wandered off to old pastures. And they was going to return the next day.

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

impi wrote:: They asked to leave because the general wasnt there, along with wanting to collect their cattle, as they had wandered off to old pastures. And they was going to return the next day.

Yes, they were disappointed that the General was not there. Not that it much matters, but why would they return after the muskets were delivered and accepted? They had done what was expected of them...or so I would think.

But I have not read where they wanted to get back home and finish their chores. They very specifically said that they didn't want the Zulu seizing their cattle because an impi was (over)due to arrive. Personally, I think I might have asked some followup questions upon hearing that one. Perhaps it's even why Durnford was so keen to start dispatching patrols all over the place... (Just kidding on the last sentence.)

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

I didn't say they wanted to go home, the cattle and strayed from their old pastures on to the flats of the Ulilasakasi. They possibly wanted to go back the next day, as they thought LC would be there.

Guest

Deleted Off topic.

Posts : 629 Join date : 2009-01-20 Age : 45

6pdr. Where did your information come from.

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

"Gamdana correctly reported that the Zulu army was approaching the nearby hills of Isipezi but he and his information were dismissed. Rebuffed by Chelmsford, Gamdana was able to assess the strength and layout of the British camp, a point of accusation that would later be levelled against Chelmsford by some of his own staff officers"

Who levelled these accusations at LC.

Brickhill states he escorted the natives out of the camp, but which way did they enter the camp?

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

sas1 wrote:: 6pdr. Where did your information come from.

Ian Knight primarily.

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

24th wrote:: "Gamdana correctly reported that the Zulu army was approaching the nearby hills of Isipezi but he and his information were dismissed. Rebuffed by Chelmsford, Gamdana was able to assess the strength and layout of the British camp, a point of accusation that would later be levelled against Chelmsford by some of his own staff officers"

Who levelled these accusations at LC.

Brickhill states he escorted the natives out of the camp, but which way did they enter the camp?

They came in from the south, through the main guard tent near the traders path and were walked to the center behind the tent rows. Brickhill escorted them in and Durnford recognized him and approached. Then came the palaver and dismissal. I suppose Brickhill would have taken them out the way the came in.

As to who made the accusations, I do not know. Gamdama, who seems to have only been there on the first day, would have had time to talk to somebody, I suppose, but not the eight who visited on the day of the battle. Brickhill seems to have been open about it and the presence of these two parties was reported by multiple sources. Nobody seems to have made anything of it until after the disaster. Personally I think the whole thing is 20-20 hindsight paranoia, but it makes an interesting subplot if you are in to such things.

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

What was the outcome with Gamdama, did he join the British?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 3 Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:07 pm

Brickhill goes out of his way to dispel the stories that Durnford allowed spies into the camp. More of a key issue for the "Durnford took charge" chapter is: Why where they taken to Durnford and not Pulleine ?

Have fun with that thought.

Cheers

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

Extract from Brickhill's statement
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He claims these Zulu's made off along with the other refugee's and into Natal. So did they hang around until the Battle had started.

For all we know, it could have been these that killed M&C.

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

Dave wrote:: For all we know, it could have been these that killed M&C.

Yes, no doubt using their bare hands despite everything else that was going on around them...

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

We have no way of knowing where they went when they left the camp? They gave up their fire arms, no mention of Spears and other weapons they normally carried, which would have been needed for everyday life hunting ect. M&C wasn't shot!

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 61 Location : UK

What evidence is there that shows Lord Chelmsford as being part of the so called conspiracy.

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

Not much !

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 61 Location : UK

After all, it was Cealock who stated before and at the COE that it was he, who ordered Durnford to take command of the camp.

Crealock wrote:: Statement of Lieutenant-Colonel J. North Crealock, Acting Military Secretary.
1. Soon after 2 A.M. on the 22nd January I received instructions from the Lieutenant-General to send a written order to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., commanding No. 2 Column, to the following effect (I copied it in my note-book which was afterwards lost): " Move up to Sandhlwana Camp at once with all your mounted men and Rocket Battery—take command of it. I am accompanying Colonel Glyn, who is moving off at once to attack Matyana and a Zulu force
said to be 12 or 14 miles off, and at present watched by Natal Police, Volunteers, and Natal Native Contingent. Colonel Glyn takes with him 2-24th Regiment, 4 guns R.A., and Mounted Infantry."

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

John, what Crealock wrote to Dunford, wasn't what he was told to write. Read Clery statement!

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 61 Location : UK

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:: John, what Crealock wrote to Dunford, wasn't what he was told to write. Read Clery statement!

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.

These are the words Crealock should have dispatched to Durnford!

"Bring his force to strengthen the camp"

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

John wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:: John, what Crealock wrote to Dunford, wasn't what he was told to write. Read Clery statement!

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.

These are the words Crealock should have dispatched to

Durnford!
Bring his force to strengthen the camp"

It was Crealock, who implicated Lord Chemsford.

Subject: Durnford was he capable 2 Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:01 am

John wrote:: What evidence is there that shows Lord Chelmsford as being part of the so called conspiracy.

John.

You will get all the information about this in 'Zulu Victory' by Lock and Quantrill, just go to 'Part Three The Cover-up' p233.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 3 Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:18 am

CTSG
I would agree that the order error came from Crealock not conferring the message that Clery was told to give. I think he knew he had made an error therefore kept the actual words of the order quite and allowed Durnford to take the blame.
Loyal to Chelmsford as he was that the insanely uncomfortable carriage ride from Helpmakaar to PMB with the two of them together was probably the first time the could confer. But saying that, they never knew if those original orders were to found quickly or even that Crealocks order book would be discovered on the field.
So IF they where setting out to deliberately lie it was with one hell of risk that they would be quickly found out. Would they have taken that sort of risk?
Did Crealock tell Chelmsford about the wording? Would he have really remembered it?

Far to many grey areas to make a decision.

Guest

" One message only is mentioned by the General
or his Military secretary as having been received
from the camp. but an Officer ( of rank ) who
had seen them, says that five or six messages
were received during the day by the General or
his Staff; and he says distinctly that the messages
were in the possession of Lieut-Colonel Crealock".

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 3 Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:57 pm

Les, between them, Crealock, Chelmsford, Clery (along with others), tried to cover their own backsides, they also attempted to clear LC of any responsibility and put the blame elsewhere, and they found a perfect scapegoat in the dead Col Durnford, after all, he couldn't say anything could he?

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

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Les, between them, Crealock, Chelmsford, Clery (along with others), tried to cover their own backsides, they also attempted to clear LC of any responsibility and put the blame elsewhere, and they found a perfect scapegoat in the dead Col Durnford, after all, he couldn't say anything could he?

"Cover up" aside, their recollection of events was, at a minimum, very convenient to protecting their collective reputations. If we knew for certain what words were passed during the carriage ride Chelmsford shared with Crealock, we might be able to characterize it as collusion beyond dispute. We don't so, who knows, maybe all they talked about was the lousy weather? But one tends to doubt that under the circumstances...

Guest

martin

bang on mate. we
have no need to speculate about a
conversation in a carraige scratch

can we not take it as read that LC
spent most of it worrying about the
re action in Natal and London and
that Crealock was reassuring and
mollifying the shattered Chelmsford.
saying something along the lines of,
" my lord, you must leave everything
to me, you left over a thousand men
there, somebody must be a fault,now
who was senior there, ah yes that
colonial officer of engineer's, well my
Lord this puts an entirely different
light on things, might i suggest"........

Look at the reaction. a court of inquiry..
that did'nt inquire. the C in C ( Cambridge )
was all over his Lordships piecemeal
defence of his action's, Dizzy would not
have him in his house. he never commanded
again..read french's farcical fred by matt.
finally if some thing looks like a fish and
smell's and taste's like one..its a fish right.
cover up..yes and not very subtle either.
Crealock, Clery, Gossett, Harness?, H.M.
Queen Victoria ( by collusion ). xhosa

Posts : 249 Join date : 2013-06-01

springbok9 wrote:: , they never knew if those original orders were to found quickly or even that Crealocks order book would be discovered on the field.
So IF they where setting out to deliberately lie it was with one hell of risk that they would be quickly found out.

Not really Springbok, no.
The best liars tell the best lies and these lies are VERY close to the truth.
Usually, just one word or two out, which can easily be explained away as a minor memory lapse, or word that could be interpreted in a number of ways - easy to explain away in the event of being challenged or caught.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 3 Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:20 pm

Hi Guys
Sometimes fun to play Devils Advocate.

Cheers

PS Don't read to much into 'Zulu Victory'. It aint the bible first readings think it is.

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: Les, between them, Crealock, Chelmsford, Clery (along with others), tried to cover their own backsides, they also attempted to clear LC of any responsibility and put the blame elsewhere, and they found a perfect scapegoat in the dead Col Durnford, after all, he couldn't say anything could he?

Martin, you appear to have left out Pulleine! What you fail to mentioned is that he could not speak up, he was as dead as Durnford. I bet he would have had something to say about your hero "Durnford" if he had survived.

It was Durnford's actions that forced Pulleine to send his men far from the camp!

If you want to point the finger, point it at Crealock. He was the one, who failed to sent,the original order. It was he who complicated the issue!

Durnford took command, of the camp. He was the senior officer present that day. Regardless of what orders were issued or the handing back of command, he should have instigated a course if action for the benefit of the men and the stores withing the camp. He failed as a commander and Bushmans pass, and again at Isandlwana.

Don't take away Durnford's well earned title, Scapegoat! He earned it!
The only honour he bestowed upon the men who sleep on the Battlefield of Isandlwana, was not being buried among those he sent to thier graves.

agree

Guest

Durford took command, of the camp. He was the senior officer present that day. Regardless of what orders were issued, he should have instigated a course if action for the benefit of the men and the stores withing the camp. He failed as a commander and Bushmans pass, and again at Isandlwana.

Don't take away Durnford's well earned title, Scapegoat! He earned it!
The only honour he bestowed upon the men who sleep on the Battlefield of Isandlwana, was not being buried among those he sent to thier graves.

hiya ctsg.. in my opinion.
1 Durnford did not take command.
2. He certainly did not fail at the BRP.
3. He had no say about his final
resting place's..he was dead.
4. Durnford, was not a hero.just a man trying
to do his job to the best of his ability.he did
not know what was literally around the corner,
nobody did, they soon found out.
cheers xhosa

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

xhosa2000 wrote:: Durford took command, of the camp. He was the senior officer present that day. Regardless of what orders were issued, he should have instigated a course if action for the benefit of the men and the stores withing the camp. He failed as a commander and Bushmans pass, and again at Isandlwana.

Don't take away Durnford's well earned title, Scapegoat! He earned it!
The only honour he bestowed upon the men who sleep on the Battlefield of Isandlwana, was not being buried among those he sent to thier graves.

hiya ctsg.. in my opinion.
1 Durnford did not take command.
2. He certainly did not fail at the BRP.
3. He had no say about his final
resting place's..he was dead.
4. Durnford, was not a hero.just a man trying
to do his job to the best of his ability.he did
not know what was literally around the corner,
nobody did, they soon found out.
cheers xhosa

Hi Les.
1) Well there is certainly enough witnesses to say he did take command!

2) BRP?

3) The men at Who died at Isandlwana had no say in their final resting place.

4) He was a hero to Martin and the Colenso's. It appears that he wasn't that good a doing his job. He is credited with being very wise in the ways of the Zulu, yet he was happy to fight them in the open, dragging a RB behind him.

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 3 Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:12 pm

So, are you saying that Durnford should have done in just over an hour what LC should but didn't do in 2 days?

Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 3 Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:29 pm

There is also documented evidence that he told Pulleine that he was not going to stay at the camp, and that he was not going to take over Pulleine's command of it, however, with him being the senior officer when he arrived, no doubt others would assume that he would take command whilst he was there, and therefor any recommendations that he offered could possibly have been taken as orders. If he took command, then why did he ASK Pulleine for the loan of two companies, if he had taken command he would have ordered it, wouldn't he?

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

Check you timings Martin.

Chard RE. Bromhead 24th. Rorkes Drift. Fortifications, Little time, Success, repelled, Lived to fight another day.?

Worked in unison. Yes!
Deployed the men correctly Yes!
Setup ammo stations Yes!
Held the position for nearly 15 hours Yes!

Durnford RE

Arrived at camp Yes!
Left his ammuntion waggons behind. Yes!
Took Command Yes!
Had Breakfast Yes!
Wanted to attack the Zulu Yes!
Forced Pulleine to deploy men far from camp Yes!
Handed back command Yes!
Wanted to take Two Compaines of the 24th, knowing Pullienes orders were to defend the camp Yes!
Weaken the camp further by leaving on his supposed crusade Yes!
Dragged the RB to their deaths Yes!
Ran out of ammuntion during his fall back. Yes!

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: There is also documented evidence that he told Pulleine that he was not going to stay at the camp, and that he was not going to take over Pulleine's command of it, however, with him being the senior officer when he arrived, no doubt others would assume that he would take command whilst he was there, and therefor any recommendations that he offered could possibly have been taken as orders. If he took command, then why did he ASK Pulleine for the loan of two companies, if he had taken command he would have ordered it, wouldn't he?

True! But why take command, if he had no intention of interfering with Pulleines command. I'm telling yer, he wasnt right in the head on that day, perhaps he was having a nervous breakdown?

Guest

ctsg nice to see you having fun Very Happy

Hi Les.
1) Well there is certainly enough witnesses to say he did take command! ( no. name them.)

2) BRP? ( he behaved with bravery and honour from start to finish. especially in the aftermath.)

3) The men at Who died at Isandlwana had no say in their final resting place. ( err yeah. )

4) He was a hero to Martin and the Colenso's. It appears that he wasn't that good a doing his job. He is credited with being very wise in the ways of the Zulu, yet he was happy to fight them in the open, dragging a RB behind him. ( very wise in the ways of the Zulu ) you have something to say
about his close affinity to the Hlubi. then please expand, i would like your opinion. xhosa

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

What?

Subject: Durnford was he capable 2 Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:03 pm

CTSG.
There is a bit of difference between RD preparations and Isandlwana ! . Isandlwana camp never thought for a minute they'd be attacked by 25,000 plus , LC didnt think it would be attacked either for that matter ! . It was a staging point , most of the wagons were to go back to RD . RD KNEW they were to be attacked as Isandlwana proved that ! . They had a much smaller area to prepare and the ground was much better suited , natural slopes favouring the defenders , a 4ft high ledge which served as a natural barrier and ran for a reasonable distance which certainly saved the Garrison in no small way . The two cant really be compared .
Cheers 90th.

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

Rubbish RD only knew about it when Ardendroff or the other bloke, brought the news. Nothing had been done up to that point.

Those at Isandlwana would have had a much smaller area to defend, if the troops had been, deployed correctly?

Don't compaired the locations, compaired the officers and thier actions. That was the topic!

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

CTSG. I see your handling this very well on your own. agree

So I will bid you good night.

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

Ah! Yes I do seem to be batting them away quite nicely. You get your head down!

» Durnford was he capable.1
» Durnford was he capable.2
» Durnford was he capable.6
» Durnford was he capable. 4
» Durnford was he capable.5