Durnford was he capable. 4

Thank you ctsg, i will respond point by point
later.. thank you for the opportunity. xhosa

Steve (additional words and music by 6pdr).

Excellent up until "Pass the Sprouts" then you lost it. Good attempt though. Your a poet and didn't know it.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Thank you ctsg, i will respond point by point
later.. thank you for the opportunity. xhosa

Looking forward to it.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

The truth about the unit he commanded, and which his apologists give him great credit for forming, is that it disintegrated in the face of the enemy, fled the field, and in so doing triggered a wider panic.

Would you care to provide some evidence to support this rather intemperate assertion? Second time I'm asking. (Thanks for reminding me Impi!)

sas1 wrote:

Excellent up until  "Pass the Sprouts" then you lost it. Good attempt though.

I agree, except I think there is a typo. I think you meant to write "they" instead of "the" in the line next to it.

Quite right SAS1/6pdr. I agree about the sprouts (I plead "seasonal touch" but really couldn't think what else to rhyme). Alternative endings invited.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Alternative endings invited.

How about replacing the sprouts line with, "Intemperate thought and manners forsworn"?

Hmmm. Sounds a bit Alfred Lord Tennyson, mine's more Spike Milligan. Have another go.

Steve

Just end it after the first line.

"We lesser members know our place"

More appropriate!

With fingers crossed and brows careworn?

Impi old chum. Just think for a moment - are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

Steve

That question should be aimed at Col Durnford. Look at the topic title.

Ulundi.

He's dead.

Steve

6pdr

Amended accordingly and acknowledged.

Steve

Quite remarkable. In the " Was Durnford Capable" Discussion there have been 2'445 posts. And still no answer to the orignial question.

It would be interesting to know how many members have contributed (not many out of the 2000 I wager). And how the posts divide up between them. Can it be done?

Steve

Littlehand, the answer is Yes.       xhosa

In the search box home page, type in "Durnford was he capable" hit search. Look down the list. You will see two topics containing "Durnford was he capable" both with 990 post, 990 being the limit. Then you have the one running at present. You would have to click on each topic and see who posted replies, unless Admin has another way.

Steve to date you have posted 455 post. In all topics.

ctsg, i will deal with your points in my own time and 
in my own way, i will try to answer a point a day. ta!


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

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


I have no reason to disbelieve Johnson's statement, why would i?.

i will answer your next point on your list tomorrow,
after your rebuttal.                              xhosa

Xhosa just an observation. ( Thats all) But I can't see how any of that answers the question in hand.
And your format for posting replies seems a bit odd. Why not just type the replies. Like I said just an observation.

rusteze wrote:

Amended accordingly and acknowledged.

Steve - or more in keeping with the spirit of your original, "Please pour another round of stout..."

Unfortunately, I didn't get to see a lot of Spike. Most of what I know comes through Python tipping their caps to him.

He wanted his gravestone to say "I told you I was Ill".

The church wouldn't allow it.

Steve

Littlehand, if you reread the first statement you will see
that i have answered, not as fully as i intend but i have
made a start! its ctsg's rebuttal i await, this affair is between
us both, no one else need interfere. not being rude, but my
style of presentation is my own affair, why would one want
to type endlessly when i have the information to hand and
can lay it out for all to see, i'm sure you understand. xhosa

rusteze wrote:

He wanted his gravestone to say "I told you I was Ill".

ROTFL. Some institutions have no sense of humor.

7th Evidence.—Captain Nourse, Natal Native Contingent, states : I was commanding the escort to the Rocket Battery, when Colonel Durnford advanced in front of the camp on the 22nd to meet the enemy. Colonel Durnford had gone on with two troops, Mounted Natives. They went too fast, and left us some two miles in the rear. On hearing heavy firing on our left, and learning that the enemy were in that direction, we changed our direction to the left. Before nearly reaching the crest of the hills on the left of the camp, we were attacked on all sides. One rocket was sent off, and the enemy-was on us; the first volley dispersed the mules and the natives, and we retired on to the camp as well as we could. Before we reached the camp it was destroyed.

We can see by Nourses statement the contempt he had for those members of the Rocket Battery.
And of cause Johnson survived, how inconvenient for you Durford apologists.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I have no reason to disbelieve Johnson's statement, why would i?.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Have you ever read any of Col Snooks books, or have you been put off, by other members views on his work.

Bonsoir,
An interesting comment by Mike Snook, as you know, a fierce opponent to DURNFORD: ("Likes Wolves of the fold" / p.210-211)
"That precise moment, 1.30 A.M. on the morning of Wednesday 22 January [I.E: after the orders given by CHELMSFORD], was when the battle of Isandlwana was lost - for the immobilisation of the column and the loss of its stores must necessarily have been regarded as a defeat.
(...) "the fact that this was a chance encounter [I.E: with the Zulus] does not excuse CHELMSFORD's rash camp-bed decision. Had he [I.E:Chelmsford] run into the main impi with his half of the column, it is certain that he would have met with a disaster in the Phindo Hills, every bit as extensive, and probably worse, than the disaster which took place at Isandlwana".


Cheers
Frédéric

I.E1: As i have said previously, i am not a fan of this author, but he has indubitably interesting thoughts isn't it?.    
I.E2: To be honest, SNOOK has also wrote: "Lord CHELMSFORD's decision [order on the morning of 22 January] did not, of itself, necessarily presage wholesale massacre [ at isandhlwana]"

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

And of cause Johnson survived, how inconvenient for you Durford apologists.

Not apologists...defenders CTSG. You have to learn to be more politically correct.

As far as Johnson goes, none of us really knows what exactly was happening there. Durnford stopped to collect the survivors after all. Most likely he had no conception what Johnson had just been through -- there was a lot going on -- and didn't realize that sending him back the way he came might be suicidal. For his part, Johnson was most likely traumatized and didn't stop moving. That's probably why he was envious of that spare horse.

Do you recall that? i addressed it! Nourse has nothing to do with that!
so why did you post what you did?.  have you any difficulty with what
is required?                                                                      xhosa

6pd wrote:

Johnson was most likely traumatized

You don't say! On foot, let behind, no support, attacked by hundreds of Zulu's, most of the men wiped out. Then told to go back to get a body out. Traumatised. Your observation skills must be applauded.
Your making excuses for Durfords lack of tactical command.

ctsg would please inform where you got the text from with
the dark highlights.

Again your just stating your own opinions!

xhosa2000 wrote:

Do you recall that? i addressed it! Nourse has nothing to do with that!
so why did you post what you did?.  have you any difficulty with what
is required?  xhosa

Just keep posting your pages.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Do you recall that? i addressed it! Nourse has nothing to do with that!
so why did you post what you did?.  have you any difficulty with what
is required?                                                                      xhosa

Well you did say, you had no intention of posting the Nourse account. So I did. Doesn't it just give a good overview on how they were left behind.. What a kind considerate commander Durnford was, a really big heart.

There's no point, as usual, under pressure you have
no answers for all to see..pity..               xhosa

Trouble is my friend, I do have the answers, your playing with pages. But of course we all knew you would side step, again. First & Last blood to me Gentlemen. hussar,hussar,hussar.

That Nourse account seems to have up-set him.

ok that was more than a trifle bizarre to say the least!
tomorrow is another day, i will start again, we have 
not come close to finishing your first statement.. but
you will see. i'm a patient man, we WILL get there in
the end, one way or another. goodnight  ctsg.  xhosa

Bonsoir Messieurs,
Xhosa wrote: "this affair is between us, no one else need interfere".
In this case, why don't you use the PM? It's strange
The testimony of Johnson can be interpreted against the "defenders" of DURNFORD.
What can answer a defender of LC?

Sorry for the "interference".

Cheers

Frédéric

Frederic makes a good point, why don't the LC supporters put forward their defence for the many 'cock up's' that he made and his actions that resulted in the loss at iSandlwana, and thus the end of the first invasion of Zululand. We always hear the same old Durnford bashing stuff from these people, who keep quoting many of the 'statements' that have been proved to be false, unreliable, or even lies that were used at the time to cover up Thesiger's mistakes and put the blame on Durnford.

It is well known that the court of enquiry was rigged, and that the hearing was officiated by officers chosen by LC and Crealock, and it is also well known that many statements were not read out or taken into account at the enquiry, and the excuse was that 'they were not deemed to be necessary'. A web of lies and deceit was arranged to cover up the many mistakes made by LC, most of this being arranged by Crealock, who, as we all know, was a proven liar.

It would therefor be helpful if these LC supporters would stop using the quotes, accounts, and other stuff that is known to be false, unreliable, disproved or even downright lies. However, this sort of stuff seems to be the only 'ammo' that they have, so they keep on asking for answers to the same questions that they must know are not valid as they have been disproved by researchers and historians, yet they keep on using the same 'spent ammo' over and over again. This is what frustrates many members, as they keep answering the same questions over and over again to the very same askers who don't appear to be reading the replies and then just a few days later are asking or quoting the same thing again. This is what slows down the topic and eventually leads to it being locked because it appears to be getting nowhere fast or going round in circles.

A proper civilised debate is what is needed, rather than all the backbiting and insults that get thrown about, and an end to all the known falsehoods and disproven 'facts' that have been used time and time again as 'ammo' by the anti Durnford members, would help a great deal in moving the topic forward rather than it getting locked down.

And admin, when you say, "posting other information other than your own".
would you clarify that please.                                               xhosa

Morning Martin
Would you like to expand on the multiplicity you refer to?
"A web of lies and deceit was arranged ( underlined by me) to cover up the many mistakes made by LC, most of this being arranged by Crealock,"
Lets omit the issue of the order by Crealock as this is a confirmed instance, and concentrate on the other 'issues' arranged by Crealock.
All:
There seems to be a line of reasoning that we can find a participant Not Guilty by arguing another IS guilty. When there seems to be a series of parties responsible that becomes a non argument.

So a couple of very simple questions that should require a yes or no answer:
a) Is Durnford completely innocent of all the charges levelled against him
b) Is Chelmsford completely innocent of all the charges levelled against him.

CTSG put forward a series of quite logical arguments, duplicates to a degree of a list I posted a couple of weeks back when I stated Durnford had lost his head.
Xhosa has replied with a statement from Johnson that seems to prove CTSGs point, without offering an explanation why he thinks Durnfords actions were legitimate. I cant quite figure that?
Norses statement was refered to by Xhosa and then partially posted by CTSG to what seems to be Xhosa' chagrin and CTSGs attempt to bolster his point.
Surely the best way to defeat CTSGs point would be to offer an explanation/reasoning as to why Durnford acted that way.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

There seems to be a line of reasoning that we can find a participant Not Guilty by arguing another IS guilty. When there seems to be a series of parties responsible that becomes a non argument.

This is a VERY interesting point. In the American system of law (which is not based on the code Napoleon) there is a presumption of innocence. All one need do is establish reasonable doubt to get somebody off.  That is NOT the standard here and it is not psychologically satisfying sometimes.  However, it is interesting that if you want to get a review or retrial for an already convicted man in the American courts what seems to work in the US system is providing a very persuasive alternate theory usually buttressed with hard evidence like DNA samples or somesuch. In other words you pretty much have to prove somebody else did it.  So what is the standard of "guilt" here?  What criteria do we use since we come from different backgrounds?

Quote :

So a couple of very simple questions that should require a yes or no answer:
a) Is Durnford completely innocent of all the charges levelled against him
b) Is Chelmsford completely innocent of all the charges levelled against him.

No and no, but I would hasten to add the phrase "completely innocent" is open to abuse as an unreasonable standard.  Nobody but newborns are completely innocent in my world.
I think we should be weighing things, not judging them.

Quote :

Surely the best way to defeat CTSGs point would be to offer an explanation/reasoning as to why Durnford acted that way.

And this is what I was attempting when I wrote that we weren't weighing the "chance encounter" nature of the interaction between Durnford and Johnson sufficiently when we cast it in such stark terms. Durnford wasn't on a mission to "rescue" his rocket battery when he returned; he simply stumbled into the situation for which he lacked context. I think it reasonable to concede to CTSG that Johnson's morale was broken and not much more could be expected of him, let alone expecting heroic conduct. I would even concede this was not Durnford's finest moment as a commanding officer...but I certainly would never concede this incident -- in isolation -- indicates all the dire things CTSG is claiming.

It's a minor point for the prosecution (of Durnford) in my opinion.  It also does NOTHING whatever to excuse Chelmsford for ANYTHING he stands accused of.   NOTHING whatever.

ymob wrote:

An interesting comment by Mike Snook, as you know, a fierce opponent to DURNFORD: ("Likes Wolves of the fold" / p.210-211)

"That precise moment, 1.30 A.M. on the morning of Wednesday 22 January [I.E: after the orders given by CHELMSFORD], was when the battle of Isandlwana was lost - for the immobilisation of the column and the loss of its stores must necessarily have been regarded as a defeat.
(...) "the fact that this was a chance encounter [I.E: with the Zulus] does not excuse CHELMSFORD's rash camp-bed decision. Had he [I.E:Chelmsford] run into the main impi with his half of the column, it is certain that he would have met with a disaster in the Phindo Hills, every bit as extensive, and probably worse, than the disaster which took place at Isandlwana".

I.E1: As i have said previously, i am not a fan of this author, but he has indubitably interesting thoughts isn't it?.    
I.E2: To be honest, SNOOK has also wrote: "Lord CHELMSFORD's decision [order on the morning of 22 January] did not, of itself, necessarily presage wholesale massacre [ at isandhlwana]"

Thank you Frédéric for a post that by my standards should prevent this topic from being locked.

I think you have struck upon a very important issue -- i.e. that two salient and somewhat conflicting, or at least awkward points, can simultaneously be true. IMO Snook is correct that as column and theatre commander Chelmsford cannot be excused from responsibility for the defeat but AT THE SAME TIME that doesn't mean splitting the column made defeat "inevitable." So (assuming for the moment we accept this assertion) the question is what more does this imply? Where does a RATIONAL extension of this logic lead us?