Durnford was he capable. 4

Yes it would be nice to have every book written on the AZW.

Perhaps you could relate what is says. If you think it would help.

I borrowed it from the Library. I would recommend it for even a limited collection.
What did you think of Snook's analysis of Chelmsford's intentions re. Durnford? Do you have that one?
Steve

RUSTEZE wrote:

I think it is a good analysis of Chelmsford's decisions before dawn on 22 January, and sets out Snooks view that Chelmsford did NOTintend Durnford to stay and defend the camp when he issued his order.

Am I right in thinking that the first we hear of Clery's order to Pulleine is at the Inquiry - and then it is verbal, as remembered by him. So no original written version exists and we cannot ask Pulleine of course.

I am always surprised by the extreme caution of CLERY in his testimony to the court of inquiry. “ I am not certain”, “to the best of my memory”, “I speak from memory”)
The others witnesses are not as cautious…

CLERY wrote to PULLEINE on his own initiative (CHELMSFORD had given no orders about the camp); “(…) Colonel DURNFORD has been ordered up from Rorke’s Drift to reinforce the camp”.
“I sent this [the message] to Col. PULLEINE by my own servant. I went myself to his tent to ensure that he had got it (…)
Regrettably CLERY’s servant was killed on the battlefield and therefore was unable to corroborate CLERY’s statement.
“Zulu Victory” p.244
LOCK and QUANTRILL are doubtful of written orders.(p.245;246)
However, there is others sources for (verbal or written) orders given to PULLEINE (STAFFORD / COCHRANE – see “The Cochrane accounts of Isandhlwana” by Julian Whybra, Studies in the Zulu War II p.4 / “A Special Service Officer” “The Cochrane accounts” note 8 p.8)
These 3 men quoted the order to defend the camp by PULLEINE.
None of them quoted the order to defend the camp by DURNFORD

There is also a statement by CREALOCK (see below)


Chelmsford does not find out that Clery has issued the order until 23rd January, and he is then greatly relieved (because he had forgotten to do it himself).

For me you are right, the source is CLERY:
“Zulu Rising” p. 289-290
Zulu Victory p. 245
‘When CLERY reminded him [CHELMSFORD] that orders had been left for PULLEINE to “act strictly on the defensive”, CHELMSFORD said “I cannot tell you what as relief it is to me to hear this”.

There is also:
‘In a separate document, part of which was an extract written from “the private journal of Colonel CREALOCK, he [ CREALOCK] wrote/
‘Major CLERY, (Col GLYN’s staff officer) said later in the day [22 January], in Col. CREALOCK’s hearing, that Col. PULLEINE had been distinctly ordered to draw his cercle of picquet closer in, and to defend [ CREALOCK’s emphasis] the camp. (Zulu Victory” p.238)
But, for LOCK and QUANTRILL, this statement is questionable, for it was only ‘it was only on the morning of 23 January, at Rorke’s Drift, that CLERY, for the first time mentioned to CHELMSFORD that he had given orders to PULLEINE’. (“Zulu Victory” p.238)


So what are we to think? Is Clery being careful at the Inquiry not to lay any blame on the General? Did he miss-hear what the General had said in the first place? Did the reference to Durnford coming up to "reinforce the camp" (if it was said at all) mean he was to improve the 3rd columns ability to scout the area around it with his mounted men(as Snook seems to think )?

I will answer to this question another day. I am going to bed. Tomorrow I am working.
Many thanks for your thoughts, interesting questions.

Bonne nuit.

Frédéric

Didn't think to look at JW's paper, I will take a look.
Bonne Nuit Frederic.

Steve

RUSTEZE
So what are we to think? Is Clery being careful at the Inquiry not to lay any blame on the General? Did he miss-hear what the General had said in the first place? Did the reference to Durnford coming up to "reinforce the camp" (if it was said at all) mean he was to improve the 3rd columns ability to scout the area around it with his mounted men(as Snook seems to think )?


Steve,
A fast opinion:
I am not a follower of the conspiracy by LOCK and QUANTRILL (for them CLERY was also a member of the conspiracy)
As you know, I enjoy the second hypothesis but i think it's a heresy which will be destroyed this night or tomorrow by other members.
The thirst hypothesis: i don't think CLERY had his view in mind. when he wrote to PULLEINE...

Tomorrow, i will read the "Durnford's papers" by Julian Whybra.

Cheers

Frédéric

RUSTEZE wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the first we hear of Clery's order to Pulleine is at the Inquiry - and then it is verbal, as remembered by him. So no original written version exists and we cannot ask Pulleine of course.

Steve, in my copy of the testimony of CLERY at the inquery there are severals mentions by him  of written orders to PULLEINE;
But, you are right, for me no original written version (or copy) exists.
Cheers
frédéric

ymob wrote:

RUSTEZE wrote:
Am I right in thinking that the first we hear of Clery's order to Pulleine is at the Inquiry - and then it is verbal, as remembered by him. So no original written version exists and we cannot ask Pulleine of course.

Steve, in my copy of the testimony of CLERY at the inquery there are severals mentions by him  of written orders to PULLEINE;
But, you are right, for me no original written version (or copy) exists.
Cheers
frédéric

Sorry, i only understand now your sentence...

I thought you were going to bed

Steve

I see that the old chestnut "Take Command of it" has been used (yet again), how many times does this have to be disproved for people to understand that Crealock lied about this, no wonder this thread keeps going round in circles.

Springy hit the nail on the head earlier when he spoke of the boss and the worker, it was a good way of putting it, and easy to understand, but yet again, it just doesn't click with some.

Yes Martin. Yawn!!

rusteze wrote:

I thought you were going to bed

Steve

Short night...
I slept with Clery...
Cheers
Fréderic

John what was the point of your sarcastic post ? ( Yawn ! ) . MC is taking the time to clear up an error which always surfaces in this thread , this is why threads go on and on ! , because people arent always aware of the facts ! . You should be grateful Martin is taking the time to try and have a positive input on the discussion , if you have nothing constructive to offer , STAY OUT !
90TH

We all know, Durnford wasnt ordered to take command. Been covered over and over again. And he has the cheek to say others keep asking the same questions. Pot black my friend, pot black.

Bonjour Steve,

At this moment, of my thoughts, i wonder (for several facts) :

1°) If CLERY misunderstood the instructions given by CHELMSFORD about DURNFORD ;
2°) If CLERY has really told or written to PULLEINE that DURNFORD has been ordered up from RD to reinforce the camp.

I know these 2 hypothesis are a harebrained (stupid ?) thought.
As i said previously to Xhosa, Historians should have mentionned these possibilities... but i am waiting to be contredict by others members .
Maybe, i am too tired...

What do you think of the 2nd hypothesis ?

Cheers

Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

Just been looking at Keith Smith's "Dead Was Everything", which, as others have said, is rather good.

In part of his essay starting on page 133 he talks about the reports submitted by senior officers on their actions on 22 January to Colonel William Bellairs who was Deputy Adjutant General.

This was not part of Chelmsford's Inquiry. Nevertheless a huge amount of manoeuvring was going on, not least to transfer some blame onto Glynn. One of the submissions that went from Chelmsford to Bellairs on 20 February contains the following.

"On arriving at the camp of No.3 column (Isandhlwana), I myself explained personally to Colonel Glynn that I did not wish to interfere in any way with the Command of the column, but that of course I should be only too glad to talk over with him all matters connected with it........."

Now, isn't that pretty much what Durnford said to Pulleine when he arrived at Isandhlwana?

Steve

Steve,

A pertinent observation
Frédéric

Frederic

It is hard to reach a conclusion about what happened, because of the inconsistency between Crealock's order to Durnford and Clery's order to Pulleine.

I give weight to the following factors:

1. If Clery said to Pulleine that Durnford was coming up to re-inforce the camp, it was as an additional piece of information, not part of the order to Pulleine. Clery may  not have been careful with the words he used.

2. We know for sure what Crealock ordered Durnford to do because we have a copy of it.

3. I don't think Clery lied at the Inquiry, but I think he did put a spin on it that was most useful to Chelmsford and Glyn.

My conclusion, at the moment, is that Clery told Pulleine, as an aside, that Durnford was coming up to the camp to re-inforce the 3rd columns ability to support Chelmsford's flying column. Not to use his mounted men as static defenders.

With all of these discussions I try to remind myself that we only know a little of what was actually said - perhaps just 10%. Because very few who witnessed the orders given and the actions taken survived.

So I think there can be no certainties.

Steve

Ymob/Steve
Ive been looking back through the sources and will be posting an essay that may just answer your questions, or pose some more even?

Cheers

Hi Frank

Look forward to it. Thought you had been a little quiet!

While i'm on, in the extract from Snook's book that I posted, he says that Chelmsford had a reputation among his staff for taking snap decisions. Snook did not include footnotes and I wonder if anyone knows the source of that remark?

Steve

Hi Steve
Clery says that of Chelmesford in letters to Alison & Harman , these letters are in Sonia Clarke's '' Zululand At War '' which from memory , I've posted on the forum at least twice previously ! .
Cheers 90th

springbok9 wrote:

Ymob/Steve
Ive been looking back through the sources and will be posting an essay that may just answer your questions, or pose some more even?

Cheers

Bonjour 90th,

I am waiting impatiently to read your essay.
I have also "facts" to support our thesis.
Cheers

frédéric

rusteze wrote:

Hi Frank

Look forward to it. Thought you had been a little quiet!

While i'm on, in the extract from Snook's book that I posted, he says that Chelmsford had a reputation among his staff for taking snap decisions. Snook did not include footnotes and I wonder if anyone knows the source of that remark?

Steve

Some authors claim that CHELSMFORD constantly changed his minds.. it's maybe the reason of the assertion of SNOOK?

rusteze wrote:

Hi Frank

Look forward to it. Thought you had been a little quiet!

I am afraid that Frank and Mister WHYBRA will quickly destroy our assumptions...
Cheers.

Fédéric

Hi Gary, thanks for the back up my friend, don't worry, there are a few sarcastic folk on here, it must give them a buzz thinking they are being smart.

Regarding LC being indecisive and then suddenly making snap decisions, Ian Knight also mentions this in his book Zulu Rising.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Hi Gary, thanks for the back up my friend, don't worry, there are a few sarcastic folk on here, it must give them a buzz thinking they are being smart.

Regarding LC being indecisive and then suddenly making snap decisions, Ian Knight also mentions this in his book Zulu Rising.  

Hello Martin,
What are your thoughts on the subject (CLERY)?
Cheers.
Frédéric

Frederic

But destroy with good grace I am sure!

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Frederic

But destroy with good grace I am sure!

Steve

Totally agree, both are always intellectually honest and well-intentioned men.

On Chelmsford's impetuousness, I wonder if there are examples from his earlier campaigns? I will take a look at Clarke and Knight.

Thanks

Steve

rusteze wrote:

On Chelmsford's impetuousness, I wonder if there are examples from his earlier campaigns? I will take a look at Clarke and Knight.

Thanks

Steve

Before his arriving in South africa in 1878, he has never been in command of troops in "fight".
The answer (if answer) is in 1878.
Cheers.

Bonjour Frederic.

Well, I do think that he (Clery) may have inadvertently implied to Pulleine that Durnford was on his way to reinforce the camp, and that is why Pulleine said to Durnford that he was sorry he had come as he would now take command, however, Durnford replied that he would not as was not staying at the camp, which shows that Durnford was obeying his orders to support LC.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Bonjour Frederic.

Well, I do think that he (Clery) may have inadvertently implied to Pulleine that Durnford was on his way to reinforce the camp, and that is why Pulleine said to Durnford that he was sorry he had come as he would now take command, however, Durnford replied that he would not as was not staying at the camp, which shows that Durnford was obeying his orders to support LC.

Martin,
Thanks for your honesty answer.
I understand that you are not a follower of our thesis.
No problem, of course!
But can you "destroy" it?
I am very interesting by the "points" against.
Cheers.

Frédéric

Frederic, I make a point of never taking sides until I have read and understood what is being said by both sides. Yourself and Steve are putting together a good theory, and Frank and Julian will also raise some good points on the subject, and it will all be a very interesting read, and I look forward to reading the pro's and con's.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic, I make a point of never taking sides until I have read and understood what is being said by both sides. Yourself and Steve are putting together a good theory, and Frank and Julian will also raise some good points on the subject, and it will all be a very interesting read, and I look forward to reading the pro's and con's.

Just as an aside, I am busy reading Clery's letters to Allison in Clarke's book (as recommended by Gary).

I must say I am beginning to like the man!

Just a short quote  - he is talking about the weakness of Chelmsford's staff.

He says:

"Colonel Bellairs would, I have no doubt, carry himself through without discredit in a similar appointment at Manchester or Belfast - provided there were no riots - but the old gentleman is wholly out of place right now."

Love it!

Steve

In view of the resurgent interest in the movements of Col Durnford on the 21st and 22nd January 1879 I thought I would try and resolve some issues.

Firstly some myths to get rid of
No I’m not 6pd
No I’m not Xhosa
No I’m not in cahoots with CTSG
No I’m not a Durnford apologist
No I’m not a Chelmsford apologist.

The sources I’ve used to compile the following are:
Various statements Lt WFD Cochrane including WO32/7726/079/1472 8th Feb 1879
The COI evidence Blue books C2260 27th January

Statements by Captain Walter Stafford Jan 1939 plus one other undated.

The COI evidence of Major Clery
Report by Major Clery for Dep Adj General 7th Feb
Letter from Major Clery to Sir Archibald Anderson 18th March 1879

The COI statement of Captain Essex

Letter Glyn to Bellairs 16th April 1879

REM Durnford papers 4901.44.2 Jabez Molife
REM Durnford papers 4901-31/7 Undated summary of evidence.

20th January
The No2 column under Durnford was ordered to Rorke’s Drift and made camp on the ridge some two miles inside Zulu land. In letters from Chelmsford the plan of action into Zulu land had been laid out and Durnfords Column roll within that framework. Those orders have been quoted ad nauseum and I’m not re typing them.
On the morning of the 21st George Shepstone was sent to Isandlwana (Cochrane) for further orders.
In Zulu Rising Ian Knight says that Shepstone meets Chelmsford as he and staff are riding through Gandams deserted kraal. Again according to Ian Shepstone reports that Durnford is still at Msinga accordingly Chelmsford tells Shepstone to hurry Durnfords arrival at Rorke’s Drift. This doesn’t fit the available evidence, Durnford was already at Rorke’s Drift and Shepstone knew that having just left him there.
So any orders issued by Chelmsford that day are lost, we can’t even begin to speculate what they were.
Around 1.30 on the morning of 22nd January Major Clery was awoken by a messenger from Dartnell indicating the enemy were in greater numbers than his force could handle and requesting reinforcements. Clery took the letter to Glyn (Clery statement) and was told to take it on to Chelmsford.
After reading the contents, with difficulty Clery says, Chelmsford ordered Clery to cancel the wagons return trip to Rorke’s Drift and to send word to Col Durnford to “move up from Rorke’s drift with whatever men he had there to reinforce the camp”.
In his COI evidence Clery elaborates that he was told initially by Chelmsford to issue that order but was interrupted by Crealock who questioned his right to issue an order to a Column Commander.
Chelmsford concurred and said to Crealock “you do it.”
The order found later in Crealocks diary on the battlefield and kept by Crealock until he gave sight of it in July 1882 to Edward Durnford and sent a copy to Major Jekyll in 1886, makes no mention of the sentence quoted by Clery, “reinforce the camp”.
Crealock did not give evidence at the COI but did append a statement to Chelmsford’s report of the COI. In that report he mentions specifically that he ordered Col Durnford to “take command”. A patent inaccuracy.

With this background Clery issued orders to Pulleine (another example of Clery issuing orders to a senior officer). And told him he would remain in charge of the camp and that Col Durnford was ordered up to the camp. That in itself is confusing as the one statement cancels out the other.

When Durnford arrived at the camp, as senior officer he automatically took command.
A conversation took place in Pulleine tent, witnessed by two key people who left descriptions.
Captain Stafford and lt Cochrane.

Lt WFD Cochrane
Having made all the arrangements for his column Colonel Durnford took over command from Colonel Pulleine of the 1/24th regiment.
Captain WH Stafford
Col Durnford and Captain Shepstone entered Pulleines tent while I remained outside. From what I could hear an argument was taking place between Pulleine and Durnford as to who was the senior. Col Pulleine appeared to give way and I heard Colonel Durnford say” You had orders to draw in the camp.”
In a second statement Stafford changed the wording slightly, but significantly. “Pulleine in admitting Durnford was the senior handed him the written instructions.”
“In looking over the orders Colonel Durnford remarked you have orders to draw in the camp.”

From Both those statements it’s pretty clear that Colonel Durnford did take command, if only briefly.

Lt Cochrane had this to say of the same meeting
“I’m sorry you have come as you are senior to me and will of course take command.” Colonel Durnford replied “I’m not going to interfere with you. I’m not going to remain in camp.” (Or words to that effect)

So Durnfords camp takeover was there but very briefly.

While researching the above I found in Jabez Molifes statement this little titbit.
A sentry had come into the camp reporting seeing Zulus on the ridge, questioned he came up with a figure of 400.
Molife says “He at once sent out scouts in all directions to find out whether any large army was at hand.” And this was before sending out Raw Barton etc.

My personal viewpoint.

It’s pretty obvious that Chelmsford was a hands on type of person. He took control of the column, no matter what he said later.
That morning, the 22nd, I have no doubt he was woken from slumber with the news that, possibly, the Zulu army was at the Mangeni. Imagine, mind racing adrenalin pumping issuing orders for the start, who was going, who was staying, what was need what wasn’t etc. He was going to do battle, the very reason he was in Zululand, the very reason he was in the army. He didn’t have a big enough staff to handle the details as a result the instructions he issued to Clery re Durnford reinforcing the camp are possibly not what Crealock had fully heard or comprehended, he was in an adjoining tent. From Clerys subsequent letter it was very apparent that Chelmsford wanted Durnford in the camp, but was that passed to Crealock, I don’t think it was. Crealock wrote what he thought he had heard and left out the ‘Reinforce the camp’. With a professional military secretary that may have been avoided. Clery had shot of to organise the force so Crealock was left to send of the messages, get himself a messenger and get himself organised for the march. Things were happening very fast, hence no instruction to Pulleine, that was left to Clery.
It’s been postulated that Clery never issued any orders to Pulleine, Stafford and Cochrane kill that idea.

Durnford to my mind is totally blameless up and till the time he ordered the Rocket Battery to follow him. After that he has a lot to answer for.

This isn’t a knock Durnford and find Chelmsford not guilty essay. The title of the string is ‘Was Durnford capable,’ and so I’ve concentrated on the issues of Durnford alone.

Cheers

Hi Steve.

It has been said that when LC and his staff attached themselves to No3 column, Glyn and his staff took the back seat (so to speak). I have read somewhere that Glyn felt useless with LC and his staff taking over control of what was 'his column'.

Durnford had an independent command! so naturally
It followed its leader, and what was he doing when
he received reports of Zulu activity? he set off to 
Scout.. something his Lordship had singularly
neglected to do adequately.. that's addressed to impi.
                                                                  xhosa

Thanks Frank, that's very useful. I will ponder what you have said and we will try to respond with our thoughts from here in the EU.

Frederic, get to work!

Steve

Bonjour Franck,
Very Interesting essay, a detailed analysis, logical and rational, but it's not a surprise with you.
After a first reading, I generally agree with your thesis (but it's necessary for me to read several times your essay), particulary by your conclusion ("Durnford to my mind is totally blameless up and till the time he ordered the Rocket Battery to follow him".).
However, I admit to being disappointed that you have not developed your thoughts about DURNFORD after the time he ordered the rocket battery to follow him.
Unless yours numerous posts already issued on the subject on this forum reflect your exact thoughts?
I'm not sure about the answer to this interrogation. You are sometimes provocative to wake up Forum members...
Anyway thank you for this gift (your essay) that I will not miss to study in depth.
Amitiés.

frédéric

rusteze wrote:

Thanks Frank, that's very useful. I will ponder what you have said and we will try to respond with our thoughts from here in the EU.

Frederic, get to work!

Steve

Steve,
I am relax (for the moment) there is no contradiction in this essay with our hypthesis!!!!
Cheers.

frédéric

Springbok, firstly about your myth busting.. ..
I have no problems with the content of your
posting, i in the main agree with it, there are
parts which i consider to be ' hearsay ' .. but 
i cannot agree when you call Crealock, quote,
"With a ' professional Military Secretary" '. he
was in fact an Asst Military Secretary.. which
was a post i have never come across before
in the structure of the army before this campaign,
perhaps someone would clarify this question for
me! as far as i can tell, Crealock acted as a 
' Buffer ' between Chelmsford and everyone else!
nothing went through to his Lordship without the
sanction of Crealock, and in practice this tended
to isolate LC. cheer up Frank i at no time ever seek
to give offence, banter is a two way street.xhosa

Sorry, but i have a problem with "you have the order to draw in the camp".
I don't understand this sentence.
You can answer in english with others words.
Many thanks.
Frédéric

xhosa2000 wrote:

Springbok, firstly about your myth busting.. ..
I have no problems with the content of your
posting, i in the main agree with it, there are
parts which i consider to be ' hearsay ' .. but 
i cannot agree when you call Crealock, quote,
"With a ' professional Military Secretary" '. he
was in fact an Asst Military Secretary.. which
was a post i have never come across before
in the structure of the army before this campaign,
perhaps someone would clarify this question for
me! as far as i can tell, Crealock acted as a 
' Buffer ' between Chelmsford and everyone else!
nothing went through to his Lordship without the
sanction of Crealock, and in practice this tended
to isolate LC. cheer up Frank i at no time ever seek
to give offence, banter is a two way street.xhosa

Bonjour les,
it seems to me that I have read somewhere (in HCMDB i think ) that "Secretary" is a GRADE in the army.
Cheers.
Frédéric

Bonjour Frederic, thank you very much for that, 
i need to look into this question more fully..i
firmly believe that Chelmsford was weak and
prone to vacillation, and that Crealock was an
' unhealthy ' influence on his lordship, i firmly
believe that Crealock was a Machiavellian type
who's influence was far reaching, beyond the
scope his rank and position warranted.. xhosa

hi Frederic/Steve.
I tried just to answer the questions that have been coming up over the last few days. Everything there is 'public domain' so nothing new at all. ive just cobbled it all together.
My views on Durnfords actions from that point on Frederic are generally what ive been posting and that's why I have been very deliberate in saying up to that point.
The most interesting bit amidst all that though is that small piece I spotted with Molife. Ive read his account many times without seeing his mention that Durnford sent out 6 scouts, before sending out Raw etc. that I find really interesting.
But the essay isn't going to find to many 'likes' on the forum. Seems its either all Pristine Durnford or all Teflon Chelmsford, people don't seem to see a middle ground at all.

Cheers guys

Hi Les
Frederic is quite right, the post of Military Secretary is/was an official position. I do believe that Chelmsford was badly understaffed hence I think those reports of him being bad tempered at times, probably more irritable than anything else. And to have effectively only Crealock as a secretary I don't believe was enough, there should have been more help and not a Colonel either, possibly a Lt or even a major like Clery. I cant lay my hands on it for the moment but im sure that before the ultimatum he was given advice on the composition of his staff.
My thoughts are just an extention to that.

Cheers

ymob wrote:

Sorry, but i have a problem with  "you have the order to draw in the camp".
I don't understand this sentence.
You can answer in english with others words.
Many thanks.
Frédéric

I would think the order was for the defence ring to contract/ make smaller that would mean as well the guards, piquets etc.

'rapetisser' does that make sense?

Just a thought to us all that thinks this thread is so
precious, maybe its us that are becoming ' precious '
in that sense of the word.   i have often said that 
these posts are here for posterity and all can see!
well i have had a bit of feed back from members
who do not, if ever post regularly, but do however
follow what we say..one who i will be replying to
tonight, now admin did his thing quicker..said..
" How much he was enjoying this thread and that
he was getting through bucketful's of popcorn"..
now is'nt that just great.   to all who are members
and have yet to post..dive in! i promise you will be
well looked after.                                     xhosa

springbok9 wrote:

Hi Les
Frederic is quite right, the post of Military Secretary is/was an official position. I do believe that Chelmsford was badly understaffed hence I think those reports of him being bad tempered at times, probably more irritable than anything else. .

Cheers

Frank,
It seems to me that there is a comment a little strange by DROOGLEVER in his book (after the rebuff taken by DURNFORD from CHELMSFORD / I have not my books at hand).
From memory DROOGLEVER says that CHELSMFORD at this mooment was "tired" maybe ill with serious consequences for the direction of the campaign.
But there is no source in his book for this assertion (from memory)
There is also the testimony well-known of CLERY (CHELSMFORD was "irritable") after the recept of the first message from PULLEINE the 22 January.

As Steve says, your essay is very useful against the "myth".
A clear and honest view of the events and the decisions taken before the disaster.
A "middle ground" is not in question, only the research of the truth is important.

Cheers
Frédéric

Thanks Frank, as said i need to look into that..now
the initial xmas is done, i have mail, i'm always
playing catch up book wise..so today it was Irish
winners of the victoria cross, and yet another copy
of the life of colenso, 1888, but a nice binding..
                      hope your mending well. xhosa