Latest topics | » Brothers SearsToday at 2:30 am by Eddie » Ford Park Cemetery, Plymouth.Yesterday at 4:15 pm by rai » A Bullet BibleMon Oct 07, 2024 11:41 am by Eddie » Shipping - transport in the AZWSun Oct 06, 2024 10:47 pm by Bill8183 » 1879 South Africa Medal named 1879 BARSun Oct 06, 2024 12:41 pm by Dash » A note on Captain Norris Edward Davey, Natal Volunteer Staff.Sun Oct 06, 2024 12:16 pm by Julian Whybra » Isandlwana papers he,d by the RE museum Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:06 am by 90th » An Irish V.C. conundrum?Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:51 am by Julian Whybra » Studies in the Zulu War volume VI now availableFri Sep 27, 2024 9:12 am by Julian Whybra » William Moore / William Potter 24th RegimentThu Sep 26, 2024 3:04 pm by Dash » Stalybridge men in the 24thThu Sep 26, 2024 2:24 pm by Dash » Grave of Henry SpaldingWed Sep 25, 2024 3:24 pm by Kenny » Thomas P Kensole and James J MitchellMon Sep 23, 2024 4:04 pm by Samnoco » flocking stands to historical accuracySun Sep 22, 2024 8:05 pm by GCameron » Private 25B/483 Joseph Phelan 1/24th RegimentFri Sep 20, 2024 5:22 pm by Dash » Updated list of Zulu War Veterans who came to Australia or New ZealandFri Sep 20, 2024 12:31 am by krish » A story regarding Younghusband's charge. Hearsay or a possibility? Thu Sep 19, 2024 3:26 pm by Julian Whybra » Nine of the 24thThu Sep 19, 2024 10:24 am by Julian Whybra » Colour Sergeant 2296 James Hannon HawkinsThu Sep 19, 2024 8:00 am by Samnoco » S.S. Solway Campbell/O'Keefe/Quigley 24th RegimentWed Sep 18, 2024 8:56 pm by Dash » Private 25B/2185 Owen Salmons alias Martin MacNamara? 1/24thWed Sep 18, 2024 8:44 pm by Bill8183 » Fort Evelyn and the grave of the 58th Regiment Drum MajorSun Sep 15, 2024 5:59 pm by 1879graves » Telescope v. field glassesSun Sep 15, 2024 10:20 am by 90th » Photo Lonsdales HorseTue Sep 10, 2024 10:10 pm by ciroferrara » Soldier 13th regiment of foot Natal new photo Tue Sep 10, 2024 8:32 pm by ciroferrara » Private 1941 Samuel MacClue / McClune 1/24th RegimentMon Sep 09, 2024 1:33 pm by Dash » Lieutenant & Adjutant Spencer Frederick Chichester, 2nd 21stMon Sep 09, 2024 11:56 am by Rory Reynolds » In search of the 80th FootSun Sep 08, 2024 6:39 pm by Julian Whybra » Corporal James Frowen Williams F Company. Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:43 pm by Dash » THE DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT MEDALThu Sep 05, 2024 11:16 pm by Julian Whybra » 9312 Sapper H Cuthbert 5th Field Coy REWed Sep 04, 2024 11:53 am by Julian Whybra » Who’s who in this photo?Tue Sep 03, 2024 12:44 pm by ianwood » Sir Robert William Jackson Mon Sep 02, 2024 10:24 am by Julian Whybra » Memorial to WolseleySun Sep 01, 2024 8:47 pm by John Young » Last of the 24th at IsandhlwanaSun Sep 01, 2024 7:51 am by Julian Whybra |
October 2024 | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | | | | Calendar |
|
Top posting users this month | |
New topics | » A Bullet BibleSun Oct 06, 2024 8:02 pm by Eddie » Shipping - transport in the AZWSun Oct 06, 2024 3:23 pm by Bill8183 » Isandlwana papers he,d by the RE museum Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:01 pm by Danny1960 » An Irish V.C. conundrum?Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:17 am by Julian Whybra » A note on Captain Norris Edward Davey, Natal Volunteer Staff.Sun Sep 29, 2024 5:25 pm by lydenburg » Ford Park Cemetery, Plymouth.Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:12 am by Samnoco » Grave of Henry SpaldingWed Sep 25, 2024 12:43 pm by Richard Spalding » Stalybridge men in the 24thTue Sep 24, 2024 6:48 pm by Dash » Studies in the Zulu War volume VI now availableFri Sep 20, 2024 4:54 pm by Julian Whybra |
Zero tolerance to harassment and bullying. |
Due to recent events on this forum, we have now imposed a zero tolerance to harassment and bullying. All reports will be treated seriously, and will lead to a permanent ban of both membership and IP address.
Any member blatantly corresponding in a deliberate and provoking manner will be removed from the forum as quickly as possible after the event.
If any members are being harassed behind the scenes PM facility by any member/s here at 1879zuluwar.com please do not hesitate to forward the offending text.
We are all here to communicate and enjoy the various discussions and information on the Anglo Zulu War of 1879. Opinions will vary, you will agree and disagree with one another, we will have debates, and so it goes.
There is no excuse for harassment or bullying of anyone by another person on this site.
The above applies to the main frame areas of the forum.
The ring which is the last section on the forum, is available to those members who wish to partake in slagging matches. That section cannot be viewed by guests and only viewed by members that wish to do so. |
Fair Use Notice | Fair use notice.
This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner.
We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website.
If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution. |
| | Durnford was he capable. 4 | |
|
+18durnfordthescapegoat John littlehand Chard1879 ymob Ulundi 90th Chelmsfordthescapegoat sas1 Frank Allewell 6pdr Mr M. Cooper impi rusteze Ray63 ADMIN Julian Whybra 24th 22 posters | |
Author | Message |
---|
Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:21 pm | |
| Chard.
There are more 'Durnford was he capable' topics than this one, Pete split them up for some reason, click on the search, type in Durnford and you will find at least four topics of DWHC and DWHC2, unforntunately I can't remember which one it is in, however, Springy did post it on Monday October 21st 2013 at 11:20am.
I wish I knew how to post maps, pictures, etc, on here, but I don't. I could explain things better by showing you on a map how the pincer movement was supposed to take place, but I will try to explain. LC was to lie in wait some 8-10 miles from iSandlwana, Durnford was to move to the camp, Bengough was to move via sandspruit, then Durnford and Bengough would have come toward each other and swept the area to drive the zulus towards a waiting LC, and between the three of them they would try to force the zulus to surrender.
But through the message from Dartnell saying he had found a large impi, LC was under the impression that he had found the main army and set off without thinking to tell Durnford of any alterations to the plans. Crealock made matters worse by informing Durnford that Bengough should take the route via sandspruit, this must have meant to Durnford that the pincer movement was on, and with Crealock informing Durnford that LC would be about 10 miles distant from the camp, Durnford would be under the impression that LC was getting into position.
Don't forget that Durnford sent a messenger to LC at the camp on the 21st to get any change of or any further orders, however, it would appear that LC did not issue any, so when he got the order on the 22nd to move up to the camp, he would still be under the impression that he and Bengough were to perform the pincer, and that is why when he arrived at the camp he told Pulleine he would not be staying. |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:23 pm | |
| New Year in Oz is it, All the best Gary mate, don't get too much mate, hic, hic. |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:31 pm | |
| Oh no! Guess what's just starting on more4, "The Film", hell, that's 4 times it's been on already. Right time to turn over to The Vikings. |
| | | Chard1879
Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:45 pm | |
| - Martin wrote:
- If Bengough’s battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Nangwana Valley).”
Pete did say somewhere each discussion forum as a limit. Between us we seemed to have hit the limit twice already, nearly a third with the on going one. Anyway time to rest, it's news years eve, so we can stop arguing for the moment, enjoy and pick up in the new year. Bearing in mind, we are right you a wrong. Happy new year to all. |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:50 pm | |
| Chard mate, I think you will find that it was OH2 who wrote what you highlighted. Yes, you may be right, time for a rest and get ready for the New Year. All the very best everyone, let us hope for peace throughout the world. Best regards to all of you. |
| | | Julian Whybra
Posts : 4118 Join date : 2011-09-12 Location : Billericay, Essex
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:06 pm | |
| ymob has e-mailed me re this thread and I'm inclined to offer: Clery definitely told Pulleine that Colonel Durnford “had been written to to bring up his force to stengthen the camp”. This was subsequent verbal information from Clery to Pulleine and not in Clery’s written orders to Pulleine. BUT Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery, Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented. As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford. Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp). The curious thing is that Clery should have written in Pulleine’s orders that he (Pulleine), although junior to Durnford in rank, was to be “in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn”. Perhaps he did this because he was not certain WHAT had actually been written in Durnford’s orders and decided to hedge his bets. Thus Pulleine was given the impression that Durnford’s force would be strengthening the camp (and thus was perplexed when Durnford announced that he would not be staying) whilst Durnford’s orders did not specifically include reinforcing the camp (and thus Durnford appeared [almost] dismissive when Pulleine offered him its command). As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!
|
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:14 pm | |
| Thanks Julian. So the original intention for Durnford, was to reinforce the camp. not a nice guy was our friend Cealock. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:52 pm | |
| Mister Whybra, Many tanks for your analysis . Happy year Frédéric |
| | | impi
Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:21 pm | |
| That make sense. As we thought Chelmsford original intention, was for Durnford to reinforce / Strengthen the camp. Nothing to do with assisting LC. Although he was assisting him reinforcing the camp. So why did he take command? |
| | | rusteze
Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:40 pm | |
| Yes, thanks Julian. You have put me back to square one, if you have no doubt at all that Chelmsford's intention was for Durnford to reinforce the camp! The rest of what you say takes some careful unpicking, and your final sentence is enigmatic to say the least. Can we tease a little more out of you about this "different story"? I still like my theory though, and at least we all seem to be getting on ! Steve |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:10 pm | |
| Hi Steve. The original plan was the pincer move with Bengough and Durnford driving the zulus to a waiting LC. What threw the spanner in the works was when LC got the message from Dartnell. LC then changed his mind, and origimally said that Durnford should move up to the camp to reinforce it, however, Crealock chirped in and said that would be improper as Durnford had his own separate independent command, so LC relented. Now comes all the confusion. Clery tells Pulleine that Durnford will reinforce him, not knowing that this has not been ordered to Durnford. Crealock adds fuel to the fire by saying to Durnford that Bengough is to go by the different route, and that Durnford is to move up to the camp, and that LC will be about 10 miles distant, giving Durnford the impression that the pincer move is under way, and that he and Bengough are going to support LC in that move, hence Durnford telling Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp. I think the thing that puzzles almost everyone is why on earth was the slow moving rocket battery attached to Durnford fast moving No2 column. Have a great New Year Steve. |
| | | impi
Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:28 pm | |
| - Mr M. Cooper wrote:
- Hi Steve.
The original plan was the pincer move with Bengough and Durnford driving the zulus to a waiting LC.
What threw the spanner in the works was when LC got the message from Dartnell. LC then changed his mind, and origimally said that Durnford should move up to the camp to reinforce it, however, Crealock chirped in and said that would be improper as Durnford had his own separate independent command, so LC relented.
Now comes all the confusion. Clery tells Pulleine that Durnford will reinforce him, not knowing that this has not been ordered to Durnford. Crealock adds fuel to the fire by saying to Durnford that Bengough is to go by the different route, and that Durnford is to move up to the camp, and that LC will be about 10 miles distant, giving Durnford the impression that the pincer move is under way, and that he and Bengough are going to support LC in that move, hence Durnford telling Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp.
I think the thing that puzzles almost everyone is why on earth was the slow moving rocket battery attached to Durnford fast moving No2 column.
Have a great New Year Steve. Back Pedal. back pedal... Faster and faster. Happy new year Martin.. |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:39 pm | |
| Back pedal This is what I have been saying for ages, read back and see for yourself. Yes, thanks impi, Happy New Year mate. |
| | | sas1
Posts : 627 Join date : 2009-01-20 Age : 46
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:22 pm | |
| Keep going lads. Keep going! |
| | | John
Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 62 Location : UK
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:49 pm | |
| - Julian Whybra wrote:
- ymob has e-mailed me re this thread and I'm inclined to offer:
Clery definitely told Pulleine that Colonel Durnford “had been written to to bring up his force to stengthen the camp”. This was subsequent verbal information from Clery to Pulleine and not in Clery’s written orders to Pulleine. BUT Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery, Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented. As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford. Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp). The curious thing is that Clery should have written in Pulleine’s orders that he (Pulleine), although junior to Durnford in rank, was to be “in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn”. Perhaps he did this because he was not certain WHAT had actually been written in Durnford’s orders and decided to hedge his bets. Thus Pulleine was given the impression that Durnford’s force would be strengthening the camp (and thus was perplexed when Durnford announced that he would not be staying) whilst Durnford’s orders did not specifically include reinforcing the camp (and thus Durnford appeared [almost] dismissive when Pulleine offered him its command). As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!
Now we are getting somewhere! |
| | | Dave
Posts : 1603 Join date : 2009-09-21
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:43 pm | |
| So Chelmsford did intend for Durford to reinforce the camp. Which is a good indicator he didn't required his help, at that point. It was Crealock's miss-handling of the order that confused the issue.
So are we also saying that Durford should not have taken command.
|
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:07 am | |
| Julian whybra sais - Julian Whybra wrote:
- ymob has e-mailed me re this thread and I'm inclined to offer:
“Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery, Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented. As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp). (...) As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!
Bonjour Mister WHYBRA, I am not sure to understand what do you mean exactly: Do you mean that the second intention of CHELMSFORD about DURNFORD was not to “reinforce the camp?” ("So CHELMSFORD relented / as As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s") In this hypothesis, the famous order given by CREALOCK to DURNFORD finally expresses (at least partially) the wishes of CHELSMFORD by not mentioning " reinforce the camp" In this case, CREALOCK is somewhere a "scapegoat" for most of the authors in the disaster of Isandhlwana and finally it was CLERY who was in fault".!!! In this hypothesis again, what was ultimately the mission of DURNFORD in the mind of CHELMSFORD? DURNFORD in support of him? Very happy to be corrected Cheers Frédéric |
| | | Julian Whybra
Posts : 4118 Join date : 2011-09-12 Location : Billericay, Essex
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:43 am | |
| CTSG, impi, ymob, rusteze, dave
Let me be quite clear lest in the unpicking of my previous post there is confusion.
Chelmsford's original intention was for Durnford to reinforce the camp. In the light of Crealock's comment about impropriety Chelmsford abandoned this intention. Chelmsford did not order Durnford to reinforce the camp and Crealock correctly interpreted Chelmsford's wishes in the orders to Durnford.
Crealock is not a pleasant character and certainly no hero of mine. I am not his apologist but in the matter of Durnford's orders Crealock did not play the villain. There was no mishandling of Chelmsford's wishes.
rusteze, martin
Interpreting Durnford's orders is really a question of semantics. I apologize for being enigmatic but I do not want to put all my eggs into this (forum's) one basket. If I do, there's always the risk that I'll be reading my own ideas in someone else's book. I'm sorry if this annoys CTSG but I am planning an in-depth essay on this subject in the future. Presenting a new historical argument requires rigour and its being watertight. I like things to be watertight and not open to interpretation and am not willing to present any idea that is still 'half-baked'.
Happy New Year! |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:02 am | |
| Bonjour Mister Whybra, It's a scoop! Really great! Many tanks to y ou for your thoughts Amitiés Frederic |
| | | Julian Whybra
Posts : 4118 Join date : 2011-09-12 Location : Billericay, Essex
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 am | |
| I’d like additionally to respond to ymob’s post of 30th Dec 12.59:
It is true that we are relying exclusively on Clery regarding his verbal remark to Pulleine about Durnford’s force reinforcing the camp. At the Court of Inquiry Clery was under oath and as an officer and a gentleman stated what he believed to be true. That said, it is possible that Clery misunderstood Chelmsford as to his original intentions/instructions regarding Durnford. Clery was not party to Crealock’s conversation with Chelmsford nor to the content of the actual orders to Durnford. There is certainly no instruction to reinforce the camp in Durnford’s orders. Molife in his account wrote that they were riding to Isandhlwana to ‘strengthen the camp’ but this was after the event and may simply have been his understanding of the situation. No officer is recorded as confirming the notion of strengthening the camp. Cochrane did write that Durnford had told him that they were to proceed at once to Isandhlwana but that remark contains nothing extraordinary (where else were they proceed to?) and indeed was qualified by a following remark.
Upcher and Rainforth were even further back in Natal than Durnford. They contained no mounted element. Chelmsford could not have summoned them in time even if he had wanted to.
Clery stated that he wrote in his orders to Pulleine that he would be in command in the absence of Col. Glyn.
Clery in his testimony to the Court of Inquiry was recalling conversations not events witnessed with his eyes. I do not find it surprising that he qualified some of his remarks with “I speak from memory”, etc. |
| | | ymob
Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:52 am | |
| Mister WHYBRA, Many thanks to have taken time to answer to these argument. Amitiés. Frédéric |
| | | rusteze
Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:36 am | |
| Julian
Thank you for your further explanation of your thinking. I am glad I asked, and I feel a little better I must say!
I fully understand your reasons for not saying more, and I look forward to reading your future publication on the subject at some future date. In light of which I suspect any conclusion we manage to reach on this forum will, at best, be tentative!
Regards
Steve |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:40 am | |
| Now that for me is as close to the truth we are going to get! thanks Julian could not of put it better myself. . Essay. hmmm, that will be most interesting. xhosa |
| | | Frank Allewell
Posts : 8572 Join date : 2009-09-21 Age : 77 Location : Cape Town South Africa
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:57 am | |
| Always one doubting Thomas though. Sorry Julian Im just not convinced. I hope to respond more fully in a couple of days. In the mean time enjoy New Year.
Regards |
| | | rusteze
Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:28 pm | |
| You old curmudgeon. Look forward to it Frank.
Steve |
| | | Julian Whybra
Posts : 4118 Join date : 2011-09-12 Location : Billericay, Essex
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:54 pm | |
| Frank/Thomas Doubts are good. I'll be pleased to hear your thoughts! |
| | | Frank Allewell
Posts : 8572 Join date : 2009-09-21 Age : 77 Location : Cape Town South Africa
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:03 pm | |
| Hi Julian Ive reproduced below your illuminating post on Crealock: BUT Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. However, Chelmsford changed his mind and gave Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Unbeknown to Clery, Crealock had then pointed out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented. As a result there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford. Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp). The curious thing is that Clery should have written in Pulleine’s orders that he (Pulleine), although junior to Durnford in rank, was to be “in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn”. Perhaps he did this because he was not certain WHAT had actually been written in Durnford’s orders and decided to hedge his bets. Thus Pulleine was given the impression that Durnford’s force would be strengthening the camp (and thus was perplexed when Durnford announced that he would not be staying) whilst Durnford’s orders did not specifically include reinforcing the camp (and thus Durnford appeared [almost] dismissive when Pulleine offered him its command). As to what Durnford was actually ordered to do, that's another story!
The line in question ( for the time being) is the highlighted one above. In that you've stated that Clery did not know that Crealock had pointed out that he Clery should not issue orders to a column Commander. This is the direct opposite that Clery states in his letter of the 17th February 1878 (1879) to Col Harman. In that letter Clery is very exact in his description of Crealock interrupting the conversation between Him and Chelmsford. Clery even comments that Crealocks intrusion was, 'very proper I think.'
After Crealocks intrusion Chelmfords response was "No let you do it.
Based on that then Crealock, Clery and Chelmsford were all part of the conversation as to who would issue the instruction. The mere fact that Crealock had overheard the whispered instructions would tend to point to him having heard the key phrase "reinforce the camp." As far as Im aware there is no other mention of the content of that instruction. I would be more than happy to be pointed in the right direction if im wrong on that.
If one totally discounts that letter, and I don't believe you can, then the sequence of events doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 1) Clery is told to communicate with Durnford 2) Crealock is told to communicate with Durnford 3) Clery is told not to communicate with Durnford.
Those three actions would require two visits to Chelmsford, and I cannot find any record of that.
My rebuttal would be therefore that Clery did know that Crealock had been instructed to issue orders. That considering the order was discussed between Clery and Chelmsford, Clery would have every reason to believe that the order issued by Crealock was the same/similar.
Regards
|
| | | Frank Allewell
Posts : 8572 Join date : 2009-09-21 Age : 77 Location : Cape Town South Africa
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:05 pm | |
| "Tom, tom pick up thy musket." |
| | | Frank Allewell
Posts : 8572 Join date : 2009-09-21 Age : 77 Location : Cape Town South Africa
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:49 pm | |
| I took a couple of liberties not expecting anyone to pick up on it. Well done you two.
Cheers |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:58 pm | |
| Clery took it upon himself to give orders to Pulleine, this was totally out of order because Pulleine was senior to Clery. Crealock pointed out to LC that Clery should not be giving orders to Durnford as he was in command of an idependent column, so LC relented and told Crealock to do it. I wonder if either LC or Crealock knew that Clery had took it upon himself to give Pulleine orders, it would appear not, as LC was very much relieved when he found out that Clery had given Pulleine orders. But then again, Clery had given Pulleine the wrong information by saying that Durnford was coming to reinforce him, and, by the same token, it would also appear that Clery had given Pulleine the orders about how he should set out his defence of the camp. Either way, the reponsibility for this is with LC, he should have made it perfectly clear what he wanted both Pulleine and Durnford to do, but he failed to see that this was done, and although both Clery and Crealock have their share of the blame for this, the responsibility for allowing this to happen lies with none other than LC, no wonder they did a cover up and tried to get themselves off the hook and dump the blame on Durnford, what an absolute shower of bounders. Not everyone back home was convinced by their web of lies, even The Duke of Cambridge saw through the cover up, and put forward a set of questions didn't he? |
| | | rusteze
Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:05 pm | |
| Bravo Frank! Might have been best to leave Waterloo out though.
Steve |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:14 pm | |
| From Clarkes Zululand at War, two extracts.. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:15 pm | |
| |
| | | Frank Allewell
Posts : 8572 Join date : 2009-09-21 Age : 77 Location : Cape Town South Africa
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:16 pm | |
| Hi Martin I said it before and im happy to repeat it. I don't see Clery as being part of a cover up. He was extremely active in protecting Glyn and not allowing blame to fall on him, not the actions of some one involved in a cover up. He took a lot of flack over his recording of Chelmsfords " Theres nothing to be done on that" statement. He passed onto Pulleine information that he had earlier been about to send to Col Durnford and really had no reason to doubt that information. He stepped into a void, and took a great risk in issuing those orders. His letters outline his fears on what could have gone wrong.
Cheers |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:27 pm | |
| Yes I see your point springy, but he should not have been giving orders to a senior officer really should he? Sam, is not North Country, nay, nay lad, it's frompt same place as thee owd lad, aye, it's fro good owd Lancashire, were all t' gradely folk come fro. |
| | | littlehand
Posts : 7076 Join date : 2009-04-24 Age : 56 Location : Down South.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:02 pm | |
| I wonder where Smith obtained the opinion, that Durford was to reinforce the camp.
"At about midnight I was sent for by General Lord Chelmsford and told to take a dispatch back to Rorke's Drift for Colonel Durnford, R.E., who was expected there with reinforcements consisting of native levies. I rode back, 10 miles, arriving at Rorke's Drift just before dawn on the 22nd, and delivered my dispatch. It ought to have been a very jumpy ride, for I was entirely alone and the country was wild and new to me, and the road little better than a track; but pride at being selected to carry an important dispatch and the valour of ignorance (for I only realised next day that the country was infested with hostile Zulus) carried me along without a thought of danger. Colonel Durnford was just moving off with his levies towards Sandspruit (away from Isandhlwana), but on reading the dispatch, which conveyed instructions to move up to reinforce the Isandhlwana camp (as Lord Chelmsford, with the main body of the force, leaving the camp standing, was moving out some miles to the east to attack the Zulu Army), he at once changed the direction of his march." |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:05 pm | |
| Maybe he simply read the message? xhosa |
| | | littlehand
Posts : 7076 Join date : 2009-04-24 Age : 56 Location : Down South.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:21 pm | |
| Good point, we're the orders sealed in an envelope or just on paper? |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:25 pm | |
| No, he couldn't have done Les, because like Julian explained, the message did not contain the words 'reinforce the camp', so maybe (like many others), Smith-Dorrien was just jumping to conclusions. |
| | | littlehand
Posts : 7076 Join date : 2009-04-24 Age : 56 Location : Down South.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:30 pm | |
| I'm thinking along the lines, of what Smith may of heard, or was told before he left. He must have got the word reinforce from somewhere, and Clery message had been allowed tI send it, contained the word reinforce. Just a line if thought. |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:34 pm | |
| Thanks Martin, well said, my mind was as usual. off. at a tangent! i don't know if i have ever read about the ' security '. of messages in transit..was it simply a matter of tearing the paper off a pad/block..or simply stuffing it in a pouch/bag..Gardner..or even trouser pocket.. xhosa |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:37 pm | |
| You may be right LH about SD hearing it or being told by someone, could it have been Clery who mentioned it to him I wonder? But he couldn't have read it in the message as it was not mentioned in that. BTW, Happy New Year mate. |
| | | Mr M. Cooper
Posts : 2591 Join date : 2011-09-29 Location : Lancashire, England.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:42 pm | |
| Hi Les, they would normally be put in a dispatch bag.
Hope you had a good New Year buddy. |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:00 pm | |
| A dispatch bag, yes of course. doh!.. yeah mate, first time i have seen the new year in with out a drink for many years, different game watching tipsy people when your not. have a good un Martin!. xhosa |
| | | littlehand
Posts : 7076 Join date : 2009-04-24 Age : 56 Location : Down South.
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:02 pm | |
| Was there any need for that remark. Not really. This is exactly what members are on about. You can't be civil. |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:08 pm | |
| ?.. just in case that was addressed to me, the remark was civil. i genuinely thought that was possible..hence my follow up remark's,i think you might have the wrong end of the stick in that instance. xhosa |
| | | Julian Whybra
Posts : 4118 Join date : 2011-09-12 Location : Billericay, Essex
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:11 pm | |
| springbok
Thanks for the 'doubts'. Let me then clarify what I wrote earlier to incorporate your remarks and settle any lingering doubts:
I repeat that Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. Crealock, having overheard the Chelmsford-Clery conversation, spoke from the next tent pointing out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented, changed his mind and decided to give Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Clery then left the tent. Crealock dressed and entered Chelmsford’s tent. Clery was thus not party to the actual orders conveyed from Chelmsford via Crealock to Durnford. In fact, unbeknown to Clery, there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford. Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp).
I hope that makes it clear.
littlehand/Martin I am sure that S-D simply inferred from the message (which he stated he read) that Durnford would be strengthening the camp. |
| | | Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:21 pm | |
| I repeat that Clery had not seen what had actually been written to Durnford because Clery had not been present when Chelmsford gave the orders to Crealock. Clery did know the general drift of the orders because Chelmsford had originally intended to send them through him (Clery), saying to him, “Order up Colonel Durnford with the troops he has to reinforce the camp”. Crealock, having overheard the Chelmsford-Clery conversation, spoke from the next tent pointing out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command; so Chelmsford relented, changed his mind and decided to give Durnford’s orders to Crealock to despatch. Clery then left the tent. Crealock dressed and entered Chelmsford’s tent. Clery was thus not party to the actual orders conveyed from Chelmsford via Crealock to Durnford. In fact, unbeknown to Clery, there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford. Thus Clery’s verbal remark to Pulleine WAS incorrect (Durnford had NOT been ordered to reinforce the camp). Just getting me head around this. - JW wrote:
"Crealock, having overheard the Chelmsford-Clery conversation, spoke from the next tent pointing out to Chelmsford that such an order as originally suggested would be improper as Durnford still had an independent separate command" Why would it have been a problem, he was only being asked to reinforce the camp. He would have still had command over his unit. If such an order like that was improper, what the difference with that and " moving to the camp" would that not have been improper? |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:25 pm | |
| Could i ask for the source's.. xhosa |
| | | Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: Durnford was he capable. 4 Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:27 pm | |
| And, just for information, who was the remark at 8.02 aimed at? thanks xhosa |
| | | | Durnford was he capable. 4 | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |