Durnford was he capable. 4

An interesting observation by Sir Garnet Wolseley.

After the defeat at iSandlwana, Chelmsford realised that he would need to account for the disaster. He quickly fixed the blame on Col Durnford, claiming that Durnford had disobeyed his orders.

Wolseley wrote on the 30th September, when, later in the war, the Prince Imperial of France was killed by the Zulu's and Carey was made scapegoat.

"I think this is very unfair, and is merely a repitition of what was done regarding the iSandlwana disaster where blame was thrown on Col Durnford, the real object in both instances being apparently to screen Chelmsford"

Just shows what Sir Garnet Wolseley thought of LC doesn't it?

I'm not sure this not hearing conversations is helpfull, we are talking canvas tents, not brick buildings. Perhaps Crealock is just being selective as to what he did or didn't hear.

Chard, yes, you may well be right, they were only canvas tents after all, however, the words reinforce, strengthen, or take command were NOT in the order to Durnford, so therefor Durnford was NOT ordered to do any of that.

Chard1879 wrote:

I'm not sure this not hearing conversations is helpfull, we are talking canvas tents, not brick buildings. Perhaps Crealock is just being selective as to what he did or didn't hear.

Time of the chat between chelmford anc clery about 1.30 am. It was the night
Cheers

Chard, sorry mate, just read your other post.

Yes, if Durnford HAD received orders informing him that the pincer move was cancelled, and HAD been ordered to strengthen or reinforce the camp, then he most certainly would have done that, but he never received such orders.

[quote="ymob"]

Chard1879 wrote:

I'm not sure this not hearing conversations is helpfull, we are talking canvas tents, not brick buildings. Perhaps Crealock is just being selective as to what he did or didn't hear.

Time of the chat between chelmford anc clery about 1.30 am. It was the night
Cheers
[/quote

We know by clery that chelmsford was asleep when clery came in his canvas

Martin. That's true. Covered some posts back. But LC originally intended for Durnford to reinforce the camp, we can see that. The problem Crelaock didn't write was was intended. So it's no wonder Durnford was confused. But as far as LC was concerned he did not want Durnford to act as part of your pincer movement.

I have asked before, Martin. But do you think Durnford would have acted differently if his order had contained the words reinforce or strengthened

Yes, I have just answered that mate, I think our posts crossed.

I have not answered individual posts (except Chard's which has overlapped with this post).  That would the destroy the continuity and clarity of my argument (in lower case).  Answers are included with the annotated message below (in upper case).  Xhosa asked me for the sources for my post.  They are beneath each statement or series of statements (in upper case).  With the addition of the extra details required by Springbok the basic premise of my argument is not altered: viz. 1. Clery DID inform Pulleine verbally that Durnford would reinforce the camp and 2. Clery was not party to the Chelmsford’s actual orders to Durnford as sent by Crealock which contained no such ‘reinforcement’ phrase:

“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.
[CLERY, COURT OF INQUIRY C2260, P. 81)

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”.  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.
[ALISON LETTERS 1878-79, 6399, CLERY TO ALISON, 28TH APRIL 1879.  THE PENCILLED MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED BY CLERY AT 1.30 A.M. AFTER THE CAMP WAS QUIET AND ALL WERE ASLEEP.  AT THE VERY LEAST CLERY WOULD HAVE MADE HIMSELF DECENT AND PULLED ON HIS BOOTS AND A GREATCOAT.  HE TOOK THE MESSAGE TO GLYN WHO ORDERED HIM TO TAKE IT IMMEDIATELY TO CHELMSFORD.

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.  
[ALISON LETTERS 1878-79, 6399, CLERY TO ALISON, 28TH APRIL 1879.  CLERY ALSO STATED THAT HE WAS THEN DESPATCHED TO WAKE UP THE COMMANDERS WHO WERE TO LEAD THEIR MEN OUT OF CAMP TO DARTNELL’S ‘RESCUE’.  BY INFERENCE, AS WITH CLERY, CREALOCK WOULD HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST PULLED ON BOOTS AND A GREATCOAT BEFORE PRESENTING HIMSELF BEFORE HIS GENERAL AND BEGINNING TO TAKE DICTATION FROM CHELMSFORD AS TO DURNFORD’S ORDERS, BY WHICH TIME CLERY WOULD HAVE GONE.
IMPI POSTED THAT CLERY SAID THAT CREALOCK TOOK DOWN DURNFORD’S ORDERS “straight after”.  I HAVE SPENT MUCH OF MY AFTERNOON’S SPARE MOMENTS SEARCHING FOR WHERE IMPI GOT THESE TWO WORDS FROM AND I CAN FIND NO PRIMARY SOURCE – NEITHER DO THEY SOUND LIKE NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH - BUT IF IMPI IS CORRECT THEY ARE RELEVANT.  SO I MUST ASK IMPI WHETHER THEY COME FROM A MODERN WORK OR DID HE FIND THEM IN A PRIMARY SOURCE.  

In fact, unbeknown to Clery, there was no such ‘reinforce-the-camp’ remark in Crealock’s written orders to Durnford.
[CREALOCK’S NOTEBOOK CONTAINING HIS COPY OF THE ORDER WAS FOUND ON THE BATTLEFIELD.   CREALOCK, COURT OF INQUIRY C2260, P. 98.
CHELMSFORD MAY HAVE CHANGED HIS MIND REGARDING DURNFORD’S ROLE THAT DAY AND HIS ORDERS OR HE MAY NOT.  THAT IS NOT THE POINT AT ISSUE IN MY ARGUMENT ON THIS OCCASION.  AS I POSTED EARLIER I SHALL RETURN TO THIS SUBJECT IN A LATER ESSAY.
NEITHER IS IT THE POINT WHETHER CREALOCK ORDERED DURNFORD TO TAKE COMMAND.  HE DID NOT NEED TO.  DURNFORD WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE HAVE ASSUMED COMMAND WHEN INSIDE CAMP (BOTH PULLEINE AND DURNFORD KNEW THIS).  CREALOCK IN HIS C OF I REPORT (IBID., P. 98) SAID AS MUCH: LITERALLY, THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO STATE THE OBVIOUS.  BUT AS I SAID, THIS WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT EITHER AND MERELY DISTRACTS FROM THE MAIN QUESTION.
WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EITHER OF THESE MATTERS IS WHAT CREALOCK ACTUALLY WROTE TO DURNFORD, I.E. THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF STRENGTHENING OR REINFORCING THE CAMP, BECAUSE IT IS WHAT WAS IN THOSE ORDERS THAT DETERMINED DURNFORD’S THINKING THAT MORNING.]

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).”


Chard1879
You are barking up the wrong tree.  What Chelmsford originally intended for Durnford is irrelevant.  He may have changed his mind and Crealock reflected this in the actual orders; he may not and Crealock deliberately did not write what was intended (why???) or wrote ambiguously (why, when he was normally so precise???).  What is relevant is what was actually written in the orders, as I've said above.  And Durnford showed no signs of confusion, neither when he received these orders nor when he entered camp and conferred with Pulleine.  In fact I would say he showed singular purpose of mind.

Chard, Col Durnford had been given a rocket by LC, so I don't think he would have been taking a chance again in a hurry. If he had received orders telling him to strengthen or reinforce the camp, then that is what Durnford would have done. But don't forget that LC's previous discussion with Durnford regarding him being involved with Bengough in the planned pincer move had not been cancelled, and the order of the 22nd had only informed him to move up to the camp, so therefor Durnford would still think that the pincer move was under way, especially with Crealock informing Durnford that Bengough should be taking the other route, and saying that LC would be about 10 miles distant. Don't forget that the only way for Durnford to perform the pincer move with Bengough was for Durnford to move up to the camp to perform it.

Just two questions.

JW wrote:

I HAVE SPENT MUCH OF MY AFTERNOON’S SPARE MOMENTS SEARCHING FOR WHERE IMPI GOT THESE TWO WORDS FROM AND I CAN FIND NO PRIMARY SOURCE – NEITHER DO THEY SOUND LIKE NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH - BUT IF IMPI IS CORRECT THEY ARE RELEVANT.

How would this be relevant, and what would it change.?

Why would LC have Change his mind, the original order to reinforce made military sense.

Julian my fault.

"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."

But does it still not show that Clery was present at this point.

Bonsoir Mister Whybra,
Effectively, durnford shows no sign of confusion.
It's strange in reality because the order wrote by crealock was not clear (see your essay durnfor'S papers)
Amities
Frédéric

Julian, so your saying, Lord Chelmsford, at some point possibly changed his mind, from Stregthen the camp to move to the camp?

You can see why Springy blames Dartnell for starting the rot.

Not really?

Move to, not take Command, not strengthen or re-enforce,
Move to!..that's all! Thank's Julian. original Question.. Was
Durnford Capable?. the answer must be..Yes he was!. xhosa

Well, Springy has often said that if Dartnell had stuck to his orders and returned to the camp, then LC would not have had to alter his plans and go off with over half the column on a wild goose chase. You can see what Springy is getting at can't you?

Hiya Martin re your post of 12.59..yes mate.
not been home long, its tata's out there. well
nippy in the wind. xhosa

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Thanks Julian. Strange isn't it, although the message does NOT contain the words strengthen, reinforce or take command, it is surprising the number of people who interpret that it does, and even after reading and quoting it time and again, they still seem to interpret it as so.

Martin no one is interpreting anything.
We all know what the order contained. The discussion about what it should have contained. And why it didn't contain what LC originally intended.

Julian has addressed the point that I made in my earlier post. There is a gap in our information about what was said by Chelmsford to Crealock in the sequence of conversations that culminated in Crealock issuing the order to Durnford.

We all agree that the order that was issued did not tell Durnford to reinforce or strengthen the camp. That is what Durnford received and acted upon.

Julian goes on to say that either Chelmsford changed his mind about what he wanted Durnford to do, or Crealock misswrote it (which doesn't seem likely). We don't currently know which of those alternatives is true and Julian has indicated he will do some more work to try and throw more light on that.

But in terms of the actions of Durnford, it is irrelevant.

Seems crystal clear to me.

Steve

Anything other than fact, is speculation, and however interesting
that may be, it does not further knowledge. this might be stating
the obvious..but the truth can not be corrupted. it can be misrep-
resented, twisted. manipulated, but it always at the end of the
day remain's inviolate..the truth..anything that remain's?.....xhosa

But the question still remains.
We know the order Durford actually received was:

"To move to the camp"

We also know that Clery was going to though Lord Chelmsford " Order Durford to reinforce / strengthen the camp"

But then we have Crealock under oath at the COE telling us, he told Durnford to " take command of it"

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

An interesting observation by Sir Garnet Wolseley.

After the defeat at iSandlwana, Chelmsford realised that he would need to account for the disaster. He quickly fixed the blame on Col Durnford, claiming that Durnford had disobeyed his orders.

Wolseley wrote on the 30th September, when, later in the war, the Prince Imperial of France was killed by the Zulu's and Carey was made scapegoat.

"I think this is very unfair, and is merely a repitition of what was done regarding the iSandlwana disaster where blame was thrown on Col Durnford, the real object in both instances being apparently to screen Chelmsford"

Just shows what Sir Garnet Wolseley thought of LC doesn't it?

Martin Wolseley hated everyone apart from himself!

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Chard, sorry mate, just read your other post.

Yes, if Durnford HAD received orders informing him that the pincer move was cancelled, and HAD been ordered to strengthen or reinforce the camp, then he most certainly would have done that, but he never received such orders.

Martin sorry mate didn't see this post.

So what could he have done, to defend the camp, based on the time he arrived up to when the Zulus attacked.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

But the question still remains.
We know the order Durford actually received was:

"To move to the camp"

We also know that Clery was going to though Lord Chelmsford " Order Durford to reinforce / strengthen the camp"

But then we have Crealock under oath at the COE telling us, he told Durnford to " take command of it"

True!

CTSG

Yes, the question remains what did Chelmsford say to Crealock. But do you not agree that we don't know the answer to it - not yet anyway?

And Durnford did as he had been ordered.

Steve

Durford did move to the camp, with all the forces under him. But it was his interpretation of the orders, when he arrived at that camp,that is also open to question.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Chard, sorry mate, just read your other post.

Yes, if Durnford HAD received orders informing him that the pincer move was cancelled, and HAD been ordered to strengthen or reinforce the camp, then he most certainly would have done that, but he never received such orders.

Martin sorry mate didn't see this post.

So what could he have done, to defend the camp, based on the time he arrived up to when the Zulus attacked.

Well, if you look what Julian has written, he says that Clery should have told Pulleine, 'even though he was junior to Durnford, that he would be in command of the camp during the absence of Col Glyn', so it looks as though there could have been some conflict there between Pulleine and Durnford. But I presume that if Durnford had known about the change to the pre planned pincer move, and had known that he was to reinforce Pulleine and that Pulleine would be in command, then he would have done whatever Pulleine thought best, but like I said, there could well have been some conflict of opinion.

Although I agree Crealocks order was open to interpretation by Durnford.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Chard, sorry mate, just read your other post.

Yes, if Durnford HAD received orders informing him that the pincer move was cancelled, and HAD been ordered to strengthen or reinforce the camp, then he most certainly would have done that, but he never received such orders.

Martin sorry mate didn't see this post.

So what could he have done, to defend the camp, based on the time he arrived up to when the Zulus attacked.

Well, if you look what Julian has written, he says that Clery should have told Pulleine, 'even though he was junior to Durnford, that he would be in command of the camp during the absence of Col Glyn', so it looks as though there could have been some conflict there between Pulleine and Durnford. But I presume that if Durnford had known about the change to the pre planned pincer move, and had known that he was to reinforce Pulleine and that Pulleine would be in command, then he would have done whatever Pulleine thought best, but like I said, there could well have been some conflict of opinion.

As far as Pulleine was concerned he was in command of the camp, in the absence of Col Glynn, as instructed by Clery. So I guess he would have been ( As Julian says ) quite complex when Durnford assumed command. But he did. Source accounts.

Correct, but neither Pulleine or Durnford knew because of both Clery and Crealock not being clear with their orders, however, Pulleine was surprised when Durnford said that he would not be staying at the camp, which shows that Pulleine thought that Durnford was there to reinforce the camp, but Durnford thought he had been moved up to the camp to comply with LC's plan to form a pincer with Bengough and flush out the zulus and drive them towards LC who would be in a position about 10 miles from the camp.

You know army protocol, the senior rank takes over from the junior rank, so even though Durnford had said he would not interfere and that he wasn't staying, he would have been looked upon as being in command while he was at the camp, so yes, he would be deemed to be in command while he was there, however, as soon as he left, command would revert back to Pulleine.

I think we have reached a point in the discussion where either we come up with some new evidence ourselves, or we wait and see what Julian can unearth.

Simply regurgitating our interpretations of what we know now will not bridge the gap between us, as we have found before!

I don't believe in any of this so strongly that I couldn't be persuaded by sound argument and evidence. But currently it doesn't cut the mustard.

Steve

xhosa2000 wrote:

Hiya Martin re your post of 12.59..yes mate.  
not been home long, its tata's out there. well
nippy in the wind.                              xhosa

Hi Les, Yes mate, it's been a real cold icy wind, it's what we round here call a 'lazy wind', it goes right through you  because it's too lazy to go around you.

Martin you cannot blame Clery. The matter was taken out of his hands.

Well, I am not actually dumping all the blame onto Clery, as, like you say, the matter was taken out of his hands, but he did fluff it by telling Pulleine that Durnford had been ordered up to reinforce him.

rusteze wrote:

I think we have reached a point in the discussion where either we come up with some new evidence ourselves, or we wait and see what Julian can unearth.

Simply regurgitating our interpretations of what we know now will not bridge the gap between us, as we have found before!

I don't believe in any of this so strongly that I couldn't be persuaded by sound argument and evidence. But currently it doesn't cut the mustard.

Steve

You would have to be a half-wit to read the two orders in conjunction. You know the previous order, suggesting the prospect of cooperating against the 'two Matyanas' also contained the words 'but will send you further orders'. It should have been quite clear as a result of the briefing he received from Pulleine that the situation had changed and that the said operation against the Matyanas had been brought forward as a result of the Dartnell/Lonsdale reconnaissance, and that there was now no part in it for Durnfords No 2 Column. 

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Well, I am not actually dumping all the blame onto Clery, as, like you say, the matter was taken out of his hands, but he did fluff it by telling Pulleine that Durnford had been ordered up to reinforce him.

Martin he was only relaying, the original order, he was going to send before LC changed his mind, and got Crealock to send it. As far a Clery was concerned, Crealock had sent the same message he was going to send. Nothing to do with Clery.

I think that the discussion begins to deteriorate when terms like half-wit are introduced. Lets not go back there.

Steve

It was aimed at those back in the day. Not the present. Perhaps my wording could have been better. But my point hopefully came across.

Julian, your up and coming essay. Will it be posted on the forum or will one have to purchase.

-------

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