Durnford was he capable.5

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Hi Les.

Interesting how some officers forget the orders they have sent isn't it?

Take this one for instance.

Extract from the order from Chelmsford to Col Durnford on the 8th January 1879.

quote;

"Should you consider that a counter move accross the Buffalo river will be afficacious in preventing an inroad of Zulu's into Natal, YOU ARE AT PERFECT LIBERTY TO MAKE IT.

Uhmmm, then why did LC send Col Durnford the rebuke?

Do you mean this one Les.

I wonder if Durnfords actions on 14th Jan, had anything to do with that. Could he really be trusted.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Bonjour Frederic.

I think you will find that Durnford sent Shepstone on the 21st to ask LC for any fresh orders, and Shepstone returned with a message to 'hurry along to RD'.



Cheers.

Bonsoir Martin,

From Frank essay:
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.

Cheers

Frédéric

It matters not, what orders were issued on the 20th, the game plan changed in the early hours of the 22nd Jan. New orders were issued.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

. Not just the bits that's suits you.

.

Dear Sir,
This is never the case.
I can make honest mistakes, that's all.
And remember, i said "very hazardous assumption".
Cheers

Frédéric

ymob wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

. Not just the bits that's suits you.

.

Dear Sir,
This is never the case.
I can make honest mistakes, that's all.
And remember, i said "very hazardous assumption".
Cheers

Frédéric

Ymob, this was in reply to Xhosa's post.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

ymob wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

. Not just the bits that's suits you.

.

Dear Sir,
This is never the case.
I can make honest mistakes, that's all.
And remember, i said "very hazardous assumption".
Cheers

Frédéric

Ymob, this was in reply to Xhosa's post.

sorry, I'm confused.
luckily I was not rude

Cheers

Frédéric

Yes it was!

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Yes it was!

I sincerely apologize. I wanted to show my displeasure with this sneak attack but not be rude.
Cheers

CTSG.

Well, Durnford was told he was 'at perfect liberty' on the 8th, then even after apprising LC of the threat, he gets a rebuke on the 14th, so much for being 'at perfect liberty'.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Bonjour Frederic.


Then on the 22nd Crealock sent the message to move up to the camp. There could well have been something said between LC and Crealock after Clery was told that Crealock would send the order to Durnford, because it appears that LC changed his mind about Crealock including in the order the words reinforce or strengthen.  

I think that Julian is holding back some of his findings, as like he said, he doesn't want to find his work in other publications before he himself makes it public, so we may have to wait some time for his essay before things become clearer.

Cheers.

Martin,
I repeat, it's a very hazardous assumption. I would not bet one € on my hypothesis...
For your second point, I missed something, it is not an ongoing debate about the hypothesis of julian?
Cheers

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

Well, Durnford was told he was 'at perfect liberty' on the 8th, then even after apprising LC of the threat, he gets a rebuke on the 14th, so much for being 'at perfect liberty'.

Durford was acting on information, received from a Bishop.

Can you not see the logic, when Lord Chelmsford says in his letter to Durnford.

"If movements ordered are to be delayed because report hints at a chance of an invasion of Natal, it will be impossible for me to carry out my plan of campaign"

I certainly hope you can.

In terms of Durnford's seeming to "do as he liked" (CTSG's comment) I think we too easily forget that he was a column commander, in the same way that Colonel Wood and Colonel Pearson were. Chelmsford did not interfere and second guess them in the way he did Durnford - and Glyn. He was not close enough to do it of course. That's not to say I think Durnford ignored orders, but he must have secretly viewed Chelmsford as a pain in the arse!

Steve

Frederic.

I am refering to what Julian has said, that there was no mention in the order of the 22nd for Col Durnford to reinforce or strengthen the camp. Yet before that, Clery said that is what he was going to write in the order, but then Crealock intervened and said that Clery should not be issuing orders to Durnford, and LC relented and said that Crealock should do it. But yet when Crealock does write the order, there is no mention of reinforce or strengthen, so why did he not write this. That makes me think that there must have been something said that made LC change his mind about this.

No, you have not missed anything Federic. Julian did say he was waiting to put together an essay, and did not want to post things just yet on the forum.

Cheers.

rusteze wrote:

In terms of Durnford's seeming to "do as he liked" (CTSG's comment) I think we too easily forget that he was a column commander, in the same way that Colonel Wood and Colonel Pearson were. Chelmsford did not interfere and second guess them in the way he did Durnford - and Glyn. He was not close enough to do it of course. That's not to say I think Durnford ignored orders, but he must have secretly viewed Chelmsford as a pain in the arse!

Steve

Steve I would bet, that quite a few saw Chelmsford as a pain in the arse, I see my boss as a pain in the arse.
However, we must agree, Durnford was more of a high risk, that Wood and Pearson.

ymob wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Bonjour Frederic.

I think you will find that Durnford sent Shepstone on the 21st to ask LC for any fresh orders, and Shepstone returned with a message to 'hurry along to RD'.



Cheers.

Bonsoir Martin,

From Frank essay:
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.

Cheers

Martin,
i found this in Jakson; "Hill of the sphinx"(p.19)
On the 21st january (...) During the day, his political officer, Captain George SHEPSTONE (...) rode to Isandhlwana and back to obtain the General's instructions . We do not know the result of this journey (...)
Cheers.
Frédéric

CTSG.

I think it may well have been because it was a Bishop that gave the information to Durnford.

Regarding the order of the 22nd, I don't think it was all that clear, and even you yourself agreed that the order was open to interpretation by Durnford.

Thanks Frederic.

Yes, it does look like there could well be a missing order, but as I have said, this is very strange, because Durnford is said to have kept all his orders on his person.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic.

I am refering to what Julian has said, that there was no mention in the order of the 22nd for Col Durnford to reinforce or strengthen the camp. Yet before that, Clery said that is what he was going to write in the order, but then Crealock intervened and said that Clery should not be issuing orders to Durnford, and LC relented and said that Crealock should do it. But yet when Crealock does write the order, there is no mention of reinforce or strengthen, so why did he not write this. That makes me think that there must have been something said that made LC change his mind about this.

No, you have not missed anything Federic. Julian did say he was waiting to put together an essay, and did not want to post things just yet on the forum.

Cheers.

Martin, we don't need Julian to tell us was in the order, Durford received on the 22nd, we all know what the Order contained. why would Lord Chelmsford changed the wording,when he asks Crealock to send it. But also remember, Crealock states he order Durnford to take command. (His own words) at the COE.
If that order hadn't been found on the Battlefield after, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. It was Crealocks mishandling of the order, that caused the confusion.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Thanks Frederic.

Yes, it does look like there could well be a missing order, but as I have said, this is very strange, because Durnford is said to have kept all his orders on his person.

What and Julians found that one to. Now it's getting stupid. Time for bed.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic.

I am refering to what Julian has said, that there was no mention in the order of the 22nd for Col Durnford to reinforce or strengthen the camp. Yet before that, Clery said that is what he was going to write in the order, but then Crealock intervened and said that Clery should not be issuing orders to Durnford, and LC relented and said that Crealock should do it. But yet when Crealock does write the order, there is no mention of reinforce or strengthen, so why did he not write this. That makes me think that there must have been something said that made LC change his mind about this.

No, you have not missed anything Federic. Julian did say he was waiting to put together an essay, and did not want to post things just yet on the forum.

Cheers.

Martin,
...and it seems that CHELMSFORD often changed his mind.
I wonder, if Julian didn't want to put post another thoughts on his hypothesis, why he had given us his revolutionary thesis? scratch


Cheers

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Thanks Frederic.

Yes, it does look like there could well be a missing order, but as I have said, this is very strange, because Durnford is said to have kept all his orders on his person.

I haven't the answer
Cheers
Frédéric

We will have to wait for the essay I think.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Thanks Frederic.

Yes, it does look like there could well be a missing order, but as I have said, this is very strange, because Durnford is said to have kept all his orders on his person.

As we are doing sarnario's.

The original order, to reinforce the camp, we're removed from Durnfords body and destroyed. His Brother Edward, who had access to the same type of paper used back in the day, writes the Order " Move to the camp" ect. Then on his return to England plants it in the draw at Chatham RE barracks. Waiting to be found by Jackson.? It's possible.

[quote="Chelmsfordthescapegoat"]

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic.

. It was Crealocks mishandling of the order, that caused the confusion.

it was not the new hypothesis of Mister Whybra.If this hypothesis hadn't been found by Mister Whybra, "we wouldn't be having this discussion now".
Cheers
Frédric

From the "Parliamentary Papers for 1879, Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of South Africa. (In continuation of [C.-2367] of July 1879.)" under "Enclosure No. 10 in Cape and West Coast Station letter No. 15, of 27th January 1879.", "Sub-Enclosure. Report of Proceedings of 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th January 1879.", "Sub-Enclosure. Notes on the Report of Proceedings." Lt. Milne's extract  official report.

" On leaving the camp on the morning of the 22nd, distinct orders were given to Colonel Pulleine, that should the camp be attacked, "it was to be reduced, defended, "and not to be left"" From evidence, it appears when Colonel Durnford came in from Rorke's Drift, the enemy were then in sight to the left, but some distance off. He then against Colonel Pulleine's orders sent out his basutos six miles to engage the enemy, when these men retreated, supports were sent out, to the spruit at the bottom of the camp. From evidence it appears no men at this spot fell from the rifles of the enemy, but directly our men turned to retreat into the camp, the enemy was amongst them with the assegai at once. There is a report that one gun was seen to tumble into a nullah, but whether it was spiked or not is not known." 

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic.

I am refering to what Julian has said, that there was no mention in the order of the 22nd for Col Durnford to reinforce or strengthen the camp. Yet before that, Clery said that is what he was going to write in the order, but then Crealock intervened and said that Clery should not be issuing orders to Durnford, and LC relented and said that Crealock should do it. But yet when Crealock does write the order, there is no mention of reinforce or strengthen, so why did he not write this. That makes me think that there must have been something said that made LC change his mind about this.

No, you have not missed anything Federic. Julian did say he was waiting to put together an essay, and did not want to post things just yet on the forum.

Cheers.

Martin, we don't need Julian to tell us was in the order, Durford received on the 22nd, we all know what the Order contained. why would Lord Chelmsford changed the wording,when he asks Crealock to send it. But also remember, Crealock states he order Durnford to take command. (His own words) at the COE.
If that order hadn't been found on the Battlefield after, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. It was Crealocks mishandling of the order, that caused the confusion.

I think you are mis-quoting me. Clery said he was going to write reinforce in the order, then Crealock intervened and said Clery should not issue orders to a column commander, so LC relented and told Crealock to do it. But when Crealock wrote it, the words reinforce or strengthen were NOT in the order. I am asking was it something that was said to change LC's mind, or did Crealock just not write reinforce or strengthen, and he certainly did not write take command.

ymob wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic.

. It was Crealocks mishandling of the order, that caused the confusion.

it was not the new hypothesis of Mister Whybra.If this hypothesis hadn't been found by Mister Whybra, "we wouldn't be having this discussion now".
Cheers
Frédric

Frederic. I did not write that, it was CTSG.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

ymob wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Frederic.

. It was Crealocks mishandling of the order, that caused the confusion.

it was not the new hypothesis of Mister Whybra.If this hypothesis hadn't been found by Mister Whybra, "we wouldn't be having this discussion now".
Cheers
Frédric

Frederic. I did not write that, it was CTSG.

Martin,
I know it was CTSG;
Sorry, for the mention "Martin" before the comment.
Cheers
Frédéric

Clery was order to write the orders as dictated by LC, those orders had they been sent by Clery would have contained the words strengthen. However LC directed Crealock to send the message, why the wording was changed we know not. If Julian has evidence to show different with primary source evidence, we may possibly have an answer.

impi wrote:

Clery was order to write the orders as dictated by LC, those orders had they been sent by Clery would have contained the words strengthen. However LC directed Crealock to send the message, why the wording was changed we know not. If Julian has evidence to show different with primary source evidence, we may possibly have an answer.

So we will have to wait for the essay.

No problem Frederic.

Impi
The problem with your extract from the Blue Book is that Milne was with Chelmsford. He didn't witness any of this. He is talking about Clery's order to Pullein.

Have you found the Blue Books on line somewhere?

Steve

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

No problem Frederic.

Martin,
Thanks.

You can! I have loads to post.

Martin when you get time, have a look at Clery's & Crealocks statements COE.
straight from the horse mouth so to say. Might be easier to understand.

impi wrote:

From the "Parliamentary Papers for 1879, Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of South Africa. (In continuation of [C.-2367] of July 1879.)" under "Enclosure No. 10 in Cape and West Coast Station letter No. 15, of 27th January 1879.", "Sub-Enclosure. Report of Proceedings of 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th January 1879.", "Sub-Enclosure. Notes on the Report of Proceedings." Lt. Milne's extract  official report.

" On leaving the camp on the morning of the 22nd, distinct orders were given to Colonel Pulleine, that should the camp be attacked, "it was to be reduced, defended, "and not to be left"" From evidence, it appears when Colonel Durnford came in from Rorke's Drift, the enemy were then in sight to the left, but some distance off. He then against Colonel Pulleine's orders sent out his basutos six miles to engage the enemy, when these men retreated, supports were sent out, to the spruit at the bottom of the camp. From evidence it appears no men at this spot fell from the rifles of the enemy, but directly our men turned to retreat into the camp, the enemy was amongst them with the assegai at once. There is a report that one gun was seen to tumble into a nullah, but whether it was spiked or not is not known." 

Steve.
It was the highlighted bit, that was of interest to this discussion. Where that evidence came from I have yet to find. My guessing is Milne spoke to survivors. The problem with the Battle of Isandlwana, is that most of the evidence seems to have come from those who were out with Chelmsford. But were in a better position than us to gather evidence, along with having it logged in the Parliamentry Papers for 1879.

impi wrote:

You can!  I have loads to post.

Martin when you get time, have a look at Clery's & Crealocks statements COE.
straight from the horse mouth so to say. Might be easier to understand.

Thanks impi.

Clery and Crealock were both covering mistakes, more so Crealock than Clery, in fact Crealock was proven to be a liar wasn't he, so anything he states can be taken with a pinch of salt. I would put a little more faith in Clery than I would in Crealock, the man wasn't known as 'The Wasp' for nothing.

True but we can only use what's available to us. The COE is a good place to start.
I don't have any problems with Clery, well not yet anyway.

It's that Crealock chap. I have this niggling feeling, he was able to manipulate & influence LC. Just another avenue to go down at some stage.

impi wrote:

True but we can only use what's available to us. The COE is a good place to start.
I don't have any problems with Clery, well not yet anyway.

It's that Crealock chap. I have this niggling feeling, he was able to manipulate & influence LC. Just another avenue to go down at some stage.

Yes, Crealock was a right ______ wasn't he? And don't forget that he and LC arranged the COE, and also arranged the three officers presiding over it. Stinks a bit doesn't it?

As I said. " . I have this niggling feeling, he was able to manipulate & influence LC.
Away I'm tired see you tomorrow.

Yes, ok mate, goodnight.

impi wrote:

Julian Whybra wrote:

impi
I do indeed have the primary source for that remark.  You must have missed it by accident (Note CTSG that I do not write 'Wake Up!').  I recorded it in my post of yesterday at 5.31 pm against the relevant paragraph.

Thanks.

While you on line. Can you confirm if this is true, you will be able to give a quicker answer than most, due to your knowledge.

In "Correspondence Relative to Military Affairs in Natal and the Transvaal.", "Enclosure 3, in No. 26. (C.), "Summary of instructions for Officers Commanding Columns..." under "Colonel Durnford"

"... Unless supported by British troops this column is not to engage seriously a large force of the enemy."

Impi. Have sent you a PM.

John wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Thanks Frederic.

Yes, it does look like there could well be a missing order, but as I have said, this is very strange, because Durnford is said to have kept all his orders on his person.

As we are doing sarnario's.

The original order, to reinforce the camp, we're removed from Durnfords body and destroyed. His Brother Edward, who had access to the same type of paper used back in the day, writes the Order " Move to the camp" ect. Then on his return to England plants it in the draw at Chatham RE barracks. Waiting to be found by Jackson.? It's possible.

John
In short no not possible.
The orders found in the RE museum were not the orders issued by Crealock to Durnford. The original of that order was never found, the copy was in Crealocks notebook found at isandlwana and returned to him.

Cheers

[quote="ymob

In my hazardous assumption i forgot to write why DURNFORD had sent HAMMER to Isandhlwana to get fresh order from CHELMSFORD : to know if CHELMSFORD had  sent already the order that he expects about the moment (the time) for the move of the camp.
In this view the subsequent testimonies of CREALOCK are not really in contradiction but incomplete (to protect the reputation of his General?)
Cheers.

Frédéric[/quote]
On the moving of the camp the 22 january, we have the testimonies of HB and Gardner.
Cheers
Frederic

Impi

You wrote:
“Can you confirm if this is true, you will be able to give a quicker answer than most, due to your knowledge.
In "Correspondence Relative to Military Affairs in Natal and the Transvaal.", "Enclosure 3, in No. 26. (C.), "Summary of instructions for Officers Commanding Columns..." under "Colonel Durnford"
"... Unless supported by British troops this column is not to engage seriously a large force of the enemy."

I need the C number to find the doc among my Blue Book photocopies, can you let me have it?  I may and may not be able to confirm the wording for you, I’m afraid.  In 1985 I was working from the Senate House Library in the Univ of London (which holds complete copies of the Blue Books) and if the doc was important enough I paid to have it photocopied, if not, then I summarized it in a shorthand.  But I need the C number (4 digits) to find it.

However, I would say that this doc relates to the time when there were five columns, two of which were assigned defensive operations on the Natal side of the border.  Any such instructions were superseded when Chelmsford changed No. 2 Column’s role, split it up (with some of it acting defensively at Middle Drift and some, under Durnford, ACTING IN SUPPORT OF COLUMN NO. 3 in Zululand), i.e. the previous rules of engagement no longer applied.  And so the pertinence of your quotation evaporates.

As to the questions ‘how large is a large force’ and what does ‘engage seriously’ mean take a look at Chelmsford’s Notes on the Findings of the Court of Enquiry (compiled Jan-Apr 1879 housed in the National Archives CP/31).  Capt. Essex’s additional evidence reads:
“At this time about 11 am the impression in camp was that the enemy had no intention of advancing during the day time, but might possibly be expected to attack it during the night.  No idea had been formed regarding the probable strength of the enemy’s force”
Note the time, and remember that the very last report Durnford had before leaving the camp was that the force in front of him mustered no more than 400 warriors.
You and I know, now, that there were reports of much larger numbers from individuals, some of which percolated back to Pulleine, but according to Essex’s subsequent testimony, there was no idea in the camp as to the enemy’s strength and Durnford advanced to prevent (or so he believed) Chelmsford’s force from being attacked in the rear.  Also, ask yourself, would any commander (at the head of 100 native horsemen) engage seriously a known large force of 7,000 or more Zulus?

CTSG

You wrote:
“Martin, we don't need Julian to tell us was in the order, Durford received on the 22nd, we all know what the Order contained. why would Lord Chelmsford changed the wording,when he asks Crealock to send it. But also remember, Crealock states he order Durnford to take command. (His own words) at the COE.”

You have written the last sentence as a fact and you have not qualified it so you must still believe it to be true.  Crealock believed he had written ‘take command’, or he wanted to believe it, but he did not write it.  When his notebook was found there was no such wording as ‘take command’.  Crealock admitted as much in a letter to Gen. Nicholson in which he quoted the exact wording from his notebook in the Durnford Papers in the RE Museum accession no. 4901-31/9 (IN HIS OWN WORDS).

You have also quoted Chelmsford’s famous letter to Durnford as follows:
“When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command.”

I suggest that you read this and apply it to Durnford’s situation and the status of his column when it was received and then read it again and apply it to his situation and the status of his column on the morning of the 22nd (see my note to impi in this post above) and think about the meaning of the wording.

All

I have not found Shepstone’s order nor Hamer’s order/letter.  No more speculation or rumour please.  As we all know, rumour can all too quickly become fact.  And I won’t be held to account for something I have not found!  I am as a I said intending to present my opinions in an essay.

Julian Whybra wrote:

All

I have not found Shepstone’s order nor Hamer’s order/letter.  No more speculation or rumour please.  As we all know, rumour can all too quickly become fact.  And I won’t be held to account for something I have not found!  I am as a I said intending to present my opinions in an essay.[/quote]

Bonjour Mister Whybra,
I will respect your position in the futur.
Cheers

Julian
When is a column not a column time?

Cheers

Or should I say 2 + 2 is whatever it wants to be ?
Its that kinda Sunday.

Cheers

Hi Springy.

Regarding Shepstone going to see LC on the 21st, I have read that he came back with just the message to tell Durnford to 'hurry along to RD', yet he is supposed to have already been at RD. Do you think that there could well be an order or message that is missing somewhere here?