Durnford was he capable.6

rusteze wrote:

. Might warrant a separate discussion ?

Steve

Bonsoir Steve,
In direct line to the alleged "cover-up"?
Cheers

Frank

Zulu Victory is worth a re-read on the order book question (as it is on the papers allegedly found on Durnford's body by Shepstone). Crealock's order book was apparently sent directly back to him in the UK by the SA General Command as if it was his private property- very odd. He then said nothing about it for a considerable time until challenged by Edward Durnford. It of course demonstrated that he had lied at the Inquiry. Some slight of hand going on somewhere?

Frederic

I thought you were busy! I don't think it was in the best traditions of the British Army - never really been explained.

Steve

Bonsoir Steve,
Effectively i am very busy Today and tomorrow.
Most importantly, many of the arguments brought on the table are news no conventional and very relevant.
To be honest I have difficulties to "digest" them and my difficulties in English language  don't explain everything (I.E: all?)....

I.E: As two members of this forum, i wrote "sarnario" in place of "scenario" but i am not them. I have only one alias:D    

Cheers

Frédéric

[quote="Frank Allewell"]Frederic
I would have to disagree, Im pretty sure Crealock guarded his position quite zealously and would in the NORMAL course of work be responsible for sending instructions on behalf of Chelmsford. Clery would perforce have the responsibility of handling Glyns communications.quote]

Bonsoir Frank,
You are right on the three arguments.
Cheers
Frédéric

Do you think Chelmsford wanted Durnford to take over half of Glyn's column? I don't.

Steve[/quote]

Steve,
Can you please elaborate this point?
Do you think there is a link between this thought (i don't think Chelmsford wanted Durnford to take over half of Glyn's column) and the order given by CLERY to PULLEINE ("you are in command of the camp during the absence of Glyn" / Pulleine and not Durnford)?.
Cheers
Frédéric

The effect of Durnford taking command of the camp is that he takes over the direction of the remaining half of Glyn's column. That is a force larger than his own and contains first rate Imperial troops. The columns real commander and his staff are with Chelmsford just a few miles away. Chelmsford believes there is no emergency at all at Isandhlwana and no danger of attack.  I see no reason to believe that Chelmsford wished Durnford, who had command of a native force, to take command of his prime asset, particularly when he did not trust him greatly. The protocol which put Durnford in command for a brief period while he was in camp was unforeseen and unwanted in my view. That is until it became very convenient after the disaster.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

CTSG

Yours is as problematic as all the other permutations.

Clery's order only makes most sense if you believe Chelmsford was concerned about the camp being attacked. All of the evidence says he was not.

I think it does not help to mix up Durnford taking command and what the order said.  Clery's order to Pulleine said "You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn".And "Colonel Durnford had been written to to bring up his force to strengthen the camp". Nothing about Durnford taking command, in fact the opposite.

Do you think Chelmsford wanted Durnford to take over half of Glyn's column? I don't.

I therefore agree that Durnford taking command because of a protocol is neither here nor there. It comes back to Frederic's question. What was in Chelmsford's mind regarding Durnford's deployment?

Steve

Simply reinforce the camp, nothing else!

Frank Allewell wrote:

CTSG
Clery wrote on a number of occasions that Durnford had been called to iSandlwana to reinforce the camp so without a doubt from his point of view that was what he understood Chelmsford wanted. This is self evident from the letter of the 17th February sent to Colonel Harman. What tends to negate THAT statement though is when he continues writing and spells out the instruction he left for Pulleine informing him that he would be in charge of the camp during the absence of Col Glyn. So the conundrum, if Clery was so confidant that Durnford had been ordered to Reinforce the camp then by pure military protocol he would assume command, not Pulleine, Clery as an instructor and professor from military collage would be more than familiar with that. So why did he do that?

Cheers

Bonsoir à tous,
Maybe, it would be interesting to know what was exactly the "Official version" of the famous Crealock's order when CLERY wrote the letter to Sir ALLISON the 17 February?

For example, the 9 February, CREALOCK made a statement which formed a supplement to the evidence given to the COI afterwards, in which he gave his version of the famous order to Durnford: (...) Move up to Sandhlwana camp at once with all your mounted men and the rocket battery. Take command of it".(Zulu Victory p.237)
I don't know if Clery knew this version of the order by CREALOCK before to write to ALLISON (The CREALOCK's statement of the 9 February was published the 14 March 1879 in the London Gazette).
If it was the case, he knew that his version to Sir ALLISON, an important man, was in contradiction with the version given by CREALOCK.
Cheers

rusteze wrote:

The effect of Durnford taking command of the camp is that he takes over the direction of the remaining half of Glyn's column. That is a force larger than his own and contains first rate Imperial troops. The columns real commander and his staff are with Chelmsford just a few miles away. Chelmsford believes there is no emergency at all at Isandhlwana and no danger of attack.  I see no reason to believe that Chelmsford wished Durnford, who had command of a native force, to take command of his prime asset, particularly when he did not trust him greatly. The protocol which put Durnford in command for a brief period while he was in camp was unforeseen and unwanted in my view. That is until it became very convenient after the disaster.

Steve

Steve,
Thank you.
This "no conventional" view is interesting.
In the statement given by CLERY about the order given to Pulleine,  it seems plausible.
But with the others pièces of the puzzle, i am not sure, it's necessary for me to  
Cheers
Goodnight.
Frédéric

Is there anything in writing that shows Chelmsford agreeing with Crealock at the time of the COE when it comes to Durnford being ordered to take command. Does LC confirm that's what he wanted Crealock to write.

Frank Allewell wrote:

CTSG
lery wrote on a number of occasions that Durnford had been called to iSandlwana to reinforce the camp (...) . What tends to negate THAT statement though is when he continues writing and spells out the instruction he left for Pulleine informing him that he would be in charge of the camp during the absence of Col Glyn. So the conundrum, if Clery was so confidant that Durnford had been ordered to Reinforce the camp then by pure military protocol he would assume command, not Pulleine, Clery as an instructor and professor from military collage would be more than familiar with that. So why did he do that?
(...)
Cheers

Bonsoir,
Maybe, CLERY thought that in Chelmsford's mind, DURNFORD was at Isandhlwana only a few hours?
After all, a battle was expected in the Mangeni with the support of DURNFORD (see his previous orders).

The problem with this hypothethis is that CLERY was Under the impression that DURNFORD was to reinforce the camp, nothing else.
And i am not sure that CLEY knew the "whole plan" that Chelmsford had in mind.
About the operation of the 21 January with DARTNELL and LONSDALE, CLERY wrote: "The instructions to both these commandants were given personnally by the General himself, and this was absolutely necessary in this case as neither Col. GLYN nor myself knew in the least where they were being sent to, or what they were being sent for". (Clery to Harmann 17/02/1879)
Cheers
Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

The effect of Durnford taking command of the camp is that he takes over the direction of the remaining half of Glyn's column. That is a force larger than his own and contains first rate Imperial troops. The columns real commander and his staff are with Chelmsford just a few miles away. Chelmsford believes there is no emergency at all at Isandhlwana and no danger of attack.  I see no reason to believe that Chelmsford wished Durnford, who had command of a native force, to take command of his prime asset, particularly when he did not trust him greatly. The protocol which put Durnford in command for a brief period while he was in camp was unforeseen and unwanted in my view. That is until it became very convenient after the disaster.

Steve

Bonjour Steve,
In the CLERY’s version of the order given by LC at 1h40 AM the 22 january, CHELMSFORD said: “Order up Col. DURNFORD with the troops he had to reinforce the camp (…)”.
CHELMSFORD who was preoccupied by the operation in the Mangeni gave no attention to what he was leaving at Isandhlwana.
Certainly, it never occurred to Chelmsford to know who was in the command of the camp in the absence of GLYN at this moment.
For him and all the High ranks Officers of his staff the camp was not in danger to be attacked by the Zulus.
In this context, the answer to the question “who was in command” is rhetorical: as at Rorke’s Drfit (the previous bivouac of Durnford) between SPALDING and DURNFORD.
After the order given to GARDNER, it's another story...
Cheers
Frédéric

[Bonsoir à tous,
Maybe, it would be interesting to know what was exactly the "Official version" of the famous Crealock's order when CLERY wrote the letter to Sir ALLISON the 17 February?

Cheers[/quote]

The letter was sent to HARMAN (the DAG in Ireland) and not Sir ALLISON. Sorry for the confusion.
Cheers.
Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

It is hard to understand I agree.

It may be that some things are not written down. For example, it is likely that Chelmsford would not wish to regard a Colonel of Engineers (who had charge of a native force) as having authority over a senior line regiment like the 24th, particularly when he had Glyn with him. Unlike at Rorke's Drift, where there was an emergency and only junior officers were involved, there was no emergency (how wrong Chelmsford was) at Isandhlwana. It might not even have occurred to Chelmsford that placing Durnford  at Isandhlwana camp with his own column would have consequences for overall command.Only later would it became a convenient factor on which to hang blame.

Steve

Bonjour Steve,
Your hypothesis is not totally bizarre.
As you know, there are some similitaries with the Lock and Quantrill’s hypothesis about the “blame” in “Zulu Victory”.
CHELMSFORD who was preoccupied by the operation in the Mangeni gave no attention to what he was leaving at Isandhlwana.
In fact, CHELMSFORD, with the exception of the Crealok’s order to Durnford, gave no others instructions about the camp.
Later, when CLERY reminded him that orders had been left for Pulleine To “act strictly on the defensive”, Chelmsford answered: “I cannot tell you what a relief it is to me to hear this”.
So I don’t think that your hypothesis is plausible for CHELMSFORD.

My opinion is the same for CLERY:
As Frank wrote about CLERY, “:So why did he do that? » (I.E: instruction given to Pulleine: “you will be in command of the camp in the absence of Colonel GLYN”.
CLERY wrote this letter after the disaster in full debate on the responsabilities of the defeat.
All the senior Officers involved in the defeat (as CLERY) were afraid for their careers.
By the CLERY’s letters, we learn about the operation of the 21 January with DARTNELL and LONSDALE:
CLERY wrote: "The instructions to both these commandants were given personnally by the General himself, and this was absolutely necessary in this case as neither Col. GLYN nor myself knew in the least where they were being sent to, or what they were being sent for". (Clery to Harmann 17/02/1879)
Between the lines, (maybe) we can read “GLYN and me were not responsables of the disaster, because we were excluded of the conduct of the campaign”.
There are others examples….

At the time of the CLERY’s letter to Harman (17/02/1879), DURNFORD was the responsable for the defeat, "the scapegoat".

So to answer to the Frank question (I.E: if Clery was so confidant that Durnford had been ordered to Reinforce the camp then by pure military protocol he would assume command, not Pulleine, Clery as an instructor and professor from military collage would be more than familiar with that. So why did he do that? »):

Again, a subtle attempt to show that he was not responsable of the disaster because he has no confidence in DURNFORD (and by the way he also shows that he took initiatives because of Chelmsford’s deficiencies / I.E: no order given to the garrison).
On this forum, we have shown that this particular instruction (I.E:“you will be in command of the camp in the absence of Colonel GLYN”) has not been written in the order given to Pulleine by CLERY.

Please, don’t answer to me, “not plausible” for the only argument that it was not in the CLERY’s character, a perfect Victorian gentleman, a man with honor….    :  
Just a bizarre thought

Cheers
Frédéric

Frank
I am sure you have a plausible answer to your own question.
Cheers
Frédéric

Frederic

I, like you, am very distrustful of statements made at the time of the COI. I think it is Lock and Quantrill who cast doubt on there being a written order from Clery to Pulleine - if there had been he would surely have ahown it to Durnford when he arrived.

Steve

ymob wrote:

rusteze wrote:

It is hard to understand I agree.

(...) Again, a subtle attempt to show that he was not responsable of the disaster because he has no confidence in DURNFORD (and by the way he also shows that he took initiatives because of Chelmsford’s deficiencies / I.E: no order given to the garrison).
On this forum, we have shown that this particular instruction (I.E:“you will be in command of the camp in the absence of Colonel GLYN”) has not been written in the order given to Pulleine by CLERY.

Cheers
Frédéric

Hi all,
My memory is again in fault
According to Mr Whybra:
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.
Source: “Durnford was he capable 4?” 31/12/:2014 5.06 pm : Post by Mr WHYBRA

“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)
Source: “Durnford
Cheers

"Steve"
Frederic

I, like you, am very distrustful of statements made at the time of the COI. I think it is Lock and Quantrill who cast doubt on there being a written order from Clery to Pulleine - if there had been he would surely have ahown it to Durnford when he arrived.

Steve

But surely he did? Isnt there a mention of the orders being 'passed over'? Cochrane possibly?
Ive agreed with L and Q for a while on the potential of Clery not writing to Pulleine, however the above seems to exonerate him.
Just had a dive into the files, Walter Stafford specifically states that Pulleine handed Durnford the written instructions from Chelmsford.
There is commonality in the various statements that Pulleine DID receive orders, so verbal or written he had taken instruction and that instruction was passed to Durnford, again written or oral, but it was done.

Cheers

Frank

You could be right, I will check back. I do not currently have Cochrane's original report, but I do have the follow up instigated by Crealock's challenge on what Cochrane  said to Chelmsford about "high words" between Pulleine and Durnford on the morning of the 22nd. They are another example of Crealock's attempt to swing the blame on Durnford. Cochrane metaphorically sticks two fingers up, but still apologises profusely for something he never said!

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

Steve

Hi Steve
Ive checked back its Stafford that mentions a written order.
Theres no doubt that Crealock was at fault and then tried to protect himself, that being said why on earth did he allow Edward Durnford access to his notebook? I have a theory that when he was dragged from his slumber he was still half asleep, rushed of the note to Durnford, left his book in his tent and promptly forgot what he had said and so repeated to all and sundry what he was 'expected to have said'. would account for his later in life not having to much compunction in releasing the note book contents. He didn't have to, there were a myriad of excuses he could have come up with really. I thought at one time he may have had 'high words' or a falling out with Chelmsford and thought releasing it would embarrass him. If so that was a bad idea, the one embarrassed was of course Crealock.

Cheers

Cheers

Frank

I'll go with that Frank! Nothing to do with Lord Chelmsford..

Hi Frank

Can you supply the Stafford reference please. L&Q have Stafford arriving just after Pulleine and Durnford discussed the orders to defend the camp, so how did he know that written orders were shown to Durnford? In his piece on the Cochrane Accounts of Isandhlwana (Studies in the Zulu War II) Julian refers to a passage in Historical Records of 24th (p.240) which mentions a special service officer (Julian says Cochrane) having seen the written order handed over. But Cochrane does not appear to say that.

I agree that it seems odd that Crealock released his order book to ED when he must have known it would reveal he had lied about the content. Is it L&Q who say ED had got wind of it? (i.e. before Crealock sent it to him). Who from I wonder, Crealock had hung on to it for a year and said nothing, even when Chelmsford perpetuated the lie to parliament.

Steve

Morning Steve
In fact extremely early morning, she who must be obeyed is snoring like a banshee so got up for a cuppa. I will later today scan Staffords statement, I have a copy of the original. In it he says he was asked to accompany Durnford and Cochrane to Pulleines tent and witness the exchanges including the sight of the written orders. In reading that statement, and Cochranes Im tempted to disagree with Julian and point at Stafford as the special service officer.
Like wise, although I respect them both greatly, I would suggest that L and Q have it wrong as well.

Im really not happy with the whole Crealock scenario. For years Ive been puzzling over the man and his actions. To many 'why the hell did he do that' and to many 'why the hell didn't he do that'. I believe that he was a lot more complex person than history allows. One day I must get round to putting all my thoughts on him onto paper..............maybe next time the snoring starts. Anyway back to bed.

Cheers

Hi Frank
I knew you were up early it's only 5.40am isnt it ? .
90th

Sorry had to add Steve that its the same statement from Stafford that immortalised the famous running man. The Mounted Infantryman that ran the whole way from iSandlwana to Fugitives Drift and the only man to escape on foot. now theres a mystery for you to get into.

Cheers

Frank Allewell wrote:

Morning Steve
In fact extremely early morning, she who must be obeyed is snoring like a banshee so got up for a cuppa. I will later today scan Staffords statement, I have a copy of the original. In it he says he was asked to accompany Durnford and Cochrane to Pulleines tent and witness the exchanges including the sight of the written orders. In reading that statement, and Cochranes Im tempted to disagree with Julian and point at Stafford as the special service officer.


Cheers

Bonjour Frank,
As you konw, unlike STAFFORD, COCHRANE was a staff Officer.
Cheers.
Frédéric

Morning Frederic
Possible another nail in that particular coffin.

Cheers

Frank Allewell wrote:

Sorry had to add Steve that its the same statement from Stafford that immortalised the famous running man. The Mounted Infantryman that ran the whole way from iSandlwana to Fugitives Drift and the only man to escape on foot. now theres a mystery for you to get into.

Cheers

Bonjour,
According to Mr WHYBRA in "England's sons" (8th edition / January 2013) :
"Captain STAFFORD NNC records an additional unknown I.M.I. survivir who escaped on foot (...) and Lt DAVIES NNH (...) seems to be describing the same man (...)"

See p.56 "3. 45/559 Private Frank GOODING (...)"

Cheers

Frédéric

It would be interesting to get 90ths input on running that trail, hes just walked/staggered it. Ive done various routes between Isandlwana and Fugitives and there isn't an easy one. To run it? Pretty awesum achievement.
I don't have that particular publication Frederic, could you expand on Private Gooding?

Cheers

Their not getting confused with SD are they. ?

Hi Frank
A very quick reply nearly time to head off . The trail is easy to a bit after the Manzimnyama Stream , it then gets difficult up Mpathe etc , would be impossible to run down that hill , it's slow going and not easy , and that is on the marked trail ! .
90th

Thanks 90th, sort of puts the feat into perspective I reckon.

Cheer

Thanks Frank.

Crealock does need some more analysis. We know that Edward Durnford had significant support by 1880 (Wood to name but one) and Chelmsford was a dead duck in everyones eyes other than QV and her crowd. Crealock may have been under pressure because the War Office knew he had the notebook and perhaps let ED know that. We know that Crealock was astute, it may be he saw the way the wind was blowing and decided to change sides.

Steve

Interesting tit bits around the notebook:
it was shown to Edward in 1882. From there it was ignored until 1886, that's a long gap for a man impatient to prove his brother innocent.
When the war office did request information from Crealock, he didn't produce the notebook but wrote a 'verbatim' account.
So apart from Edward Durnford NO BODY ELSE saw the actual notebook. All we have is the letter from Crealock to Jekll of 15th July 1886. And that 'account' could be anything he wanted it to be.

Heres a theory to kick around: Crealocks original version was correct, Durnford was ordered to reinforce. So assuming that then Edward goes to see Crealock, is shown the nasty bit of evidence. And elects then to stay quiet. For whatever reason Crealock changes his version in the letter to Jekyll leaving out the offending word.
Probably crazy I know, for instance why would Crealock do that? That quest sits alongside the 'why did Edward sit on the information IF it exonerated his brother. What pressure could Edward have brought on Crealock to enforce a change of mind?

There ya go something to kick around. Bloody sure CTSG will be all over it.

I can see a Royal conspiracy coming on! Someone on high says to Edward, "Look old man we know your right about all this but her madge is not going to like it one bit. So, for the sake of Empire, Country and Buck House let it go. Edward struggles with his conscience, Queen Emperor or Anthony, and in the end family loyalty wins the day. You could make a film.

In terms of who saw it - the people that found it ?

Steve

Hi Steve
surely a possibility, BUT, would Crealock then risk royal wrath by bucking the trend? And yes who did actually see the diary, and be able to recognise the importance of the contents?

Cheers

Ah a man of few words I see

Steve should write a book, "The Zulu War of Sarnario's and what if's".

Sorry I should have put this in the Books to avoid thread!

You don't fool me CT, you know you would be the first to place an order!

Steve

Frank Allewell wrote:

I don't have that particular publication Frederic, could you expand on Private Gooding?

Cheers

Bonsoir Frank,
I will send you an e-mail.
Cheers.
Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

You don't fool me CT, you know you would be the first to place an order!

Steve

Frank Allewell wrote:

Interesting tit bits around the notebook:
it was shown to Edward in 1882. From there it was ignored until 1886, that's a long gap for a man impatient to prove his brother innocent.
When the war office did request information from Crealock, he didn't produce the notebook but wrote a 'verbatim' account.
So apart from Edward Durnford NO BODY ELSE saw the actual notebook. All we have is the letter from Crealock to Jekll of 15th July 1886. And that 'account' could be anything he wanted it to be.

Heres a theory to kick around: Crealocks original version was correct, Durnford was ordered to reinforce. So assuming that then Edward goes to see Crealock, is shown the nasty bit of evidence. And elects then to stay quiet. For whatever reason Crealock changes his version in the letter to Jekyll leaving out the offending word.
Probably crazy I know, for instance why would Crealock do that? That quest sits alongside the 'why did Edward sit on the information IF it exonerated his brother. What pressure could Edward have brought on Crealock to enforce a change of mind?

There ya go something to kick around. Bloody sure CTSG will be all over it.

Not quite correct, the order was published in 1882 and a copy of that provided to both Prince George and Queen Victoria, apart from that the notebook was in the hands of the War Office, around 1880, question is why did they give it back to Crealock. From memory he was serving somewhere overseas, and quite possibly was being questioned so decided to try to clear his name.

Hi Krish
I have the order book being discovered by Black and forwarded direct to Crealock by Military HQ South Africa and kept in his possession until viewed by Edward on the 18th May 1882.
"......at last I have obtained a copy of the original document as it appears in Colonel Crealocks Note book which he says was recovered from the field of Sandlwana and sent me in England in 1879."
And then a copy was requested by General Nicholson via Major Jekyll, January 1886.
Your comments about it being:
Published in 1882
In possession of the War Office in 1880
Copies being given to the Queen.
Could you expand on those three issues?

Cheers

The newspaper archives of August/September 1880, advise that it was in the hands of the "authorities", Edward wrote of it in his book, he arranged a second printing including the orders after he has seen them, in 1882, he gave a copy to Queen Victoria it is in her library, and he sent details to HRH. There are copies available in the Rare book shops, one of which gives quite a detailed account.

Hi Krish
So the book was in the 'hands of the authorities', not specifically the war office . So that could very well mean the Military HQ South Africa ( The book was marked as personal property and forwarded directly to Col Crealock I believe.)
The copies given to the Queen would therefore be copies of his book not specifically the Order Book ?

Frank Allewell wrote:

Hi Krish
So the book was in the 'hands of the authorities', not specifically the war office . So that could very well mean the Military HQ South Africa ( The book was marked as personal property and forwarded directly to Col Crealock I believe.)
The copies given to the Queen would therefore be copies of his book not specifically the Order Book ?

Messaged you!

Frank wrote (Durnford was he capable 5? 26/02/2015)

"The report of the tall officer riding a red roan seems to be a  'Chinese Whisper' Moodie quotes a 'Times reporter' who mentions that the officers from Blacks patrol were 'told' that  the tall officer etc. Third or forth hand rumour........... So no source for the story seems to exist. Or at least non that I can find.
Frederic, can you amplify the Corp Frowen reference for me.


Bonsoir Frank,
The subject "Durnford was he capable 5?" is locked....
My "source" was Lee Stevenson:
"Further to earlier answers, i have just come accross account by L/Cpl Frowen 2/24th who makes an interesting comment about the 2/24th Colours.
"...and the last that was seen of our colours was the officer galloping away with one in each hand and the reins of his horse in the teeth, but he was drowned crossing the Buffalo river, so we have lost all our colours, and the 1-24th have lost one of theirs, and would have lost the other but it was left at Helpmakaar..."


No other information given by the author....

Source: Rorke's drift forum / 27th september 2002 post by Lee Stevenson / Subject "Lieutenant Dyer saving a colour" by Paul Tocher 18th September 2002.


"Mieux vaut tard que jamais"
Cheers
Frédéric

Ymob, 5 is locked because it's full. If you what you can post a link to the post in-question.

Bonsoir Pete,
Thank you for your help.
I can't post a link to the post in question; it seems that the "old" Rorke's Drift forum is locked (i have not access to it since several months).
But i have a "paper" copy of the post in question in my "archives" on the zulu war.
Cheers
Frédéric