Who was most culpable for the defeat at the Battle Of Isandlwana: Was Lord Chelmsford , Col Glyn, Col Pulleine, or Col Durnford.

Ymob what's the relevance ?

Martin your covering old ground.

Relating to PQ's post what's your take on what Pulleine could have done.

"That leaves P. The inescapable fact remains that P was left, as senior officer, in command of the camp, with adequate forces including artillery at his disposal. His actions are recorded as follows.
First: At 0700 hrs 22 January, vedettes on Qwabe  reported “thousands of Zulus” deploying from the Ngwebeni Valley.” Lt.Scott then personally informed P, whose reaction was to send LC a feeble note, lacking in detail. The infantry was then paraded in front of the camp and then stood down for breakfast; a totally inadequate response.
Second: 0945 hrs 22 January, large number of Zulus sighted on Nyoni Ridge. Lieutenant Pope reported a further  7,000 Zulus on or near the Ridge.
P clearly was under threat. The actions that he could have implemented were, from a military perspective, simple.
First: Inform LC and request assistance; he did not.
Second: Drop the tents to open a clear field of fire; he did not.
Third: Deploy the infantry in a tactical position to meet the threat; he did not
Fourth: Ensure an adequate supply of ammunition (boxes opened) prior to the Zulu assault; he did not."

Admin wrote:

Ymob what's the relevance ?

Peter,

In my view, Lord CHELMSFORD was the most culpable.
He did not give clear instructions to DURNFORD and PULLEINE about the defense of the camp and about the command of the camp.
Mr Quantrill suggests otherwise.

It seems that you don't like my posts.
If it is the case, please delete them.
It's not a problem for me, it's just a debate.

Cheers.

Frédéric

Nothing against your post what so ever. Rather good actually.

I would like your views on PQ post above, now it's 2015.

Leaving aside for a moment the question about who was most culpable (I've said what I think), it is interesting to speculate on what might have happened had Pulleine taken the measures suggested by PQ. This is unashamedly a "what if", so those who cannot cope with that can go and make a cup of tea.

What would Durnford's re-action have been if he had come into a properly defended camp, and what would he have done subsequently. His decision to go out and seek the enemy was very much triggered by the confusion and indecision in the camp about what the Zulu were doing. Had it all been properly organised, with scouts going out and reporting in a systematic way, and adjustments to defences made accordingly, with clear messages to LC about what was being done,  Durnford's actions may have been very different.

Steve

Hi Pete.

Well, for a start, the message he sent to LC did not give the urgency of the situation developing around the camp, and there were plenty of empty wagons that could have been used for some defences, he had well over 1000 men there who could have man handled the wagons into a defensive position. Then of course there were the numerous dongas that he could have made use of for defensive positions, and there was the rocky outcrops that could have also been used for defensive purposes. He should have dropped the tents and deployed his infantry behind the barriers that would have been created by the wagons, and also in the dongas, and he should also have made sure that the ammo supply was adequate. He was more of an admin officer rather than a line officer, however, he had other senior officers there with him who really should have offered him their advice on the developing situation, but it appears that they were so sure that an attack was out of the question that they just did not consider that the Zulu's would attack them.

Pulleine was not the man for the job at iSandlwana, and I agree with PQ that he was mostly at fault regarding the loss at iSandlwana, however, I also agree with Steve in that those who dictate the play also take the resposibilty, and that person was of course 'his arrogance' LC.

Hope all well with you mate.

Pete, that's what I do!
It seems that the statement in the first message("To do so he would have to ensure that there was a sufficient force left to defend the camp against any contingencies and this he did, leaving P in command") is at odds with the reference to the 2006 message (Chelmsford KNEW that he had left no instructions whatsoever with Pulleine).
As I do not know any new information regarding orders to Pulleine since 2006, Why Mr QUANTRILL seems to change his view about this essential point?
I can check in ZV to find others arguments about his point of view....
Cheers
Frédéric

Admin, historically you have accused The Good Lord Chelmsford of being the cause of the disaster, infact you put him on par with Haig,and you have put him down more than any of us on this forum. Am I seeing a change of heart. Are we seeing a man who has seen the errors of his ways.

ymob wrote:

Pete, that's what I do!
It seems that the statement in the first message("To do so he would have to ensure that there was a sufficient force left to defend the camp against any contingencies and this he did, leaving P in command") is at odds with the reference to the 2006 message (Chelmsford KNEW that he had left no instructions whatsoever with Pulleine).
As I do not know any new information regarding orders to Pulleine since 2006, Why Mr QUANTRILL seems to change his view about this essential point?
I can check in ZV to find others arguments about his point of view....
Cheers
Frédéric

Ymob Clery passed on the order to Pulleine, and repeated in verbally look at the COE.

"   1st Witness.— Major Clery states: I am Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column, commanded by Colonel Glyn, C.B., operating against the Zulus. The General commanding accompanied this Column from the time it crossed the border into Zululand.
   On the 20th January, 1879, at the Camp, Isandlwana, Zululand, the Lieutenant-General commanding gave orders to Commandant Lonsdale and Major Dartnell to go out the following morning in a certain direction from the camp with their men, i.e., the Native Contingent, and the Police, and Volunteers, part of the 3rd Column. On the evening of the following day (the 21st) a message arrived from Major Dartnell that the enemy was in considerable force in his neighbourhood, and that he and Commandant Lonsdale would bivouac out that night. About 1.30 A.M., on the 22nd, a messenger brought me a note from Major Dartnell, to say that the enemy was in greater numbers than when he last reported, and that he did not think it prudent to attack them unless reinforced by two or three companies of the 24th Regiment. I took this note to Colonel Glyn, C.B., at once, he ordered me to take it on to the General. The General ordered the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment, the Mounted Infantry, and four guns, to be under arms at once to march. This force marched out from camp as soon as there was light enough to see the road. The Natal Pioneers accompanied this column to clear the road. 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. Before leaving the camp, I sent written instructions to Colonel Pulleine, 24th Regiment, to the following effect:—" You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn; draw in (I speak- from memory) your camp, or your line of defence"—I am not certain which-"while the force is out: also draw in the line of your infantry outposts accordingly; but keep your cavalry vedettes still far advanced." I told him to have a wagon ready loaded with ammunition ready to follow the force going out at a moment's notice, if required. I went to Colonel Pulleine's tent just before leaving camp to ascertain that he had got these instructions, and I again repeated them verbally to him. To the best of my memory, I mentioned in the written instructions to Colonel Pulleine that Colonel Durnford had been written to to bring up his force to strengthen the camp. I saw the column out of camp and accompanied it."

i have the same doubts about the assertion on Durnford ("AD had orders to move to the camp. He was not instructed to take command, although senior to Pulleine").
We know that the famous Crelaok's order was ambiguous.
We know that Chelsmford gave no instruction about the question "who was in command of the camp".
The only reference on this subject is given by Clery (Clery to Pulleine: You are in command of the camp during the absence of Col. Glyn).
So again, i am not agree with Mr Quantrill: chelsmford is guilty of negligence in the transmission of the orders.

The real question is how Durnford unsterstood his order.
Cheers
Frédéric

Bonjour CTE,
I know this statement.
The problem is:
- that it 's CLERY on his own initiative who gave instructions to Pulleine, not Chelsmford.
-as you know the order written by CREALOCK to Durnforf is not the same that the order given at first by Chelmsford to Clery.

Cheers
Frédéric

I think we are in danger of mixing up two issues. LC left no orders for Pulleine and that is a black mark against him. But, so far as Pulleine is concerned, he had a clear order that he understood to be from Chelmsford (even though we know it was concocted by Clery).

So PQ is quite correct in saying that Pulleine's failure to adequately implement that order is a significant contribution to the disaster. It does not, in my book, make him the most culpable, but certainly considerably more so than Durnford. However, I can understand Frederic asking whether new evidence had emerged to prompt PQ to revive his view of what happened.

Steve

Frederick, you are getting a very good understanding on this subject, and your posts are always good to read. You are of course correct that LC was guilty of negligence in the transmission of the orders, and you are quite right to ask the question on how Durnford understood his order.

The way I see it is that we all know that the order did not instruct Durnford to either, take command, reinforce or strengthen the camp, however, whilst he was there he would have been deemed to have taken command because he was the senior officer, this is army protocol, and any advice that he offered would have been regarded as an order with him being the senior officer. On his arrival, he told Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp, this shows that he believed that LC needed him elsewhere, why else would he say that to Pulleine I wonder?

Keep up the good work Frederick.

"Major Clery states: I am Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column, commanded by Colonel Glyn, C.B"

Perhaps Glyn instructed Clery to write the order. Based on him being in command of the 3rd Column.
Lord Chelmsford possibly tied up with more urgent matters don't you think?

CT

I do believe that is a "what if".

Steve

Mister Quantrill wrote:"LC, based on credible intelligence from Dartnell, established that the latter was confronted by a Zulu force in the Mangeni Falls area. Dartnell requested reinforcements to help support a possible Zulu attack on his position. LC had three options to consider. First he could ignore the request on the basis that Dartnell’s force was adequate to deal with any possible attack; LC did not. Second, he could order Dartnell to avoid an action and make a tactical withdrawal back to camp; he did not. Third, and not unreasonably, he could take the opportunity to bring the Zulus to battle based on the intelligence received. To do so he would have to ensure that there was a sufficient force left to defend the camp against any contingencies and this he did, leaving P in command. The decision taken by LC was, from a military perspective, and based on primary intelligence, quite reasonable and acceptable; namely destroy the Zulu army confronting him whilst leaving the camp numerically secure to deal with any contingency. In my view LC, although holding overall command, was not culpable for the defeat at Isandlwana".

Again i am not agree with his analysis.
I am with Ian Knight on this point:
"Chelmsford's decision to send his own ADCs out with Dartnell in the first place suggests that he expected at some point to hear the détails of the reconnaissance from men whose judgement he trusted. (...) They had been in a position to urge against Dartnell staying out overnignt if they felt Chelmsford might seriously disapprove of this and the fact they did not suggests they concurred with his decison.
His reponse (IE Chelmsford) to the news was relaxed and unhurried".
Zulu rising p.278

Don't forget, that the only Chelmsford's fear before Isandhlwana was that the Zulus refuse to fight: guilty of understimation of the enemy.

Cheers

Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

CT

I do believe that is a "what if".

Steve

See no offense CTE, but i am with Steve.
Cheers
Frédéric

Why does everyone keep blaming Lord Chemlsford for not issuing orders, that was not his job, he had commanders under him to do that. Did he send orders to Wood, Buller, Pearson no! Glyn was in command of the 3rd Column. Glyn could couldn't send orders to Dumford, because Durnford was commander of no 2 Column. So Lord Chelmsford secretary did ( Crealock )

rusteze wrote:

CT

I do believe that is a "what if".

Steve

How's that a bloody what if. Statments from the COE are primary source  evidence.

rusteze wrote:

I think we are in danger of mixing up two issues. LC left no orders for Pulleine and that is a black mark against him. But, so far as Pulleine is concerned, he had a clear order that he understood to be from Chelmsford (even though we know it was concocted by Clery).

So PQ is quite correct in saying that Pulleine's failure to adequately implement that order is a significant contribution to the disaster. It does not, in my book, make him the most culpable, but certainly considerably more so than Durnford. However, I can understand Frederic asking whether new evidence had emerged to prompt PQ to revive his view of what happened.

Steve

Bonjour Steve
the point I want to demonstrate is that the orders given to Pulleine and Durnford were not complementary.
Again, Chelmsford is guilty.
Cheers

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

rusteze wrote:

CT

I do believe that is a "what if".

Steve

How's that a bloody what if. Statments from the COE are primary source  evidence.

CTE,
Of course, you are right about this statement.
It's a essential primary source evidence.
Cheers.
Frédéric

CTSG.

LC was in full command of the army in South Africa, Crealock was his secretary, and he wrote orders on whatever LC instructed him to do, therefor the onus is with LC to make sure that Crealock does what LC wants, so you can't get LC off the hook that way.

I knew it, we are going back to sarnario's and what if's. If your doubting the COE Evidence , then you had better tell every author of the Zulu War History books, that they are wrong.

Your afraid to stick to the facts,the evidence. You cannot change History based on sarnarios and what if's. Steve carry on I'm off to make a cup of tea. Your advice.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

LC was in full command of the army in South Africa, Crealock was his secretary, and he wrote orders on whatever LC instructed him to do, therefor the onus is with LC to make sure that Crealock does what LC wants, so you can't get LC off the hook that way.

"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.

Lord Chelmsford changed the person not the message. Crealock changed the message.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Why does everyone keep blaming Lord Chemlsford for not issuing orders, that was not his job, he had commanders under him to do that. Did he send orders to Wood, Buller, Pearson no! Glyn was in command of the 3rd Column. Glyn could couldn't send orders to Dumford, because Durnford was commander of no 2 Column. So Lord Chelmsford secretary did ( Crealock )

CTE,
What were the orders given by Chelmsford to Pulleine?
Do you understand that i mean?
He gave no orders to Pulleine, no order about who was in command of the camp, no order about the defense of the camp.
I repeat it was Clery on his own initiative.

About you sentence:Why does everyone keep blaming Lord Chemlsford for not issuing orders, that was not his job
I give you an example:
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)


Sorry, but it was his job to give orders to Pearsons and Wood (not to "write" them i agree)




Cheers
Frédéric

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

I knew it, we are going back to sarnario's and what if's. If your doubting the COE Evidence , then you had better tell every author of the Zulu War History books, that they are wrong.

Your afraid to stick to the facts,the evidence. You cannot change History based on sarnarios and what if's.  Steve carry on I'm off to make a cup of tea. Your advice.

CTE,
I wasn't ironic about the Clery's statement.
I was serious: it is an essential primary source.
Cheers.

CTSG.

The 'what if' that Steve was referring to was when you said "perhaps Glyn instructed Clery to write the order". But Clery admitted that no one instructed him to do it, he did it himself because he realised that LC had not left Pulleine any orders.

Ymob wrote:

I repeat it was Clery on his own initiative.

show me primary source evidence to show this.

Stick to Jan 22 1879. Things had changed.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

LC was in full command of the army in South Africa, Crealock was his secretary, and he wrote orders on whatever LC instructed him to do, therefor the onus is with LC to make sure that Crealock does what LC wants, so you can't get LC off the hook that way.

"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.

Lord Chelmsford changed the person not the message. Crealock changed the message.

Then LC should have made sure that the message he intended to send to Durnford was the same message that Crealock had written down, but he failed to do that, hence the confusion.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

The 'what if' that Steve was referring to was when you said "perhaps Glyn instructed Clery to write the order". But Clery admitted that no one instructed him to do it, he did it himself because he realised that LC had not left Pulleine any orders.

Martin show me evidence. Don't come out with theses Fantasic reverlations without foundation'

CT
This is getting silly, where is this primary evidence about Glyn issuing the order to Pulleine and which other authors say he did?
I agree he should have done, but I have never come across the evidence you seem to have identified.
Steve

CTSG.

The evidence is a primary source and comes straight from the horses mouth, Clery admitted it himself, and it is posted on here somewhere. I don't know how to give a link to it, but hopefully someone will do before long.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

LC was in full command of the army in South Africa, Crealock was his secretary, and he wrote orders on whatever LC instructed him to do, therefor the onus is with LC to make sure that Crealock does what LC wants, so you can't get LC off the hook that way.

"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.

Lord Chelmsford changed the person not the message. Crealock changed the message.

Then LC should have made sure that the message he intended to send to Durnford was the same message that Crealock had written down, but he failed to do that, hence the confusion.

Then what was the point in Lord Chelmsford having all these Wonderfull commands under him.
Was he expected to command and check every order. Are you telling me, every officer was incapable of issuing an order without Lord Chelmsford checking it first.

Steve Sanario.
Lord Chelmsford early hours 22nd Jan 1879 ( Isandlwana) after receiving information regarding Dartnell. Lord Chelmsford has a stroke, which renders him unable to see, speak or write.
Messenger sent to Zulu's sorry old chap, our General is unable to write orders, or check our orders. It is possible you can wait untill he's a bit better.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Ymob wrote:

I repeat it was Clery on his own initiative.

show me primary source evidence to show this.

Stick to Jan 22 1879. Things had changed.

CTE,
Please, keep cool.
Do you want another cup of tea?

It's a fact well known....
I suppose you have a copy of "Zulu rising" by Ian Knight?
See p.290
Source: Clery's letter to Colonel Harman17/02/1879 quoted in "Zululand at war" by Sonia Clarke
Cheers

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

The evidence is a primary source and comes straight from the horses mouth, Clery admitted it himself, and it is posted on here somewhere. I don't know how to give a link to it, but hopefully someone will do before long.

Deep breath. 123

Martin post the bloody evidence where Clery admitted it.

Concentrate on the 22nd Jan not before or after. The Battle of Isandlwana took place on the 22nd Jan 1879.

CTSG.

You are being rather silly and you know it.

You have been in the mob and should know some of the protocol involved.

The top boss issues orders to his commanders who then issues the orders down to their respective officers, and so on, but it all comes from the top boss, in this case none other than LC.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

The evidence is a primary source and comes straight from the horses mouth, Clery admitted it himself, and it is posted on here somewhere. I don't know how to give a link to it, but hopefully someone will do before long.

Deep breath. 123

Martin post the bloody evidence where Clery admitted it.

See the post above this one of yours. Frederick has just given it to you.

ymob wrote:

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Ymob wrote:

I repeat it was Clery on his own initiative.

show me primary source evidence to show this.

Stick to Jan 22 1879. Things had changed.

CTE,
Please, keep cool.
Do you want another cup of tea?

It's a fact well known....
I suppose you have a copy of "Zulu rising" by Ian Knight?
See p.290
Source: Clery's letter to Colonel Harman17/02/1879 quoted in "Zululand at war" by Sonia Clarke
Cheers

Ymob. No I don't have the book. Kindly post the extract. It would be much appricated!

Right, it's time for bed.

Goodnight lads.

CTSG.

Keep calm dear.

CT

I think you said you had Snook"s book. Have a look at page 89 for his take.

Steve

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

CTSG.

You are being rather silly and you know it.

You have been in the mob and should know some of the protocol involved.

The top boss issues orders to his commanders who then issues the orders down to their respective officers, and so on, but it all comes from the top boss, in this case none other than LC.

So let's do the Duke of Camabridge and move on to QV has I have stated many times before. Obvisouly you haven't  been in the service, ( Mob) you watch to many films.
Pulleine was in command of the camp, the defence and safety of the camp was down to him along with the men in it.

If Clery had done it on off his own back, them good on him. More than Glyn did. But at the end of the day it matters not! Pulleine has gone down in history as being in command of the camp 22nd Jan 1879.

Yawn!! Off to bed.

I prefer when you are courteous.

"As i did not want to give any warning to the enmy or disturb the camp i went direct to each of the commanders and gave the general's orders. This took some time and the general was soon dressed and impatient to be starting. The troops too turned out well. The general had given no orders about the camp, except that Colonel Durnford was to move troops up there, but in trying to gather my wits together after giving out the different orders for the march personally myself, as to what further should be cared for before marching off, it occured to me that some instructions should be left to the officer left in command of the camp. It was too late to refer to Col. GLYN, who of course would only have referred me to the general, so i ventured on the responsability of issuing myself. So i wrote to poor Coloen Pulleine who commanded the 1/24th Regiment, officially as follows; "You will be in command of the camp in the absence of Colonel Glyn. Draw in your line of defense while the force with the general is out of the camp. Draw in your infantry outpost line in conformity. Keep your cavalry vedettes still well to the front. Act strictly on the defensive. (...)"

Ymob. Do you believe this?

As you know it's a primary source.
But i have some doubts on the testimony of CLERY but i can't prove that he was a liar.
For me his testimony is suspect.
Some eminents members of this forum (from memory three of them) said that CLERY was a perfect gentleman.
Quantrill and Lock in "Zulu Victory" written that CLERY was a liar...
Cheers.
Frédéric

Good because it would confirm what I stated earlier, it was not Lord Chelmsford job to issue orders to the 3rd Column, it was Glyn's who seems to have failed. 

However it was Lord Chelmsford job to issue orders to Durnford. "Colonel Durnford was to move troops up there" PS no where else.

Then of course if Clery's letter is true then he was telling porkies at the COE. 

CTSG.

To say that you are supposed to have been in the service (mob), you don't appear to have aquired much of an understanding of the chain of command.

You say that it was LC's job to issue orders to Durnford (No2 column), but neglected to say that it was also LC's job to issue orders to the other column commanders, ie; No's 1, 3, 4 and 5.

LC attached himself to No3 column and 'usurped' command of it from Glyn, and Glyn had to take a back seat. Even if LC had not attached himself to Glyn's column, Glyn would still have had to obey the orders of LC, so with LC attaching himself to Glyn's column Glyn was more or less just a bystander who could not make his own dicissions or issue orders unless first cleared by LC, who, of course made all the dicissions for all of the columns, so it is pointless trying to blame Glyn.

You say that Durnford was to move his troops up to the camp, and then go on to say nowhere else. So why did Durnford say to Pulleine on his arrival at the camp that he would not be staying, there must have been a reason for him saying that. He must have had some sort of order or instruction informing him that he was to move towards LC, otherwise why would he tell Pulleine that he was not staying at the camp? The orders prior to the confusing order written by Crealock on the 22nd must have some bearing on Durnford telling Pulleine that he would not be staying at the camp, otherwise why would he say it?

A really interesting essay by PQ, should have been subtitled "When the brown stuff hits the Fan".
A number of valid points really need to be taken into consideration.
Lord Chelmsford
He does seem to have been very confused over his roll as 'Supreme Commander', in the aftermath he was at pains to point out that he didn't exercise any control over Glyns column. An obvious untruth as he did send out Dartnells force without consultation with Glyn ( Clery makes a point of that ).
Having received the message early morning of the 22nd he was 'persuaded' that Dartnell had done exactly what Chelmsford was searching to do, make contact with the Zulu army. That was the only reason for that columns incursion into Zululand, bring the army to battle. As PQ points out he had no choice in the matter, he had to go to meet Dartnell. His course of action wasn't in his hands.
His orders to split the column were issued, as he was there presumably via Clery. So the 'Column Commander' Richard Glyn was then presumably informed by Clery of Chelmsfords wishes. He had to have been, Chelmfords staff compliment was far to small to have arranged the move.
So to remove Glyn from that chain of command can not happen.

So the scene on that early morning with the instructions permeating down the chain of command to the 2.24th the artillery the volunteers and colonials cannot have been done in a vacuum. If Pulleine slept through it all I would be a tad surprised ! I would believe the whole camp would have been awake and the senior 1.24th officers out of their tents wanting to know what was happening. Without a shadow of doubt the 1.24th adjutant would have been heading post haste to his Colonels tent. Its amidst this scene of activity that Clery sends out orders to Pulleine, AS HE SHOULD HAVE. He was Glyns right hand man and is the person that had to be passing along the instructions, line of march, order of march, outriders and scouts, all the numerous instructions that had to be decided on and ordered. Do the forum members truly believe that Chelmsford/Crealock could/would actually be doing this? To get that type of force on the move requires the pyramid of established commend that existed within the regiment itself.
ORDERS
Again within that big picture of the column ready to move, the split has been ordered from the Supreme commander, its been implemented on a column command basis and the nitty gritty handled on a regimental level. All the column elements on the move would then have been issued with the myriad of starting and movement orders. Except, according to Clery for one!
PULLEIN
Clery took it upon himself as ADC/2 I/c to remedy that situation and issued the orders, as I said above, AS HE SHOULD HAVE.
As far as Pullein is concerned it matters nought who issued those orders, they came down the chain of command, fro Chelmsford or Glyn makes absolutely no difference, they came from above. When I was in the army and told of by a corporal to do a chore I never, to the best of my recollection asked who had told him to order me to do the job. I listened to him and obeyed.
So as far as Im concerned the origin or who issued the orders are immaterial, Chelmsford most certainly had every reason to believe that Glynn would direct his regiments.
DURNFORD
My critisisms and admiration for AD are well documented so its pointless pursuing those two issues. Suffice to really look at how he 'interfered' with Pulleins command.
Pulleins orders were to draw in the camp ( loosely said). Durnford would appear to have asked for companies to be spread, the two to accompany him were quite correctly refused. However a company was sent onto the spur, probably to replace the company of NNC that he, Durnford, ordered to move forward with his mounted companies.
So yes Col Durnford did interfere with the disposition of the camps resourses.

PQ
I would agree to a great degree with the sumation that Henry Burmeister was greatly 'culpable' but not in isolation.

Just my take and shouldn't really be seen as 'taking sides' just an attempt to look unemotionally at a complex situation.

So now Im going to duck behind the parapet.

Well Done Springbok.. Now you have thrown. Spanner in the works. How do you expect Steve, Martin, Ymob to answer that! There are no sarnario's or what if's in your post, just plain common sense thinking. Be very carefull Martin was in the Maffia (The Mob)

Seriously Good post.

Reading some of the members posts, lt look's like they really do believe that Chelmsford should have issued and checked every order. As CTSG says.  What was the point in having commanders?

PQs artical makes sense!